I had read another source which expressed the poll results as "less than 1/3", but you are correct, the story I linked to and the pdf file with additional poll data does say the favorable rating was 33 percent. The favorable rating for Cuba is 38 percent. To me that means it is "more popular". That more people have strong opinions about Cuba people (the high disapproval rating) and that most people have never heard of the Tea Party does nothing to change the fact that 38 is greater than 33. Unless you can prove to me that 33 is more than 38, I stand by my claim.
Well, how about this for a starter:
"The supply of fuel is irrelevant to whether recreational vehicles should be made illegal. If there is a demand in the market, then the supply of vehicles will meet this demand."
There you start your economic debate. It continues. But that's ok. I think we are done here.
Feel free to have the last word.
A much more important question, if you are a cow, is who is the Anti-Krishna.
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Its easy to point out the people who don't Everyone else is either a talented speller or a diligent spell-checker.
I used to be really bad at spelling. Then I took four years of Latin in High School. Much of the English language is based on Latin words so my vocabulary was vastly extended and I found I was able to spell better also.
Ain't that grate!
And so they killed them.
All you can do is give an excuse for the killings done at god's will, but you can't explain of how it is justified for the "thou shalt not kill" god to tell folks to go around killing other folk.
What I'm trying to do is understand this killing god who said not to kill. All I can figure out is what I say in my original argument, " "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to members of your own tribe. Everyone else is fair game."
"He ordered it because they were the Israelite's enemies."
Exactly. not of their own tribe. Note that some of the "enemies" only offense was to not want the Israelites to steal their land. So, they were killed. Where is the morality in that? As I said. You can't kill your own, but everyone else is fair game. Don't believe it? Just look to the bible my friend.
It is absurd but, if you believe the bible, it is a fact. God not only approved of killing lots of non-Hebrews, he ordered it to be done. Kind of hard to reconcile that with the commandment not to kill. The current legal consequences for killing does not change that fact. It might stop you from doing it, but then again, when was the last time God told you to kill anyone? I don't think you will have anything to worry about -- until the next war at least.
I have to chastise myself somewhat. MPD or DID is really nothing to joke about. Often it is a result of profound abuse as a child. Going into a dissociative state is a means of coping. Once in that state, the child can then begin to build a new "personality", that is a set of habitual behaviors. But rarely is the alternative personality whole and complete -- largely because they lack the fullness of experience someone gains by being fully themselves. I've only known one person verified as having DID - her childhood was a horror story and her self-destructive behavior as an adult was astounding to me.
Understanding all that, I'm usually politically correct about this stuff, but I just love the joke about "2 out of every 1". Not every 1 gets it and some argue that its not that high a percentage!
I agree with all but the "preaching" part.
Eating habits are formed as early as our time (or not) at our mother's breast. People have a strong attachment to the diet they were brought up with.
The approach I encouraged our local EarthSave chapters to take was based on my experience helping people change their behavior for the better. I had the benefit of being able to point out the successful approach taken by a prominent group (I forget the name now) involved in helping people quit smoking.
They did not run anti-smoking ads about the ill effects of the habit. Studies have found that most people already know smoking is bad for them. They don't need to be beat over the head with that information. Here was the crux of the problem. Most smokers had tried to quit -- and had failed. What they needed was the practical help to experience success, not failure, in overcoming their addiction. This organization did that.
In much the same way, people do not need to see the horrific videos of the ill-treatment of animals raised and slaughtered for our consumption. Guilt or shame is a poor motivator for change. It only makes us feel bad, and to help cope with that, we typically turn to the thing that helps relieve the stress -- another smoke or a big serving of "comfort food." (Stuffed pork chops anyone?)
And people don't need lectures on self-improvement either. Being "talked at" is not very effective. But being "walked with" on your journey is of help.
We offered potlucks so peole could try out the food and with recipes at the ready for them to take home if they liked. We took trips to the grocery store to show how to find the meatless options there. We would have evenings out at a restaurant to see that choosing to cut down on meat did not mean cutting down on your options for dining out. We offered self-help type discussion groups so people could relate their successes and get help with their struggles in changing their food habits. Often a topic was how to persuade the grandparents that your choice of diet would not harm your kids.
The whole program was a hands-on approach with a strong component of social support.
But most importantly, we made sure that people were not judged for their food choices. Small and comfortable changes were just fine.
So, no preaching. Just help with practicing, once people are ready to make a change.
Thanks for the link. I've added the blog to my RSS feeds. I have a couple of pysch blogs to recommend as well, but my list got disorganized when I synchonzed Google Reader with NetNewsWire. I'm sure they would tell me its not a bug, its an undocumented feature. :)
The best movie idea is a movie about a guy who solicits on an on-line forum people's best movie ideas and then makes movies based on them. The only question is would this movie about making a movie be a comedy, a drama, a sci-fi or a chick flick?
I agree. Most bloggers are. Just not the right-wing crazies.
I should change my comment to be a support, not a dispute, based on the "mostly" qualifier you offered.
I can blame you for the crazies! Aren't you the chief blogger in charge of all the rest of the right-wing conspiracy? :)
Stating the obvious truth that Starbucks stores are corporate cookie cutter and standardized is being on a "high horse"? Do you have any evidence to offer to the contrary, or are insults all you got?
The debate I offered is about local "flavor" vs the corporate McCoffee environment. With nothing to say about that, you bring up some other points altogether. However, without insult, I will do you the courtesy of addressing the issues you'd like to discuss even while you avoid the McCoffee debate.
Starbucks is a good corporate citizen you say.
I've heard from the guy whose job it was to make Starbucks look good. He said the fair trade coffee thing was largely a fraud. [1]. The $3 many Americans shell out every day for a latte at Starbucks is equivalent to the daily wage of a Central American coffee picker.
Fair trade coffee at Starbucks did not come about without a fight. At first Starbucks refused to carry fair trade, saying there was no consumer demand. It was only after a year-long campaign organized by Global Exchange, and their plans to stage protests at Starbucks in 29 cities, that the retailer decided to avoid a public relations nightmare and sell the beans.
Starbucks' decision to sell fair trade coffee, however, does not mean the company will brew it in their stores. You will not see fair trade as "coffee of the day" at Starbucks. [2]
So, great job Starbucks!
McCoffee is trying to imitate the local coffee houses now. In 2009, at least three stores in Seattle were turned into "stealth Starbucks". The company logo and brand name were removed and the stores remodeled to look like a local coffee house. Look for this experiment to spread. Hey, why not? Big beer companies are selling fake micro-brews. Why not offer the market fake independent coffee houses?
Some labor relations information from Wikipedia [3]
In 2005, Starbucks paid out US$165,000 to eight employees at its Kent, Washington, roasting plant to settle charges that they had been retaliated against for being pro-union.
Starbucks stores in more than 50 cities around the world were picketed in 2006 to protest the firing of five Starbucks Workers Union organizers and to demand their reinstatement.
In March 2008, Starbucks was ordered to pay baristas over US$100 million in back tips in a Californian class action lawsuit launched by baristas alleging that granting shift-supervisors a portion of tips violated state labor laws.
So no, Starbucks is not hell. But for some workers, its Purgatory.
Getting back to my debate topic, consider this. You ask where my coffee come from. Where does your Starbucks buck go to?The exorbitant price you pay for a foo-foo drink does not stay in your local area, helping your local economy.
And did I mention the free wi-fi?
I am not incompetent. Just forgetful.
I always get only what I need, but its often a weeks supply of food. I think what you are suggesting is that I get only what I need immediately. However, the environmental impact of having to drive back to the store obviates any advantage of not getting any bag at all.
Some municipalities are now outlawing plastic bags altogether. Too much of a negative impact on the landfills.
Except for a bus ride when biking was not a reasonable option, and trips with friends in their car, riding a bicycle was my voluntary choice for the sole source of transportation for 2-3 years. I had pannier packs from and rear. I took them into the store and had my groceries packed in them. Some of the baggers were kind of confused at this request.
I remember riding home from a store with a big fig tree strapped to the back bike rack. I got some funny looks from the motorists along the way. Kinda made me want to decorate it with x-mas lights and tool around town.
Did you know you can get a ticket for "driving" drunk while riding a bicycle? Not that its ever happened to me. I never got caught!
Seattle gets lots of rain for much of the year. I had gore-tex rain pants, jacket, helmet liner, gloves and boots. I looked like a freak when going into the shops like that. No matter. I never dress to impress anyways.
In any case, I think I've built up enough credit to let the bag thing slide by. That's my guilt-free rationalization about the topic.
I'm not sure that many people ever did -- or could afford to do so.
Thinking requires time. Unthinking action is speedier, if not always the best option. Thinking time is often leisure time, free from the cares and woes of the work a day world. Leisure time is often a luxury. It requires a sufficient amount of resources to do, essentially, nothing.
In fact, the flowering of Greek philosophy took place when enough Greeks were well enough off to support a bunch of bums doing nothing more than sitting around pondering things.
The Greeks got rich largely from the trade in olive oil. Also, shipping the oil to other countries allowed the Greeks to become exposed to other cultures and to bring back new ideas to about which to think.
Next time you see an ocean going vessel or a bottle of olive oil on the store shelf, make sure to thank them for making our Western Civilization possible.
Why do you all say "Millions died"
2 million is more than 1 million. 2 million is not a million. It is "millions". Less millions that 3, but not a million like 1.
However, lets leave the realm of semantics and into the realm of statistics.
Overall, about 5.7 million (78 percent) of the 7.3 million Jews in occupied Europe perished [1]
5.7 million is millions I think.
That can be compared to the five to 11 million (1.4 percent to 3.0 percent) of the 360 million non-Jews in German-dominated Europe that the Nazi's killed.
"Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' systematic murder of millions of people in other groups, including ethnic Poles, Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other political and religious opponents. By this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims would be between 11 million and 17 million." [2] people.
17 million. Now we are talking some serious fucking zzzzzzzzzzz at the end of "million". Instead of saying "millions", we would be more correct to say, "the Nazi's killed millionzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!"
[1] Gilbert, Martin. Atlas of the Holocaust 1988, pp. 242–244
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
"Tell those people that producing SUV's is destroying the environment, so in order to save it, your job is slashed."
"What is more important? Jobs or Environment"
This is a phony dichotomy. Why do you think unions support environmental protection? Because people don't have jobs when they are dead. Because people don't have jobs when they are profoundly ill. Because people don't want to do a job that will harm the people they love. ("Well honey, you may have been born a freak with profound physical abnormalities due to the horrid pollution from the auto plant, but hey, look on the bright side! I've got a job!")
There is plenty of work in environmental clean-up, unfortunately and, on the positive side, in green technology.
For just a couple of examples for union support for environmental activism, see "Environmental Movement, Unions Come Together for Healthy Planet, Workers’ Rights" [1] and "Unions for Jobs and the Environment" [2]
You are correct that in my description, I did not then introduce the environmental argument. Foolishly, I thought it was a given that would be the main reason for banning SUVs. In my first argument, however, I did articulate the environmental case against SUVs.
You seem to believe there is an economic reason to ban them. I've yet to hear that argument here in favor of that position. As I said, you are winning a debate we are not having.
There are some who do say that owning a large vehicle that consumes a lot of gasoline like the SUV is not only damaging to our environment but also to the economy. Not only that, our dependence on oil profoundly impacts our foreign policy. It is clear that our energy policy should be steering us toward greater fuel efficiency.
The Hebrews were like totally into poly-everything. Polyandry. Polytheism, Polyunsaturated fats, polywanna cracker...
Then that dick Yahweh cracked down. "No other gods before me" and stuff. Which, if you think about it, that commandment makes no sense if there is only one god. So even that Yahweh guy was a polytheist -- he just didn't want them others in his posse.
"So, it appears that you don't know the difference between the scope of regulatory process of economic regulations and safety regulations."
Please review the debate title. All my arguments have been about the environmental harm of driving SUVs.. As you yourself note, "All of your arguments are about safety and clean regulations." Why, yes they are! Because that is my argument in support of the debate topic.
Your discussion of economic regulation has nothing to do with the debate. So I suppose you win -- a debate we are not having.
I'm sure you did read elsewhere that psychopathy cannot be treated. That is a common perception, but a wrong one. You really need to cite some credible and authoritative sources to prove your point. Simply saying you heard something somewhere is not especially persuasive.
Government regulation is not intend to prove anything. It is intended to prevent harm. For profit businesses have demonstrated over and over again that they will not regulate themselves when it comes to assuring the public good. That is why standards for safety need to be set and enforced by the government.
For example, during the Bush years, mine safety inspectors were discouraged from issuing safety infractions, and if they did, the penalty was almost always reduced by the political appointees in charge. Mining companies had no incentive to incur the costs of maintaining a safe work environment. As a result, mine deaths increased.
Aside from the fact that I mentioned water safety standards simply as an example of government regulation of natural resources, the fact is that industries typically use water in their manufacturing process and without regulation, would simply discharge their contaminated waste water into our streams and rivers.
You ask, "Since when do car or rec companies deal with water standards?" Well at least since the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) began the Auto Project, to reduce pollutants contaminating the waters of the Great Lakes coming from the auto industry. [1]
You say that government regulation is ineffective as its only tool is fines after the damage in done. Not true. Government regulations make a strong effort to avoid harm. For example, that is why the FDA has requires extensive testing of new drugs before they are released. That is why meat inspectors visit processing plants to inspect for unsanitary conditions.
It appears that you need to become more familiar with the scope of the regulatory process. It is more than issuing fines after harm is done.
[1] http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/p2/pollsolu/
OK, seriously now...
We are ready, biologically, to have sex and reproduce at an age not now appropriate, considering the complexity of our society and the need for an extended education to learn how to make a living in it. Adolescence is a creation of advanced cultures like ours, but unfortunately society has not found a good answer for the sexual desires of teens. Especially as these days adolescence is effectively extended into our supposed adulthood, when we do not start to work, but instead go on to advanced studies.
How can someone get married who does not yet support themselves? But then, how can someone be expected to be abstinent from age 12-14 or so until age 18-25?
Sure, abstinence is 100% effective, but most folks are not "effective" in living up to a pledge of abstinence. Studies have shown that those who received an abstinence-only education are just as likely to become sexually active, but less likely to use protection. Absolute insanity!
We need to provide sex education that gives teens information about all the options, including abstinence certainly but also the various forms of birth control.
Accepting the fact that most folks have and will continue to have pre-marital sex, we need to find more effective forms of birth control.
We need to create a healthy culture that allows a healthy and safe expression of our healthy urges to engage in sex.
Everything has developed as it has and fortunate the conditions required for life came about. Our existence is not divinely ordained. It just happened. You make an unwarranted conclusion from the fact that the universe and all in it is a functional system. If it was not, it would all be chaos and disorder and you would not be here to voice your opinion on the matter.
"What about the fact the the human body rejects everything thing else but does not reject a baby? How does evolution explain that?"
It explains that creatures for which this is not true die away, if indeed they ever existed, while creatures with this capacity survive and thrive. If you seek the biology behind it, Goggle is your friend.
"If you can tell yourself everyday that you were created from nothing and therefore your life means nothing"
I see. One needs to be obsessive compulsive ("tell yourself everyday"), make unwarranted leaps of logic ("created from nothing = life means nothing"), totally nihilistic and likely clinically depressed in order to accept that evolution is firmly based in fact, while creationism is a nice folk tale.
I find that your argument is not relevant. :p
Maybe yes, maybe no.
We are social animals. Yet some are "inadequately socialized", in otherwords, will not fit into society well.
Other inadequately socialized people will not follow the rules of society. However, they are anti-social, not completely unsocialized. They are men, just bad men.
We don't have to use our imagination. Those in the business of studying and treating mental disorders estimate that that between one and four percent of the general population are psychopaths [1]
Some investigators have speculated that “successful psychopaths”—those who attain prominent positions in society—may be overrepresented in certain occupations, such as politics, business and entertainment. Yet the scientific evidence for this idea is not yet available. [2]
Off the topic of your comment, here are some interesting facts about this condition:
Psychopathy is made up of at least three overlapping, but separable, groups of traits:
1. interpersonal deficits (such as grandiosity, arrogance and deceitfulness),
2. affective deficits (lack of guilt and empathy, for instance), and 3. impulsive and criminal behaviors (including sexual promiscuity and stealing).
Not suprisingly, studies find that about 25 percent of prision inmates are psychopaths.
Popular misperceptions of psychopathy:
1. All psychopaths are violent. the fact is, most psychopaths are not violent, and most violent people are not psychopaths.
2. All psychopaths are psychotic. The fact is psychopaths are almost always rational. They are well aware that their ill-advised or illegal actions are wrong in the eyes of society but shrug off these concerns.
3. Psychopathy is untreatable. Even if the core personality traits of psychopaths are verydifficult to change, their criminal behaviors may prove more amenable to treatment.
[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/
[2] This and much of the rest of the comment are from the source http://www.scientificamerican.com/
