|
|
On November 08 2012 04:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:19 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:14 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 03:39 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 03:30 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:
[quote]
Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/U.S._research_funding.png/800px-U.S._research_funding.png) There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending. edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure. Check the video posted a few pages back, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson will TELL you that Bush helped out NASA. And arguing that religious morals are worse than any other morals (as you are doing) is useless. Morals are subjective. I can look at any set of morals and pull out dozens of terrible events that were caused by it. Thanks for all that evidence though. I don't really need to post any "evidence", it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need. See: Dominionism, the argument for ID in the classroom, the argument for being pro-life, the religious fervor over defending Isreal regardless of what it does, etc.. All anti-intellectual. That's what we're talking about here, not religion informing your values on a personal level, but electing a party where extreme religious views thrive and could ultimately influence policy. Also your argument for Republicans not being anti-intellectual shows a complete lack of understanding of their platform and messaging. Just because you may be right does not mean you shouldn't post sources or evidence. What a load of shit. The word "evidence" is being used in the sardonic sense, not the literal one you child. "it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need." You have anything that backs up that claim or are you still talking? Religious morals are, by their nature, incompatible with large, diverse populations. If you try to use religious justification for any kind of laws or customs, you are forcing your religious beliefs on someone else (e.g. if you ban gay marriage because of a Christian's perspective on marriage, you are forcing others to conform to a Christian definition of marriage). This is common sense and this is why we don't need or want religion in our politics. There are numerous ways to justify and explain morals in an inclusive way without resorting to religious principles. See, for example, most concepts of justice, fairness, etc. These are all widely held ideals that aren't specific to a religion or culture, and as such, we legislate based on these widespread definitions (of course, details are argued over, but the point is still there). You simply can't do this with religious justification. I, as a non-Christian, simply won't accept a Christian justification for banning gay marriage because I don't believe in Christian doctrine, and this situation is very common across such a diverse country as the U.S. This is why you don't need "evidence" (as in empirical evidence). This is a fairly common-sense idea that only takes a small amount of reflection.
To be fair, there do exist brands of religious thought that are "universalist" in that they do not claim exclusive jurisdiction over religious terminology definitions, meaning they are perfectly open to the idea that all faiths are "right" in a sense. That being said, they make up a very small minority of overall Christians. Just thought I'd be annoying and put that out there 
|
Also Risen you are talking completely out of your ass, I never brought up any of these questions:
"What's obvious about pro-life being anti-intellectual? What's obvious about supporting israel no matter what being anti-intellectual? Why shouldn't we spend as much as we do on defense?"
I said using your religious morals to support any of these issues when facts directly contradict a given stance taken by those who are religious is anti-intellectual. Please read better thanks.
|
On November 08 2012 04:47 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 08 2012 04:19 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:14 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 03:39 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 03:30 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:
[quote]
Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX.
And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it.
Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending. edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure. Check the video posted a few pages back, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson will TELL you that Bush helped out NASA. And arguing that religious morals are worse than any other morals (as you are doing) is useless. Morals are subjective. I can look at any set of morals and pull out dozens of terrible events that were caused by it. Thanks for all that evidence though. I don't really need to post any "evidence", it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need. See: Dominionism, the argument for ID in the classroom, the argument for being pro-life, the religious fervor over defending Isreal regardless of what it does, etc.. All anti-intellectual. That's what we're talking about here, not religion informing your values on a personal level, but electing a party where extreme religious views thrive and could ultimately influence policy. Also your argument for Republicans not being anti-intellectual shows a complete lack of understanding of their platform and messaging. Just because you may be right does not mean you shouldn't post sources or evidence. What a load of shit. The word "evidence" is being used in the sardonic sense, not the literal one you child. "it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need." You have anything that backs up that claim or are you still talking? Religious morals are, by their nature, incompatible with large, diverse populations. If you try to use religious justification for any kind of laws or customs, you are forcing your religious beliefs on someone else (e.g. if you ban gay marriage because of a Christian's perspective on marriage, you are forcing others to conform to a Christian definition of marriage). This is common sense and this is why we don't need or want religion in our politics. There are numerous ways to justify and explain morals in an inclusive way without resorting to religious principles. See, for example, most concepts of justice, fairness, etc. These are all widely held ideals that aren't specific to a religion or culture, and as such, we legislate based on these widespread definitions (of course, details are argued over, but the point is still there). You simply can't do this with religious justification. I, as a non-Christian, simply won't accept a Christian justification for banning gay marriage because I don't believe in Christian doctrine, and this situation is very common across such a diverse country as the U.S. This is why you don't need "evidence" (as in empirical evidence). This is a fairly common-sense idea that only takes a small amount of reflection. And yet there's people on both sides of the issue. So I guess it isn't as "common-sense" is it? Note the post I made after that one.
The reasoning is common sense. Just because some people are immoral and want to force their religious beliefs on others doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't there or simple to understand. It doesn't require the "evidence" that you asked for; normative claims like this can't really have much evidence to begin with.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 04:43 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:41 Tarot wrote:On November 08 2012 04:32 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Feartheguru wrote:On November 08 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
well.
last night sucked.
the most infuriating part was hearing rush on the radio driving home this morning. That peice of shit motherf***er is the REASON we lost, and he's making EXCUSES. It's not hurricane Sandy that won it for Obama, Mr. Limbaugh, it's your dumb ass turning off moderates from ANY republican because YOU make an ass out of all of us. We should have won by double digits.
F*** that guy, and F*** all of talk radio. And F*** conservatives. This shit is on. The look on the NRSC guys' faces last night tells the whole story. The divide is coming much sooner than I originally thought. What happened to your "Reliable insider sources" and their "much more accurate polling. GG No Re. They were pretty accurate. I got 47/50 correct, my wrongs being VA, FL, CO. And considering those were the last 3 states called, I consider that a pretty accurate guess. I think the Dem turnout in the cities surprised a lot of people. Yet still less accurate than aggregating the polls. Let's be honest here, these races were decided by 50,000, 100,000, 120,000. Poll aggregation is an educated guess at that point no more than mine was.
the polls' used pretty good D/R splits. that is vindicated by the results
|
Just watched Obama's acceptance speech.
Hadn't watched a legit speech by him in years. Jesus Christ these chills, the guy has so much passion.
|
On November 08 2012 04:49 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:44 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 04:33 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 04:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 04:14 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 03:39 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 03:30 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:
[quote]
Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending. edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure. Check the video posted a few pages back, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson will TELL you that Bush helped out NASA. And arguing that religious morals are worse than any other morals (as you are doing) is useless. Morals are subjective. I can look at any set of morals and pull out dozens of terrible events that were caused by it. Thanks for all that evidence though. I don't really need to post any "evidence", it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need. See: Dominionism, the argument for ID in the classroom, the argument for being pro-life, the religious fervor over defending Isreal regardless of what it does, etc.. All anti-intellectual. That's what we're talking about here, not religion informing your values on a personal level, but electing a party where extreme religious views thrive and could ultimately influence policy. Also your argument for Republicans not being anti-intellectual shows a complete lack of understanding of their platform and messaging. The one who calls me a part of a party of anti-intellectuals calls evidence useless? Ok. FYI, ID in classrooms was not part of the republican platform, pro-life/choice is a completely subjective matter based on one's morals and is not in any way anti-intellectual, and the whole reason that BOTH parties defend Isreal is a combination of appeasing Jewish voters (who contribute ridiculous amounts of campaign funds) and keeping a secure military presence in the region, the merits of which can be argued to be imperialistic but certainly not anti-intellectual. I think I understand the republican platform better than you do. If you're going to ask me for evidence as to why arguing for any of those issues on a religious basis is anti-intellectual (hint: there are facts which contradict many of the ideas which give rise to opposition to abortion, such as the beginning of life biologically which scientists have not concluded on, BUT OH WAIT OUR RELIGION TELLS US OTHERWISE) you don't understand things as well as you think you do. And actually, ID in the classroom has become more and more an acceptable platform for Republicans to run on, and religious heavily influences why many people support Israel. Obviously that is not the only reason why the U.S. supports it, no shit. Again, ID was not on the republican platform. Clearly the party as a whole did not deem it an acceptable platform to run on. I don't know what you're getting at with regards to the beginning of life biologically. Everything is "Alive" biologically. The beginning of life biologically has nothing to do with being pro-choice/pro-life. A fertilized egg will almost always become a human being. Whether you believe that is worth protecting is entirely subjective and moral. What religion tells you merely influences morals, which we have established are NOT related to intellectualism. And the GOP (and democrats) support Israel to please jewish voters (Yes, religion influences them, support for a country is not anti-intellectual.) But they mostly support it for Jewish money and a military presence. You are arguing that religion is anti-intellectual, not that republicans are. Take your hate for religion somewhere else, preferably to /r/atheism from whence you came. Only if you call about half the time almost always: source(no interest in this particular argument but it's important to keep this fact in mind if you try to form an opinion about abortions)
That's instantaneously, and what I'm talking about (I should have specified) is people who already know that they are pregnant (at which point the fetus will almost always become a human) and would require an abortion to get rid of it. My apologies.
|
On November 08 2012 04:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:47 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 08 2012 04:19 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:14 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 03:39 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 03:30 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:[quote] I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending. edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure. Check the video posted a few pages back, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson will TELL you that Bush helped out NASA. And arguing that religious morals are worse than any other morals (as you are doing) is useless. Morals are subjective. I can look at any set of morals and pull out dozens of terrible events that were caused by it. Thanks for all that evidence though. I don't really need to post any "evidence", it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need. See: Dominionism, the argument for ID in the classroom, the argument for being pro-life, the religious fervor over defending Isreal regardless of what it does, etc.. All anti-intellectual. That's what we're talking about here, not religion informing your values on a personal level, but electing a party where extreme religious views thrive and could ultimately influence policy. Also your argument for Republicans not being anti-intellectual shows a complete lack of understanding of their platform and messaging. Just because you may be right does not mean you shouldn't post sources or evidence. What a load of shit. The word "evidence" is being used in the sardonic sense, not the literal one you child. "it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need." You have anything that backs up that claim or are you still talking? Religious morals are, by their nature, incompatible with large, diverse populations. If you try to use religious justification for any kind of laws or customs, you are forcing your religious beliefs on someone else (e.g. if you ban gay marriage because of a Christian's perspective on marriage, you are forcing others to conform to a Christian definition of marriage). This is common sense and this is why we don't need or want religion in our politics. There are numerous ways to justify and explain morals in an inclusive way without resorting to religious principles. See, for example, most concepts of justice, fairness, etc. These are all widely held ideals that aren't specific to a religion or culture, and as such, we legislate based on these widespread definitions (of course, details are argued over, but the point is still there). You simply can't do this with religious justification. I, as a non-Christian, simply won't accept a Christian justification for banning gay marriage because I don't believe in Christian doctrine, and this situation is very common across such a diverse country as the U.S. This is why you don't need "evidence" (as in empirical evidence). This is a fairly common-sense idea that only takes a small amount of reflection. And yet there's people on both sides of the issue. So I guess it isn't as "common-sense" is it? Note the post I made after that one. The reasoning is common sense. Just because some people are immoral and want to force their religious beliefs on others doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't there or simple to understand. It doesn't require the "evidence" that you asked for; normative claims like this can't really have much evidence to begin with.
I'm not just asking for evidence. I'm asking for your reasoning behind statements. Then people can argue with your reasoning instead of just going derp I disagree with your points.
On November 08 2012 04:51 BlueLanterna wrote:
Also Risen you are talking completely out of your ass, I never brought up any of these questions:
"What's obvious about pro-life being anti-intellectual? What's obvious about supporting israel no matter what being anti-intellectual? Why shouldn't we spend as much as we do on defense?"
I said using your religious morals to support any of these issues when facts directly contradict a given stance taken by those who are religious is anti-intellectual. Please read better thanks.
Listen, I tried to help you out. If you want to continue looking like a jackass in thread so be it. I think anyone who's been reading this thread knows I agree with almost everything you said.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
We'll likely just see a continuation of the policies he was working towards in his first term, so no need to waste a speech talking about that.
|
United States41959 Posts
On November 08 2012 04:43 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:41 Tarot wrote:On November 08 2012 04:32 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Feartheguru wrote:On November 08 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
well.
last night sucked.
the most infuriating part was hearing rush on the radio driving home this morning. That peice of shit motherf***er is the REASON we lost, and he's making EXCUSES. It's not hurricane Sandy that won it for Obama, Mr. Limbaugh, it's your dumb ass turning off moderates from ANY republican because YOU make an ass out of all of us. We should have won by double digits.
F*** that guy, and F*** all of talk radio. And F*** conservatives. This shit is on. The look on the NRSC guys' faces last night tells the whole story. The divide is coming much sooner than I originally thought. What happened to your "Reliable insider sources" and their "much more accurate polling. GG No Re. They were pretty accurate. I got 47/50 correct, my wrongs being VA, FL, CO. And considering those were the last 3 states called, I consider that a pretty accurate guess. I think the Dem turnout in the cities surprised a lot of people. Yet still less accurate than aggregating the polls. Let's be honest here, these races were decided by 50,000, 100,000, 120,000. Poll aggregation is an educated guess at that point no more than mine was.
Maths doesn't guess. That's why the maths was right and you were wrong. The aggregates provided a statistical analysis and the probability of a result along with a margin of error.
I'd like to refer you to this xkcd.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 08 2012 04:53 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:49 silynxer wrote:On November 08 2012 04:44 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 04:33 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 04:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 04:14 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 03:39 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 03:30 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:
[quote]
Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX.
And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it.
Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending. edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure. Check the video posted a few pages back, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson will TELL you that Bush helped out NASA. And arguing that religious morals are worse than any other morals (as you are doing) is useless. Morals are subjective. I can look at any set of morals and pull out dozens of terrible events that were caused by it. Thanks for all that evidence though. I don't really need to post any "evidence", it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need. See: Dominionism, the argument for ID in the classroom, the argument for being pro-life, the religious fervor over defending Isreal regardless of what it does, etc.. All anti-intellectual. That's what we're talking about here, not religion informing your values on a personal level, but electing a party where extreme religious views thrive and could ultimately influence policy. Also your argument for Republicans not being anti-intellectual shows a complete lack of understanding of their platform and messaging. The one who calls me a part of a party of anti-intellectuals calls evidence useless? Ok. FYI, ID in classrooms was not part of the republican platform, pro-life/choice is a completely subjective matter based on one's morals and is not in any way anti-intellectual, and the whole reason that BOTH parties defend Isreal is a combination of appeasing Jewish voters (who contribute ridiculous amounts of campaign funds) and keeping a secure military presence in the region, the merits of which can be argued to be imperialistic but certainly not anti-intellectual. I think I understand the republican platform better than you do. If you're going to ask me for evidence as to why arguing for any of those issues on a religious basis is anti-intellectual (hint: there are facts which contradict many of the ideas which give rise to opposition to abortion, such as the beginning of life biologically which scientists have not concluded on, BUT OH WAIT OUR RELIGION TELLS US OTHERWISE) you don't understand things as well as you think you do. And actually, ID in the classroom has become more and more an acceptable platform for Republicans to run on, and religious heavily influences why many people support Israel. Obviously that is not the only reason why the U.S. supports it, no shit. Again, ID was not on the republican platform. Clearly the party as a whole did not deem it an acceptable platform to run on. I don't know what you're getting at with regards to the beginning of life biologically. Everything is "Alive" biologically. The beginning of life biologically has nothing to do with being pro-choice/pro-life. A fertilized egg will almost always become a human being. Whether you believe that is worth protecting is entirely subjective and moral. What religion tells you merely influences morals, which we have established are NOT related to intellectualism. And the GOP (and democrats) support Israel to please jewish voters (Yes, religion influences them, support for a country is not anti-intellectual.) But they mostly support it for Jewish money and a military presence. You are arguing that religion is anti-intellectual, not that republicans are. Take your hate for religion somewhere else, preferably to /r/atheism from whence you came. Only if you call about half the time almost always: source(no interest in this particular argument but it's important to keep this fact in mind if you try to form an opinion about abortions) That's instantaneously, and what I'm talking about (I should have specified) is people who already know that they are pregnant (at which point the fetus will almost always become a human) and would require an abortion to get rid of it. My apologies.
In which case almost always means 80%-85%, which is worse than Romneys chances were if we are to believe Nate Silver ^^ (which is alright, just to specify)
[EDIT]: I know I sound like I'm nitpicking but consider that natural abortion has about the percentage of rolling a six with a dice. Not quite almost never.
|
On November 08 2012 04:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:43 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:41 Tarot wrote:On November 08 2012 04:32 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Feartheguru wrote:On November 08 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
well.
last night sucked.
the most infuriating part was hearing rush on the radio driving home this morning. That peice of shit motherf***er is the REASON we lost, and he's making EXCUSES. It's not hurricane Sandy that won it for Obama, Mr. Limbaugh, it's your dumb ass turning off moderates from ANY republican because YOU make an ass out of all of us. We should have won by double digits.
F*** that guy, and F*** all of talk radio. And F*** conservatives. This shit is on. The look on the NRSC guys' faces last night tells the whole story. The divide is coming much sooner than I originally thought. What happened to your "Reliable insider sources" and their "much more accurate polling. GG No Re. They were pretty accurate. I got 47/50 correct, my wrongs being VA, FL, CO. And considering those were the last 3 states called, I consider that a pretty accurate guess. I think the Dem turnout in the cities surprised a lot of people. Yet still less accurate than aggregating the polls. Let's be honest here, these races were decided by 50,000, 100,000, 120,000. Poll aggregation is an educated guess at that point no more than mine was. the polls' used pretty good D/R splits. that is vindicated by the results
Maybe you mistake me for holding someone else's views? Not sure what you're trying to argue here.
|
On November 08 2012 04:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:43 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:41 Tarot wrote:On November 08 2012 04:32 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Feartheguru wrote:On November 08 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
well.
last night sucked.
the most infuriating part was hearing rush on the radio driving home this morning. That peice of shit motherf***er is the REASON we lost, and he's making EXCUSES. It's not hurricane Sandy that won it for Obama, Mr. Limbaugh, it's your dumb ass turning off moderates from ANY republican because YOU make an ass out of all of us. We should have won by double digits.
F*** that guy, and F*** all of talk radio. And F*** conservatives. This shit is on. The look on the NRSC guys' faces last night tells the whole story. The divide is coming much sooner than I originally thought. What happened to your "Reliable insider sources" and their "much more accurate polling. GG No Re. They were pretty accurate. I got 47/50 correct, my wrongs being VA, FL, CO. And considering those were the last 3 states called, I consider that a pretty accurate guess. I think the Dem turnout in the cities surprised a lot of people. Yet still less accurate than aggregating the polls. Let's be honest here, these races were decided by 50,000, 100,000, 120,000. Poll aggregation is an educated guess at that point no more than mine was. Maths doesn't guess. That's why the maths was right and you were wrong. The aggregates provided a statistical analysis and the probability of a result along with a margin of error. I'd like to refer you to this xkcd. + Show Spoiler +
It's a shame the hover-over text doesn't show here.
'As of this writing, the only thing that is 'razor-thin' or 'too close to call' is the gap between the consensus poll forecast and the result.'
|
On November 08 2012 05:03 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:59 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2012 04:43 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:41 Tarot wrote:On November 08 2012 04:32 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Feartheguru wrote:On November 08 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
well.
last night sucked.
the most infuriating part was hearing rush on the radio driving home this morning. That peice of shit motherf***er is the REASON we lost, and he's making EXCUSES. It's not hurricane Sandy that won it for Obama, Mr. Limbaugh, it's your dumb ass turning off moderates from ANY republican because YOU make an ass out of all of us. We should have won by double digits.
F*** that guy, and F*** all of talk radio. And F*** conservatives. This shit is on. The look on the NRSC guys' faces last night tells the whole story. The divide is coming much sooner than I originally thought. What happened to your "Reliable insider sources" and their "much more accurate polling. GG No Re. They were pretty accurate. I got 47/50 correct, my wrongs being VA, FL, CO. And considering those were the last 3 states called, I consider that a pretty accurate guess. I think the Dem turnout in the cities surprised a lot of people. Yet still less accurate than aggregating the polls. Let's be honest here, these races were decided by 50,000, 100,000, 120,000. Poll aggregation is an educated guess at that point no more than mine was. Maths doesn't guess. That's why the maths was right and you were wrong. The aggregates provided a statistical analysis and the probability of a result along with a margin of error. I'd like to refer you to this xkcd. + Show Spoiler + It's a shame the hover-over text doesn't show here. 'As of this writing, the only thing that is 'razor-thin' or 'too close to call' is the gap between the consensus poll forecast and the result.'
You mean razor tight 
|
On November 08 2012 04:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:43 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:41 Tarot wrote:On November 08 2012 04:32 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Feartheguru wrote:On November 08 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
well.
last night sucked.
the most infuriating part was hearing rush on the radio driving home this morning. That peice of shit motherf***er is the REASON we lost, and he's making EXCUSES. It's not hurricane Sandy that won it for Obama, Mr. Limbaugh, it's your dumb ass turning off moderates from ANY republican because YOU make an ass out of all of us. We should have won by double digits.
F*** that guy, and F*** all of talk radio. And F*** conservatives. This shit is on. The look on the NRSC guys' faces last night tells the whole story. The divide is coming much sooner than I originally thought. What happened to your "Reliable insider sources" and their "much more accurate polling. GG No Re. They were pretty accurate. I got 47/50 correct, my wrongs being VA, FL, CO. And considering those were the last 3 states called, I consider that a pretty accurate guess. I think the Dem turnout in the cities surprised a lot of people. Yet still less accurate than aggregating the polls. Let's be honest here, these races were decided by 50,000, 100,000, 120,000. Poll aggregation is an educated guess at that point no more than mine was. Maths doesn't guess. That's why the maths was right and you were wrong. The aggregates provided a statistical analysis and the probability of a result along with a margin of error. I'd like to refer you to this xkcd. + Show Spoiler +
And? My point is that the ones I picked wrong were well within the margin of error. I'm not sure why you're being so condescending? Even Silver was less than 80% on the three I got wrong (which, btw mr condescending, is within the generally accepted MoE).
I told you guys that I saw a model that had Romney down 2.3% in PA. He lost by 5%. Somehow that makes me anti-math? WTF, remind me to never tell you guys interesting information I think you might want to hear.
|
On November 08 2012 04:54 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 08 2012 04:47 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 08 2012 04:19 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Risen wrote:On November 08 2012 04:14 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 03:39 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 03:30 BlueLanterna wrote:
[quote]
Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending.
edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure.
Check the video posted a few pages back, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson will TELL you that Bush helped out NASA. And arguing that religious morals are worse than any other morals (as you are doing) is useless. Morals are subjective. I can look at any set of morals and pull out dozens of terrible events that were caused by it. Thanks for all that evidence though. I don't really need to post any "evidence", it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need. See: Dominionism, the argument for ID in the classroom, the argument for being pro-life, the religious fervor over defending Isreal regardless of what it does, etc.. All anti-intellectual. That's what we're talking about here, not religion informing your values on a personal level, but electing a party where extreme religious views thrive and could ultimately influence policy. Also your argument for Republicans not being anti-intellectual shows a complete lack of understanding of their platform and messaging. Just because you may be right does not mean you shouldn't post sources or evidence. What a load of shit. The word "evidence" is being used in the sardonic sense, not the literal one you child. "it's obvious that injecting religious morals into the classroom, or into our foreign affairs, or into why we need to spend as much on defense as we are, is exactly what we don't need." You have anything that backs up that claim or are you still talking? Religious morals are, by their nature, incompatible with large, diverse populations. If you try to use religious justification for any kind of laws or customs, you are forcing your religious beliefs on someone else (e.g. if you ban gay marriage because of a Christian's perspective on marriage, you are forcing others to conform to a Christian definition of marriage). This is common sense and this is why we don't need or want religion in our politics. There are numerous ways to justify and explain morals in an inclusive way without resorting to religious principles. See, for example, most concepts of justice, fairness, etc. These are all widely held ideals that aren't specific to a religion or culture, and as such, we legislate based on these widespread definitions (of course, details are argued over, but the point is still there). You simply can't do this with religious justification. I, as a non-Christian, simply won't accept a Christian justification for banning gay marriage because I don't believe in Christian doctrine, and this situation is very common across such a diverse country as the U.S. This is why you don't need "evidence" (as in empirical evidence). This is a fairly common-sense idea that only takes a small amount of reflection. And yet there's people on both sides of the issue. So I guess it isn't as "common-sense" is it? Note the post I made after that one. The reasoning is common sense. Just because some people are immoral and want to force their religious beliefs on others doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't there or simple to understand. It doesn't require the "evidence" that you asked for; normative claims like this can't really have much evidence to begin with. I'm not just asking for evidence. I'm asking for your reasoning behind statements. Then people can argue with your reasoning instead of just going derp I disagree with your points. Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:51 BlueLanterna wrote:
Also Risen you are talking completely out of your ass, I never brought up any of these questions:
"What's obvious about pro-life being anti-intellectual? What's obvious about supporting israel no matter what being anti-intellectual? Why shouldn't we spend as much as we do on defense?"
I said using your religious morals to support any of these issues when facts directly contradict a given stance taken by those who are religious is anti-intellectual. Please read better thanks. Listen, I tried to help you out. If you want to continue looking like a jackass in thread so be it. I think anyone who's been reading this thread knows I agree with almost everything you said.
Listen, telling me what you think I should post when you don't even understand the context of what "evidence" is, then misconstruing my arguments isn't helping me out. As well as there being 1700+ pages of this thread (which I'm not going to go through to figure out your leanings), and in the past 10 pages, I've seen nothing like what you described.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 05:00 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 04:52 oneofthem wrote:On November 08 2012 04:43 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:41 Tarot wrote:On November 08 2012 04:32 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Feartheguru wrote:On November 08 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
well.
last night sucked.
the most infuriating part was hearing rush on the radio driving home this morning. That peice of shit motherf***er is the REASON we lost, and he's making EXCUSES. It's not hurricane Sandy that won it for Obama, Mr. Limbaugh, it's your dumb ass turning off moderates from ANY republican because YOU make an ass out of all of us. We should have won by double digits.
F*** that guy, and F*** all of talk radio. And F*** conservatives. This shit is on. The look on the NRSC guys' faces last night tells the whole story. The divide is coming much sooner than I originally thought. What happened to your "Reliable insider sources" and their "much more accurate polling. GG No Re. They were pretty accurate. I got 47/50 correct, my wrongs being VA, FL, CO. And considering those were the last 3 states called, I consider that a pretty accurate guess. I think the Dem turnout in the cities surprised a lot of people. Yet still less accurate than aggregating the polls. Let's be honest here, these races were decided by 50,000, 100,000, 120,000. Poll aggregation is an educated guess at that point no more than mine was. the polls' used pretty good D/R splits. that is vindicated by the results Maybe you mistake me for holding someone else's views? Not sure what you're trying to argue here. poll aggregates are more accurate if their sampling is good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
|
On November 08 2012 05:07 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 05:00 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:52 oneofthem wrote:On November 08 2012 04:43 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:41 Tarot wrote:On November 08 2012 04:32 BluePanther wrote:On November 08 2012 04:15 Feartheguru wrote:On November 08 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
well.
last night sucked.
the most infuriating part was hearing rush on the radio driving home this morning. That peice of shit motherf***er is the REASON we lost, and he's making EXCUSES. It's not hurricane Sandy that won it for Obama, Mr. Limbaugh, it's your dumb ass turning off moderates from ANY republican because YOU make an ass out of all of us. We should have won by double digits.
F*** that guy, and F*** all of talk radio. And F*** conservatives. This shit is on. The look on the NRSC guys' faces last night tells the whole story. The divide is coming much sooner than I originally thought. What happened to your "Reliable insider sources" and their "much more accurate polling. GG No Re. They were pretty accurate. I got 47/50 correct, my wrongs being VA, FL, CO. And considering those were the last 3 states called, I consider that a pretty accurate guess. I think the Dem turnout in the cities surprised a lot of people. Yet still less accurate than aggregating the polls. Let's be honest here, these races were decided by 50,000, 100,000, 120,000. Poll aggregation is an educated guess at that point no more than mine was. the polls' used pretty good D/R splits. that is vindicated by the results Maybe you mistake me for holding someone else's views? Not sure what you're trying to argue here. poll aggregates are more accurate if their sampling is good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
ok? still not getting what you disagree with.
|
On November 08 2012 04:08 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 03:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 08 2012 03:36 oneofthem wrote:
the republican target message for immigrants seem to be that they are for good family values and growing the economy.
kind of ignoring the fact that immigrants typically work low paying service jobs where labor rights is a real concern. it's democrats standing for that.
immigrant employing and owned local and small businesses suffer tax and regulatory burden while big guys have political influence to fight it off. to reduce this burden you have to balance the tax burden and actually collect the taxes long overdue. (the greece situation is a pretty nasty illustration of how chronic tax evasion can fuck your shit up) these trends have been going on for decades and won't reverse themselves without strong political action. this action certainly won't come from guys paid for by the same guys it is targeted against. There's always a political tradeoff though. Dems are better at protecting labor rights but Reps are better at making the playing field between small and big businesses level. Dems talk a good game on the second point, but their policies generally shift the advantage to the big players. gonna need more on that. i admit to be not a close watcher of actual policies. i am sympathetic to a party that counterbalances unwarranted expansion of government because there is a genuine political base for it. but it has to be not so inane to the livelihood of the general populace
Well, a lot of government regulations (SOX, Dodd-Frank, ACA) either outright favor big business (Dodd-Frank and too big to fail) over small business or simply hurt small business more because of high compliance costs.
Some government programs, like the solar panel tax credit, also favor big business because smaller firms don't have enough profits to take advantage of all the credits. So they have to sell them to big firms at a discount.
|
On November 08 2012 03:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 03:36 ragz_gt wrote:
I'm now kicking myself for missing ABC coverage yesterday... What was particular about ABC's coverage?
This happened:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/math.png )
