RF Election! - Page 6

Go Back   Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards > NBA Discussion > The Podium

View Poll Results: which party do you support?
NDP 8 22.86%
Conservatives 7 20.00%
Green 7 20.00%
Bloc 3 8.57%
Liberal 10 28.57%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-15-2011, 04:51 PM   #101 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
And how do anarchists not support social programs?

As for the corporate tax cuts - well I am a ong way past 30, and I've seen tax cuts a plenty for the rich that failed to create jobs. Over the last 30 years it is an idea that has failed so often that the suggestion of not having a brain really needs to be directed at those that trumpet the concept as the bulwark of conservatism. Over the last 40 years the top 1 percent of wage earners have reaped all the rewards. That's been the extent of the success. That doesn't indicate any great creation of jobs. Certainly not jobs worth having. Everyone else has seen their earning power either in gradual decline, or a steep decline. Seriously - if I hear Harper trot out the idea that corporations need handouts so that we can all benefit from the "stable" economy, I might have to consider moving to Germany.
Seriously I make one small quote from Churchill and this is what happens. LX, if it is more profitable for a company to operate outside of Canada it will move, jobs gone, we have to play by the rules that are in place, argue those rules all you want but we exist in a global economy and must compete in it. Forget about the 1% of the rich, who cares it doesn't matter. I do take issue with "people seeing their earning power decline", I would love to see some support of that statement.

Again with the "Harper" has he been in power for 40 years, is it all his fault?
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 04:55 PM   #102 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,763
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
That's actually pretty cool, and it seems like "free market" rules exist, it's the internal companies that operate different.

This is just my opinion, but the reason this would never work here is because it would make our unions obsolete,

They would never go for it.

I love the idea of workers having insights and responsibility into the process of the corporation.

I would not call that socialism at all, more communal capitalism.
unions are pretty obsolete already.

The Germans operate quite differently from our "free market". Instead of shareholders being the all-powerful controllers of the economy, there is a balance, and it is an essential balance that allows for regulations, a fair tax base, and the protection of good manufacturing jobs. They are not slaves to the idea of the public forking money over to CEOs, or caving to ridiculous demands that undercut civil society.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 04:58 PM   #103 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
unions are pretty obsolete already.

The Germans operate quite differently from our "free market". Instead of shareholders being the all-powerful controllers of the economy, there is a balance, and it is an essential balance that allows for regulations, a fair tax base, and the protection of good manufacturing jobs. They are not slaves to the idea of the public forking money over to CEOs, or caving to ridiculous demands that undercut civil society.
Right it also doesn't sound like Unions or Government are controlling interests. Sounds good to me.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 05:10 PM   #104 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post

Name a couple.
First, I want to cut-off any strawman you might attempt to employ. You raised the issue of historical precedent after 'trane referred to checking or curbing free markets. 'trane didn't say he was completely against markets, just when they are detrimental to the health of society. So, in my opinion, the real issue is not whether any country we can name fits your particular definition of socialism, but rather whether it is consistent with 'trane's view on free markets. I would argue that "socialism" as a political term and an economic model has evolved.

With that in mind, take your pick of several european countries. Sweden? Denmark? Finland? All happy places.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 05:23 PM   #105 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,700
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
RECORD REVENUE..not your words...fact



Name a couple.



IBID.

I still disagree, I believe a free market can will support social programs if they are transitioned to properly run businesses outside of government intervention. We already have them today, if they are rolled into the system of a free market they would be self sustainable. A private run credit program for charitable donations is a perfect example, there are many of these in existence today. They can be profitable.
the record revenue comes from theefforts of people to offset the missing government funding. but you may be confusing the issue - the funding did not previously flow to the united way from the government, it flowed to the agencies that the united way is now supporting. removing that revenue meant that united way had to step up and so went on a massive campaign for donations. select few taxpayersare now paying their taxes and making united way contributions to offset what the government nbeeds to do in the first place - take care of our most vulnerable community members.

successful socialist nations (all of these at least mention socialism in their constitution and have strong social program funding from their national government level and a strong role of government in theri economy - sweden, india, spain, portugal, venezuela, china, norway. is that enough?

Quote:
I believe a free market can will support social programs if they are transitioned to properly run businesses outside of government intervention. We already have them today, if they are rolled into the system of a free market they would be self sustainable. A private run credit program for charitable donations is a perfect example, there are many of these in existence today. They can be profitable.
ok, i'll give you an example -

take funding for disability programs. i'd love to see how this could be effective if privately run. currently there are many privately run group homes and transportation companies. they are astronomically expensive compared to the ones that receive direct government support. how do people pay for them (a year of care for some people can run up to $200,000)? answer - they are either independently wealthy or they are funded by the government to purchase those services. even the privately run, for-profit, group homes are indirectly funded by the government because no middle class family, let alone a family at or below the poverty line, can possibly afford the care necessary for survival. how could these group homes, the agencies that administer the funding, or anyone involved in this sector possibly make a profit on these services while keeping them affordable for the average family? none of this is covered by nationalized health care.

on top of the funded people, there are thousands in our city alone that are simply on wait lists, living below the poverty line with no access to any services that they can afford or that they can get a subsidy for. how can the free market possibly accomodate this?

Last edited by 'trane; 04-15-2011 at 05:26 PM.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 05:26 PM   #106 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,763
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
Seriously I make one small quote from Churchill and this is what happens. LX, if it is more profitable for a company to operate outside of Canada it will move, jobs gone, we have to play by the rules that are in place, argue those rules all you want but we exist in a global economy and must compete in it. Forget about the 1% of the rich, who cares it doesn't matter. I do take issue with "people seeing their earning power decline", I would love to see some support of that statement.

Again with the "Harper" has he been in power for 40 years, is it all his fault?
Some of the strongest economies of the last decade have turned their backs on the idea of needing to be part of a global economy. Even if we must participate, we do not need to be ruled by the greediest of corporations. I think Germany provides a good example of that.

As for earning power - here's an article from the Globe from last December, concerning a report from the CCPA. -LINK

Quote:
The super rich are, in one respect, not that different from ordinary Canadians: they work for their money. It’s just that they’re rewarded at a rate most people only dream of.

The top 0.01 per cent of Canadian income earners, the 2,400 people who earn at least $1.85-million, aren’t just basking in investment income and business profits. Nearly 75 per cent of their income comes from wages, just like the average Canadian, according to a new study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The top 1 per cent, the 246,000 Canadians who earn more than $169,000, receive about 67 per cent of their income in wages.

That’s a change from the 1940s, when the rich took 45 per cent of their income from wages, 25 per cent from business profits and the rest from investments, dividends and interest.

“Those at the top actually work more for their money than any generation of the rich going back to the 1920s,” said economist Armine Yalnizyan, the study’s author.

Ms. Yalnizyan said the major trend she identifies is that the wealthiest Canadians are increasing their share of income at a historic pace. Looking back over the past 90 years, income is now concentrated in a way that hasn’t been seen since the 1920s, she said. In the past decade, almost a third of income growth has gone to the richest 1 per cent, she added.

The big picture shows that after the Second World War, Canadian society distributed income in an increasingly level fashion. From 1946 to 1977, she writes, the income share of the richest 1 per cent fell from 14 per cent to 7.7 per cent. That trend was reversed over the past 30 years, as the top 1 per cent regained its 14-per-cent share of Canadian income. Over that time, the richest 0.1 per cent almost tripled their income share and the richest 0.01 per cent increased their share fivefold.

Median incomes, meanwhile, have been stagnant, according to Ms. Yalnizyan.

“You’ve always had these people who’ve got their fingers on something the rest of us don’t. But why are they suddenly worth many multiples of what they were back then?” Ms. Yalnizyan said.

The answer, she said, is not economics. It’s in our culture.

“As a society, we sanction it, by and large, for better and for worse,” she said.

Economist Michael Veall, who teaches at McMaster University, said a few theories try to explain the income shift by focusing on changes in the labour market at the high end, particularly for managers. One view is that corporate governors have allowed CEO salaries to jump because they were climbing elsewhere. Another is that CEOs, known for being superb communicators, are more effective, and thus more valuable, in the digital age because e-mail and the mass media facilitate contact with employees and the public, Prof. Veall said. The same goes for athletes who are more valuable when they can perform for a TV audience of millions rather than a ticket-buying audience of several thousand, he added.

Ms. Yalnizyan said in the long run the trend toward income concentration seems, in her view, politically and economically unsustainable.

“You can’t keep growing an underclass that plays by all the rules, gets a better education, works more and doesn’t get ahead,” she said.
Now the problem is not as serious as in the US, and the top 10 percent have seen increases, but they have worked harder for that. The trends here appear to mirror the US all too much for my liking, with a middle class disappearing. Remember that the stagnancy of median incomes comes with an increase in workloads. I can show a detailed account of the situation in the US. In any case it is very important when the richest one percent take the lions share of the wealth. It was the imbalance of the early part of the last century that brought about the need for trade unions and financial regulations and the funding of social programs, precisely because the inequality was fundamentally unsustainable. And that is what we appear to be in a hurry to return to.

LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 05:42 PM   #107 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,289
Representing:
Default

This discussion reminded me of a clip from one of Malcolm Gladwell's ForaTV talks:

Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 05:52 PM   #108 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,763
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck View Post
This discussion reminded me of a clip from one of Malcolm Gladwell's ForaTV talks:

Income Inequality
nice - that ties into my thoughts nicely. What he's talking about in terms of policy in the 50's in the US, is what was transferred to Germany after the war. And the current state of the US being off the rails right now, is what we need to look at in Canada. We're not quite off the rails here yet, but we're well on our way. We are suckers if we buy into the idea of "stability" at the cost of greater income inequality.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 08:38 PM   #109 (permalink)
and a 1, and a 2, and a 1,2,3,4!

Senior Member
 
pzabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 6,978
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
A wise man once said, "If you are under 30 and are not a liberal, you don't have a heart. a man of lower intellect then said," If you are over 30 and are not a conservative you don't have a brain"


to paraphrase
fixed
EDIT: POST 700
pzabby is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 10:20 PM   #110 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

I think, as a general rule, each side is more confident in their economic stance than is warranted. Honestly, if macroeconomics, and classical economics more broadly, were as reliable as each side implies, I think we would see drastically different economies. There would be very little room for dispute and forecasts, predictions, and general economic planning would be a lot more successful.



I think one has to begin by determining what the proper role of governance is. For example, if you believe that is the job of government to provide a framework in which each person has the potential to be successful, then I think you can make a better case of less centralized planning and a more liberal economy (I mean this in the most traditional sense of liberal, ie. freedom and individual autonomy).

However, if you believe that the role of government is to reduce the aggregate suffering, then the limits of the government are greatly reduced as well. Now, it is simply a matter of evidence: if we have good reason to suspect that raising the corporate tax rate will reduce suffering of the most impoverished in the country, then there is no real way that you could argue against it. Claims about individual liberty are somewhat easy to skirt.

I think when you take that latter approach, you see that classical liberal economics don't hold up. One of the freest economies in the world also has a hugely dissatisfied populace. Meanwhile, highly socialist economies in Europe have much higher levels of happiness.

I think it is also important that we do not straw-man each other's positions. For example, I don't think anyone who advocates a more top-down economy would point out the USSR as the test case which we should emulate. At the same time, corporate handouts are not an example of classical liberal economics, either, so I don't think you should hold that against capitalism. From the perspective of thorough-going-capitalists, much of the activity in the US that socialists consider to be a machination of capitalism are actually machinations of top-down, as opposed to bottom-up, economic planning. A thorough-going-capitalist would've wanted those failing companies to bottom out so that their resources can be redistributed among more competent or efficient companies.


I guess my main point is that I think it is not as straight-forward as we pretend it is when we engage in debate with others. I also think we should spend more time identifying what our starting values are and why they differ, instead of debating economic points that are beyond our expertise, such as "What will be the effects of a x% tax cut?"
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 10:29 PM   #111 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
I find this guy's position pretty extreme in the way he calls alternative practitioners quacks. I think the Green promotion of them is a little reflexive, and I certainly want to see an emphasis on medicine, but they do get enough results and have positively been blended within health centers. "Quacks" makes it hard for me to get past this guy's bias.

My dog was helped instantly by a chiropractor. I never gave chiropractors any credence before that. The idea of making use of one for a dog went even farther beyond any threshold I was willing to cross. But it worked where veterinary medicine failed. The dog had been urinating every twenty minutes for a week, and then just back to normal. That's not to say there aren't quacks involved. Regulation is needed.

As for their stance on nukes - I don't see how that makes them anti-science. Did I miss something? Has science come up with a means of disposing of nuclear waste, or coming up with the foolproof means of preventing extremely long-term damage through accidents, attacks, or catastrophes? Again - the Green position is reflexive, and as a governing party that is not what I would look for. But as a voice that could move the mainstream in a different direction slightly, I don't find that so problematic.
I'm not a huge fan of the word quack, but there is pretty much no doubt that the alt-med community is full of empirically unverified or flat-out debunked treatments.

To take chiropractic as an example, the key premise of chiropractic (that of subluxations) has been proven false.

When we look at chiropractic as a broad treatment, it repeatedly fails to do better than placebo.

When we look at it as a specific treatment for back injuries, it is on par with the treatment you would get from an RMT, at best. As a simple matter of fact, basically nothing works reliably for back pain.

I do not know enough about your particular case to comment on it directly. What I would say is that you should not put too much weight in the fact that your dogs improvement in health was correlated with the treatment of the chiropractor. Unless you have sufficient controls in place, it is pretty hard to tell whether that correlation is legitimate or not. It could even be as simple as this: whatever was causing the excessive urination naturally clears up in about a week. I'm not saying that is necessarily the explanation; I'm saying that there are many possible explanations and we shouldn't prematurely give one more credence than another, especially when it has a lot of evidence that suggest it is implausible.

Keep in mind that what Moran was decrying was the general lack of what he calls "scientific reasoning." Namely, there is no reason to say "All nuclear facilities should be shut-down" unless there is some sort of evidence strongly in favour of that position. As you say, it is a reflexive position on their part, which is the antithesis of the reasoning Moran is looking for.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 01:09 AM   #112 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
I think, as a general rule, each side is more confident in their economic stance than is warranted. Honestly, if macroeconomics, and classical economics more broadly, were as reliable as each side implies, I think we would see drastically different economies. There would be very little room for dispute and forecasts, predictions, and general economic planning would be a lot more successful.



I think one has to begin by determining what the proper role of governance is. For example, if you believe that is the job of government to provide a framework in which each person has the potential to be successful, then I think you can make a better case of less centralized planning and a more liberal economy (I mean this in the most traditional sense of liberal, ie. freedom and individual autonomy).

However, if you believe that the role of government is to reduce the aggregate suffering, then the limits of the government are greatly reduced as well. Now, it is simply a matter of evidence: if we have good reason to suspect that raising the corporate tax rate will reduce suffering of the most impoverished in the country, then there is no real way that you could argue against it. Claims about individual liberty are somewhat easy to skirt.

I think when you take that latter approach, you see that classical liberal economics don't hold up. One of the freest economies in the world also has a hugely dissatisfied populace. Meanwhile, highly socialist economies in Europe have much higher levels of happiness.

I think it is also important that we do not straw-man each other's positions. For example, I don't think anyone who advocates a more top-down economy would point out the USSR as the test case which we should emulate. At the same time, corporate handouts are not an example of classical liberal economics, either, so I don't think you should hold that against capitalism. From the perspective of thorough-going-capitalists, much of the activity in the US that socialists consider to be a machination of capitalism are actually machinations of top-down, as opposed to bottom-up, economic planning. A thorough-going-capitalist would've wanted those failing companies to bottom out so that their resources can be redistributed among more competent or efficient companies.


I guess my main point is that I think it is not as straight-forward as we pretend it is when we engage in debate with others. I also think we should spend more time identifying what our starting values are and why they differ, instead of debating economic points that are beyond our expertise, such as "What will be the effects of a x% tax cut?"
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 08:44 AM   #113 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,763
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
I'm not a huge fan of the word quack, but there is pretty much no doubt that the alt-med community is full of empirically unverified or flat-out debunked treatments.

To take chiropractic as an example, the key premise of chiropractic (that of subluxations) has been proven false.

When we look at chiropractic as a broad treatment, it repeatedly fails to do better than placebo.

When we look at it as a specific treatment for back injuries, it is on par with the treatment you would get from an RMT, at best. As a simple matter of fact, basically nothing works reliably for back pain.

I do not know enough about your particular case to comment on it directly. What I would say is that you should not put too much weight in the fact that your dogs improvement in health was correlated with the treatment of the chiropractor. Unless you have sufficient controls in place, it is pretty hard to tell whether that correlation is legitimate or not. It could even be as simple as this: whatever was causing the excessive urination naturally clears up in about a week. I'm not saying that is necessarily the explanation; I'm saying that there are many possible explanations and we shouldn't prematurely give one more credence than another, especially when it has a lot of evidence that suggest it is implausible.

Keep in mind that what Moran was decrying was the general lack of what he calls "scientific reasoning." Namely, there is no reason to say "All nuclear facilities should be shut-down" unless there is some sort of evidence strongly in favour of that position. As you say, it is a reflexive position on their part, which is the antithesis of the reasoning Moran is looking for.
My dog had been through all the testing. There was no problem that cause frequent urination. So there was nothing that needed to run its course. Her problem was that her hips had twisted and impacted the nerves that effected her urinary system. She went from frequent urination to just stopping immediately after being adjusted. I think it would be a tremendous coincidence for the timing of some symptoms to have run their course in conjunction with the chiropractic treatment.

I have a much bigger problem with anything that claims to be a cure. I recognize that alternative treatments can be seen in such a light, and that would be where my concerns would lie. If they can be seen as supplemental, when doctors and specialists come to a dead end in some areas, as happens often, then it seems very rational to not disqualify alternatives off-hand. My wife suffered from sever pains in her shoulder blades. She had every test, went to specialists, tried harmful pain-killers, and in the end they advised her to see a chiropractor, which has in fact been helpful.

As for nuclear energy - there are obvious downsides. I have as much of a problem with science being unable to weigh long-term pros and cons regarding any technologies, as I do with reflexive positions regarding those technologies. In fact, I think that science has shown itself to be unqualified to come up with a cohesive plan that takes the overall health of the planet into consideration. It is important for government to take that role, and saying no is an important part of that.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 12:33 PM   #114 (permalink)
........

Senior Member
 
MrClutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 2,381
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
A wise man once said, "If you are under 30 and are not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you are over 30 and are not a conservative you don't have a brain"

to paraphrase
interesting phrase
MrClutch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 12:55 PM   #115 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
My dog had been through all the testing. There was no problem that cause frequent urination. So there was nothing that needed to run its course. Her problem was that her hips had twisted and impacted the nerves that effected her urinary system. She went from frequent urination to just stopping immediately after being adjusted. I think it would be a tremendous coincidence for the timing of some symptoms to have run their course in conjunction with the chiropractic treatment.
And yet, it could very well be a coincidence. You have a sample size of one with no controls whatsoever. I think you over-estimate your ability to discern causal relationships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
I have a much bigger problem with anything that claims to be a cure. I recognize that alternative treatments can be seen in such a light, and that would be where my concerns would lie. If they can be seen as supplemental, when doctors and specialists come to a dead end in some areas, as happens often, then it seems very rational to not disqualify alternatives off-hand. My wife suffered from sever pains in her shoulder blades. She had every test, went to specialists, tried harmful pain-killers, and in the end they advised her to see a chiropractor, which has in fact been helpful.
But did or did not the chiropractor alleviate the symptoms? You can't say that they were cured, and then get upset if someone claims that it is a cure. Either they work and should be included in all medicine more broadly, or they are pseudoscience placebos. I lean towards the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
As for nuclear energy - there are obvious downsides. I have as much of a problem with science being unable to weigh long-term pros and cons regarding any technologies, as I do with reflexive positions regarding those technologies. In fact, I think that science has shown itself to be unqualified to come up with a cohesive plan that takes the overall health of the planet into consideration. It is important for government to take that role, and saying no is an important part of that.
I'm sorry, I don't really see how science has failed you in that respect. Science tends to avoid saying things that it doesn't know. For example, science has no plan to "take the overall health of the planet into consideration" because it is simply impossible for us to do so. Still, when you look at the areas where we're discussing future ecological plans, how are we getting informed? Through science. The most notable examples here are climate change, fisheries, and biodiversity.

If you can tell me how to generate the power we need without raising CO^2 emissions after phasing out every single nuclear generator, then you can tell me that it has a modicum of scientific reasoning behind it. As I (and Larry Moran) said, there are some good arguments against nuclear power but the idea that it's an open-and-shut case is laughable.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 01:01 PM   #116 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrClutch View Post
interesting phrase
Generally speaking, it is used by conservatives to say "Oh, you dumb child of a liberal. Grow up!"

More inflammatory and a matter of rhetoric than anything else.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 01:23 PM   #117 (permalink)
........

Senior Member
 
MrClutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 2,381
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
Generally speaking, it is used by conservatives to say "Oh, you dumb child of a liberal. Grow up!"

More inflammatory and a matter of rhetoric than anything else.
if thats how the conservatives think about people my age, their never getting my vote
MrClutch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 03:13 PM   #118 (permalink)
and a 1, and a 2, and a 1,2,3,4!

Senior Member
 
pzabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 6,978
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrClutch View Post
if thats how the conservatives think about people my age, their never getting my vote
they're actually trying to get students to not vote. as the university of quelph set up a special polling station for students in the university to get more kids to vote, the conservatives complained about the process and all and tried to turn the votes null. they're doing everything they can to have the votes that support them show, and the one's that don't to not. i don't know about everyone else but that sounds like a silencing of a group of people which leans towards athoritarian governing. whoa is me
pzabby is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 04:41 PM   #119 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,763
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
And yet, it could very well be a coincidence. You have a sample size of one with no controls whatsoever. I think you over-estimate your ability to discern causal relationships.


But did or did not the chiropractor alleviate the symptoms? You can't say that they were cured, and then get upset if someone claims that it is a cure. Either they work and should be included in all medicine more broadly, or they are pseudoscience placebos. I lean towards the latter.
No controls whatsoever? I think numerous tests that show no signs of any problems is significant. And my dog was not cured. She did not have any need of a cure. She needed to have a physical injury that led to other problems corrected. Note the process. Everything else was ruled out. As with my wife's pain. Nobody went running to alternative medicine looking for a solution before seeking extensive testing and medical opinions. And the doctors and vet advised us to go ahead with chiropractic treatment. If these things represent hating science, then I'm very confused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
I'm sorry, I don't really see how science has failed you in that respect. Science tends to avoid saying things that it doesn't know. For example, science has no plan to "take the overall health of the planet into consideration" because it is simply impossible for us to do so. Still, when you look at the areas where we're discussing future ecological plans, how are we getting informed? Through science. The most notable examples here are climate change, fisheries, and biodiversity.

If you can tell me how to generate the power we need without raising CO^2 emissions after phasing out every single nuclear generator, then you can tell me that it has a modicum of scientific reasoning behind it. As I (and Larry Moran) said, there are some good arguments against nuclear power but the idea that it's an open-and-shut case is laughable.
I think you help me make the point I intended to make here. There are limits to the ability of science to make the decisions that govern us. Certainly science informs, but there are value judgments that need to be made. One value judgment concerning nuclear energy is that it opens us up to enormous problems for future generations, thus making it an open and shut case for some people. I don't take that extreme position myself, but I find it troubling that such a position can not be taken without being accused of "hating science". And I do think that if not science itself, that some body of decision-making abilities needs to be able to limit scientific progress going forward. Not all science has been beneficial. And the powers that it might be able to unleash in the future could prove fatal to life on this planet within my lifetime. Putting all my faith in the ability of science to inform me of the problems that science has caused, when it might be too late, doesn't exactly warm my heart. There has to be some room for some attempt at forethought without being chastised.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 07:50 PM   #120 (permalink)
........

Senior Member
 
MrClutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 2,381
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pzabby View Post
they're actually trying to get students to not vote. as the university of quelph set up a special polling station for students in the university to get more kids to vote, the conservatives complained about the process and all and tried to turn the votes null. they're doing everything they can to have the votes that support them show, and the one's that don't to not. i don't know about everyone else but that sounds like a silencing of a group of people which leans towards athoritarian governing. whoa is me
ya i heard about that, made me realize what kind of government were dealing with. just dont understand why people are even voting for them
MrClutch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -4. The time now is 03:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24