EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 10, 2016 19:45:41 GMT -5
This thread has started to expose part of why Trump is now President-elect: the disdain those on the left have for anyone who disagrees with them. As someone that is on the "right" on many issues (and a registered Republican), this is laughable. Climate change is settled science. If you do not believe so, first, I would ask you what it would take for you to change your mind. Surely, any Hoya would agree that all sorts of our preconceived notions can be proven false after some amount of evidence. So, there has to be some threshold where you would agree that there is conclusive evidence of climate change, right? It can't be right that it is settled that there isn't climate change. So what more would it take? I'm asking seriously. Second, anyone who believes otherwise is simply disqualified from receiving my vote (or a cabinet appointment) because they fail a simple test of rational and investigative thought. One of the key things I need in my officials is the ability to synthesize information that may not comport with their preconceptions and act appropriately. I can live with someone saying "I don't think we should do anything about t because the repercussions for the economy are too significant." Or: "I think future technology may solve it completely without making drastic cuts to carbon." I disagree but I at least find both views honest and rational. The reason Donald Trump won had little to do with liberals' disdain for those opposed. It was because he was able to somehow hold onto traditional GOP voters despite a campaign filled with promises antithetical to their views (the religious right, purely fiscal conservatives) while convincing some of the disaffected in this country that he could magically bring back manufacturing jobs without harming the larger economy in doing so. I said part of the reason Trump won was the disdain libs have for anyone who disagrees with them. As in "anyone who believes otherwise is simply disqualified from receiving my vote (or a cabinet appointment) because they fail a simple test of rational and investigative thought." I call that disdain. Second: Maybe I think you are incapable of rational and investigative thought since you believe in settled science which is the exact opposite of science which continues to challenge all prior scientific investigations. Third, I don't think you are coming to grips with what happened in this election where large numbers of people are fed up with being called racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-environment etc. because they hold views contrary to that of the elites.
|
|
|
Post by FrostbackHoya on Dec 10, 2016 22:07:46 GMT -5
If you went to Georgetown, you're part of the elite. Please stop using it as a put down, because otherwise you're calling yourself, your classmates, and probably your parents idiots. And you probably don't want to call yourself an idiot.
Second, if you're not willing to accept that adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere changes the chemical mix, you're not racist. But you are anti-science. And that's a tragic thing for someone with a Jesuit education.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 10, 2016 22:36:39 GMT -5
If you went to Georgetown, you're part of the elite. Please stop using it as a put down, because otherwise you're calling yourself, your classmates, and probably your parents idiots. And you probably don't want to call yourself an idiot. Second, if you're not willing to accept that adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere changes the chemical mix, you're not racist. But you are anti-science. And that's a tragic thing for someone with a Jesuit education. I find it funny that we're discussing "elites" as if there's a difference in that regard when it comes to either party. Is there a person that is more arrogant or who treats people who disagree with him with more disdain than Trump in recent (or not so recent) history? I guess the solution is whatever you can do I can do better or, in this case, worse?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 10, 2016 23:30:03 GMT -5
As someone that is on the "right" on many issues (and a registered Republican), this is laughable. Climate change is settled science. If you do not believe so, first, I would ask you what it would take for you to change your mind. Surely, any Hoya would agree that all sorts of our preconceived notions can be proven false after some amount of evidence. So, there has to be some threshold where you would agree that there is conclusive evidence of climate change, right? It can't be right that it is settled that there isn't climate change. So what more would it take? I'm asking seriously. Second, anyone who believes otherwise is simply disqualified from receiving my vote (or a cabinet appointment) because they fail a simple test of rational and investigative thought. One of the key things I need in my officials is the ability to synthesize information that may not comport with their preconceptions and act appropriately. I can live with someone saying "I don't think we should do anything about t because the repercussions for the economy are too significant." Or: "I think future technology may solve it completely without making drastic cuts to carbon." I disagree but I at least find both views honest and rational. The reason Donald Trump won had little to do with liberals' disdain for those opposed. It was because he was able to somehow hold onto traditional GOP voters despite a campaign filled with promises antithetical to their views (the religious right, purely fiscal conservatives) while convincing some of the disaffected in this country that he could magically bring back manufacturing jobs without harming the larger economy in doing so. I said part of the reason Trump won was the disdain libs have for anyone who disagrees with them. As in "anyone who believes otherwise is simply disqualified from receiving my vote (or a cabinet appointment) because they fail a simple test of rational and investigative thought." I call that disdain. Second: Maybe I think you are incapable of rational and investigative thought since you believe in settled science which is the exact opposite of science which continues to challenge all prior scientific investigations. Third, I don't think you are coming to grips with what happened in this election where large numbers of people are fed up with being called racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-environment etc. because they hold views contrary to that of the elites. First, yes I am disdainful about those who deny climate change science with no basis for their denial. To me that is completely different from a political (not scientific) view on immigration or the other things you mention. I'm not disdainful of people's political viewpoints. Second, true, science builds on itself and things thought "proven" have been disproven previously. I get it. But you didn't answer my question: What more evidence do you need to believe the climate is changing than what is out there? Is there some amount more? Or are you really saying that no amount of evidence could ever convince you of it occurring? It can't be right that we are in constant paralysis just because the seemingly certain science conceivably could be wrong. Otherwise, whenever we act based on science (like in medical situations for example), we shouldn't. Re: the election: None of us ever will really know.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 11, 2016 0:39:24 GMT -5
As someone that is on the "right" on many issues (and a registered Republican), this is laughable. Climate change is settled science. If you do not believe so, first, I would ask you what it would take for you to change your mind. Surely, any Hoya would agree that all sorts of our preconceived notions can be proven false after some amount of evidence. So, there has to be some threshold where you would agree that there is conclusive evidence of climate change, right? It can't be right that it is settled that there isn't climate change. So what more would it take? I'm asking seriously. Second, anyone who believes otherwise is simply disqualified from receiving my vote (or a cabinet appointment) because they fail a simple test of rational and investigative thought. One of the key things I need in my officials is the ability to synthesize information that may not comport with their preconceptions and act appropriately. I can live with someone saying "I don't think we should do anything about t because the repercussions for the economy are too significant." Or: "I think future technology may solve it completely without making drastic cuts to carbon." I disagree but I at least find both views honest and rational. The reason Donald Trump won had little to do with liberals' disdain for those opposed. It was because he was able to somehow hold onto traditional GOP voters despite a campaign filled with promises antithetical to their views (the religious right, purely fiscal conservatives) while convincing some of the disaffected in this country that he could magically bring back manufacturing jobs without harming the larger economy in doing so. Third, I don't think you are coming to grips with what happened in this election where large numbers of people are fed up with being called racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-environment etc. because they hold views contrary to that of the elites. I don't think nearly anyone thinks that all of the people that voted for Trump are racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-environment etc. That said, to rationalize a vote for Trump as anti-elitist when voting for a New York billionaire is a fairly weak justification. What about Trump doesn't scream elitist? Is he the kind of guy that is thoughtful and adaptable and accepting and willing to listen to differing opinions that may be persuasive enough to sway his original direction? Or is he straight out of the 40's in terms of what he's said with regard to racism, sexism and world views? I get that people are fed up. I still fail to understand what people are hoping Trump can do that others haven't done or tried to do. He's inexperienced and, seemingly, disinterested in informing himself about much of anything. He was going to "drain the swamp" and, apparently, has filled it with the best swamp ever. The hugest, best, most murky swamp. It's the best swamp. Back on topic, if you vote for a person that made statements that makes most people think that he's racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-environment etc., you can't be surprised if people wonder whether you're one or all of those things as well. It certainly couldn't be his well-stated policy strategy and planning that made you vote for him as he had a little of the former and none of the latter. If you just wanted "change" and that was the reason you voted for him, okay. But you can't disavow the baggage that comes with that. He can't promise change nor has he demonstrated it. But he has demonstrated all of the nasty stuff you stated in your post and, yet, that doesn't seem to phase most that voted for him.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,381
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Dec 11, 2016 13:19:15 GMT -5
Thanks to tashoya and hoyainspirit!
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 11, 2016 19:36:57 GMT -5
This thread has started to expose part of why Trump is now President-elect: the disdain those on the left have for anyone who disagrees with them. As someone that is on the "right" on many issues (and a registered Republican), this is laughable. Climate change is settled science. If you do not believe so, first, I would ask you what it would take for you to change your mind. Surely, any Hoya would agree that all sorts of our preconceived notions can be proven false after some amount of evidence. So, there has to be some threshold where you would agree that there is conclusive evidence of climate change, right? It can't be right that it is settled that there isn't climate change. So what more would it take? I'm asking seriously. Second, anyone who believes otherwise is simply disqualified from receiving my vote (or a cabinet appointment) because they fail a simple test of rational and investigative thought. One of the key things I need in my officials is the ability to synthesize information that may not comport with their preconceptions and act appropriately. I can live with someone saying "I don't think we should do anything about t because the repercussions for the economy are too significant." Or: "I think future technology may solve it completely without making drastic cuts to carbon." I disagree but I at least find both views honest and rational. The reason Donald Trump won had little to do with liberals' disdain for those opposed. It was because he was able to somehow hold onto traditional GOP voters despite a campaign filled with promises antithetical to their views (the religious right, purely fiscal conservatives) while convincing some of the disaffected in this country that he could magically bring back manufacturing jobs without harming the larger economy in doing so. And another settled science starts to unravel www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/742143/fat-is-good-for-you-eat-up-says-new-dietary-researchAbout 30 years ago it was discovered I had high cholesterol and was put on a low fat diet. Twenty six years ago I had a heart attack and triple coronary bypass surgery. Settled science did me a disservice.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 11, 2016 19:40:26 GMT -5
If you went to Georgetown, you're part of the elite. Please stop using it as a put down, because otherwise you're calling yourself, your classmates, and probably your parents idiots. And you probably don't want to call yourself an idiot. Second, if you're not willing to accept that adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere changes the chemical mix, you're not racist. But you are anti-science. And that's a tragic thing for someone with a Jesuit education. And if you, or anyone else, is not willing to accept that an embryo is a human being, you or they are anti-science.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 12, 2016 0:08:19 GMT -5
If you went to Georgetown, you're part of the elite. Please stop using it as a put down, because otherwise you're calling yourself, your classmates, and probably your parents idiots. And you probably don't want to call yourself an idiot. Second, if you're not willing to accept that adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere changes the chemical mix, you're not racist. But you are anti-science. And that's a tragic thing for someone with a Jesuit education. And if you, or anyone else, is not willing to accept that an embryo is a human being, you or they are anti-science. Because you're pro-life, it's okay to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence of humans' contribution to climate change? I'm confused. You used a semantic sidetrack to ignore the original question which was what would it take for your to believe that humans have had a role in climate change? Then you went back to science to make a completely different, unrelated point. So science is good when it fits in with your previously held beliefs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 8:28:39 GMT -5
As someone that is on the "right" on many issues (and a registered Republican), this is laughable. Climate change is settled science. About 30 years ago it was discovered I had high cholesterol and was put on a low fat diet. Twenty six years ago I had a heart attack and triple coronary bypass surgery. Settled science did me a disservice. Hi Ed You are missing the point. Elevated cholesterol is a "risk factor" for heart disease. By going n a low fat diet, you "decreased" but didn't eliminate the chance of heart attack. Getting blood pressure under control, stopping smoking also decrease the chance of a heart attack. Occasionally persons with normal blood pressure, normal cholesterol, normal weight who have never smoked suffer heart attacks. BTW-by decreasing these risk factors and others, the chance of heart attacks are decreased. And that IS settle science.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 12, 2016 8:34:30 GMT -5
As someone that is on the "right" on many issues (and a registered Republican), this is laughable. Climate change is settled science. If you do not believe so, first, I would ask you what it would take for you to change your mind. Surely, any Hoya would agree that all sorts of our preconceived notions can be proven false after some amount of evidence. So, there has to be some threshold where you would agree that there is conclusive evidence of climate change, right? It can't be right that it is settled that there isn't climate change. So what more would it take? I'm asking seriously. Second, anyone who believes otherwise is simply disqualified from receiving my vote (or a cabinet appointment) because they fail a simple test of rational and investigative thought. One of the key things I need in my officials is the ability to synthesize information that may not comport with their preconceptions and act appropriately. I can live with someone saying "I don't think we should do anything about t because the repercussions for the economy are too significant." Or: "I think future technology may solve it completely without making drastic cuts to carbon." I disagree but I at least find both views honest and rational. The reason Donald Trump won had little to do with liberals' disdain for those opposed. It was because he was able to somehow hold onto traditional GOP voters despite a campaign filled with promises antithetical to their views (the religious right, purely fiscal conservatives) while convincing some of the disaffected in this country that he could magically bring back manufacturing jobs without harming the larger economy in doing so. And another settled science starts to unravel www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/742143/fat-is-good-for-you-eat-up-says-new-dietary-researchAbout 30 years ago it was discovered I had high cholesterol and was put on a low fat diet. Twenty six years ago I had a heart attack and triple coronary bypass surgery. Settled science did me a disservice. That's right. It happens. It happens with nutrition a heck of a lot in fact. But you're not addressing what is, I think, my simple question. What more do you need to believe it is happening? Or, as your reference to cholesterol suggests, are you simply never willing to ever believe it because the repercussions would be way too disserving if the science is wrong? And if it is the latter, you have to recognize, do you not, that if the science is right, that your refusal to believe it (along with the same view espoused by those in power), will have contributed directly to a human disaster?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 12, 2016 9:22:52 GMT -5
And if you, or anyone else, is not willing to accept that an embryo is a human being, you or they are anti-science. Because you're pro-life, it's okay to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence of humans' contribution to climate change? I'm confused. You used a semantic sidetrack to ignore the original question which was what would it take for your to believe that humans have had a role in climate change? Then you went back to science to make a completely different, unrelated point. So science is good when it fits in with your previously held beliefs? Tas, uou seem to be under some illusion that I am obligated to answer a question you posed. Rest assured, I am not.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 12, 2016 9:29:50 GMT -5
Hi Ed You are missing the point. Elevated cholesterol is a "risk factor" for heart disease. By going n a low fat diet, you "decreased" but didn't eliminate the chance of heart attack. Getting blood pressure under control, stopping smoking also decrease the chance of a heart attack. Occasionally persons with normal blood pressure, normal cholesterol, normal weight who have never smoked suffer heart attacks. BTW-by decreasing these risk factors and others, the chance of heart attacks are decreased. And that IS settle science. You are missing the point. Some fat intake actually decreases your risk of heart attack. Today, we say there are good and bad fats but that was not the case when I was put on a low fat diet. The settled science of thirty years ago was wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 10:55:40 GMT -5
The advice to decrease fats in your diet was good advice then and is good advice now
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 12, 2016 14:02:48 GMT -5
Because you're pro-life, it's okay to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence of humans' contribution to climate change? I'm confused. You used a semantic sidetrack to ignore the original question which was what would it take for your to believe that humans have had a role in climate change? Then you went back to science to make a completely different, unrelated point. So science is good when it fits in with your previously held beliefs? Tas, uou seem to be under some illusion that I am obligated to answer a question you posed. Rest assured, I am not. It wasn't a question I posed. I was just pointing out that you hadn't answered it. Touchy. But your lack of having answered the question asked of you by another poster several times is interesting considering this is a message board for discussion. Why bother getting into the conversation about climate change if you're not going to answer the "what would it take for you to get on board" question? Just seems odd is all.
|
|
|
Post by FrostbackHoya on Dec 12, 2016 16:45:56 GMT -5
If you went to Georgetown, you're part of the elite. Please stop using it as a put down, because otherwise you're calling yourself, your classmates, and probably your parents idiots. And you probably don't want to call yourself an idiot. Second, if you're not willing to accept that adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere changes the chemical mix, you're not racist. But you are anti-science. And that's a tragic thing for someone with a Jesuit education. And if you, or anyone else, is not willing to accept that an embryo is a human being, you or they are anti-science. Hahahaha... well, I guess Hoyatalk has its own special version of Godwin's Law...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 9:39:15 GMT -5
Hey, I get it. If we're not 100% certain of something, then we shouldn't act. I assume that EasyEd never gets on airplanes (which don't reach their destinations 100% of the time), he never invests in the stock market (which does not bring a positive return 100% of the time), nor does he watch the Hoyas (who definitely don't win 100% of the time).
Why go to the movies or read books? There's not a 100% chance you'll be entertained. Why have a glass of wine? There's not a 100% chance you'll enjoy it, or get drunk. Hell, why even show up to work today? There's not a 100% chance I get paid at the end of the week.
Why do we even have science at all? If there's any chance that something might be improved upon - or disproven - in the future, why the hell should we bother to research things and come to any conclusions now? What a waste of time, money, and brainpower.
God forbid scientists actually try to figure out anything new. They should all just sit around and do arithmetic all day. We do know that 1+1=2 100% of the time.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 14, 2016 14:55:01 GMT -5
Hey, I get it. If we're not 100% certain of something, then we shouldn't act. I assume that EasyEd never gets on airplanes (which don't reach their destinations 100% of the time), he never invests in the stock market (which does not bring a positive return 100% of the time), nor does he watch the Hoyas (who definitely don't win 100% of the time). Why go to the movies or read books? There's not a 100% chance you'll be entertained. Why have a glass of wine? There's not a 100% chance you'll enjoy it, or get drunk. Hell, why even show up to work today? There's not a 100% chance I get paid at the end of the week. Why do we even have science at all? If there's any chance that something might be improved upon - or disproven - in the future, why the hell should we bother to research things and come to any conclusions now? What a waste of time, money, and brainpower. God forbid scientists actually try to figure out anything new. They should all just sit around and do arithmetic all day. We do know that 1+1=2 100% of the time. This is what elites do, ridicule those with differing opinions.
|
|
AvantGuardHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something."
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by AvantGuardHoya on Dec 14, 2016 15:53:10 GMT -5
Hey, I get it. If we're not 100% certain of something, then we shouldn't act. I assume that EasyEd never gets on airplanes (which don't reach their destinations 100% of the time), he never invests in the stock market (which does not bring a positive return 100% of the time), nor does he watch the Hoyas (who definitely don't win 100% of the time). Why go to the movies or read books? There's not a 100% chance you'll be entertained. Why have a glass of wine? There's not a 100% chance you'll enjoy it, or get drunk. Hell, why even show up to work today? There's not a 100% chance I get paid at the end of the week. Why do we even have science at all? If there's any chance that something might be improved upon - or disproven - in the future, why the hell should we bother to research things and come to any conclusions now? What a waste of time, money, and brainpower. God forbid scientists actually try to figure out anything new. They should all just sit around and do arithmetic all day. We do know that 1+1=2 100% of the time. This is what elites do, ridicule those with differing opinions. Ridiculing those with differing opinions.... Hmmmm. Is that what only elites do? Or, are others sometimes guilty, too? School me, please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 18:09:50 GMT -5
Hey, I get it. If we're not 100% certain of something, then we shouldn't act. I assume that EasyEd never gets on airplanes (which don't reach their destinations 100% of the time), he never invests in the stock market (which does not bring a positive return 100% of the time), nor does he watch the Hoyas (who definitely don't win 100% of the time). Why go to the movies or read books? There's not a 100% chance you'll be entertained. Why have a glass of wine? There's not a 100% chance you'll enjoy it, or get drunk. Hell, why even show up to work today? There's not a 100% chance I get paid at the end of the week. Why do we even have science at all? If there's any chance that something might be improved upon - or disproven - in the future, why the hell should we bother to research things and come to any conclusions now? What a waste of time, money, and brainpower. God forbid scientists actually try to figure out anything new. They should all just sit around and do arithmetic all day. We do know that 1+1=2 100% of the time. This is what elites do, ridicule those with differing opinions. Ridiculing those with differing opinions is what EVERYBODY does. Trump built his entire campaign around it. And if you (or anyone else) wants to explain the logic behind why you need 100% assurance on climate when you don't maintain that same threshold for other aspects of life, I'd be willing to listen. But never once have I heard someone say why 100% certainty is necessary here before we should take ANY action. Seems arbitrary to me.
|
|