Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

maure

Banning Water To Stop Climate Warming

Recommended Posts


Someone finally bothered to write it up:

MSM Inertia: What We Can Learn from 120 Years of Climate Catastrophe Reporting

The media falls in love with catastrophic predictions, and is consistently 10-15 years behind(!) in reporting on what the global temperature is actually doing.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/msm-inertia-what-we-can-learn-from-120-years-of-climate-catastrophe-reporting/?singlepage=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed!

I have always felt need that governments of the world introduce law that will require certain (higher) level of intelligence as binding condition to get right to vote. But then, who would vote for them?! Well, that is life. Those lucky ones have privilege to observe the sky in search of intelligent life , while rest of us are doomed to search for it on Earth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to happen. Everyone, regardless of their intelligence level should have the right to be represented in democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to happen. Everyone, regardless of their intelligence level should have the right to be represented in democracy.

Where's the political party for aborted fetuses and embryos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the political party for aborted fetuses and embryos?

Right wing Christians my friend :P always arguing about protecting life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing Christians my friend :P always arguing about protecting life

No, where/how are they represented in democracy?

What about left wing Christians? What about center wing Christians? What about Christians?

What about people? Do we have the right to decide who can be born and who can't? What law is that?

Why should not democracy limit suffrage to the intelectually disabled?

How many people you know that suffer suffrage limit in your country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, where/how are they represented in democracy?

What about left wing Christians? What about center wing Christians? What about Christians?

What about people? Do we have the right to decide who can be born and who can't? What law is that?

Why should not democracy limit suffrage to the intelectually disabled?

How many people you know that suffer suffrage limit in your country?

Just answer me this: Do you know of a single politician elected recently in the US that HASN'T at least professed to be a Christian.

Officially, the US is a secular nation. Unofficially it's heavily biased towards Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just answer me this: Do you know of a single politician elected recently in the US that HASN'T at least professed to be a Christian.

Officially, the US is a secular nation. Unofficially it's heavily biased towards Christians.

Well, the vast majority of U.S. Americans are Christians (78.5%). So, odds are, those running for office tend to be Christian, and those voting tend to be Christian. You can call that bias; I'll call it representation and logic. A lot of Christians run and a lot of Christians vote, so there's going to be Christian viewpoints represented.

And, to answer your question of a single U.S. politician elected recently that isn't Christian, well, there are 39 Jewish members of Congress, 3 Buddhist members, and 2 Muslim members. Most religions are represented pretty accurately with the public, barring the Jewish population, which is very well-represented in Congress, and those unaffiliated with religion. Graphic below:

112%20compare%20to%20public%281%29.png

Source

This is all meaningless, of course, but I just figured I'd let you know that you should find facts before making generalizations. As an American with no religious affiliation, I feel completely comfortable with the religious breakdown of our leaders. I can't think of a time that religion led American government seriously astray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jewish thing is interesting. Do you have an idea why they're over-represented?

Other than that, I just think that banning water to stop climate change is a dumb idea. If that's the best idea that climate change deniers have, it's no wonder the vast majority of scientists don't agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officially, the US is a secular nation. Unofficially it's heavily biased towards Christians.

What do you mean by heavily bisased towards Christians? You think the USA are similar to nations like Iran just swapping Christians by Muslims, don't you?

You didn't answer any of my previous questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jewish thing is interesting. Do you have an idea why they're over-represented?

Without knowing who the 39 members are, I'd have a hard time saying, but if I had to guess, I'd assume it has to do with the high concentration of Jews in certain areas. Since each Representative in the House represents one district, it would be easier for a Jewish member to be elected if that district was predominantly Jewish. That wouldn't explain the 14 Jewish Senators, though.

I imagine there's higher turnout among Jewish voters than others, though that's just a guess. Religious people tend to be the most regular voters, and Jewish Americans tend to be strongly liberal and therefore take more of an active interest in politics. Going with the liberal thing, though, it could very well just be that Jewish people tend to feel more motivated to run for office and win liberal states or districts simply by running (i.e. their strong liberal views overpower any religious prejudice that may exist in liberal areas; though I suppose the generalization of liberals would mean those prejudices wouldn't exist, though I personally don't feel liberals are more open-minded than conservatives when it comes to prejudices; I tend to think, and perhaps naively, that most Americans don't have serious prejudice problems, especially in regards to Jewish Americans moreso than other minority groups). But the reason in the paragraph above would be the biggest, if any of these reasons are accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without knowing who the 39 members are, I'd have a hard time saying, but if I had to guess, I'd assume it has to do with the high concentration of Jews in certain areas. Since each Representative in the House represents one district, it would be easier for a Jewish member to be elected if that district was predominantly Jewish. That wouldn't explain the 14 Jewish Senators, though.

I imagine there's higher turnout among Jewish voters than others, though that's just a guess. Religious people tend to be the most regular voters, and Jewish Americans tend to be strongly liberal and therefore take more of an active interest in politics. Going with the liberal thing, though, it could very well just be that Jewish people tend to feel more motivated to run for office and win liberal states or districts simply by running (i.e. their strong liberal views overpower any religious prejudice that may exist in liberal areas; though I suppose the generalization of liberals would mean those prejudices wouldn't exist, though I personally don't feel liberals are more open-minded than conservatives when it comes to prejudices; I tend to think, and perhaps naively, that most Americans don't have serious prejudice problems, especially in regards to Jewish Americans moreso than other minority groups). But the reason in the paragraph above would be the biggest, if any of these reasons are accurate.

While at it, would you mind explaining the almost equally overrepresented Anglican and Presbyterean groups?

Well, here's another fine mess you got us into, Stan! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While at it, would you mind explaining the almost equally overrepresented Anglican and Presbyterean groups?

Ah, glad you asked!

Unfortunately, I cannot disclose this information until you refer ten more hard-working, God-fearing, Kool Tools-consuming members to BATracer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Eric. It was very informative. Though I guess like most of your essays you copied it off coursework.com. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the vast majority of U.S. Americans are Christians (78.5%). So, odds are, those running for office tend to be Christian, and those voting tend to be Christian. You can call that bias; I'll call it representation and logic. A lot of Christians run and a lot of Christians vote, so there's going to be Christian viewpoints represented.

And, to answer your question of a single U.S. politician elected recently that isn't Christian, well, there are 39 Jewish members of Congress, 3 Buddhist members, and 2 Muslim members. Most religions are represented pretty accurately with the public, barring the Jewish population, which is very well-represented in Congress, and those unaffiliated with religion. Graphic below:

112%20compare%20to%20public%281%29.png

Source

This is all meaningless, of course, but I just figured I'd let you know that you should find facts before making generalizations. As an American with no religious affiliation, I feel completely comfortable with the religious breakdown of our leaders. I can't think of a time that religion led American government seriously astray.

Unaffiliated: 0 no Atheists

Says all you need to know about the attitude of a lot of Americans to those of us who choose not to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unaffiliated: 0 no Atheists

Says all you need to know about the attitude of a lot of Americans to those of us who choose not to believe.

Does it? The burden of proof's on you if you're going to make conclusions, Delta. Find me someone who ran for office in the United States as unaffiliated to any religion and, despite being well-qualified, lost the election for no obvious reason other than lack of religion. What if unaffiliated people feel less compelled to run? Many unaffiliated people in America are, after all, younger, and therefore either can't run, or have no interest in running. And if someone did run, young people are horrible at going out and voting. Perhaps unaffiliated people just feel less politically active for a number of reasons. Show me evidence that the lack of unaffiliated members has to do with some type of prejudice and not that they haven't run, or that the ones who have run had other factors working against them, etc.

And that doesn't even address the attitude fully. What if the attitude isn't one of distrust for atheists, but just trust for religious people (especially when the majority of people are religious, and religious people are more apt to vote than non-religious people)?

I don't disagree that "atheist" is more of an insult than anything else in the United States, but you make claims and don't show any support for them. There can be a lot of explanations for there being 0 declared unaffiliated members in Congress beyond religious elitism. Your last claim was that there isn't a single politician in America that isn't Christian. I proved you wrong. Now you make an unrelated one to try to cling to what you want to believe. Well, go on them, provide some support. As an American who is unaffiliated, I do not see any problem with their being 0 atheists in Congress, nor do I feel that one could never win a Congressional election; if anything, I think a Muslim candidate has a harder time with prejudice than an atheistic one, and sure enough, two Muslims are in the current Congress...

I'm by no means saying America is this perfect prejudice-less place, but I really think that the number of people who try to force religion on unaffiliated people is quite small (they're just a loud majority, so I don't think saying "a lot of Americans" is accurate at all), and not largely present in U.S. politics at all; likewise, I don't think religion plays a big role in U.S. politics and if/when it has, I fail to see an instance where it seriously led the U.S. in the wrong direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water to religion in under a week? Guys, what's the matter with you? Its usually half an hour...

C'mon Son!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it? The burden of proof's on you if you're going to make conclusions, Delta. Find me someone who ran for office in the United States as unaffiliated to any religion and, despite being well-qualified, lost the election for no obvious reason other than lack of religion. What if unaffiliated people feel less compelled to run? Many unaffiliated people in America are, after all, younger, and therefore either can't run, or have no interest in running. And if someone did run, young people are horrible at going out and voting. Perhaps unaffiliated people just feel less politically active for a number of reasons. Show me evidence that the lack of unaffiliated members has to do with some type of prejudice and not that they haven't run, or that the ones who have run had other factors working against them, etc.

And that doesn't even address the attitude fully. What if the attitude isn't one of distrust for atheists, but just trust for religious people (especially when the majority of people are religious, and religious people are more apt to vote than non-religious people)?

I don't disagree that "atheist" is more of an insult than anything else in the United States, but you make claims and don't show any support for them. There can be a lot of explanations for there being 0 declared unaffiliated members in Congress beyond religious elitism. Your last claim was that there isn't a single politician in America that isn't Christian. I proved you wrong. Now you make an unrelated one to try to cling to what you want to believe. Well, go on them, provide some support. As an American who is unaffiliated, I do not see any problem with their being 0 atheists in Congress, nor do I feel that one could never win a Congressional election; if anything, I think a Muslim candidate has a harder time with prejudice than an atheistic one, and sure enough, two Muslims are in the current Congress...

I'm by no means saying America is this perfect prejudice-less place, but I really think that the number of people who try to force religion on unaffiliated people is quite small (they're just a loud majority, so I don't think saying "a lot of Americans" is accurate at all), and not largely present in U.S. politics at all; likewise, I don't think religion plays a big role in U.S. politics and if/when it has, I fail to see an instance where it seriously led the U.S. in the wrong direction.

I know plenty of Atheists from the US, I have been involved with various Atheist groups for a while now, and all I can say is that I know from hearing their experiences that the US is a country that is very discriminating towards Atheists, I know a woman from Arkansas that was actually asked, Seriously, by a Christian if being an Atheist meant she drank blood.

You're quite welcome to come onto some of the Facebook discussion groups and ask them yourself if you don't believe me, there are a fair few Atheists from the US on them. However, just for s*** and Giggles here's a few examples

Bush: Atheists are neither Citizens nor Patriots

Vincent Gray: Atheists Are not real citizens of Washington DC

Wikipedia article about discrimination against Atheists

Whether you like it or not, Atheists ARE one of the most hated minorities in your country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Told ya, Eric :P

Ok, now that this finally got messy I'll add some more headaches for you:

1) How many of those are married? How many are single? How many widowed/divorced? Compare it with the general population.

2) Women/men? Caucasian/Black/Latin/Asian (and why not Semitic?? :P)?

3) Professionals vs Artisans/Self Taught?

4) Economic level? Social level?

In every case, compare the percentages with the general population. You WILL find groups overrepresented and groups that aren't. I could have picked fat vs skinny people or a thousand other categories, but notice that neither of these are trivial. In fact, representation in these matters are at least as important as religion. The problem is that the Congress is not a Noah's Ark (give me two of Widowed Asian Self Taught Females of Lower Class)

Representation is not a linear proportion with quantity in the Congress. Is aboutu how the rights of these groups are defended. If the rights of the minorities are preserved and defended by a WASP guy that's ok (how do you measure the success of such representation, that's an entirely different issue)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Well, I was going to resist the temptation to provoke anything but since everyone else is going at it, I think I'll join in!

Whilst I agree with Andres's final paragraph above, that what matters is how minorities' interests are represented rather than the simple numerical proportion they have in Congress, I'm not entirely convinced he would take the same view in every case. If we'd started out saying that it didn't matter that women were under-represented, and that they can't complain unless they can show that men are not only dominating Congress numerically but also ignoring women's issues in practice, I can't imagine he'd dismiss women's objections to that so easily.

Also, the reason I asked about the over-representation of Jews rather than Episcopalians was of course this very point. Most people around the world, rightly or wrongly, think that America does not defend the rights of Muslim minorities in the Middle East fairly. That Muslims are under-represented even compared to their very low population in the States and Jews are one of the most over-represented groups therefore seems significant and an important issue to discuss.

That said, he's right that poor, overweight and disabled people are likely under-represented and that this is equally important. Since Eric didn't provide stats for that, we didn't discuss it but yeah of course it's important. Personally I think those groups are just about the most discriminated against people and anything that can be done to help them would be very sensible.

Regards atheists, I can see merit in both Eric and Delta's perspectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Well, I was going to resist the temptation to provoke anything but since everyone else is going at it, I think I'll join in!

Whilst I agree with Andres's final paragraph above, that what matters is how minorities' interests are represented rather than the simple numerical proportion they have in Congress, I'm not entirely convinced he would take the same view in every case. If we'd started out saying that it didn't matter that women were under-represented, and that they can't complain unless they can show that men are not only dominating Congress numerically but also ignoring women's issues in practice, I can't imagine he'd dismiss women's objections to that so easily.

Also, the reason I asked about the over-representation of Jews rather than Episcopalians was of course this very point. Most people around the world, rightly or wrongly, think that America does not defend the rights of Muslim minorities in the Middle East fairly. That Muslims are under-represented even compared to their very low population in the States and Jews are one of the most over-represented groups therefore seems significant and an important issue to discuss.

That said, he's right that poor, overweight and disabled people are likely under-represented and that this is equally important. Since Eric didn't provide stats for that, we didn't discuss it but yeah of course it's important. Personally I think those groups are just about the most discriminated against people and anything that can be done to help them would be very sensible.

Regards atheists, I can see merit in both Eric and Delta's perspectives.

Actually we both agree. And you are right that I would probably be less philosophical about this if it touched an issue I felt more sensitive about. But that is a human vice that drives me crazy (and one that makes me specially nervous around these forums as you may have noticed), the way we chose to take some facts ignoring completely some others to make a point and stick to it so fiercely. On my defense I can say that I try to fight against that urge, albeit I fail many times at least I am aware that such problem exist. And I get along with people as long as they are capable of reviweing their own positions and check if the same is true.

This wasn't aimed at you, Muzza, btw, but as usual, using your post for further ramblings of my highly incoherent mind.

Specifically regarding your post, yes I tried pointed out that the way to measure how the monorities are being represented by the majorities is a very complex issue. My point was more humble than that, merely stating the obvious that the percentage does not mean anything by itself, mostly when a single representative can fall into so many categories you can always find an imbalance.

Regarding the Muslims right in the States, I have no idea if there is an issue about that (we are talking about minorities in the States, obviously, not about the relationship of USA with the Muslim world...) Again, a very complex issue as well as whether the impact of having overrepresented Jewish does really have any impact.

You can make some assumptions on USA culture, and even use these statistics as another proof of whatever thesis you might want to present about religion and politics, but to extrapolate too much from just the number of representatives in the congress will doom you to make an equally irrelevant point, at best.

I don't think I made myself clear at all :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know plenty of Atheists from the US, I have been involved with various Atheist groups for a while now, and all I can say is that I know from hearing their experiences that the US is a country that is very discriminating towards Atheists, I know a woman from Arkansas that was actually asked, Seriously, by a Christian if being an Atheist meant she drank blood.

You're quite welcome to come onto some of the Facebook discussion groups and ask them yourself if you don't believe me, there are a fair few Atheists from the US on them. However, just for s*** and Giggles here's a few examples

Bush: Atheists are neither Citizens nor Patriots

Vincent Gray: Atheists Are not real citizens of Washington DC

Wikipedia article about discrimination against Atheists

Whether you like it or not, Atheists ARE one of the most hated minorities in your country

I know plenty of atheists from the U.S., too. You're assuming for the whole based on a small portion. Atheists who perform actions that are going to spark anger are going to, well, get anger. I can't comment without context; if you go denying other people's views (as these "groups" often do), they can expect the same in return. People who mind their own business and don't try to make themselves victims are more-than-accepted. People who ask for intolerance often get it. When you make atheism an important part of your life, when you make it a religion itself, well, I have a hard time sympathizing if that bothers people, in the same way overbearing Christians or overbearing whomevers would be. I don't want to generalize, but people in groups of other people with their beliefs, people who go to websites about that, people who spend a lot of time talking about it or whatever, tend to be overbearing. There's as much disgust for religious people who are absolutely insensitive to any other view as there is for atheists who are the same; people who constantly cut people down and tell them their beliefs are wrong, whatever those beliefs or lack of beliefs are, face problems.

There's no evidence Bush ever said that, and since when did one man's opinion reflect the whole?

The Wikipedia article, however, was interesting. I'll give you that. I don't believe, and never implied (or at least never intended to imply) that there was no discrimination against atheists. I just think it gets blown out of proportion by atheists themselves; they victimize themselves when, in reality, American atheists have it pretty damn good compared to a lot of religious groups around the world. It's easy to make claims and find the data to back them up; I'm do the same. But I've lived it, too. I'm an American and I do not believe in religion. My experience with religious people who know that I am an atheist is completely different than the one you seem to want their to be. I don't feel discriminated against and I don't feel the "system" is unfair to me or people like me. There will always be vocal people who are so loud they make it seem like there are more of them, and will always be people digging for problems, but for most of us, normal Americans, it's not hard to be respectful and be respected. To connect it to politics, you can take the data and do what you want with, as I did, but at the end of the day, the voting public is not representative of the American public. A great election gets 50% turnout. A normal one is closer to 30%. And it's often people closer to extremes than the normal.

I'm an American atheist and I see no problems surrounding me or people around me (many of whom have experienced a lot more years than I have). I think that counts for a lot more than data and quotes and whatever, personally. Would there be problems if I made my lack of religion a major talking point and started picking other people's beliefs apart while victimizing myself? Of course.

Told ya, Eric :P

Ok, now that this finally got messy I'll add some more headaches for you:

1) How many of those are married? How many are single? How many widowed/divorced? Compare it with the general population.

2) Women/men? Caucasian/Black/Latin/Asian (and why not Semitic?? :P)?

3) Professionals vs Artisans/Self Taught?

4) Economic level? Social level?

In every case, compare the percentages with the general population. You WILL find groups overrepresented and groups that aren't. I could have picked fat vs skinny people or a thousand other categories, but notice that neither of these are trivial. In fact, representation in these matters are at least as important as religion. The problem is that the Congress is not a Noah's Ark (give me two of Widowed Asian Self Taught Females of Lower Class)

Representation is not a linear proportion with quantity in the Congress. Is aboutu how the rights of these groups are defended. If the rights of the minorities are preserved and defended by a WASP guy that's ok (how do you measure the success of such representation, that's an entirely different issue)

I agree there are over- and under-representations in Congress. I don't think, and have stated that, that these percentages are very meaningful. My whole point with the percentages was to show Delta's assumption to be off the mark that there isn't a single prominent non-Christian politician. The data really was only for that one purpose; I wasn't trying to start much of an analysis on that data or make that data this all-important figure that tells all about American politics, or suggest Congress was the only method to representation which, in a pluralist society like the U.S., it obviously isn't. What's ensued afterward has, in my opinion, gone beyond data and now it's just Delta trying to grasp on to what he wants to believe and me wanting to grasp on to what I want to believe. And neither of us will be moved since both of us formed opinions and then found facts, not doing it in the reverse (the right way). But at least I know that. :P

You can make some assumptions on USA culture, and even use these statistics as another proof of whatever thesis you might want to present about religion and politics, but to extrapolate too much from just the number of representatives in the congress will doom you to make an equally irrelevant point, at best.

Yep. But this thread's been more fun to read than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem, at least in Spain, is that politicians are always trying to make "minorities" happy no matter how unfair it can be for the whole rest of the people. The noisier the minority the better, but worse for the rest of the people. It really works like a market and for the good of politicians and the leaders of the given minorities.

A minority is nothing. A person is everything. Politicians should look after people, all of them, and forget about minorities as such. Civil and political rights aren't for members of minorities, they are for persons. You're catholic, woman, gay, atheist... It doesn't matter. Live and let live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...