On February 16 2012 02:00 Djzapz wrote: Well, Santorum certainly is a frightening person. Blows my mind that 21st century people in a civilized country are still at that level.
as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else
I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair.
That's like saying some Nazis were good people and so National Socialism is a good thing. Hell the majority of the Nazis were in fact good people. Regardless of some religious people being "good" or "kind-hearted," religion itself is responsible for many, if not the majority, of the problems in this world.
An idea can't be held directly responsible for an action. It's the way the idea is interpreted and how people act on it that determines the outcome. Thus is falls to the people. This is a bullshit argument that seeks to oversimplify the cause of horrific actions conducted IN THE NAME OF religion.
I can go on a rampage and kill 30 people and say I did it for God, that doesn't make religion responsible, it makes me responsible and religion my retroactive justification.
True, but quite frankly some ideologies are better than others. An ideology that tells people to throw away common sense and science in the name of fairy tales and believing things without evidence, clearly isn't a very good ideology. Good at controlling the people perhaps, but not good FOR the people.
Whole new can of worms. I've always been of the opinion that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive to one another. So in my personal case, religion is inspiring to me insofar as further research and investigation goes.
On February 16 2012 02:00 Djzapz wrote: Well, Santorum certainly is a frightening person. Blows my mind that 21st century people in a civilized country are still at that level.
as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else
I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair.
That's like saying some Nazis were good people and so National Socialism is a good thing. Hell the majority of the Nazis were in fact good people. Regardless of some religious people being "good" or "kind-hearted," religion itself is responsible for many, if not the majority, of the problems in this world.
An idea can't be held directly responsible for an action. It's the way the idea is interpreted and how people act on it that determines the outcome. Thus is falls to the people. This is a bullshit argument that seeks to oversimplify the cause of horrific actions conducted IN THE NAME OF religion.
I can go on a rampage and kill 30 people and say I did it for God, that doesn't make religion responsible, it makes me responsible and religion my retroactive justification.
Uhm, when you force women to cover themselves up because of the Quran then yes the Quran is responsible. Likewise when people decry the immorality of homosexuality because of lines in the bible then it's the bible's fault. If you teach immoral ideas to children using immoral books, don't tell me I can't blame the ideas or books. Many actions by fundamentalists would not even be considered if scripture wasn't involved.
To claim that all religious + immoral acts are due to post hoc rationalization is rather naive.
I think the argument is that since not everyone takes the same thing from the bible, and obviously not everyone who has read the bible is against gay marriage, you can't say the bible always has that impact. Regardless, its pretty easy to blame the bible for the cases where it DOES manage to have such influence.
Bingo. Anything less than this is a gross oversimplification stated to make anti-religious people feel better about their moral "high" ground. Judge people on an individual basis please?
I didn't say anything about the individual people (neither did Yongwang actually) so don't pretend like I did.
I wasn't directly addressing either of you but rather elaborating on my agreement. My apologies if it came across in an offensive manner.
On February 15 2012 11:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's hardly "messed up", especially when many here think that Obama is the best choice that we have.
Who thinks that other than black people who vote for him solely because he's black? Republicans and independents hate him because he's a socialist. Democrats hate him because he's pro-war and in bed with the corporations. If that's not enough, religious people hate him because he has been doing everything he can to violate the First Amendment. Obama is extremely unpopular and this time he has to run on his record, which is something he can't do. The real problem is that there are no real conservatives running against him. America needs a leader and as we all know, Obama is anything but a leader, and Romney/Santorum isn't much better. Paul doesn't understand how a government works or anything regarding foreign policy. Gingrich MIGHT be able to be a leader if he stays true to making the moon the 51st state, but he's going to have a hard time getting women and religious people to vote for him with his multiple extramarital affairs.
Oh man. Like I'm not trying to defend Obama here but you are honestly a complete fool.
Do you even know what Socialism means? . . . No you don't. So stop using it to describe people. Pro-war? Give the dude some credit, he's gotten us out of one war (albeit slowly), and managed to avoid another one in a pretty nice fashion. It's "lets charge in Iran" Santorum that is pro-war. Haha, violating the 1st amendment. Last I checked stopping Christianity from overstepping their rights isn't going against the 1st amendment...it's up holding it.
Gingrich? Wtf is wrong with you. What the hell does building a moon colony have to do with being a leader, besides putting us further into debt? And nice jab at women there, personally I as a man find adultery to be absolutely disgusting, probably more so than most of my female friends (however I do not think it necessarily represents leadership ability) but apparentely according to you it only matters to women.
To be fair to the moon colony thing, it is an inspiring goal to return to the moon and install a permanent base there. Though, like all of Gingrich's statements, he talks too much. To further our knowledge of our solar system and ourselves, those should be the objectives of something as grand as a return trip to the moon. Underlying goals would be to inspire another generation of engineers and scientists to fill the gaping hole that's emerging in those fields. Those goals should NOT be to form a state and effectively turn the whole thing into capitalistic and imperialistic conquest.
(Sorry for double post, thought somebody was going to post before I got done with this.)
Oh I agree, but can we afford it? Are we ready for it? Personally I'd argue at the moment we are not and it's just Gingrich spouting stuff to try and garner a specific group of voters. (of course all candidates do this but eh) Hell I'm not even sure he would go through with it even if he was elected. The fact that it's promised by the end of his 2nd term suggests he's not truly invested in it and might very well back out of it.
We can afford it, we just need to cut spending in other places.
That's still the antithesis of what the GOP has been spewing for the last 4 years, like much of their actual policy. You cannot stand for small government and at the same time want government expansions for things you like. That's the exact opposite of small government.
It's the same hypocrisy in the Republican's military expansion planes, or the vast majority of their stances on social issues (which of course should be regulated by the government, even though government regulation is evil and socialist!)...
That entire argument falls apart though if you look at what big government and small government are. It's one thing for a government to fund a military or even a space program. It's an entirely different thing for a government to say "we're going to take all of the money from the middle and upper classes and give it to the homeless, while forcing everyone to use government healthcare and all of." One advances the state and the other inhibits society. That being said the whole religious "ban homosexuality and abortion" is ridiculous and doesn't do anything for the state or society.
That's a pointed argument. -_-
The same could be said that government provides people with the freedom from the fear that they could end up in a permanently disabling economic/social position, but strips the money from middle and upper classes to invade other countries.
Both statements are stupid and do nothing to further the discussion and understanding for both sides.
Not exactly about the Republican nominations directly, but I think it's interesting how it shows the contrast between Obama's European style socialism and the American government and way of life, and just how different they are. If this doesn't belong in this thread, feel free to move or delete it.
That entire argument falls apart though if you look at what big government and small government are. It's one thing for a government to fund a military or even a space program. It's an entirely different thing for a government to say "we're going to take all of the money from the middle and upper classes and give it to the homeless, while forcing everyone to use government healthcare and all of." One advances the state and the other inhibits society. That being said the whole religious "ban homosexuality and abortion" is ridiculous and doesn't do anything for the state or society.
Well enabling upward socioeconomic mobility is certainly trying to help society. How does a moonbase help us exactly? I could understand a manned mission to Mars or something for the sheer awesomeness factor, but a moonbase? Theres nothing on the moon. How much more wasteful could we get??
That entire argument falls apart though if you look at what big government and small government are. It's one thing for a government to fund a military or even a space program. It's an entirely different thing for a government to say "we're going to take all of the money from the middle and upper classes and give it to the homeless, while forcing everyone to use government healthcare and all of." One advances the state and the other inhibits society. That being said the whole religious "ban homosexuality and abortion" is ridiculous and doesn't do anything for the state or society.
Well enabling upward socioeconomic mobility is certainly trying to help society. How does a moonbase help us exactly? I could understand a manned mission to Mars or something for the sheer awesomeness factor, but a moonbase? Theres nothing on the moon. How much more wasteful could we get??
On February 16 2012 05:34 DoubleReed wrote: How does it advance our nation? Do you really think that's the most effective way to advance our science??
In the same way the moonlandings advanced America and Sputnik advanced the Soviets.
But it's becoming increasingly clear that there are better intellectual frontiers to break than space nowadays, like slowing senescence or Friendly AI. New Era means New Frontier. Not "the same frontier but moreso."
On February 16 2012 05:34 DoubleReed wrote: How does it advance our nation? Do you really think that's the most effective way to advance our science??
In the same way the moonlandings advanced America and Sputnik advanced the Soviets.
I'm but it's becoming increasingly clear that there are better intellectual frontiers to break than space nowadays, like slowing senescence or Friendly AI. New Era means New Frontier. Not the same frontier but moreso.
Interesting, of course space isn't the only frontier. But I would say that there is still so much more that needs to be done in space. If we could manage the budget correctly after cutting all of the waste and failed social programs (and possibly even some of the military), we should advance transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies and sciences. I'm not saying the private sector can't do these things as well, or even that they can't do them more effectively. But let's face it, there is no big pay-off for a corporation to start exploring space in the short-term. America could mine asteroids and turn a massive revenue and scientific advancement from that, there's already a massive asteroid belt in between the Moon and Earth we could utilize.
On February 16 2012 05:34 DoubleReed wrote: How does it advance our nation? Do you really think that's the most effective way to advance our science??
In the same way the moonlandings advanced America and Sputnik advanced the Soviets.
I'm but it's becoming increasingly clear that there are better intellectual frontiers to break than space nowadays, like slowing senescence or Friendly AI. New Era means New Frontier. Not the same frontier but moreso.
Interesting, of course space isn't the only frontier. But I would say that there is still so much more that needs to be done in space. If we could manage the budget correctly after cutting all of the waste and failed social programs (and possibly even some of the military), we should advance transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies and sciences. I'm not saying the private sector can't do these things as well, or even that they can't do them more effectively. But let's face it, there is no big pay-off for a corporation to start exploring space in the short-term. America could mine asteroids and turn a massive revenue and scientific advancement from that, there's already a massive asteroid belt in between the Moon and Earth we could utilize.
The fact is he's talking about a moonbase like a commercially feasible enterprise. It would actually have be sustainable. Sorry, not convinced.
If the goal is to do something awesome, then we can do better than a friggin moonbase can't we? The moon totally sucks. There's nothing there. It doesn't even get us that much closer to other planets or anything.
On February 16 2012 05:34 DoubleReed wrote: How does it advance our nation? Do you really think that's the most effective way to advance our science??
In the same way the moonlandings advanced America and Sputnik advanced the Soviets.
I'm but it's becoming increasingly clear that there are better intellectual frontiers to break than space nowadays, like slowing senescence or Friendly AI. New Era means New Frontier. Not the same frontier but moreso.
Interesting, of course space isn't the only frontier. But I would say that there is still so much more that needs to be done in space. If we could manage the budget correctly after cutting all of the waste and failed social programs (and possibly even some of the military), we should advance transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies and sciences. I'm not saying the private sector can't do these things as well, or even that they can't do them more effectively. But let's face it, there is no big pay-off for a corporation to start exploring space in the short-term. America could mine asteroids and turn a massive revenue and scientific advancement from that, there's already a massive asteroid belt in between the Moon and Earth we could utilize.
The fact is he's talking about a moonbase like a commercially feasible enterprise. It would actually have be sustainable. Sorry, not convinced.
If the goal is to do something awesome, then we can do better than a friggin moonbase can't we? The moon totally sucks. There's nothing there. It doesn't even get us that much closer to other planets or anything.
It does get us closer to other planets actually because the Moon would be a better launching point for a mission to Mars or another planet because its gravity is so weak and has no atmosphere it doesn't require nearly so much to launch a vessel from there compared to from Earth. So you fuel and prep the vessel there, bringing the stuff needed up from Earth, obviously, and the easier launch means that the vessel can go much further than it would be able to going straight up from Earth, same principle applies to an orbital space station but the lack of any significant gravity might be a hindrance, not entirely sure about that.
That entire argument falls apart though if you look at what big government and small government are. It's one thing for a government to fund a military or even a space program. It's an entirely different thing for a government to say "we're going to take all of the money from the middle and upper classes and give it to the homeless, while forcing everyone to use government healthcare and all of." One advances the state and the other inhibits society. That being said the whole religious "ban homosexuality and abortion" is ridiculous and doesn't do anything for the state or society.
Well enabling upward socioeconomic mobility is certainly trying to help society. How does a moonbase help us exactly? I could understand a manned mission to Mars or something for the sheer awesomeness factor, but a moonbase? Theres nothing on the moon. How much more wasteful could we get??
Scientific and national advancement are wasteful?
I agree with you when it comes to space/scientific/technological funding. However, I don't understand how you think a government helping the poor inhibits society.
Logic would dictate that it does the exact opposite...
(Unless of course you have a purely communist state in mind or something, but that's idiotic and no one is seriously advocating that. It's like when the GOP pretends Obama stands for things he never even mentioned so they can argue against a made-up version of Obama who has terrible policy ideas.)
On February 16 2012 05:34 DoubleReed wrote: How does it advance our nation? Do you really think that's the most effective way to advance our science??
In the same way the moonlandings advanced America and Sputnik advanced the Soviets.
I'm but it's becoming increasingly clear that there are better intellectual frontiers to break than space nowadays, like slowing senescence or Friendly AI. New Era means New Frontier. Not the same frontier but moreso.
Interesting, of course space isn't the only frontier. But I would say that there is still so much more that needs to be done in space. If we could manage the budget correctly after cutting all of the waste and failed social programs (and possibly even some of the military), we should advance transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies and sciences. I'm not saying the private sector can't do these things as well, or even that they can't do them more effectively. But let's face it, there is no big pay-off for a corporation to start exploring space in the short-term. America could mine asteroids and turn a massive revenue and scientific advancement from that, there's already a massive asteroid belt in between the Moon and Earth we could utilize.
The fact is he's talking about a moonbase like a commercially feasible enterprise. It would actually have be sustainable. Sorry, not convinced.
If the goal is to do something awesome, then we can do better than a friggin moonbase can't we? The moon totally sucks. There's nothing there. It doesn't even get us that much closer to other planets or anything.
It does get us closer to other planets actually because the Moon would be a better launching point for a mission to Mars or another planet because its gravity is so weak and has no atmosphere it doesn't require nearly so much to launch a vessel from there compared to from Earth. So you fuel and prep the vessel there, bringing the stuff needed up from Earth, obviously, and the easier launch means that the vessel can go much further than it would be able to going straight up from Earth, same principle applies to an orbital space station but the lack of any significant gravity might be a hindrance, not entirely sure about that.
On February 16 2012 05:16 Yongwang wrote: Not exactly about the Republican nominations directly, but I think it's interesting how it shows the contrast between Obama's European style socialism and the American government and way of life, and just how different they are. If this doesn't belong in this thread, feel free to move or delete it.
Speaking of the CPAC, I find it funny that Republicans are insistent that their hatred with Obama has nothing to do with race, and yet they invite well-known White Supremicists to speak at their conventions.
Note that I'm sourcing it from Drudge, that way you know it's "fair and balanced". At the least, it just goes to show that institutional racism is still alive and well, and finds itself home at well-known Conservative functions.
EDIT: There are better sources than Drudge if you want a full-account of who these guys are. I just find it funny that even the Drudge report is calling these guys racists. And yet in the comments, you can see people denying it thoroughly, calling the Southern Poverty Law Center a "liberal group".
The Southern Poverty Law Center, for those who aren't aware, are a very non-political group that simply reports on extreme cases of racism and prejudice around the country. If someone writes something blatantly racist, the Southern Poverty Law Center simply reports it. But I guess reporting on blatant racism makes you a "liberal activist" by some right-wing standards.
On February 16 2012 05:16 Yongwang wrote: Not exactly about the Republican nominations directly, but I think it's interesting how it shows the contrast between Obama's European style socialism and the American government and way of life, and just how different they are. If this doesn't belong in this thread, feel free to move or delete it.
Speaking of the CPAC, I find it funny that Republicans are insistent that their hatred with Obama has nothing to do with race, and yet they invite well-known White Supremicists to speak at their conventions.
Note that I'm sourcing it from Drudge, that way you know it's "fair and balanced". At the least, it just goes to show that institutional racism is still alive and well, and finds itself home at well-known Conservative functions.
I think for a significant portion it has to do with race, but for the majority it really doesn't. A lot of people who dislike Obama don't actually know his views or what he's done though -- they only know what Republicans have said his views and actions were.
Of course, this means you have a lot of people against Obama even though Obama is actually the president in their own best interest. They just don't realize it because they've been spoon-fed lies.
So really, what you have is a largely misinformed electorate voting against their best interests because they have no idea what Obama's views are.
edit: And yeah, that's not the Drudge Report. There is no way Matt Drudge would ever post something that makes the GOP look bad.
On February 16 2012 05:16 Yongwang wrote: Not exactly about the Republican nominations directly, but I think it's interesting how it shows the contrast between Obama's European style socialism and the American government and way of life, and just how different they are. If this doesn't belong in this thread, feel free to move or delete it.
Speaking of the CPAC, I find it funny that Republicans are insistent that their hatred with Obama has nothing to do with race, and yet they invite well-known White Supremicists to speak at their conventions.
Note that I'm sourcing it from Drudge, that way you know it's "fair and balanced". At the least, it just goes to show that institutional racism is still alive and well, and finds itself home at well-known Conservative functions.
FYI, that's not the real drudge, so you may want to recheck your sources....
Edit: And even assuming that the one guy is a racist, I'm not sure what you think you're proving. Both the left and the right have radical elements. Look no further than occupy wall street for a great example of rampant anti-semitism from the extreme left.
On February 16 2012 05:16 Yongwang wrote: Not exactly about the Republican nominations directly, but I think it's interesting how it shows the contrast between Obama's European style socialism and the American government and way of life, and just how different they are. If this doesn't belong in this thread, feel free to move or delete it.
Speaking of the CPAC, I find it funny that Republicans are insistent that their hatred with Obama has nothing to do with race, and yet they invite well-known White Supremicists to speak at their conventions.
Note that I'm sourcing it from Drudge, that way you know it's "fair and balanced". At the least, it just goes to show that institutional racism is still alive and well, and finds itself home at well-known Conservative functions.
FYI, that's not the real drudge, so you may want to recheck your sources....
Ah, I'm not really a Drudge reader, I just wanted to give a source that is typically seen as "right-wing". My bad.
On February 16 2012 05:16 Yongwang wrote: Not exactly about the Republican nominations directly, but I think it's interesting how it shows the contrast between Obama's European style socialism and the American government and way of life, and just how different they are. If this doesn't belong in this thread, feel free to move or delete it.
Speaking of the CPAC, I find it funny that Republicans are insistent that their hatred with Obama has nothing to do with race, and yet they invite well-known White Supremicists to speak at their conventions.
Note that I'm sourcing it from Drudge, that way you know it's "fair and balanced". At the least, it just goes to show that institutional racism is still alive and well, and finds itself home at well-known Conservative functions.
FYI, that's not the real drudge, so you may want to recheck your sources....
Edit: And even assuming that the one guy is a racist, I'm not sure what you think you're proving. Both the left and the right have radical elements. Look no further than occupy wall street for a great example of rampant anti-semitism from the extreme left.
Tens of thousands of people marched with Occupy. One dude held up one anti-semitic sign in one protest in one city. An entire movement it does not invalidate.
On February 16 2012 05:16 Yongwang wrote: Not exactly about the Republican nominations directly, but I think it's interesting how it shows the contrast between Obama's European style socialism and the American government and way of life, and just how different they are. If this doesn't belong in this thread, feel free to move or delete it.
Speaking of the CPAC, I find it funny that Republicans are insistent that their hatred with Obama has nothing to do with race, and yet they invite well-known White Supremicists to speak at their conventions.
Note that I'm sourcing it from Drudge, that way you know it's "fair and balanced". At the least, it just goes to show that institutional racism is still alive and well, and finds itself home at well-known Conservative functions.
FYI, that's not the real drudge, so you may want to recheck your sources....
Edit: And even assuming that the one guy is a racist, I'm not sure what you think you're proving. Both the left and the right have radical elements. Look no further than occupy wall street for a great example of rampant anti-semitism from the extreme left.
Tens of thousands of people marched with Occupy. One dude held up one anti-semitic sign in one protest in one city. An entire movement it does not invalidate.
Try harder.
I think you are grossly understating the anti semitism in the movement, but that's ok. I have better example. Look no further than Obama spending 20 years in Rev Wright's church. Democrats were more than happy to sweep that one under the rug. Even better, look at Obama's ties to Bill Ayers -- a known terrorist.
EPT
