|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 04 2014 01:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments. Thank you, Herr GreenHorizons. You are precisely the kind of person that needs to rip the bong load. And go read about what "tolerance" means. There's a distinct lack of both that and moderation in your post. No, the problem is your relativism about creationism. It's nonsense. In fact it is so ridiculous that people believing in it would probably qualify as delusional or mentally ill if it wasn't so widespread.
Yes if it wasn't so widespread people like Rep. Broun would be in a hospital, instead of congress.
As for people who think it is just a couple people paying lip service you should see what they actually say on the floor. It's not lip service it's their genuine position. When ~25% of red states have Creationism as science as a part of their platform and almost 60% of conservatives believe it is science (or at least more accurate) it's hardly a small issue.
If someone claimed that climate change wouldn't happen because our bigger balled speghetti monster God is in control not us, we would carry them away in a straitjacket. But when a Representative says it he is lauded as standing up for his beliefs... It's totally batshit crazy.
I don't really care if people believe it in general (although it makes me question their sanity). It bothers me that they think they can put it in children's classes and tell them it's science. Any conservatives who don't think it is a problem should never complain about anything taught in public school that isn't as provably ridiculous as Creationism.
EDIT: Tolerating religion, and accepting Creationism being taught as science in public schools, couldn't be more unrelated. What I refuse to tolerate is people trying to force Creationism into the classroom under the guise of science. No one should tolerate such a direct and intentional undermining of reason and fact.
Oh, and by the way, I prefer bubble dabs from my bubbler, but that matters about as much as your religious tolerance argument.
|
On June 04 2014 01:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 01:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments. Thank you, Herr GreenHorizons. You are precisely the kind of person that needs to rip the bong load. And go read about what "tolerance" means. There's a distinct lack of both that and moderation in your post. No, the problem is your relativism about creationism. It's nonsense. In fact it is so ridiculous that people believing in it would probably qualify as delusional or mentally ill if it wasn't so widespread. No, the problems are 1) your intolerance of religion, and 2) your willingness to use governmental power to satisfy your intolerance of religion. As ass-backwards as creationists and other religious groups may be, you cannot argue with a straight face that they are such a societal problem that the force of government should be brought to bear upon them.
Tolerance doesn't apply here, because that would mean we were talking about opinions, as in "I don't tolerate your taste of music". Creationism is WRONG. It's delusional, and teaching it as "science" to young kids is child abuse. Also the prevalence of religious opinion in discussions that aren't a matter of religion is very hurtful for society and especially widespread in the US.
It affects science denial (climate change), women's rights(abortion), children's rights(education), child abuse(corporal punishment which is still common in heavily religious families) and many other topics.
|
On June 04 2014 01:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 01:50 farvacola wrote:Should just say "take a rip from the bong", saying "bong load" reveals your squareness, Mr. Colorado  You'd find it hilarious if you knew how many dispensaries and grow-ops that I've represented.
Wouldn't surprise me at all, there's good money in that work, might take up similar pursuits once I graduate.
|
On June 04 2014 02:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments. Thank you, Herr GreenHorizons. You are precisely the kind of person that needs to rip the bong load. And go read about what "tolerance" means. There's a distinct lack of both that and moderation in your post. No, the problem is your relativism about creationism. It's nonsense. In fact it is so ridiculous that people believing in it would probably qualify as delusional or mentally ill if it wasn't so widespread. No, the problems are 1) your intolerance of religion, and 2) your willingness to use governmental power to satisfy your intolerance of religion. As ass-backwards as creationists and other religious groups may be, you cannot argue with a straight face that they are such a societal problem that the force of government should be brought to bear upon them. Tolerance doesn't apply here, because that would mean we were talking about opinions, as in "I don't tolerate your taste of music". Creationism is WRONG. It's delusional, and teaching it as "science" to young kids is child abuse. Also the prevalence of religious opinion in discussions that aren't a matter of religion is very hurtful for society and especially widespread in the US. It affects science denial (climate change), women's rights(abortion), children's rights(education), child abuse(corporal punishment which is still common in heavily religious families) and many other topics.
I rest my case.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 04 2014 02:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 02:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2014 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments. Thank you, Herr GreenHorizons. You are precisely the kind of person that needs to rip the bong load. And go read about what "tolerance" means. There's a distinct lack of both that and moderation in your post. No, the problem is your relativism about creationism. It's nonsense. In fact it is so ridiculous that people believing in it would probably qualify as delusional or mentally ill if it wasn't so widespread. No, the problems are 1) your intolerance of religion, and 2) your willingness to use governmental power to satisfy your intolerance of religion. As ass-backwards as creationists and other religious groups may be, you cannot argue with a straight face that they are such a societal problem that the force of government should be brought to bear upon them. Tolerance doesn't apply here, because that would mean we were talking about opinions, as in "I don't tolerate your taste of music". Creationism is WRONG. It's delusional, and teaching it as "science" to young kids is child abuse. Also the prevalence of religious opinion in discussions that aren't a matter of religion is very hurtful for society and especially widespread in the US. It affects science denial (climate change), women's rights(abortion), children's rights(education), child abuse(corporal punishment which is still common in heavily religious families) and many other topics. I rest my case.
That's a strange way to admit defeat? But I'll take it.
|
On June 04 2014 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 02:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2014 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments. Thank you, Herr GreenHorizons. You are precisely the kind of person that needs to rip the bong load. And go read about what "tolerance" means. There's a distinct lack of both that and moderation in your post. No, the problem is your relativism about creationism. It's nonsense. In fact it is so ridiculous that people believing in it would probably qualify as delusional or mentally ill if it wasn't so widespread. No, the problems are 1) your intolerance of religion, and 2) your willingness to use governmental power to satisfy your intolerance of religion. As ass-backwards as creationists and other religious groups may be, you cannot argue with a straight face that they are such a societal problem that the force of government should be brought to bear upon them. Tolerance doesn't apply here, because that would mean we were talking about opinions, as in "I don't tolerate your taste of music". Creationism is WRONG. It's delusional, and teaching it as "science" to young kids is child abuse. Also the prevalence of religious opinion in discussions that aren't a matter of religion is very hurtful for society and especially widespread in the US. It affects science denial (climate change), women's rights(abortion), children's rights(education), child abuse(corporal punishment which is still common in heavily religious families) and many other topics. I rest my case. That's a strange way to admit defeat? But I'll take it.
It's what xDaunt always does when he runs out of arguments
User was warned for this post
|
On June 04 2014 02:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2014 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 02:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2014 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:52 Nyxisto wrote:On June 04 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments. Thank you, Herr GreenHorizons. You are precisely the kind of person that needs to rip the bong load. And go read about what "tolerance" means. There's a distinct lack of both that and moderation in your post. No, the problem is your relativism about creationism. It's nonsense. In fact it is so ridiculous that people believing in it would probably qualify as delusional or mentally ill if it wasn't so widespread. No, the problems are 1) your intolerance of religion, and 2) your willingness to use governmental power to satisfy your intolerance of religion. As ass-backwards as creationists and other religious groups may be, you cannot argue with a straight face that they are such a societal problem that the force of government should be brought to bear upon them. Tolerance doesn't apply here, because that would mean we were talking about opinions, as in "I don't tolerate your taste of music". Creationism is WRONG. It's delusional, and teaching it as "science" to young kids is child abuse. Also the prevalence of religious opinion in discussions that aren't a matter of religion is very hurtful for society and especially widespread in the US. It affects science denial (climate change), women's rights(abortion), children's rights(education), child abuse(corporal punishment which is still common in heavily religious families) and many other topics. I rest my case. That's a strange way to admit defeat? But I'll take it. It's what xDaunt always does when he runs out of arguments
No, your last post fairly perfectly proved the point in my prior. There's not much left for me to say. Either people will agree with me or they won't. Besides, it is bush league to always insist on having the last word. All that does is shit up threads, which happens a lot around here.
|
Most Americans support limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and would still support reductions even if it cost them $20 a month, according to a new national poll.
A Washington Post-ABC poll released Monday found that 70 percent of Americans support federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Seventy percent also said that the federal government should "require states to limit the amount of greenhouse gases produced within their borders."
When the polling subjects were told that the hypothetical rules would lower greenhouse gas emissions but raise their monthly energy expenses by $20, 63 percent still said they would support the rules.
Even in states where coal provides most of the electricity, 69 percent of respondents favored greenhouse gas limits, The Washington Post noted.
The results were announced the same day as the Obama administration released much-anticipated regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. The new rule calls for a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 2030.
In a lengthy speech on Monday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy laid out the case for the regulations, saying there's "a moral obligation" to act on climate change. "The science is clear. The risks are clear," McCarthy said. "And the high costs of climate inaction keep piling up."
Sixty-nine percent of Americans surveyed in the Post-ABC poll said that climate change is either a "serious" or "very serious" problem. This includes 84 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans.
Source
|
Colorado's pot sales are booming.
The state's Department of Revenue reports that marijuana retailers sold nearly $19 million in recreational weed in March, up from $14 million in February. The first three months of legal weed have netted about $7.3 million in taxes, not including medical marijuana sales taxes and licenses, which bring the number to $12.6 million. In it's first few months, Colorado could already soon be outpacing those historic first-day sales on a daily basis.
Retail marijuana sales taxes brought in $1.4 million in January, $1.43 million in February and now $1.898 million in March — a clear upward trajectory. And total marijuana tax transfers and distributions went from $2.927 million in January to $4.077 million in March. And perhaps more importantly, while it's still somewhat early, the up-trending numbers indicate that initial sales weren't simply the result of "new-toy" excitement wherein everyone was buying pot just because they could. Coloradans wanted marijuana before, and they still do now.
Source
|
On June 04 2014 04:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Colorado's pot sales are booming.
The state's Department of Revenue reports that marijuana retailers sold nearly $19 million in recreational weed in March, up from $14 million in February. The first three months of legal weed have netted about $7.3 million in taxes, not including medical marijuana sales taxes and licenses, which bring the number to $12.6 million. In it's first few months, Colorado could already soon be outpacing those historic first-day sales on a daily basis.
Retail marijuana sales taxes brought in $1.4 million in January, $1.43 million in February and now $1.898 million in March — a clear upward trajectory. And total marijuana tax transfers and distributions went from $2.927 million in January to $4.077 million in March. And perhaps more importantly, while it's still somewhat early, the up-trending numbers indicate that initial sales weren't simply the result of "new-toy" excitement wherein everyone was buying pot just because they could. Coloradans wanted marijuana before, and they still do now. Source
What's sad is even after Colorado and Washington show legalizing cannnabis is not the sign of Armageddon many conservatives/republicans claimed it would be, the people who are responsible for ruining decent, honest, peoples lives by writing, supporting, and enforcing inane cannabis laws, probably wont feel bad at all...
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday began a long-shot bid at a constitutional amendment that would limit deep-pocketed political campaign donors' influence.
With plenty of politics but very limited prospects of actually changing the Constitution, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the free flow of "shady money" into politics the biggest threat to democracy he's seen. His Republican counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, called efforts to limit campaign spending a tactic to rile up Democrats this election year.
Changing the Constitution is an intentionally difficult process, and leaders from both parties acknowledge that the panel's efforts to prohibit super PACs are likely to result in little more than election-year posturing.
"Our involvement in government should not be dependent on our bank account balances," Reid told panel members while sitting next to McConnell in a rare joint appearance before a committee.
Reid, of Nevada, has used his post as the Senate's top lawmaker to aggressively criticize industrialist billionaires Charles and David Koch, who have funneled tens of millions from their personal fortune to a network of conservative organizations. Democrats have bristled at the Kochs' spending. In an apparent reference to corporate campaign spending, some audience members silently held protest signs reading: "Constitutional rights for humans only."
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 03 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 06:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2014 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:On June 02 2014 21:01 Acrofales wrote:
In particular "vaccines cause autism" is a big one on the left hand of the political scale. Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion? What Mindcrime is saying. I live in a solid red, affluent part of Texas and I hear the anti-vaccine dumbasses all the time. Granted, I don't see the Venn diagram of anti-vaccine and creationists cross too much, but that doesn't mean one camp is "liberal" while the other is "conservative." Also, last time I checked, Michelle Bachmann was the last high-profile politician to speak out against vaccines. There's two main reasons for being anti-vaccination: the religious one and the pseudoscientific one. The former is generally used by Christian fundamentalists, who tend to be conservative. The latter one is the one used by new age hippies, who tend to be liberals. I unfortunately don't have the poll data. I thought that was the SciAm article I linked, but the right one must be older, or somewhere else entirely. Atm all I could find is Michael Shermer's blog, which doesn't mention vaccines. Liberal anti-science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/He picks out nuclear power and GMO as two of the main points where liberals happily ignore all evidence and progress when it doesn't agree with their agenda.
just goes to show how emotional responses trump over thought for a great many people, and they cannot be trusted with choosing their own source of information. sadly there is indeed serious leftist opposition against genetic and nuclear technology in some unreasonable generality, and it is dumb as fuck
this homeschooling spiel is yet another twirl in the dance between a primitive individualism and actual reality. the issue from the anti-homeschool side is purely based on actual existing state of certain homeschooling atrocities. it's a process where one sees a problem in society and tries to address it, so it really does reflect empirical reality.
so really as long as we are all aware and take seriously the fact that some homeschooling parents are fucking up young people's lives and perpetuating harmful ignorance, it's ok. whatever solution is secondary.
|
|
|
I actually mentioned that I was specifically criticizing religious nutjobs and not every homeschooled kid. People who just want to give their kids the best education obviously should be free to do so.
|
On June 04 2014 12:23 Bigtony wrote:Wait what? Homeschooling atrocities...? Like how homeschoolers outperform (over average) their public school counterparts by in every available metric by statistically significant margins? But because they teacher their kids religion it's brainwashing (statistics show that only 20-30% of homeschoolers do so for religious reasons). http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/home-schooling/
So I noticed that page cited two particular studies.
How does U.S. homeschoolers’ academic performance compare with other students?Evidence regarding this question has been fraught with controversy because most of the studies that have received widest attention have been interpreted to say something they do not and cannot. We simply can’t draw any conclusions about the academic performance of the “average homeschooler,” because none of the studies so often cited employ random samples representing the full range of homeschoolers. For example, two large U.S. studies (Rudner, 1999; Ray, 2009) are frequently cited as definitive evidence that homeschoolers academically outperform public and private school students. But in both cases, the homeschool participants were volunteers responding to an invitation by the nation’s most prominent advocacy organization to contribute test scores (on tests usually administered by parents in the child’s own home). The demographics of these samples were far whiter, more religious, more married, better educated, and wealthier than national averages. And yet these test score results were compared to average public school scores that included children from all income levels and family backgrounds. Not surprisingly, wealthy homeschoolers from stable two-parent families who take tests administered by their parents in the comfort of their own homes outscore the average public school child by large margins. The simple fact is that no studies of academic achievement exist that draw from a representative, nationwide sample of homeschoolers and control for background variables like socio-economic or marital status. It is thus impossible to say whether or not homeschooling as such has any impact on the sort of academic achievement measured by standardized tests.
|
For the record I'm not against home schooling itself either. I think it's easy to miss a lot that way but it can easily also be better than plenty of public schools when it comes to education.
The only issue I really was trying to address was Creationism staying the hell out of public school classrooms. And pleading with conservatives to purge Creationists from their party/ies until they can adopt a fact based reality. I would do the same but I pretty much never encounter Creationist left leaners.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not all homeschooling is terrible. some are.
|
Canada11583 Posts
On June 04 2014 12:32 Nyxisto wrote:I actually mentioned that I was specifically criticizing religious nutjobs and not every homeschooled kid. People who just want to give their kids the best education obviously should be free to do so.
But how do you enforce this outcome? To me, this would require a level of government intervention into the home that I would not be comfortable with. In a liberal society (in the classic sense) it is simply a given risk that people are not going to always grow up believing identical things to you or even the right things. There are acceptable ways to educate, and then there are methods that give too much power to the state to control what their citizens can and cannot believe. I would rather run the risk of people growing up believing the wrong things and bolster education elsewhere, then to hand over that sort of power to the state.
|
On June 04 2014 15:26 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 12:32 Nyxisto wrote:I actually mentioned that I was specifically criticizing religious nutjobs and not every homeschooled kid. People who just want to give their kids the best education obviously should be free to do so. But how do you enforce this outcome? To me, this would require a level of government intervention into the home that I would not be comfortable with. In a liberal society (in the classic sense) it is simply a given risk that people are not going to always grow up believing identical things to you or even the right things. There are acceptable ways to educate, and then there are methods that give too much power to the state to control what their citizens can and cannot believe. I would rather run the risk of people growing up believing the wrong things and bolster education elsewhere, then to hand over that sort of power to the state. This is the only logical outcome of equating the teaching of Creationism to child abuse. We have child protective services for child abuse and they're the kind that come into the homes and take the kids away. This topic is apparently such an outrage and amounts to such brainwashing that it warrants ... well ANYTHING.
On June 03 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:care to elaborate why that would be their right to screw up the life of their children? If you claim that children are some kind of good that parents own and can do what they want with than you better have some argument to back that up.
On June 03 2014 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:Make education up to a high school degree compulsory, get rid of homeschooling. If the parents want to teach their kids their religious believes they still have the rest of the day to do that.
On June 04 2014 02:16 Nyxisto wrote:Tolerance doesn't apply here, because that would mean we were talking about opinions, as in "I don't tolerate your taste of music". Creationism is WRONG. It's delusional, and teaching it as "science" to young kids is child abuse. Also the prevalence of religious opinion in discussions that aren't a matter of religion is very hurtful for society and especially widespread in the US.
It affects science denial (climate change), women's rights(abortion), children's rights(education), child abuse(corporal punishment which is still common in heavily religious families) and many other topics.
On June 04 2014 10:31 oneofthem wrote:just goes to show how emotional responses trump over thought for a great many people, and they cannot be trusted with choosing their own source of information. sadly there is indeed serious leftist opposition against genetic and nuclear technology in some unreasonable generality, and it is dumb as fuck
this homeschooling spiel is yet another twirl in the dance between a primitive individualism and actual reality. the issue from the anti-homeschool side is purely based on actual existing state of certain homeschooling atrocities. it's a process where one sees a problem in society and tries to address it, so it really does reflect empirical reality.
so really as long as we are all aware and take seriously the fact that some homeschooling parents are fucking up young people's lives and perpetuating harmful ignorance, it's ok. whatever solution is secondary.
I see all this inflated rhetoric, like WW2 was nothing compared to Creationism in some classrooms in the midwest and deep south. If you switch to homeschooling, bear witness to the fastest act of backpedaling around. What? Well, is it child abuse, brainwashing, possible atrocities, not a subject for tolerance, or isn't it? Are these just empty words everybody's spewing trying to gin up everybody else to feel appalled and outraged? It certainly seems so.
On topic, this is still intolerance with a bright new polish. If you can't get a majority in Dry Gulch Junction, or the state in which it resides, to vote it out of the curriculum, then have the decency to tolerate it. Governments weren't formed to snoop on your kid's thoughts about the formation of the universe. The good ones can see them leave their parent's nest and high school, and enter and do well in modern society. So stop sputtering on and on purporting to be in it for the children's well being (as opposed to their parents), because so far the only thing widely apparent is bigoted attitudes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
intolerant of parents derping their kids into another generation of closed loop cultism? ok.
but really now, the solution is just mandating some sort of fulfillment of a certain curriculum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
