EPTI'm sorry, is the United States running out of land? Because from where I am it seems like it's an extremely sparsely populated nation. And given that power generation is a pretty big deal it seems like a reasonable thing to use land for.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4661
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
I'm sorry, is the United States running out of land? Because from where I am it seems like it's an extremely sparsely populated nation. And given that power generation is a pretty big deal it seems like a reasonable thing to use land for. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15399 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I wouldn't hate on placebo's, I'd take a chance at the placebo effect over no hope any day. Cannabis is still considered "homeopathy" by many in the medical field, so forgive me if I think they are often full of it, ignorant, or just flat out stupid for sake of their previous positions. Cannabis is not considered homeopathy by medical science. The mechanistic impacts of cannabis are well understood in a variety of ways. What you are saying is just straight up false. As for your earlier point regarding the safety of GMOs and pesticides, they are already shown to be safe to the extent that our technology allows for. Biological science is severely gimped compared to other realms of chemistry for both ethical and physical reasons. They still do incredible work, but as someone who specializes in electronic materials, it is amazing the biochemists get anything done. Stein asks that greater than the full extent of our scientific capability be used prior to ingestion. That isn't possible. We have shown it to be as safe as we can, but by definition we can not do better than that. Do you work in science? It really does not feel like it. You say and ask things that make it really clear you have a very limited grasp on this. But you still make a judgment. That's wrong. You should never comment on a technical topic you are not an expert in. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote: I'm sorry, is the United States running out of land? Because from where I am it seems like it's an extremely sparsely populated nation. And given that power generation is a pretty big deal it seems like a reasonable thing to use land for. national parks, other types of land that you can't spam solar/wind on. not that we shouldn't be trying to make more efficient renewable energy since nuclear is not a long term solution | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Except that's not what happens. Not to mention rarely is it considered that some treatments may not work for a majority but be very effective for a minority with a particular set of afflictions. I don't really want to get into the debate around all of "alternative medicine" which specifically with the example of cannabis has nothing to do with the issues you describe because the research has been intentionally and maliciously restricted for decades. Which is to say the process you describe is in fact not what has happened with a specific example. But holy crap I can't believe how wrapped up in western "medicine" folks are. I mean you all are familiar with how we got here right? I mean I've seen the religious fervor for science before, but never such a strong rally around western medicine, as if it's not full of absurdities. Like did we all miss the opiate issue? That's a pretty fresh screw up from the pharmaceutical/medical industry that stands as a pretty glaring example of how this whole notion of "medicine" is lacking some serious nuance. Your zeal for Bernie makes so much more sense now... | ||
|
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:51 jalstar wrote: national parks, other types of land that you can't spam solar/wind on. not that we shouldn't be trying to make more efficient renewable energy since nuclear is not a long term solution Demanding that your renewables produce the same amount of energy from the same square footage as nuclear is not a reasonable approach though. Surely you must concede that. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:53 KwarK wrote: Demanding that your renewables produce the same amount of energy from the same square footage as nuclear is not a reasonable approach though. Surely you must concede that. what does that even mean lol we should have renewables and nuclear, phase out fossil fuels, my position is reasonable and i won't get sucked into whatever rhetorical trap you're trying | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
| ||
|
nothingmuch
448 Posts
I'm pretty sure that the required area for energy generation is so ridiculously small compared to the space available and to what other industries namely agriculture need that it's a non issue. Also there are many ways for renewables to use areas that are otherwise useless (solar on rooftops or in deserts, windparks in the open sea etc.). | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote: I'm sorry, is the United States running out of land? Because from where I am it seems like it's an extremely sparsely populated nation. And given that power generation is a pretty big deal it seems like a reasonable thing to use land for. The entire midwest is fairly sparsely populated so you could easily use that land for whatever is needed but for the east and west coast you sort of have fairly densely populated areas so they would need different solutions then the midwest would need. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
It's why Bernie recognized that he had to run as a Democrat if he actually ever wanted to get his message to people, and it's why Bernie endorsed when he did, leveraging his voters to push the Democrats as far left as possible before doing so. He may not like the game, but he knows how to play it. Jill has no idea how to play the game. Winning the election doesn't mean all your ideas suddenly get to happen. It's not the endgame, it's just the beginning. Ultimately, if you want to get things done, you still have to play ball with everyone else in Washington and I have no interest in voting for a candidate who clearly has no idea how to play ball. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
It means this On August 06 2016 06:46 jalstar wrote: and without using too much land is a bullshit response. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:59 TheYango wrote: The difference between Bernie and Jill is that Bernie is a career politician that on some level actually understands the give and take of how to get things done, while Jill is a retired career physician who's running on a purely idealistic platform that has no feasibility. Like, she has things like cutting US military spending by 50% on her platform which, while a noble goal, is totally infeasible from where she stands. Even if by some kind of divine intervention she actually won the election, it would be impossible for her to do most of the things written on her platform. It's why Bernie recognized that he had to run as a Democrat if he actually ever wanted to get his message to people, and it's why Bernie endorsed when he did, leveraging his voters to push the Democrats as far left as possible before doing so. He may not like the game, but he knows how to play it. Jill has no idea how to play the game. Yep. Bernie is a very savvy politician. If Clinton hadn't had the experience of dealing with Obama in '08 and made a massive, totally secure coalition I have no doubt she would have lost the primary. Even in his loss he got far more done with the platform than I would have ever expected. The Green party seems to have zero interest in actually expanding their platform to include new voters, based upon conversations I've had and their basic reaction to newcomers who pretty much all criticize the homeopathy part of their platform as inane and idiotic. Their basic reaction seems to be to flame the people making the criticism for trying to rob them of their party. It's nuts- if they refuse even basic compromise they're useless and effectively the same as a protest vote. The libertarians still don't really have a chance, but they're at least trying to appeal to new voters (though that may really be Johnson more than the party as a whole). | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9017 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote: But holy crap I can't believe how wrapped up in western "medicine" folks are. I mean you all are familiar with how we got here right? I mean I've seen the religious fervor for science before, but never such a strong rally around western medicine, as if it's not full of absurdities. That's like saying that because astronomers were wrong about Vulcan, only someone with a religious fervor for science would refuse to accept that flat earthers could be right. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22726 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:50 Mohdoo wrote: Cannabis is not considered homeopathy by medical science. The mechanistic impacts of cannabis are well understood in a variety of ways. What you are saying is just straight up false. As for your earlier point regarding the safety of GMOs and pesticides, they are already shown to be safe to the extent that our technology allows for. Biological science is severely gimped compared to other realms of chemistry for both ethical and physical reasons. They still do incredible work, but as someone who specializes in electronic materials, it is amazing the biochemists get anything done. Stein asks that greater than the full extent of our scientific capability be used prior to ingestion. That isn't possible. We have shown it to be as safe as we can, but by definition we can not do better than that. Do you work in science? It really does not feel like it. You say and ask things that make it really clear you have a very limited grasp on this. But you still make a judgment. That's wrong. You should never comment on a technical topic you are not an expert in. I made an edit on my previous post about not being familiar with the term "homeopathy" as referring to a specific type of treatment, just heard it used as a synonym for "alternative medicine", if you replace it in the context it makes more sense. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
On August 06 2016 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote: I made an edit on my previous post about not being familiar with the term "homeopathy" as referring to a specific type of treatment, just heard it used as a synonym for "alternative medicine", if you replace it in the context it makes more sense. Now you know that homeopathy is literally just pure water being sold as a miracle cure to sick individuals which only exists because of loopholes created by the alternative medicine industry to hobble the FDA and FTC so they can keep profiting off snake oil, do you still think Stein has a point? Just so we're clear, we're not talking about just your basic parasitic mom and pop homeopathy shop that tells people not to waste their money on chemo when they can buy a bottle of homeopathic medicine for $50. There is a huge, huge industry built on vitamins, supplements and other treatments that buys politicians, aggressively lobbies and even buys Mel Gibson. + Show Spoiler + Selling fake medicine should be something really easy to take a moral stance against. Stein has taken a stance for it. Condemn or not? And don't give me any bullshit about selective reporting of medical trials etc, medicine isn't perfect but it adheres to a standard that "alternative medicine" refuses to be held to. Meanwhile supplements and other unregulated snake oil sent 23,000 people to the emergency room last year. She needs to break from them. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22726 Posts
On August 06 2016 07:21 KwarK wrote: Now you know that homeopathy is literally just pure water being sold as a miracle cure to sick individuals which only exists because of loopholes created by the alternative medicine industry to hobble the FDA and FTC so they can keep profiting off snake oil, do you still think Stein has a point? Just so we're clear, we're not talking about just your basic parasitic mom and pop homeopathy shop that tells people not to waste their money on chemo when they can buy a bottle of homeopathic medicine for $50. There is a huge, huge industry built on vitamins, supplements and other treatments that buys politicians, aggressively lobbies and even buys Mel Gibson. + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV2olDA0w8U Selling fake medicine should be something really easy to take a moral stance against. Stein has taken a stance for it. Condemn or not? And don't give me any bullshit about selective reporting of medical trials etc, medicine isn't perfect but it adheres to a standard that "alternative medicine" refuses to be held to. Meanwhile supplements and other unregulated snake oil sent 23,000 people to the emergency room last year. She needs to break from them. Like I said I'm letting "as appropriate" do a lot of work there, I'd like a stronger stance in general when it comes to supplements and snake oil but that's not all on alternative medicine either. A lot of folks are just stupid, for example, acetaminophen sends it's fair share of people to the hospital too. As do supplements related to weightlifting and it's often a result of them not telling people (or being honest) about what is in them. Is it something that other candidates have taken a stance against? I'm reasonably sure none of them have taken a stance against it when justified by religion? That said, I'd appreciate any politician taking a stand on the issue. Ironically this did bring attention to Hillary's association with Dr. Mark Hyman, which if these concerns about Jill are sincere, should raise some red flags for folks as well. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
From the western medical community, there isn't some blanket rejection of alternative medicine. At a basic level, there is an understanding that these treatments have some amount of efficacy, that is simply not well understood. Physicians recognize that with proper research, it's very reasonable for some of these treatments to enter the mainstream once we have a more reasonable understanding of why they work and what they do. In places where alternative medicine is more developed (notably China), there is likewise a similar understanding in the eastern medical community that to establish legitimacy, they need to be scientific. Traditional Chinese medicine practictioners have collaborated with western physicians in conducting clinical trials, and for the most part, the "legitimate" alternative medicine community is fairly onboard with making their practice more rigorous and more scientific. From both sides, the belief is that these two modes of practice can come together and augment one another. Alternative medicine, while not always able to treat disease, often greatly improves quality of life where modern medical care can result in very poor life quality after treating severe diseases (e.g. patients in chemotherapy). It is also an option open to people with diseases that western medicine is simply incapable of managing thus far. There are two problems which arise, and both come from outside the established alternative medicine community. First is that many people who come to alternative medicine do so because of an irrational rejection of western medicine. This is not something that legitimate alternative medicine practitioners condone--alternative medicine is seen as a counterpart to western medicine, not as a replacement. Second is that the vetting process for practitioners of alternative medicine is very poor, so the field is rampant with unlicensed quacks, many of whom try to cultivate peoples' irrational mistrust of western medicine for the sake of making a quick buck. It's these people that both the western and alternative medical communities have a problem with. Within the "legitimate" alternative medicine community, they largely see eye to eye with their physician counterparts. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Yes, chemotherapy can ruin your quality of life, the advantage is of course that you continue to live. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 06 2016 07:55 Nyxisto wrote: No, alternative medicine is not an option instead of chemotherapy or any diseases that (western) medicine can't handle. That is absolutely ridiculous. There's also no 'balance' to be had in this discussion. To talk to a practionicer of the stuff about its effects makes as much as sense as talking to a Scientology member about Scientology. There's no legitimate alternative medicine community. I never suggested that it's an alternative. In fact, I said exactly the opposite--that alternative medicine is never a replacement for western medicine and is a supplement to it. Legitimate alternative medicine practitioners recognize this and work within the framework of western medicine, not against it. Chemo drugs have some really shitty side effects, and the only western medicine solution is to reduce the dosage of the drug--which isn't really an option. Alternative medicine helps to make these peoples' lives a lot less shitty without having to adversely affect their western medicine therapy. They can stay on chemo and have less shitty lives. There are "alternative medicine" quacks that tell you to get off your chemo drugs and take some herbal bullshit instead but even the established alternative medicine community calls these people for what they are. The problem is that without proper licensing and vetting, the general public can't tell the difference. | ||
| ||
