|
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 September 19 2015 09:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 08:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2015 08:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:On September 19 2015 07:56 oneofthem wrote: anyway
the pope is coming over soon. he's said some good things but what's the u.s. catholic view on him? From what I've seen, the reasonable ones like and agree with him while the people on the more extreme end are pretty unhappy with him. So more or less what you'd expect. Even the American atheists appreciate this Pope... Less anti-science, focused on actually helping people, more progressive, etc. Isn´t it especially the American atheists appreciate this Pope? What I understood of the more conservative Catholics is that this Pope is a fucking hippy and they don´t like him?
Ehhhhhh the fundamentalists, sure. But who are they to question the man who God directly speaks to?
|
My Grandparents are pretty devout Catholics and they haven't been particular fans of the last two. The one before Francis they thought was a "grump" who didn't spread the word of god with an uplifting message (also they thought he was a pedophile cover-upper). They don't like Francis much because he appears to favor a socialist/communist type government, and they are children of the Cold War, where they saw Catholicism widely suppressed under the Iron Curtain and Catholic missionaries expelled from countries by a great many communist/socialist revolutionaries in the 3rd world.
|
The White House is launching a campaign to encourage the 8.8 million legal immigrants in the U.S. to become citizens.
It's a multifaceted effort that could potentially add millions of new people to the voter rolls before the 2016 presidential election. The outreach includes online citizenship practice tests, the ability to pay fees with a credit card, and public service announcements on Univision.
President Obama announced the new initiative in a video Thursday.
While the White House does not portray the citizenship push as a partisan one, Karthick Ramakrishnan, a public policy professor at the University of California, Riverside who focuses on civic engagement and immigration, said efforts to increase the ranks of U.S. citizens are often seen through a political lens.
"Anytime there's a major push for naturalization by the White House ... especially when a Democratic administration does it, there's always the allegation that this is an attempt to try to get more Democratic voters," Ramakrishnan said.
He heard the same insinuations during the debate about immigration reform in Congress, he points out.
Source
|
Canada11279 Posts
On September 19 2015 08:51 Cowboy64 wrote:I don't understand why it's Trump's responsibility to correct someone at his speech, but Obama didn't have to repudiate the pastor at his church who said things like: "God damn America" and made multiple anti-Semitic statements over a 20 year period. + Show Spoiler +full disclosure: I took that talking point from Rush Limbaugh. Make of that what you will. I listened to that entire sermon. It's not what Rush makes it out to be. Don't know about the anti-semite stuff, but forgive me if I'm doubtful as to just how accurate their interpretation really is. Also, Obama had to put some a lot of distance between himself and his pastor in a real hurry. But one need look no further than McCain to see how deal with a rogue supporter with a mic.
|
President Barack Obama nominated Eric Fanning to be the next secretary of the Army, the White House said Friday, paving the way for the first openly gay leader of a military branch in U.S. history.
Fanning is currently serving as acting Army undersecretary and previously worked as an Air Force undersecretary and a chief of staff to Defense Secretary Ash Carter. His nomination to the post must be confirmed by the Senate.
"Eric brings many years of proven experience and exceptional leadership to this new role," Obama said in a statement. "I am confident he will help lead America's soldiers with distinction."
Advocacy groups said the nomination of an openly gay man to lead a U.S. service branch was a significant sign of progress in protecting the rights of LGBT individuals serving in the world's most powerful military.
The Pentagon updated its equal opportunity policy in June 2015 to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — a change in policy that Carter announced at a gay and lesbian pride celebration.
That change brought the Pentagon's rules into conformity with the 2011 decision to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allowed gays and lesbians to serve in the military only if they did not openly acknowledge their sexual orientation.
Source
|
On September 19 2015 11:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +President Barack Obama nominated Eric Fanning to be the next secretary of the Army, the White House said Friday, paving the way for the first openly gay leader of a military branch in U.S. history.
Fanning is currently serving as acting Army undersecretary and previously worked as an Air Force undersecretary and a chief of staff to Defense Secretary Ash Carter. His nomination to the post must be confirmed by the Senate.
"Eric brings many years of proven experience and exceptional leadership to this new role," Obama said in a statement. "I am confident he will help lead America's soldiers with distinction."
Advocacy groups said the nomination of an openly gay man to lead a U.S. service branch was a significant sign of progress in protecting the rights of LGBT individuals serving in the world's most powerful military.
The Pentagon updated its equal opportunity policy in June 2015 to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — a change in policy that Carter announced at a gay and lesbian pride celebration.
That change brought the Pentagon's rules into conformity with the 2011 decision to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allowed gays and lesbians to serve in the military only if they did not openly acknowledge their sexual orientation. Source
Kim Davis' jimmies must be so rustled.
|
U.S. and California environmental regulators said Friday they are investigating whether Volkswagen deliberately circumvented clean air rules on almost 500,000 diesel cars.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Volkswagen allegedly used software in four-cylinder Volkswagen and Audi diesel cars from model years 2009 to 2015 to circumvent emissions testing of certain air pollutants.
“Put simply, these cars contained software that turns off emissions controls when driving normally and turns them on when the car is undergoing an emissions test,” Cynthia Giles, an enforcement officer at the EPA, told reporters in a teleconference.
The feature, known as a defeat device, results in the cars emitting as much as 40 times the legally permissible emissions, Giles said.
“Using a defeat device in cars to evade clean air standards is illegal and a threat to public health,” Giles said.
Volkswagen sold roughly 482,000 diesel passenger cars in the United States since 2008. The vehicle models include the Jetta, Beetle, Golf, Passat and Audi A3.
The EPA called on the German automaker to fix the cars’ emissions systems, but said car owners do not need to take any immediate action.
Volkswagen said in a statement it is cooperating with the investigation.
Source
|
On September 19 2015 11:09 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 08:51 Cowboy64 wrote:I don't understand why it's Trump's responsibility to correct someone at his speech, but Obama didn't have to repudiate the pastor at his church who said things like: "God damn America" and made multiple anti-Semitic statements over a 20 year period. + Show Spoiler +full disclosure: I took that talking point from Rush Limbaugh. Make of that what you will. I listened to that entire sermon. It's not what Rush makes it out to be. Don't know about the anti-semite stuff, but forgive me if I'm doubtful as to just how accurate their interpretation really is. Also, Obama had to put some a lot of distance between himself and his pastor in a real hurry. But one need look no further than McCain to see how deal with a rogue supporter with a mic. Man, remember McCain. Like a Republican we could respect and had accomplished things. Who had some flaws, but at least he wasn't a total monster. A guy who was a Republican, but explained why progressive taxes were part of the system to college students. And stuck up for people who's opinion wasn't popular during town hall meetings. One of the few Republicans who said water boarding people was a bad plan.
Fuck man, McCain. Those were the days.
|
On September 19 2015 09:27 cLutZ wrote: My Grandparents are pretty devout Catholics and they haven't been particular fans of the last two. The one before Francis they thought was a "grump" who didn't spread the word of god with an uplifting message (also they thought he was a pedophile cover-upper). They don't like Francis much because he appears to favor a socialist/communist type government, and they are children of the Cold War, where they saw Catholicism widely suppressed under the Iron Curtain and Catholic missionaries expelled from countries by a great many communist/socialist revolutionaries in the 3rd world. These comments have been echoed by the observant Catholics I know. His political views on governance, with only minor nods to scriptural backing, have angered them. I didn't hear all that much about Benedict before him. Current pope is a very polarizing figure.
|
On September 19 2015 13:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 11:09 Falling wrote:On September 19 2015 08:51 Cowboy64 wrote:I don't understand why it's Trump's responsibility to correct someone at his speech, but Obama didn't have to repudiate the pastor at his church who said things like: "God damn America" and made multiple anti-Semitic statements over a 20 year period. + Show Spoiler +full disclosure: I took that talking point from Rush Limbaugh. Make of that what you will. I listened to that entire sermon. It's not what Rush makes it out to be. Don't know about the anti-semite stuff, but forgive me if I'm doubtful as to just how accurate their interpretation really is. Also, Obama had to put some a lot of distance between himself and his pastor in a real hurry. But one need look no further than McCain to see how deal with a rogue supporter with a mic. Man, remember McCain. Like a Republican we could respect and had accomplished things. Who had some flaws, but at least he wasn't a total monster. A guy who was a Republican, but explained why progressive taxes were part of the system to college students. And stuck up for people who's opinion wasn't popular during town hall meetings. One of the few Republicans who said water boarding people was a bad plan. Fuck man, McCain. Those were the days.
Pre 2006 McCain was a pretty awesome dude. He had that one brief flash in 2008 when he told someone they went to far but man pre 2006 McCain while I didnt agree with him on anything at least he understood how to govern which is something I could respect
|
The he picked Sarah Palin and that was the end of the Republican party
|
On September 19 2015 23:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 09:27 cLutZ wrote: My Grandparents are pretty devout Catholics and they haven't been particular fans of the last two. The one before Francis they thought was a "grump" who didn't spread the word of god with an uplifting message (also they thought he was a pedophile cover-upper). They don't like Francis much because he appears to favor a socialist/communist type government, and they are children of the Cold War, where they saw Catholicism widely suppressed under the Iron Curtain and Catholic missionaries expelled from countries by a great many communist/socialist revolutionaries in the 3rd world. These comments have been echoed by the observant Catholics I know. His political views on governance, with only minor nods to scriptural backing, have angered them. I didn't hear all that much about Benedict before him. Current pope is a very polarizing figure.
I don't think the Pope is polarizing, the truth seems to be handling that. If I had to pick between American Catholics and the pope on who does Catholicism better, I'm thinking the current pope wins that every time.
|
United States22883 Posts
He also couldn't tell the difference between Iran and Iraq. Not that any of the candidates now can.
|
Norway28559 Posts
On September 19 2015 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 03:38 Plansix wrote:On September 19 2015 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2015 03:27 farvacola wrote:On September 19 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote: Here is an idea. Obama is a 'Christian' because the political culture in America requires it. The guy is smart enough to know God is not real and the bible is a work of fiction.
Sadly America is not ready to accept an atheist as President so he has to pretend to be a Christian. Here's an idea: there are multitudes of highly intelligent individuals who believe in God, and you are in no position to question the faith of another person. This discussion is as vulgar as it is stupid. Do you think being an Atheist makes it less likely to be elected compared to being Christian? We all know the answer to that question, but that doesn't' mean this is going to be a productive discussion. It is a fact that being an atheist or religious has not baring on how intelligent a person is. Just because you know Obama is intelligent does not automatically make him an atheist. I absolutely agree that Obama is a Christian because of his faith, and the fact that he's intelligent doesn't mean he *can't* be a Christian or that he's *secretly* an atheist, which is what Gorsameth was saying. That being said, there have been multiple studies that have shown a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Not causal, of course. Merely an association, but something to stir the pot if people think that there's no correlation whatsoever (or no studies done at all about these two factors). Wikipedia has a good compilation of some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence Here are some relevant quotes from the studies in the above link: "the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which was determined to be “highly statistically significant”.[4]" "The idea that analytical thinking makes one less likely to be religious is an idea supported by other early studies on this issue[19] including a report from Harvard University.[15] ... Furthermore, the Harvard study found that participants who tended to think more reflectively were less likely to believe in a god.[15]" "In a 2013 meta-analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, of 63 scientific studies about IQ and religiosity, a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity was found in 53, and a positive relation in the remaining ten. Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants.[1][2]" "Most of the recent scientific studies have found a negative correlation between I.Q. and religiosity.[1][2]" "Studies have shown a strong link between national average IQ and atheism in society." There exist many other studies out there too, which tend to be either inconclusive, show a very weak correlation, or show a moderately negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But all this being said- yet again- being religious (or nonreligious) does not necessarily imply that you are particularly dumb (or smart), and there is no causal link between the two.
really not a big fan of referencing richard lynn, but I'll assume you didn't know that. ;p Also, I'm with Kwark, and this is entirely supported by my own anecdotal evidence. My impression is that american atheists are overwhelmingly more intelligent than average - but I have the same, perhaps even more significantly so, impression of Norwegian christians. Like every single person I've known throughout school who has been like a 'self identifying christian' (less than 10%) has been way smarter than the average student.
|
On September 20 2015 01:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 23:31 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2015 09:27 cLutZ wrote: My Grandparents are pretty devout Catholics and they haven't been particular fans of the last two. The one before Francis they thought was a "grump" who didn't spread the word of god with an uplifting message (also they thought he was a pedophile cover-upper). They don't like Francis much because he appears to favor a socialist/communist type government, and they are children of the Cold War, where they saw Catholicism widely suppressed under the Iron Curtain and Catholic missionaries expelled from countries by a great many communist/socialist revolutionaries in the 3rd world. These comments have been echoed by the observant Catholics I know. His political views on governance, with only minor nods to scriptural backing, have angered them. I didn't hear all that much about Benedict before him. Current pope is a very polarizing figure. I don't think the Pope is polarizing, the truth seems to be handling that. If I had to pick between American Catholics and the pope on who does Catholicism better, I'm thinking the current pope wins that every time. What? The truth? Reducing the needed repentance for certain sins is always going to be controversial within a faith. And when his percieved favored economic model, at best, has led to a hyper-secular culture in Europe, its crazy to say the devout should not have mixed feelings.
|
Newest member of Republicans for Bernie Sanders....
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/szHmV7M.jpg)
|
Hahahaha that's awesome, GH!
|
The Obama administration accused Volkswagen on Friday of a stunning scheme to deceive the government about its cars’ emissions standards and ordered the German automaker to recall nearly 500,000 vehicles.
But as the White House begins investigating Volkswagen's practices, will it prosecute top executives of the company that's accused of deceiving the government and endangering public health?
The case provides an opportunity for the Department of Justice to deliver on a promise it made in a Sept. 9 memo to refocus its prosecution of white-collar crime on individual employees, rather than the institutions that employ them, and to pressure companies to cooperate in those efforts.
The DOJ memo, which The New York Times obtained, was an implicit response to criticism that the administration has avoided pursuing cases against individual white-collar criminals, preferring instead to strike deals with the companies that employ them. These deals typically result in substantial fines, but preclude jail time for individuals.
Critics have been especially unforgiving of what they see as the administration’s milquetoast policing of Wall Street: Not a single top finance executive has gone to prison for their role in the 2008 financial crisis. (Last year, the Times profiled Kareem Serageldin, a mid-level Credit Suisse banker who went to jail for lying about the value of his bank's mortgage securities.)
he Environmental Protection Agency on Friday issued Volkswagen a notice of violation for allegedly cheating emission-control standards. The company installed software in its diesel-powered vehicles that turned on their emissions control systems when the cars were inspected by state authorities, but otherwise left the cars free to emit 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide. The chemical adds to the buildup of smog and ozone, which are tied to asthma and other respiratory illnesses and contribute to shortened lifespans. Volkswagen may have been trying to improve its cars’ performance, since the emissions control systems apparently limit torque and acceleration.
Volkswagen admitted to installing the software, the EPA said.
The EPA called Friday’s notice and recall an “opening salvo” in a larger investigation of wrongdoing on which it is collaborating with the DOJ and the state of California. Volkswagen said it was cooperating in the investigation.
If there is enough evidence that Volkswagen deliberately committed fraud, the case could be an ideal test for the DOJ’s professed rededication to the prosecution of individual corporate executives.
Source
|
On September 20 2015 03:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2015 03:38 Plansix wrote:On September 19 2015 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2015 03:27 farvacola wrote:On September 19 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote: Here is an idea. Obama is a 'Christian' because the political culture in America requires it. The guy is smart enough to know God is not real and the bible is a work of fiction.
Sadly America is not ready to accept an atheist as President so he has to pretend to be a Christian. Here's an idea: there are multitudes of highly intelligent individuals who believe in God, and you are in no position to question the faith of another person. This discussion is as vulgar as it is stupid. Do you think being an Atheist makes it less likely to be elected compared to being Christian? We all know the answer to that question, but that doesn't' mean this is going to be a productive discussion. It is a fact that being an atheist or religious has not baring on how intelligent a person is. Just because you know Obama is intelligent does not automatically make him an atheist. I absolutely agree that Obama is a Christian because of his faith, and the fact that he's intelligent doesn't mean he *can't* be a Christian or that he's *secretly* an atheist, which is what Gorsameth was saying. That being said, there have been multiple studies that have shown a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Not causal, of course. Merely an association, but something to stir the pot if people think that there's no correlation whatsoever (or no studies done at all about these two factors). Wikipedia has a good compilation of some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence Here are some relevant quotes from the studies in the above link: "the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which was determined to be “highly statistically significant”.[4]" "The idea that analytical thinking makes one less likely to be religious is an idea supported by other early studies on this issue[19] including a report from Harvard University.[15] ... Furthermore, the Harvard study found that participants who tended to think more reflectively were less likely to believe in a god.[15]" "In a 2013 meta-analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, of 63 scientific studies about IQ and religiosity, a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity was found in 53, and a positive relation in the remaining ten. Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants.[1][2]" "Most of the recent scientific studies have found a negative correlation between I.Q. and religiosity.[1][2]" "Studies have shown a strong link between national average IQ and atheism in society." There exist many other studies out there too, which tend to be either inconclusive, show a very weak correlation, or show a moderately negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But all this being said- yet again- being religious (or nonreligious) does not necessarily imply that you are particularly dumb (or smart), and there is no causal link between the two. really not a big fan of referencing richard lynn, but I'll assume you didn't know that. ;p Also, I'm with Kwark, and this is entirely supported by my own anecdotal evidence. My impression is that american atheists are overwhelmingly more intelligent than average - but I have the same, perhaps even more significantly so, impression of Norwegian christians. Like every single person I've known throughout school who has been like a 'self identifying christian' (less than 10%) has been way smarter than the average student.
With the exception of my parents and some professors, this is quite in line with my own experiences as well. I would be curious about looking into spirituality in the same sense, from my experience people who believe in "auras" and "ghosts" and "healing crystals" are also noticeably less intelligent than those who don't.
|
On September 20 2015 03:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2015 03:38 Plansix wrote:On September 19 2015 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2015 03:27 farvacola wrote:On September 19 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote: Here is an idea. Obama is a 'Christian' because the political culture in America requires it. The guy is smart enough to know God is not real and the bible is a work of fiction.
Sadly America is not ready to accept an atheist as President so he has to pretend to be a Christian. Here's an idea: there are multitudes of highly intelligent individuals who believe in God, and you are in no position to question the faith of another person. This discussion is as vulgar as it is stupid. Do you think being an Atheist makes it less likely to be elected compared to being Christian? We all know the answer to that question, but that doesn't' mean this is going to be a productive discussion. It is a fact that being an atheist or religious has not baring on how intelligent a person is. Just because you know Obama is intelligent does not automatically make him an atheist. I absolutely agree that Obama is a Christian because of his faith, and the fact that he's intelligent doesn't mean he *can't* be a Christian or that he's *secretly* an atheist, which is what Gorsameth was saying. That being said, there have been multiple studies that have shown a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Not causal, of course. Merely an association, but something to stir the pot if people think that there's no correlation whatsoever (or no studies done at all about these two factors). Wikipedia has a good compilation of some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence Here are some relevant quotes from the studies in the above link: "the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which was determined to be “highly statistically significant”.[4]" "The idea that analytical thinking makes one less likely to be religious is an idea supported by other early studies on this issue[19] including a report from Harvard University.[15] ... Furthermore, the Harvard study found that participants who tended to think more reflectively were less likely to believe in a god.[15]" "In a 2013 meta-analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, of 63 scientific studies about IQ and religiosity, a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity was found in 53, and a positive relation in the remaining ten. Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants.[1][2]" "Most of the recent scientific studies have found a negative correlation between I.Q. and religiosity.[1][2]" "Studies have shown a strong link between national average IQ and atheism in society." There exist many other studies out there too, which tend to be either inconclusive, show a very weak correlation, or show a moderately negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But all this being said- yet again- being religious (or nonreligious) does not necessarily imply that you are particularly dumb (or smart), and there is no causal link between the two. really not a big fan of referencing richard lynn, but I'll assume you didn't know that. ;p Also, I'm with Kwark, and this is entirely supported by my own anecdotal evidence. My impression is that american atheists are overwhelmingly more intelligent than average - but I have the same, perhaps even more significantly so, impression of Norwegian christians. Like every single person I've known throughout school who has been like a 'self identifying christian' (less than 10%) has been way smarter than the average student. Beware the temptation to draw empirical conclusions. This falls in the classic mistake of assuming blacks make better athletes because most pro athletes in the US are black. Or, more relevant to this forum, that there's something inherent to being Korean that makes Koreans better at StarCraft.
I would point out that religiosity and atheism are not mutually exclusive or even a spectrum in most places. In fact, I would posit that this is a flawed dimensionality. Rather, it is the tolerance and vibrancy of other beliefs that comes with modernity, which in turn associates with advanced education and industry that baselines a society capable of providing for and cultivating citizens' intelligence, that is creating this correlation.
|
|
|
|