I was being sarcastic in response to dallowar's argument: "In a great majority of cases you can catch a fish and release it without serious or long lasting harm".
I took that as meaning that it is ok to do harm to something as long as it's not fatal or long lasting. So i applied that logic to humans to point out how stupid i think it is.
I probably should have commented under that post instead. However, i feel that a lot of people hold that belief and thus i wanted to comment on people in general instead of focus on dallowar.
Yes, killing animals for fun is cruel. It also worries me when I am around people who take so much pleasure in killing things. First its starts at animals, usually it will stay there, but then again maybe it will go to humans. What about if someone, who was a little twisted, went hunting and they accidentally or purposely killed your pet such as your dog or horse? I doubt you would respond, "Hey at least you had fun."
A person who takes pleasure in such dominating power because they are able, as in killing a "lesser" creature, is not someone I would respect.
I'm not sure about fishing for sport. It looks like it could be painful to the fish. I mean if someone stuck a hook in your cheek it would be painful, but its ok because it would heal. If all the other sports that kill or seriously harm animals were banned except sport fishing i would be happy enough.
Welfare, in the USA, needs to be drastically altered but I would never suggest that it be abolished. Currently it is broken and corrupt just like many American public social institutions but the solution isn't to just throw it away.
People who have not needed to live on any form of welfare are lucky and it is possible that those people could feel that they are unfairly paying for a service they don't need or utilize. It is easy to think that something is useless or a waste of resources if you don't need it but once you need it you will be wondering why it isn't more accessible or supported.
There are people who force themselves, out of terrible decisions they made, to be in a situation requiring welfare and it is frustrating having to support them but the majority of those who need welfare were forced to that point because of events out of their control. Little exists to help these people rise up. If you are in need of welfare you often are poor, in moderate or poor health and possibly in a sub par hygienic situation. These factors can make it difficult to get jobs or advance in jobs. People look down on you and politicians never really help because these people are seen as a drain on resources by those well off.
Welfare is to help those at the bottom rise up and currently it is failing those most in need. It needs to be made more efficient and less corrupt. It shouldn't focus on getting people off of welfare as soon as possible but on helping people increase their living standards to a sustainable and acceptable point. Only the most demoralized want to live on welfare for ever and usually they don't want to but the feel they are stuck. People have a natural desire to do something and to contribute to something; proper welfare gets them going and removes some obstacles that are oppressive and intimidating.
Homework shouldn't be banned. Teachers should take more time to think about what homework they assign and if they should assign homework that day. It shouldn't be busy work but a reinforcement of what was done in class. If the teacher needs to assign a lot of homework or homework every school day then the teacher is the problem and the students are suffering because the teacher and school are not working effectively.
Do we need meat to survive? No.
Do we need meat to be satisfied? That depends.
I'm a vegetarian and I'm perfectly fine with not eating meat. It makes it difficult to go out to eat or overseas travel but i'm not worse off and I think it's a better lifestyle.
What we do need is protein but that and other elements can be gained from other non-meat foods and thus meat is not necessary for humans.
Apathy.
Most if not all the major issues that plague society, such as global warming, deforestation of rain forests, corrupted health care, poverty, imperial wars, and corrupt economic systems are solvable with today's technology, knowledge, and industry. The problem is that many of the people who are able to solve these issues or contribute to solving them don't care.
An issue can have a million solutions but if no one cares about it then that issue will never be solved and that is the current state of most problems.
If people could lose their apathy towards everything that isn't themselves or doesn't directly affect them in the short-term then I think we could actually do something good for society and thus each of us.
I don't really think piracy is the reason that rates for products are so high. Also if pirating of software were to disappear i don't think the price of software would decrease. I prefer paid applications because i think the workers who wrote the code and designed it should get paid. However i prefer open source applications more because they tend to work just as well or better, more community oriented which is a social value i appreciate, and they are free.
It really depends on the activity. I like to win but there are times where I prefer a loss or am not disappointed with a loss. This is mainly in regards to sports such as real football (soccer). There have been some games that my team won but it was mainly luck on our part. I played terribly, the team played terribly and the opposing team played well, however; somehow we managed to win when they deserved to. Maybe one of my teammates committed a nasty foul and prevented the other team from scoring. Maybe due to a handball we managed to put a ball in the net. By the rules we won but those aren't games to be proud of and if I'm not proud of how I or the team did then I consider that game a loss. That goes the other way to. I've played several games where we lost but i did really well and some of those games I've liked and bean more proud of then games my team has won.
Evolution doesn't make a direct attack on Religion, it was in no way intended to. But those devout anti-evolution Christians seem to believe it has an immense impact on religion; they view it as a threat.
Bill Maher's film does directly attack religion so logically that should be what the Christians should be against, sadly, those Christians aren't fond of logic.
The confrontation that the creationist Christians created would see that the main enemy is evolution. Bill Marer is a blimp on their radar. He is pretty left and obviously anti-religious. He can be passed off as a leftist wacko, and his audience is too small to be powerful and too liberal to be swayed. However, there are many who are on the fence about evolution, it has a far greater support base, and it has facts and logic to back it up.
In this confrontation created by those who don't believe in evolution against those who do, religion is in trouble. It can't fight on the same grounds or with the same weapons as those who believe evolution. They started an unwinnable war, at least by conventional means, and if they were to back down then they would lose. They set up the battle so that which ever side loses discredits what they were fighting for, Evolution vs the Christians' God. However, it isn't that black and white. If those supporting evolution were to ignore the creationists or refuse to fight then little harm would befall them aside from seeing more smirting creationists. If the creationists were defeated then it would be devastating to them partly because it is their war.
Thus evolution logically isn't a danger as it was created but it has been assigned an enemy status by anti-evolutionists and thus in their world it has a greater impact to religion.
It truly is a shame that christens are nearly always grouped together with those who also believe in creationism because as you say not ever christian is a creationist. Due to my laziness I didn't specify that i don't mean every christian is against evolution or science.
Nonetheless, those who manage to get themselves heard and get things done, in regards to evolution bashing, are for the most part creationists. They represent themselves as Christians and thus the stigma of a creationist is received, unintentionally for the most part, by the christian community.
The Christan community as a majority however, doesn't attempt to separate themselves from these extremists. So it appears that even if you don't believe in creationism that you doubt evolution and thus you doubt much of science.
Christians like you who believe in evolution should do more to separate yourselves from those who fight evolution on faulty platforms because the majority of Christians, I believe, do accept evolution yet they are not represented in politics or social life and thus the majority is marginalized in favor of the select minority.
The article has this phase in reference to the Charles Darwin film.
"US distributors have resolutely passed on a film"
"The film has no distributor in America" - Jeremy Thomas (producer)
Now maybe the producer's word has only a little strength behind it but it would appear that the article did say that the film will not have US distributors.
Of course they don't mention directly that the a reason or the sole reason the film has no producer is because it could be controversial but they don't say it was because it sucked either.
I haven't seen the film so I don't know of its quality but apparently a lot of distributors from other countries are willing to show it so it can't be terrible. And thus I don't think that its quality is the major reason this film isn't being shown in the US. Most of the films in the US are a waste of time and money anyway.
Even if the film is questionable quality wise it seems that its nature would be enough to put it on the Christan enemy list. I haven't seen a few of the movies you gave an example of but i think the reason that this film has been so attacked was because it supposedly talks about losing religion and it includes some talk of evolution.
The far Christians fight evolution and things related to it as if it were created solely to destroy god and their religion. Now Religulus wasn't the kindest to religion but I think those extreme Christians view the topic of evolution as a greater threat than Bill Mahar and his film.
Since you only said "Scarcity pricing is the only just and sustainable way to price things, including labor." I assumed, maybe wrongly, that statement implied that the salary difference between the two groups of workers was justifiable because of that economic viewpoint.
I understand there are a lot of teachers. The facts you pointed to back that up, but I think that those who can teach well, who are the best, should get paid more. That doesn't mean that every teacher should be paid more. I've known several teachers who shouldn't be teachers and maybe one of the problems lies with the retention rate of bad teachers.
Even though the supply and demand model suggests that teachers should have a lower wage to meet equilibrium, I personally feel that for the teaching profession as well as firefighters, police officers and such, their wage should be influenced on the social good they do for society regardless of the number of applicants there are to the fields. Just because there are a lot of applicants doesn't mean you need to hire them all. Pick the best teachers and pay them well for being the best teachers.
If what you say is true, why do bankers make so much and yet the US banking system is suffering from lack of sustainablity?
Also since many would stress that really good and effective teachers are scarce why shouldn't they be paid much more? Wouldn't a good teacher help create a more stable and just society economically and socially and thus schouldn't those teachers recieve a greater income?
You can have faith in the human species and still realize that there are members within this species that are stupid. If you look at all that humans have let continue such as global warming even though proof exists that it is happening and yet people still frantically deny that evidence as true you have stupid people who put their desired fantasy world before the true physical world they are a part of. The human race isn't stupid but that doesn't mean the majority of humans or a high percentage of the population isn't stupid. Answering "yes" might sound pessimistic and it would be nice to live in a world where people aren't stupid;however, we need to be realistic first.
Yes, teachers should be paid much higher salaries for what they do. Teachers probably shouldn't be paid so much that people join that career just for the money but the current wage for teachers is depressingly low.
A teacher is one of the most important professions, especially in a democracy like system, and a teacher shouldn't be required to work two jobs, or have their spouse work a job just so they can afford to live an adequate life.
I had a guarded optimism about obama but i still believe he is the better choice for president. McCain supported many not all of bushes polices, and the sad thing about it is that he changed his political views such as on torture after being presured by the gop and others to do so. He is the kind of person who when the pressure was on chose what, he thought or was told, the far-right wanted.
McCain's choice in running mate also put serious doubt into his reasoning and understanding of the situation and needs of the country.
Obama has run into many problems from democrats and republicans as well as a decreased drive to succeed in more liberal polices but he inherited many problems, some he hasn't alleviated but the ones stalling or preventing him from succeeding are left overs from the right wing political body and center-right democrats.
Raising the quality of debates is always a good idea but i don't think this method would work. Even if the price to read an argument by a professional was cheap i don't think people would really go through the effort paying for or be willing to spend money on reading a single argument or selection of arguments from a professional.
Also, being a professional doesn't mean by default that you can explain or argue your point so that others can understand it even if they lack much of your knowledge in the field.
In addition professionals can have different views on the same topic and that could make the arguments bias. For instance, there are professionals economists who believe in Keynes economic model and those who don't. what if only a professional that believed in Keyne's model of economics were to add an argument to the debate? having a supposedly superior knowledge of economics, along with a title as being an expert in that field, might make their argument seem stronger against an opponent's argument even if it doesn't fit logically or isn't backed up as well with sources as the non-expert's argument.
in a medium where you can get a lot of relevant information about nearly any topic for free, it seems as overkill or just unlikely that having an expert's opinion will be utilized since people are generally lazy and unwilling to pay for information (other than college) that they can get on-line.
in order to bring about peace their needs to be a threshold of development which can support it. the likely hood of ever reaching true peace among all individuals is highly unlikely but it is easier for peace to flourish if the people aren't in conflict with each other, or the forces of society such as personal finances.
Peace should be the ultimate goal and we should develop with that in mind. We can't however abandon any current peace now in favor of future development, if development will hinder or reduce the peace within a community then a different path of development must be sought.
Peace is a social and cultural entity and development should begin in sectors that enhance such areas.
Banning of unhealthy foods will do no good and be ineffective. Advertising needs to be truthful and maybe it should be required that advertisements of unhealthy foods have warnings. Similar to that of smoking and drinking. Because unhealthy food is not as severe as smoking and drinking then maybe advertisements that feature some warning about the ill effects of unhealthy food be given a small incentive of some sort instead of requiring a warning label.
Ideally people should know what is healthy and what isn't. And in the end banning advertisements of unhealthy food will have less an effect on curbing the increase of unhealthy people than properly educating people about the ill effects.
Even though commercial companies exist for profit they should take a socially responsible role and focus their advertisements on the healthier products they create or on research or production that leads to healthier food.
There are those who are paranoid about obama because they feel he will drastically alter the American economic and political landscape but i think there are those who voted for him that are paranoid that he won't change anything.
I'm paranoid about obama not because of the person but because it is appearing like he will be the downfall of the left in major politics or at least set them back. Even though he was not a very left candidate he was promoted as one. Currently, the democrats have the power that they could introduce liberal polices but obama is not taking the lead. even though his views are center or center left on most issues he is portrayed as being very left and thus a representative of the liberal ideology.
The problem is that the polices that he enacts are not appearing to be liberal in their end results, and yet it is likely that if he fails to bring about the liberal end result the liberal ideology will be blamed and not the real failure in communication and execution of the means to the liberal results.
It appears that obama does not know the power he and the democrats have, he is trying to please everyone, and is worried about not appearing too left. The democrats in politics fail at communication and because of this they aren't able to properly defend their views, explain their views, or explain the problems that are on going and possible solutions to them.
Even though Obama was not very left or at least as left as commonly portrayed and self-promoted he still has the ability to bring about liberal polices and if he fails to do so it will probably be a long while before anyone more left than him can do so in that office.
I completely agree. While i do think it is important to set a good example, that alone won't compel any nation to follow, as you already mentioned. I think we need to set a good example so we gain the high ground in our negotiations because if we don't set an example we can't honestly expect the other nations to reduce their carbon emissions if we don't ourselves.
A cap and trade system could work and it probably is one of the better ways to get corporations to actually do something to help combat global warming. The problem is that all the politicians are bought by at least one corporation and thus they weaken and warp any bill until it is useless for its intended and introduced purpose. Nonetheless, this doesn't mean that bills or actions to combat global warming are wasteful. It just takes longer.
Some people, not just on this site but everywhere, have mentioned that because we the US or other countries more inclined to fighting global warming can't actually force countries like china to reduce their carbon emissions it is a waste of our money and time to reduce our own since they will cut any gains we make.
While this may be true, it doesn't mean we can't continue to reduce our carbon emissions since at least there will be less. Leading by example is our only way to get other countries to adopt better techniques.
If the US or other western countries with the infrastructure and knowledge can actually take steps to seriously develop clean energy technology as well as more efficient processes we could develop the tools needed to solve this problem. These able countries will need to invest a large initial sum of money to get this working but overtime it will pay for it self as well as help the earth. Some countries such as china have said they will follow what the US does. If they are sincere i don't know but once the US and other countries create and adopt better technologies they will become more affordable and accessible to developing countries.
Of course if the US stays on its intended course policy wise our example will mean nothing since we haven't actually set a good example of how to fight combat warming. There are too many people who only think short term and are not willing to be pioneers in these better and cleaner technologies. Investing in clean technology, subsidizing clean energy, taxing poluting energy and industries and continuing even if it appears we are alone is one of the few ways to fix this. We can't ignore it and hope we could adapt to the changes in the climate. If we set a good example and are actually serious about this issue then other countries will eventually follow.
