Bill Nye and Evolution

[A.Nonymous]

It's one thing to support people. It's another thing to take away failure from them. If people never fail, they never learn IMO.

 

[PH8AL]

I would sum it up that to protect some one from themselves requires taking control of their personal affairs away from them so in general. Europeans long ago traded their freedom for protection from themselves so In my opinion are not very free at all. Being able to speak your mind is vital to freedom but is hardly the sum total of Freedom.

I lived in Germany when my wife was stationed there, we traveled a bit as well. I do know a bit about the system there. As a whole they are not as free legally as we are and definitely not free spirited as we are.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I have no stats to back this up, but I feel Americans take greater risks than Europeans.

As a whole they are not as free legally as we are and definitely not free spirited as we are.

I would say we are almost as free legally (however freedom of privacy takes precedence over freedom of speech in general, and people arent allowed be harassed so much), but as for the risks and free-spiritedness I would agree. People generally are a lot more reluctant to take risks in general with money.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I would say we are almost as free legally (however freedom of privacy takes precedence over freedom of speech in general, and people arent allowed be harassed so much), but as for the risks and free-spiritedness I would agree. People generally are a lot more reluctant to take risks in general with money.

And here we have a Presidential candidate who's job was to do just that.

 

[RazorSharp]

It's one thing to support people. It's another thing to take away failure from them. If people never fail, they never learn IMO.

So in your opinion, the government shouldn't have the power to provide monetary aid for those in need, but it should ipso facto have the power to teach people this terribly crucial "lesson" about failing? I get that we obviously have much different views about the role of government, but man, that's just harsh.

And here we have a Presidential candidate who's job was to do just that.

Oh yeah, and he did a real bang up job.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So in your opinion, the government shouldn't have the power to provide monetary aid for those in need, but it should ipso facto have the power to teach people this terribly crucial "lesson" about failing? I get that we obviously have much different views about the role of government, but man, that's just harsh.

Define "those in need."

 

[RazorSharp]

Define "those in need."

The unemployed, the impoverished, the homeless. The weakest members of society whose treatment is the measure by which a nation is judged, as Gandhi said.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The unemployed, the impoverished, the homeless. The weakest members of society whose treatment is the measure by which a nation is judged, as Gandhi said.

Depends on why they are there. I think we have a responsibility to care for the infirm and mentally disabled - people who can't physically work or are limited in their ability to work through no fault of their own. I'm basically talking about people who were born with their disabilities. We should take care of those people.

Beyond that, I'm not so sure we have an obligation to help people who failed to prepare, are just plain lazy, etc.... Think of it this way. Let's say you're teaching a kid to ride a bike. Is it good for the kid if you hold on to the bike the entire time and stay right there to catch the kid so they don't ever fall? But if you let go of the bike, the kid will almost certainly fall. We've all fallen off our bikes and got banged up. Some of us have even broken arms, legs, wrists, etc... or know kids who did. Sometimes failure hurts.

When you get to the point where people face no consequences for failure any more you're getting to the point where people are not served by government, they are merely kept.

 

[PH8AL]

While I do agree with some of what you are both saying it is a discussion on a slippery slope to a circle jerk partisian arguement. So.. back to BillKs take on evolution.

There is a lot to work out about the finer mechanisms of how things accomplish the job but I believe our understanding of genetics suppots evolution as a working Theory not a hypothesis. I believe that his beliefs are to one extreme and do go past what I would call fact.

But in genral I do believe in evolution because I can see what I consider conclusive evidence. My pitbull is case in point. If we can breed for characteristics in such a shrt time with results so succesful that you have nearly created a new subspecies then it is only logical that survival of the fittest would produce evolution of species given time by pure random accident. This paired with my belief that the Earth is infact around 4 billion years old is enough for me to say all life did evolve from common roots though possibly not from an alpha species. The same goo that created 1 single celled organism would have been capable of producing several alpha creatures that then evolved seperately.

 

[RazorSharp]

Depends on why they are there. I think we have a responsibility to care for the infirm and mentally disabled - people who can't physically work or are limited in their ability to work through no fault of their own. I'm basically talking about people who were born with their disabilities. We should take care of those people.

Beyond that, I'm not so sure we have an obligation to help people who failed to prepare, are just plain lazy, etc.

And how exactly do you propose the government should make sure that only the people that meet your qualifications are given aid?

 

[A.Nonymous]

And how exactly do you propose the government should make sure that only the people that meet your qualifications are given aid?

It's not that hard to figure out who is physically disabled and can't work. If charities want to care for the rest, I have no problems with that.

 

[RazorSharp]

It's not that hard to figure out who is physically disabled and can't work. If charities want to care for the rest, I have no problems with that.

Ah, I see, I didn't read your previous statement clearly enough. So you would dismantle all unemployment, welfare and homeless programs entirely, because everyone who needs it is a product of either being lazy or being unprepared? Have I got that right?

 

[ElasticNinja]

It's not that hard to figure out who is physically disabled and can't work. If charities want to care for the rest, I have no problems with that.

What about people who are mentally or economically disadvantaged?
Charities cant provide wealth transfers to double digit percentages of the population, the inefficiencies would be horrendous.

 

[cleanmop3]

This is why I still love Bill Nye. Eloquent, well thought out, to the point and has good reasoning along the way.

As far as welfare of any kind goes, mandatory drug testing would kick out A LOT of the people who are on it without good reason. To get most jobs, you have to submit drug testing, but to get FREE money (paid by those who've submitted to testing and work their asses off to see a lot of their paycheck go to taxes, some of it being for welfare) from the government, you only have to submit financial and/or medical records??

 

[RazorSharp]

As far as welfare of any kind goes, mandatory drug testing would kick out A LOT of the people who are on it without good reason. To get most jobs, you have to submit drug testing, but to get FREE money (paid by those who've submitted to testing and work their asses off to see a lot of their paycheck go to taxes, some of it being for welfare) from the government, you only have to submit financial and/or medical records??

In addition to the rather offensive suggestion that people who receive public aid are drug users, mandatory welfare drug testing violates the Constitution's protection against unwarranted searches - in the few states that have managed to enact laws like this, it's been bitterly and constantly fought.

Example: In Florida, one of the few states that's managed to shove this down its residents' throats, testing costs huge amounts of money and only weeds out roughly 2.5% of welfare applicants. Overall, the state loses money trying to do what you're suggesting, instead of saving.

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com

 

[cleanmop3]

In addition to the rather offensive suggestion that people who receive public aid are drug users, mandatory welfare drug testing violates the Constitution's protection against unwarranted searches - in the few states that have managed to enact laws like this, it's been bitterly and constantly fought.

Example: In Florida, one of the few states that's managed to shove this down its residents' throats, testing costs huge amounts of money and only weeds out roughly 2.5% of welfare applicants. Overall, the state loses money trying to do what you're suggesting, instead of saving.

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com

I was implying that the ones using it without a good reason are probably using drugs. I've known plenty of drug addicts who are on disability, unemployememt and food stamps.

I find it hilariously unfair that people who actually work must submit to tests, but those who use welfare out of laziness don't have to.

I honestly can't believe that statistic. There are some people who put themselves in the position to stay on welfare for years and even decades. One drug test to weed that parasite out would not be nearly as costly as it would for taxpayers to continue supporting them.

Most military personnel earn at least half their income from the government, and get health care. They all submit to drug testing. I think if you earn money from the government in anyway makes you free game for testing.

If you get in an accident at work, you get drug tested because there was a cause for concern. If someone on welfare has obvious meth mouth, that should be a cause for concern because the working class are inadvertently supporting their addiction.

Sucks that natural selection can't do its job, anymore.

 

[RazorSharp]

I find it hilariously unfair that people who actually work must submit to tests, but those who use welfare out of laziness don't have to.

The reason your employer can make you take a drug test is because they are not the government and they are not bound by the Fourth Amendment. Don't like being drug tested by your employer? Form a union and put it in the union contract that your employer cannot drug test you without probable cause. To simplify this, the government cannot search your person (drug testing is considered searching your person) without probable cause. Being poor is not probable cause.

I honestly can't believe that statistic. There are some people who put themselves in the position to stay on welfare for years and even decades.

And clearly those people are in the vast, tiny minority.

One drug test to weed that parasite out would not be nearly as costly as it would for taxpayers to continue supporting them.

Oh? And how would you find that one person to administer the drug test to? Lucky guesses? Russian roulette?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Ah, I see, I didn't read your previous statement clearly enough. So you would dismantle all unemployment, welfare and homeless programs entirely, because everyone who needs it is a product of either being lazy or being unprepared? Have I got that right?

No. Said programs still are needed to provide for the mentally disabled and infirm. Those people lack the physical capabilities to take care of themselves. I feel we, as a society, have an obligation to take care of them. But I would cut a lot of those programs back by a lot.

What about people who are mentally or economically disadvantaged?
Charities cant provide wealth transfers to double digit percentages of the population, the inefficiencies would be horrendous.

Wealth transfers are not needed. To me it reprehensible to take something from someone who has and give it to someone who has not for no other reason than because that person has not. You would advocate taking from someone who has for no reason other than that they have. Then you're going to turn around give to someone who has not just because they have not. And on top of that you're going to use the force of government to do so.

 

[cleanmop3]

I

The reason your employer can make you take a drug test is because they are not the government and they are not bound by the Fourth Amendment. Don't like being drug tested by your employer? Form a union and put it in the union contract that your employer cannot drug test you without probable cause. To simplify this, the government cannot search your person (drug testing is considered searching your person) without probable cause. Being poor is not probable cause.

And clearly those people are in the vast, tiny minority.

Oh? And how would you find that one person to administer the drug test to? Lucky guesses? Russian roulette?

Yes, but your employer can also be the government, the same government that pays people on welfare.
Plenty of government workers have random drug tests that require no probable cause.

I'm not saying that being poor should grant a drug test. I'm saying people who abuse the system and are clearly doing so (I. E lying about work and/or using it to fuel their drug/shopping addiction) should be drug tested.

You'd be surprised at how many people are abusing this flawed system.

Again, probable cause. Look at their finances.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the prison system.

 

[RazorSharp]

No. Said programs still are needed to provide for the mentally disabled and infirm. Those people lack the physical capabilities to take care of themselves. I feel we, as a society, have an obligation to take care of them. But I would cut a lot of those programs back by a lot.

And what is to become of the people that rely on those programs, whether or not they meet your criteria? Your cuts would almost certainly desert some people that would still qualify should your rules become law. Homelessness and crime would shoot through the roof.

The answer is not to simply slash welfare/unemployment/any other social net, it's expanding the economy and the job market through stimulation and proper regulation of the private sector. The more people with jobs, the less that will require aid.

Yes, but your employer can also be the government, the same government that pays people on welfare.
Plenty of government workers have random drug tests that require no probable cause.

All government workers are union, and have thus approved a contract that allows for drug testing, waiving their applicable rights.

I'm not saying that being poor should grant a drug test. I'm saying people who abuse the system and are clearly doing so (I. E lying about work and/or using it to fuel their drug/shopping addiction) should be drug tested.
Again, probable cause. Look at their finances.

And how do you propose the government goes about acquiring this information? What methods can you suggest that wouldn't be a massive invasion of privacy? Probable cause is needed to access financial records, and being poor, again, is not probable cause.

You'd be surprised at how many people are abusing this flawed system.

Actually, the numbers and your previous post indicate that you're the one surprised how many aren't abusing the system.

 

[cleanmop3]

I don't think you see what I'm getting at. The government supplies money to people who work and people who don't. They're inconsistent with the way they treat both groups.

The government can aquire any of its peoples personal information without the knowledge or permission of the people in question, now, taking action brings us to a whole different point. We all know the government is corrupt and probably prefers its people to depend on it for basic survival.

Welfare recipients are supposed to report any major financial changes, which some dont, thus making the system that less beneficial to the people who really need it.

Let's say you work in a welfare office and a guy who has obvious physical and behavioral clues to his addiction comes in. Let's also say you've reviewed his paperwork and have gathered that he's been using for years and has no intention of cessation.

Let's put you in the scenario again, but with a pregnant mother of 9. Let's say you've reviewed her records, as well, and you discover she's in debt with no intention of working making it painfully obvious to you that she's only having children to live off the government.

Would you feel comfortable granting welfare in either of these scenarios?

I see how many people go to grocery stores on the first of the month, and I see how many are buying the most frivolous things.

 

[syi]

Bill nye is a timelord. That is all.

 

[RazorSharp]

I don't think you see what I'm getting at. The government supplies money to people who work and people who don't. They're inconsistent with the way they treat both groups.

You're correct, the people who work make far more. Most welfare programs are intended to be a bare essentials stipend for those transitioning through the workforce.

Also, I'm not going to bother addressing any of your scenarios - as the numbers state, cases of blatant abuse are clearly the minority.

We all know the government is corrupt and probably prefers its people to depend on it for basic survival.

Ah. Well here's the crux of the problem, obviously.

I see how many people go to grocery stores on the first of the month, and I see how many are buying the most frivolous things.

You realize that people besides welfare recipients get checks on the first of the month, right? Like, oh, I don't know... most people with jobs?

 

[syi]

The man above me speaks the truth! I and my family have been off and on foodstamps. Nothing really changes except the brand. I have several friends who work in grocery either as manager or clerk. Not everyone is paying with foodstamps on the first. Fyi most people don't get them on the first.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Wealth transfers are not needed. To me it reprehensible to take something from someone who has and give it to someone who has not for no other reason than because that person has not. You would advocate taking from someone who has for no reason other than that they have. Then you're going to turn around give to someone who has not just because they have not. And on top of that you're going to use the force of government to do so.

Look, the current distribution of wealth in the US is inherently unfair. Only government can fix it.