Jump to content
Which mob are you referring too? The Catholics, Lutherns, Evangelicals, Muslims, Home Schoolers, etc, etc. My family had 4 go to Catholic schools and my parents, both factory workers, paid the tuition on top of their property taxes. Whether you "approve" or not, there is the "collective"….. it's called society. One may choose to not participate in it, but at their own expense.
Also, what of the special needs children. Very few can afford the services they often require. Under your "plan", who and how would these services be made available if a large part of the tax base was returned?
Lastly, my guess is that most, if not all, of your Drs, lawyers, etc went to some form of "gubbermint" schools, yet you trust their education….. interesting.
Again, we chose to believe what we believe. We can not observe a species change because all of the minicule changes it takes to change specie occur over extreme lengths of time…. usually millions of years. I think the HIV virus might disagree with you that it's mutations have not helped it survive…. and many other examples. Yes, all science requires a certain amount of faith….. not as much as religiion, but faith note the less. That being said, I respect your beliefs all the while disagreeing with them. Again, I want to thank you for being civil. More on this forum should follow your example.
I was responding to your post addressed to me. Spending billions/trillions to "fix" the problem. It's never ceased to amaze me "we" have the money for war, corporate subsidies, etc, but not the money to address pollution, injustice or other issues. You referencing freedom of speech as an 18th century idea. Just pointing out it didn't exist then any more then than it does now. You didn't say anything to "set me off" other than the typical talking points of those that fear change and fear addressing the issues facing us as a country and as a planet. Lastly, your reference to an idiotic comment made by an idiot….. Gore. Intolerance??? Look to the religious fanatics within for the definition of intolerance. As far as Baltimore….. sorry, I would be with the protestors….. as I was when "the whole world was watching", Madison, WI and any other chance I got to challenge oppression. I don't agree with the destruction of property and/or violence, but I understand it. I wonder how many of the truely poor you have ever known in depth? How many poor of color have you ever taken the time to know their dreams, their challenges, their lives? Again, I don't condone, but I understand.
For some reason my response to you didn't post. I'll be brief. (er) I never said the Feds are the answer. I don't know if they have our best interest in mind or not. I do know that corporations, esp multi-nationals don't have our best interest in mind. Profit over people. That being said, there is a 3rd option. Us, we the people, have the power and the ability to stop the craziness on many topics. However, as long as we feed into the divide and conquer strategy and argue over irrelevant details, we will not have the solidarity to acheive anything. Who cares if CC is man made or not, it's destroying our planet. Who cares if GMO's are "safe" or not… our food supply is killing us. Who cares if Socialism has never worked and Capitalism is "the best"….. people are starving, wars over resource distribution are killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions, etc In other words, whatever the topic…. things are not working…… and those who have are having more and those that don't are dying. Divide and conquer is alive and well. All the rest is BS.
So true…. as a famous man once said "land of the weird, home of the strange" (HS Thompson)
First off, it is not "irrefutable" that cigarettes cause cancer, that we exist or even that we die. Pls… whenever terms like "irrefutable" are used, logic/discussion ends. If you're waiting for "irrefutable" proof, it's going to be a long wait. If you are religious, do you have "irrefutable" proof of your god? Correlation is probably the best one can expect in most topics, and even a high correlation "proves" nothing. You don't want to spend "billions" to fix an issue that very well could be the end of modern civilization, yet do you object to spending "billions" on killing "terrorist"? Keeping Iran from going nuke?.. or any other ideal you carry? Of course temps have fluctuated, climate has changed, etc. Also, of course it's possible is one of those cycles. As long as you speak in those terms, (isn't it possible?) nothing will ever be done abut anything. Correlation, probability, IMO, are much more reliable than "irrefutable" and "possibly". What troubles me most is the fanaticism deniers demonstrate, to the point where titans of industry (Kochs for instance) spend millions/billions??? promoting the fallacy of human driven global warming. Gore's an idiot…. only an idiot could lose to GW Bush (if he truely did) yet "deniers" hang on to the Gore thing like that alone refutes human driven global warming. About being silenced for denying a certain ideology….. should we talk about the Christian movement attempt to silence gays, trans, etc….. or how about non-believers??? Jackboots or crucifixes…. take your pick. Do you really think free speech existed in the 18th century?? Try yelling out you're a witch….. you're gay…..you're black…..you're a thinking woman…… in the 18th centruy. Need I go on????
I don't think I have ever said the "gubbermint"….( really????) was a solution to anything. I agree that Uncle Sam may or may not have mine and your best interest in mind, but I definitely don't think corporations, esp large multi-nationals, have our interest in mind either. There is a third option….. us, we the people. We have the ability to address issues that neither entity has. But to do that, we have to quit arguing among ourselves over stupid details (CC and projections, etc) and realize that division is the best way to keep groups from addressing issues. Divide and conquer is alive and well.
Fruit fly, flower, viral and many other species with short life spans have been used to demonstrate mutation and adaptation to new environments, stressors, etc….ie evolution. I am well aware that you will be able to find references that refute this research as proof of evolution. We believe what we want to believe. That being said, I favor science because at least it will say "we don't know the the complete story, we were wrong, we're not sure. I have rarely, if ever, heard that from the Abrahamic religions… (or any others for that matter). Ever since 2nd grade I was wondering what was the difference between saying "god" has always existed and matter/energy has always existed. I also understand you think evolution requires more faith. As I said, we chose what we will believe. I'm confused by folks with your beliefs when they go to science (medical in particular) to cure their ………(fill in the blank) instead of their god…… but then again, that's my issue, not yours.
Really Mark….really…the same standards? So creationism and the belief in the Abrahamic god are subject to empirical standards, observable, repeatable experiments, double blind studies and on and on. I don't think so. I was raised Catholic, but do not accept any faith at this time. However, I have always believed that when religious faith tries to "prove" their stance via scientific methods they lose credibility. Religious faith, by definition, does not avail itself to the empirical methods. As far as absolute proof, there is no such thing, even to your or my existence. To set anything to such a standard is to simply say we know with absolute proof nothing. To state that we have as much scientific proof of the existence of god as we do evolution is to either not understand the scientific method and evolution or to be in the state of denial. I want to stress I am not degrading religious belief or the validity of it, only the attempt to apply scientific methods to it. There is nothing wrong with having faith in things that are not verifiable via the scientific method, but to "force" the method where it doesn't fit is an act of desperation and lack of true faith…..IMHO of course. Thanx for the civil discourse. That is so lacking on these threads.
Thank you for giving an honest answer. Altho we could debate many aspect of your post, the fact that you will admit that deniers don't know what proof they would accept tells me it's agenda driving their stance, not scientific evidence. (probably true to a certain extent with CC promoters also) It's interesting that the 2 areas you use as comparisons are not scientific fields-economics and triage. I guess it comes down to how much validity someone gives to the scientific method as opposed to other systems of belief. I read something recently that may sum up "deniers" stance the best…. it's not climate change that bothers them, it's the necessary solutions. Again, thanx for the insight.
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.