Y2HH

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) I don't disagree with anthropological global warming, please point to where I have said that. My question, which I don't know the answer to, is the extent of it. Are we the only cause of the warming? Is it part of a general trend? I'm SKEPTICAL. I'm not a denier, I'm just not convinced. Sue me. I don't want the government to jump into yet another facet of my life and require me to spend more money when I don't believe the issue has been fully decided yet. Again, what a TERRIBLE position to hold. And my beef is when Al Gore makes a puff piece scaring liberals into believing the world was going to produce multiple Katrina hurricanes EVERY YEAR (hasn't happened yet, shocker) and that millions would die. And I rarely if ever play the Al Gore Hoax. Again that was to feed your unfounded fear of some vast conspiracy. You seem to think this small minority of conservatives are hell bent on what, removing science from our lives? Pushing their beliefs on everyone? I don't even know. And MOST people DON'T reject it. MOST people agree that something is going on. And that environmental thing is such bulls***. It's not 1960 anymore. In the last decade or so there's been a huge shift to understanding that what we do with our waste, our power plants, our everything takes it's toll. And most people have accepted change in their lives. And you're right, most don't reject it on an intellectual basis. But since when do you have to be an expert on any given topic to have an opinion? I take it you deferred to the knowledge and experience of a guy like Cheney when he was pushing for the Iraq invasion? Oh right, you were sitting on the internet reading some reports about how what he said might not be the case and then you formed an opinion. Sounds familiar. I agree with the general idea of this, too. Global warming exists, always has, just as the Earth goes through periods of cooling. Anyone outright denying that the Earth is currently on a warming trend is just being ignorant for one reason or another. That said, these cycles have been shown to happen both before and after human involvement...so color me skeptical as to how much we've contributed to this current warming trend. To clarify, do I believe that humans contributed to some extent? I'd say yes, but not to the extent others are trying to lay blame on us for. I think in some cases, our egos can outdo our actual abilities...and this is one of those cases as far as I'm concerned. And no, I don't care if people agree with my opinion on this or not...that's why it's an opinion.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 01:52 PM) Thanks for the replies everybody! Yeah, that's our problem. If we're gonna spend that much time on the dive boat, it makes it hard to see much else considering the distance between everything. We're hoping to hit a couple of other cool things while realizing we'll also miss lots of great stuff. In relative size, Australia is pretty much the same exact size as the US. So driving from one area to another (such as the Outback) is quite a trek. Keep in mind what I said about the seasons...but so long as you remain near the Northern coast you should be ok...but Sydney won't be very warm that time of year.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:35 AM) I think the majority of the people who believe in creationism also agree with a certain amount of evolution. If Beck actually believes that no evolution of any kind exists, then sure, he's an idiot. But I doubt that's what he thinks. He'd probably never say it, because he's selling himself to a target audience which probably doesn't believe in evolution, at all...even if he does.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:33 AM) The existence of God/Gods isn't even a theory. You know I'm not a deist, so you won't get an argument on that with me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:32 AM) Scientific theories don't "progress" to become facts. Facts are simply pieces of data. Theories are possible explanations. And they can be shown to be the best known explanation for known data and a good predictor for future data. Proofs are left for mathematicians. That's how science works, and that's a little different than "is there a god?!?!" Fixed that for you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:28 AM) That and Sagan's "Dragon in my Garage" are pretty standard go-to's for me. There really is no comparison between belief in a well-established scientific theory and religious belief. It's equivocation at it's finest. Even if it's a well-established theory, it's still just a theory, and has yet to be proven as scientific fact. It cannot be proven right or wrong any more than the existence of God/Gods at that point...and that's the problem. After it's been proven, it's another story altogether.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:19 AM) Well, if you're talking about me specifically, i'm not religious at all, so I have no horse in this race. I hate both sides for this very reason. I think the Pope is every bit as close-minded as your precious scientists. Both are equally self-rightous about their beliefs. It's just more annoying from people like you because you bring intelligence into the debate, as if questioning science makes you a dumb person. That's bulls***. And that's not being anti-science. That's being a neutral observer that science can only get you so far and that it still requires faith to believe the theory. Science is wrong all the time. Is it a better system than believing what a book written 2000 years ago tells you? Sure? But that doesn't mean it's wrong to question it. It doesn't make it the de facto right answer. Is it dumb to denounce evolution? Sure. But it's equally dumb to claim that it's the only possible answer and that any other potential answer is just stupid people who hate using logic to answer questions (or as SS puts it, people who rely on emotion and religious belief). The first bolded just screams pot meet kettle btw. If you're using global popularity of a belief, religion has science beat pretty easily. Questioning scientific theory is one thing...questioning proven scientific fact is another. For example, gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact, you cannot question it's existence. That said, there is a LOT of scientific theory taken as fact...questioning such science, IMO, is not bad, and it's probably what you actually meant to convey here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) Nah, internal memos show they're unabashedly biased and without journalist integrity. Oh, to throw some more logs on the anti-intellectual fire, I'll just say: I'll note here...you didn't explain it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) NPR doesn't think NPR leans left. Just like Fox doesn't believe Fox leans right.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 8, 2011 -> 09:06 PM) http://www.themedguru.com/20091206/newsfea...y-86131320.html I call this study bunk from total anecdotal and irrefutable evidence. Chinese people seem to live to be 105, and their women aren't known for toting around "boobs" like the ones in that picture.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) I'm watching Ken Burns' Civil War this week so I'm a little hyper-sensitive to this country's terrible racist past. You should be hyper-sensitive to this country's terrible and current racist present.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:56 AM) Are we talking about Democrats or liberals? Important distinction! Again, one of the main tenants of American liberalism is anti-racism and pro-social-justice. Gun-toting racists don't really fit in that mold, but they do fit in the crazy fringe survivalist libertarian minarchy mold. Well, liberals that properly classify themselves as such, not them. But there are many that have no idea what being a liberal is, and they classify themselves as one, when they aren't. I don't know what the ratio of racists is in the republican vs democratic party is, and frankly, I don't care what it is...the sad truth is, it exists, and it exists on both sides...in 2011. That's the truly sad part. If anything, I'm racist against BigSqwert. He's an Android user and I'm a iOS user. Clearly, I'm superior to him. ;D

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:52 AM) We're talking about the party of inclusiveness, right? I'm sure there are some racists included but I'd venture to guess the ratio is exponentially smaller. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:48 AM) Ok, even if I concede this equivalence to you, doesn't that just mean the gun-toting racists statement wasn't really all that bad, just a little hyperbolic and otherwise inconsequential? I think it is inconsequential, however, it's also ignorant. When someone says, Tea-Partiers are gun toting racists, but say nothing of the racists in their own party, to me, that makes them a hypocrite, and again, conveniently ignorant.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:48 AM) No one said that either - or at least I didn't. Intellectual is not the same as intelligent, they are two different words with two different meanings. Purposefully ignorant versus anti-intellectual, sure, I'll agree that semantics. But intelligence is a different thing. Fine, that's what I meant...sorry it got lost in translation here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:47 AM) Who's saying that? You and jenks keep bringing in these terms. Oh, nevermind.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:43 AM) I'll give it a shot. You're elitist when you're slightly better at everything, can get better seats, have a better car, or know better people. Fixed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:41 AM) I'd imagine that's a pretty rare duck since anti-racism is sort of a key part of being a liberal and being anti-gun is pretty common. But I'm sure there's plenty of racist, gun-toting Democrats. Look, it's not like everyone who disapproves of Obama is racist. But there are a lot of racist people pissed at Obama, and they get wrapped up in the main anti-Obama movement, which is the tea party. My point was this sort of garbage exists on both sides. There a lot of racist people that voted for Obama and love Obama for no reason other than he's black, they know nothing of his politics, nothing of his history, and care nothing of how educated he is. These ignorant types exist on both sides.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:39 AM) Never said that, never would. To me, purposefully ignorant, and expecting others to be the same, is the same thing as anti-intellectual. That was my point. Its not about smart versus dumb/ This shows most of us are simply arguing semantics at this point. When people say intelligent vs anti-intelligent, I personally read that as the SAME as smart vs dumb.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:31 AM) I think it is. Rejection of evolution and belief in creationism requires the rejection of the best-known system for understanding the world around us in favor of emotional beliefs. Keep in mind how many of them campaign to get evolution out of schools or, at the very least, creationism put in. It's anti-intellectual at its core. Exactly what I said. And it's called ignorance.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:31 AM) There's a lot of gun-toting racists who hate the President and have adopted the Tea Party label. There are gun toting racists that are Liberal Democrats, too. You just don't know any...but that doesn't meant they don't exist.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) Anyone who actively and routinely denounces and derides science and rejects evolution in favor of creationism is anti-intellectual, yes. I don't think calling them anti-intellectual is proper in this case. I know some VERY smart people who are very religious...it doesn't make them anti-intellectual as much as, IMO, it makes the purposefully ignorant, in that they are choosing to "ignore certain things", because, to them, their faith means that much to them. Calling them stupid, IMO, is equally ignorant.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) No, I still think you need to explain how the VP of fundraising exerted influence over editorial control of NPR's news programs. Just saying "VP's pal around, of course he did!" doesn't really count. Of course not...but pretending he had no influence at all is silly. While it would be impossible to list specifics (and you know this), sticking your head in the sand and pretending there was no way he had influence as a money raiser isn't smart, either.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) No, I still think you need to explain how the VP of fundraising exerted influence over editorial control of NPR's news programs. Just saying "VP's pal around, of course he did!" doesn't really count. I edited my post while you were responding. Bottom line is this kind of behavior is expected at the top...and it's a non issue as far as I'm concerned.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) CEO resigned=this exec had editorial control? Explain that please. It doesn't need to be explained. Have you ever worked for a big corporation, or even a small one? Executives of all sorts tend to have more influence over unrelated departments than you would think. I've seen this at *every* company I've ever worked for, be it the CFO, the VP, the IT Director, whatever the case may be...the guys/gals at the top all tend to pal around and influence each other in one way or another... To pretend he had no influence a all...get real. I don't think this needs to be made into a big deal, however...it's not like Fox, NBC, CNN, etc...don't all do it, too. By now, people should know there is slant to what they're listening too, and regardless of what they listen too, they should realize that they need to think and decide for themselves after further research...taking anything, from any source as pure fact these days (especially with the existence of the Internet), is just stupid to me.