Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Like Tree6Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old August 27th, 2012, 01:30 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
mriff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 41
 
Device(s): RAZR MAXX
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 10
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Bill Nye and Evolution

Realizing that this could be a fairly touchy subject, what are your thoughts about this Bill Nye the Science Guy YouTube video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gHbYJfwFgOU
Stinky Stinky likes this.

Advertisements
mriff is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mriff For This Useful Post:
Stinky Stinky (September 2nd, 2012)
sponsored links
Old August 27th, 2012, 10:06 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mriff View Post
Realizing that this could be a fairly touchy subject, what are your thoughts about this Bill Nye the Science Guy YouTube video?

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube
Fundamentalist cultures/religions are opposed to this science because it conflicts with the basis of their power and wealth.

Creation and evolution in public education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Globally, evolution is taught in science courses with limited controversy, with the exception of a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries."
PH8AL and mriff like this.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2012, 07:09 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Has absolutely nothing at all to do with money and power. Most churches have neither. Heck, half of southern Baptist ministers are bi-vocational. I don't think that stat changes much across the rest of the denominations. Having worked with quite a few churches in my city I can tell you that most of them are not drowning in money or drunk with political power. They oppose evolution simply because it conflicts with their view of the universe. Nothing more sinister than that.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2012, 02:26 PM   #4 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Does it need to be more sinister than that? Not trying to offend but as some one who believes in evolution because of scientific method I believe it is inherently harmful to propogate theories that are unsound in the face of scientific fact. We can argue many points about certain evolutionary theories but the jist of it is not only proven but used widely in medicinal procedures that save countless lives every year including the lives of those who would deny it.
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 06:22 AM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Americans have some sort of deep distrust of science, which is fairly ironic, as its science that helped make (along with abundant natural resources and stable government) great. You know, nowhere else in the developed world is man-made global warming or evolution up for debate. Yet in in the US, just one Republican candidate (who had no chance), endorsed science on AGW, and most of the candidates want creationism to be taught to kids. I had a Catholic monk for a religion teacher, and he said that creationism was simply a way of explaining gods effect on the world to illiterate peasants, and that the world was billions of years old.
Dammit America.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ElasticNinja For This Useful Post:
cleanmop3 (August 31st, 2012), downthemachine (September 2nd, 2012), Gmash (August 29th, 2012)
Old August 29th, 2012, 07:06 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Americans have some sort of deep distrust of science, which is fairly ironic, as its science that helped make (along with abundant natural resources and stable government) great. You know, nowhere else in the developed world is man-made global warming or evolution up for debate. Yet in in the US, just one Republican candidate (who had no chance), endorsed science on AGW, and most of the candidates want creationism to be taught to kids. I had a Catholic monk for a religion teacher, and he said that creationism was simply a way of explaining gods effect on the world to illiterate peasants, and that the world was billions of years old.
Dammit America.
We Americans have a deep distrust of EVERYTHING. It's not just science. It extends to the government (state, local and federal) and many private companies as well. We tend to trust companies more than we trust governments, but not a whole lot more.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 07:11 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
We Americans have a deep distrust of EVERYTHING. It's not just science. It extends to the government (state, local and federal) and many private companies as well. We tend to trust companies more than we trust governments, but not a whole lot more.
Thats kinda tragic though, isnt it?
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 07:38 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Thats kinda tragic though, isnt it?
Is it? We Americans are an independent sort. As such we tend to trust ourselves, our friends/family, people we know, etc.... We distrust those we don't know and who probably don't have our best interests at heart. I don't know that that's a bad thing. I can't imagine living in a country where everyone trusted the government to take care of them and do what's right. To me that is bizarre.
PH8AL likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 07:43 AM   #9 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I can't imagine living in a country where everyone trusted the government to take care of them and do what's right. To me that is bizarre.
Very!
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:07 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,655
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,221
Thanked 1,509 Times in 1,156 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
We Americans have a deep distrust of EVERYTHING. It's not just science. It extends to the government (state, local and federal) and many private companies as well. We tend to trust companies more than we trust governments, but not a whole lot more.
I trust the government more than a corporation simply because the government is accountable to the voters. Corporations are accountable to no one except the almighty dollar.
__________________
"Machete don't text"
Gmash is online now  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:15 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmash View Post
I trust the government more than a corporation simply because the government is accountable to the voters. Corporations are accountable to no one except the almighty dollar.
I think you'd probably be in a minority, but I could be wrong.

Here's a perfect example. Let's say it comes out that Google is using your phone to track you everywhere you go so it has a history of where you have been and how long you have been there. How upset are you? Now, say it comes out that the feds are using your phone to track you the exact same way. Which of these privacy stories makes you more upset/concerned?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:27 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,655
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,221
Thanked 1,509 Times in 1,156 Posts
Default

I can vote out the government, I can't vote out Google.
Gmash is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:36 AM   #13 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

No you can do something to google the Gov will jail you for. Not give them your money.
Both collapse with out funding.
Personally I do trust google more because of why they want this info. To sell me something. Why does the Gov want it? Google is a service the Gov is a buracracy put in place to rule us.
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:41 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Is it? We Americans are an independent sort. As such we tend to trust ourselves, our friends/family, people we know, etc.... We distrust those we don't know and who probably don't have our best interests at heart. I don't know that that's a bad thing. I can't imagine living in a country where everyone trusted the government to take care of them and do what's right. To me that is bizarre.
Would it not be nice to be able to have some level of faith in something though?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
Why does the Gov want it? Google is a service the Gov is a buracracy put in place to rule us.
The world would be a pretty shitty place with governments though, could live without Google at least.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:50 AM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I would be upset at both especially if there was no disclosure to me of what was going on. I would be less upset at Google for the reason's Ph8l listed. I know why Google is after this information. I have no idea why the feds would want it.

But let's look at something that neither should have access to. Let's say it was revealed that if you installed Google Toolbar it installed a tracker that Google used to track your financial information when you went to a bank, broker's web site, investment site, etc.... Now Google has business knowing how much money you've got in your bank account. None at all. But suppose it was revealed that the feds were doing the exact same thing and gathering the exact same information. Which privacy breach are you more upset about?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 09:51 AM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Would it not be nice to be able to have some level of faith in something though?
Sure, but wouldn't it be great if unicorns flew around and crapped rainbows too?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 10:15 AM   #17 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Elastic

Our society holds self reliance and contempt of rule as some of its highest virtues. A person who believes themself free will have a natural mistrust of anything that questions that freedom.
We celebrate criminals and we love violence we are only a few generations removed from ancestors who conquered a continent and then saved the world from Tyrany twice.

What you are saying is illogical to us on a base level.

To answer your question directly, No, I see that as dangerous on the scale of the Nazi party. 1984!
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 11:18 AM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
Elastic

Our society holds self reliance and contempt of rule as some of its highest virtues.
Is that a good thing though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
A person who believes themself free will have a natural mistrust of anything that questions that freedom
And do you truly believe you are freer than I?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
We celebrate criminals and we love violence we are only a few generations removed from ancestors who conquered a continent and then saved the world from Tyrany twice.
Germany, the Ottomons, and Austria-Hungary may not have been entirely democratic, but they were far from tyrannical.
Regarding WWII, yes thanks very much.
They didnt have much to conquer from to be fair, I mean guns versus spears? And then said ancestors decided they didnt want to pay tax for protection and wanted to take over Indian land their King had promised they wouldnt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
To answer your question directly, No, I see that as dangerous on the scale of the Nazi party. 1984!
Its not 1984 when we have a free media and internet, and have the ability to reach any position in society. And it certainly isnt Nazi Germany. Maybe you dont know any people related to Holocaust victims.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 12:13 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
Elastic

Our society holds self reliance and contempt of rule as some of its highest virtues. A person who believes themself free will have a natural mistrust of anything that questions that freedom.
We celebrate criminals and we love violence we are only a few generations removed from ancestors who conquered a continent and then saved the world from Tyrany twice.

What you are saying is illogical to us on a base level.

To answer your question directly, No, I see that as dangerous on the scale of the Nazi party. 1984!
I have to agree with Ph8l here. This basically sums up the American mindset. Yes, it's more complicated than this, but this is a basic summation of how Americans think of things.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 12:27 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Is that a good thing though?
And do you truly believe you are freer than I?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd say yes and yes. Those are two of the things that make Americans great. We like to think that we can do anything no matter what the rules say. Many times we fail and fall on our faces, but we still think that.

Quote:
And then said ancestors decided they didnt want to pay tax for protection and wanted to take over Indian land their King had promised they wouldnt.
No, said ancestors objected to a tyrannical king taxing us without giving us any say in the matter. We came to the point where we no longer needed a king or his "protection". Nor did we need any of the trappings that went with it.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 29th, 2012, 12:53 PM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd say yes and yes. Those are two of the things that make Americans great. We like to think that we can do anything no matter what the rules say. Many times we fail and fall on our faces, but we still think that.
But this is a mindset, not actual freedom. I would agree that Europeans tend to look at things and go "Oh, thats too risky, that'll never take off", but Americans are no more free to try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
No, said ancestors objected to a tyrannical king taxing us without giving us any say in the matter. We came to the point where we no longer needed a king or his "protection". Nor did we need any of the trappings that went with it.
Tyrannical? I'm not sure American's understand the concept.
American's got upset that they had to help pay for a war waged for them, against New France. The British decided to expansion by the Americans, to reduce expenditure on defence, and this was not conductive to many individuals interests.

TL;DR, the story of one sided tyranny thats oft trumpeted is awful harsh.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 02:22 PM   #22 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
But this is a mindset, not actual freedom. I would agree that Europeans tend to look at things and go "Oh, thats too risky, that'll never take off", but Americans are no more free to try.


Tyrannical? I'm not sure American's understand the concept.
American's got upset that they had to help pay for a war waged for them, against New France. The British decided to expansion by the Americans, to reduce expenditure on defence, and this was not conductive to many individuals interests.

TL;DR, the story of one sided tyranny thats oft trumpeted is awful harsh.
Freedom is a perception, its a construct of the mind that can be validated by reality but does not need to be so yes by the fact we believe we are freer we are.

There was a lot more to it than taxes. Taxation with out representation was key but hardly the whole of it.
The fact we were prohibited from manufacturing goods with our resources for 1. That was to protect British manufactures from much the same thing that has happened with China and American industry today.

The French and Indian war was not fought on behalf of our colonists nor for their benefit, it was a minor front in an Empirical war between 2 world powers in Europe. On top of that most who fought on the Brit side were colonists.
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 08:47 AM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I have to agree with Ph8l here. This basically sums up the American mindset.
Uh what? Please don't lump all Americans in together. What Ph8l suggested is most certainly not how I feel. I may mistrust certain elected politicians, to be sure, but the government as a whole I do not consider to be a hostile entity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd say yes and yes. Those are two of the things that make Americans great. We like to think that we can do anything no matter what the rules say.
Yikes.

A) That's what you think makes us "freer" than Europe?
B) Are you implying that Europeans do not have freedom of speech?
__________________
These teeth are razor sharp...
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 09:51 AM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
Uh what? Please don't lump all Americans in together. What Ph8l suggested is most certainly not how I feel. I may mistrust certain elected politicians, to be sure, but the government as a whole I do not consider to be a hostile entity.
I never said it was a hostile entity. I said Americans tend to mistrust the government in general. I think that much is true. I'm sure there are people out there who deeply trust all government the way they'd trust their grandmother. I think those people are a minority and crazy/naive to boot. I think it's accurate to say that the vast majority of Americans tend to trust corporations and distrust government.

Quote:
Yikes.

A) That's what you think makes us "freer" than Europe?
B) Are you implying that Europeans do not have freedom of speech?
Yes. We have the freedom to fail. I'm no expert on Europe, but I see no many safety nets out there for people that no one ever truly fails or flops. Without failure you never learn. I have no stats to back this up, but I feel Americans take greater risks than Europeans.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 10:01 AM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

"[S]afety nets out there for people that no one ever truly fails or flops".. yeah, that sounds just terrible. How dare they want to support their citizens.
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 10:37 AM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

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.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 11:24 AM   #27 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

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.
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 11:41 AM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I have no stats to back this up, but I feel Americans take greater risks than Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
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.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Last edited by ElasticNinja; August 31st, 2012 at 11:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 11:49 AM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
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.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 01:00 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
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.
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 31st, 2012, 01:01 PM   #31 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
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."
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 01:12 PM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
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.
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 01:57 PM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
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.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 02:21 PM   #34 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

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.
PH8AL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 02:31 PM   #35 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
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?
RazorSharp is offline  
Last edited by RazorSharp; August 31st, 2012 at 02:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 03:02 PM   #36 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
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.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 03:06 PM   #37 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
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?
RazorSharp is offline  
Last edited by RazorSharp; August 31st, 2012 at 04:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 05:09 PM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
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.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 05:24 PM   #39 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
cleanmop3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 46
 
Device(s): HTC EVO 4G LTE
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 33
Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
Default

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??
cleanmop3 is offline  
Last edited by cleanmop3; August 31st, 2012 at 05:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 05:56 PM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 31st, 2012, 06:31 PM   #41 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
cleanmop3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 46
 
Device(s): HTC EVO 4G LTE
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 33
Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
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.
cleanmop3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 06:52 PM   #42 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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?
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 07:08 PM   #43 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
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.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 07:13 PM   #44 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
cleanmop3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 46
 
Device(s): HTC EVO 4G LTE
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 33
Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
Default

I
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
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.
cleanmop3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 07:23 PM   #45 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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.
RazorSharp is offline  
Last edited by RazorSharp; August 31st, 2012 at 07:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 07:55 PM   #46 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
cleanmop3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 46
 
Device(s): HTC EVO 4G LTE
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 33
Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
Default

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.
cleanmop3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 08:03 PM   #47 (permalink)
syi
Senior Member
 
syi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 574
 
Device(s): HTC evo 4G LTE
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 32
Thanked 58 Times in 47 Posts
Send a message via Skype™ to syi
Default

Bill nye is a timelord. That is all.
EarlyMon likes this.
syi is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to syi For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (August 31st, 2012)
Old August 31st, 2012, 08:34 PM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanmop3 View Post
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?
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 09:35 PM   #49 (permalink)
syi
Senior Member
 
syi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 574
 
Device(s): HTC evo 4G LTE
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 32
Thanked 58 Times in 47 Posts
Send a message via Skype™ to syi
Default

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.
syi is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2012, 02:11 AM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
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.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.