Well, do you really think that the feelings of the politicians should be important when present evidence had shown the proper answer to the Ebola crisis? Lets not ignore the reason why many dopers are here. There are important reasons why Ignorance should not be tolerated.
And in the previous post I linked to other example. Again, there are issues in Politics were science or the facts are not the main guide, but the point was that Trump and his minions already missed the brown M&Ms and we are finding a lot of things that show that Trump and many other Congress Republicans did not RTFM.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said 3 years ago:
The problem is that Tyson missed one big issue: We have a hard time finding the Republicans in power that are willing to wake up.
White supremacists and their opponents both agree that America is becoming less and less white by the day. But one side thinks that’s bad, the other side thinks it’s good.
Pro-lifers and pro-choicers both agree that many millions of women have access to abortion, and many abortions take place every year. Pro-lifers: “Nay!” Pro-choicers: “Yay!”
Not a good example, there is a ton of scientific evidence that points to a lot of what the racists believe to be false.
In this case one cut off time that has cropped in abortion discussions is about the most likely days when a fetus starts showing developed brain activity. (about 24 weeks, way after most abortions are performed) That realization would had been impossible with no medical science being there.
In any case, you are missing that Pro-choicers are actually “Yay” and “Nay”, that is why the word choice is there. Being just “Nay” gives one results like this:
Do not ignore the already found brown M&Ms in the Trump bowl. They point to many other errors when judging issues not related to the candy. (Or IOW science and facts)
And it is really clear that you are the one not wanting to answer my question: do you really think that when there is clear evidence present against a path that the different goals, different priorities, different ideals, different feelings should be just accepted?
I’m never more than 80% sure of anything I’m doing at any point in time. Less about what I’m saying.
Nope. I’m a strict ‘nuke em’ from orbit to be sure’ type of guy. Probably not the type best suited to be a politician. The same reason I’d make a lousy cop. No point in fooling myself about it.
No, what has been established is that she hasn’t been charged with anything. That’s not the same as being innocent. I think many people view Trump’s getting caught as proof that he doesn’t have the political connections that kept Hillary out legal trouble. IMHO, of course.
I think we are at an impasse then because I don’t think you’ve addressed it much at all. It does seem that each post is used as another opportunity to drop a new link. I tell you though, unless there is some summary of the link I rarely click through them. Especially so for youtube links.
It depends what the evidence consisted of “against a path”. I think there are very few if any actually contested paths or policy choices that aren’t rooted in differing goals or priorities. Did you have an example? I think it’s easy though lazy to attempt to cloak one’s own goals and priorities with the thin veneer that it’s all based on science or objective facts but in reality it’s just not often the case.
That last one was pointing at why feelings are not a very good tool to use in issues like climate change. Something that Trump and followers also have a lot of trouble with.
As pointed before, many brown M&Ms…
Already mentioned: Regarding many Republicans in congress with Ebola, Climate change (including Trump), vaccines, rates of crime from minorities and immigrants, etc. And regarding the just outed General Flinn: clearly false charges that Obama is a “jihadi” who “laundered” money for Muslim terrorists. retweeting a post about a Fox News story claiming that the Army had identified Clinton as an “insider threat.” Supporting evidence-free claims that “millions of people” had voted illegally in the Nov. 8 election.
From the linked Politico cite about General Flinn reliance on conspiracy theories sites:
In reality it is hard, as demonstrated by how many do ignore the warning signs.
I feel like the cost of dramatically altering the lifestyle of millions of people by force right now is not worth the potential benefit of doing so. Feelings are a perfectly valid when discussing priorities. Surest way to stop man made climate change is to eliminate all people from the planet Skynet style. That type of solution is untenable for many reasons so between that and doing nothing is an exercise in prioritization.
This may seem like a brilliant point, but it’s not for two reasons*. First, in the context of the contract provision, the follow up is to actually do the line check to see if there were other errors. Simply saying brown M&Ms repeatedly misses that necessary step for the example to work. Please don’t take this as an invitation to drop more links.
Here again, simply dropping generalized items doesn’t demonstrate how they are not rooted in different goals or priorities. In each of the examples you state I can conceive of ways they are viable tactics towards a particular goal. I think the idea that you are not recognizing is what I stated early on in the thread - different people value different things in vastly different magnitudes. Let’s look at your examples:
[ul]
[li]ebola - I actually don’t know what the Republican position on this is that you are objecting to.[/li][li]Climate change - stated above, costs not worth the potential benefits[/li][li]Vaccines - liberty valued greater than potential benefits and willingness to take advantage of free rider benefits[/li][li]Rates of crime from minorities and immigrants - pushing a narrative to achieve a policy goal[/li][li]Attacks towards Obama about jihadi or whatever BS - pushing a narrative to achieve a policy goal[/li][li]Retweeting a post - pushing a narrative to achieve a policy goal[/li][li]Supporting claims about illegal votes - pushing a narrative to achieve a policy goal[/li][/ul]
I’m not saying I agree with these tactics and I don’t in some respects. I do recognize they are viable tactics towards different goals than you may have.
*see what I did there…now you’re looking for the second reason.
Going for the reductio ad absurdum argument is not logical. The main point of the IPCC is indeed to acknowledge that we can not go cold turkey and what they recommend to do is what it can be viable be done to keep most of the civilization we have in place.
On the contrary, the main point I make is that knowing that there are gross errors and misinformation that Trump and followers are using to set policies leads to then to the unsurprising realization that in other items Trump is very, very likely to be all thumbs. And now we also know that in choosing personnel he is not to be trusted at all. Just like what finding the wrong M&Ms told us it was likely the case. Besides relying on ignorance Trump is really a classic crank magnet.
That is nice, but recognizing that they are viable tactics does not mean that the facts are to be dismissed forever. Nor that they should.
What I see here is really a defense of ignorance and gut feelings. You are still ignoring why that is not really a good thing to believe. Particularly when the subject is Donald Trump.
What you call laziness is in reality you advising others to not use some logic and the tools of the 21st century; while you do call that laziness in reality you are just trying to dismiss the fact that good information and sources of information can be identified and used.
If that’s what you see I’m afraid you’ve misinterpreted. What you should see is that different people want different things than you do. Case in point - you think climate change is very important I gather. I accept you feel that way. To a coal worker that depends on their livelihood to support their family my guess is that climate change isn’t their top priority. They will make different policy choices than you would. You’ve yet to identify an issue that is contested that isn’t rooted in different goals and priorities. I don’t think you can.
I’m going to leave it at that because I don’t think I’m making much progress here.
Meh, I think you are only trying your damnedest to make me sound as I’m unaware or that I don’t know that, the point is that science and facts can help us realize that when different goals are are being considered is that then bothering to check for what most experts and knowledgeable people tell us regarding controversial things is a wise thing to do. And available to many indeed.
Indeed.
What I can only get from you is still just a more sophisticated defense of Trump and others that are depending on ignorance.
Bone: Then why don’t the republicans make the argument that it is not economically efficient to protect the climate as much as their opposition wants?
They are saying delusional things and telling lies to say there is no problem, and further that there are pernicious agents in the world who are making this shit up to inconvenience them. You really can’t admit there is a difference? Between differing values and just lying? A child knows this. Lying about this is a big brown M and M, no?
I think nothing could better illustrate what the OP was trying to say than this.
8 investigations / committees, 13 hearings…and the last investigation was largely “why did we ever do these investigations”?
But the fact they found nothing shows just how powerful Clinton is. It’s just like how no-one has photos of the Reptilions who really control the NWO because they have technology that erases photographs and memories. The absence of evidence is evidence of how much of a threat they are.
But actually, since I’ve found a Benghazi believer, one thing I’d like to ask is this: what exactly do you think she did? What’s the truth? (and if the answer is “I don’t know”, then why is the official account implausible to you)?
That being said, if it was my email server (or any server) and I was given notice that I had to turn over a portion of its contents, I’d only hand over those things I was okay with you seeing. Everything else would have been scrubbed and I don’t really care what mad hacker skills you, or the government, may think you have, you aren’t finding anything I wouldn’t want you to find because it would no longer would exist.
Realistically, email doesn’t only exist on the originating server. It also sits on the server it was sent to. So, finding email out in the wild that doesn’t match what I’ve sent could be an indicator that something was tampered with on the originating server.
Now if I was the tech guy tasked with hiding her ‘deeds’, I’d have a few copies laying around to protect myself given Hillary’s penchant for having people knocked off!
I was commenting on what I thought other’s believed, not what I believed. I think that many think Trump being caught doing nasty things is proof that he isn’t part of the establishment. Hillary not getting caught is proof otherwise when she is so ‘obviously’ guilty of something, in their minds. Many of them also believe that Jebus will come back to earth in their lifetimes as well. So, logic isn’t their strong suit.
We have no evidence of wrongdoing on Benghazi. But perhaps some of the deleted emails contained something. We can’t say what, as the accusations thrown around in right wing media (e.g. “stand down”) have already been shown to be baseless.
Also, there’s no evidence to say clinton deliberately deleted emails; they were deleted by a third party trying to follow an earlier state dept instruction. This is the FBI’s judgement on this.
But hey, this is Clinton we’re talking about. So she must have managed to fool the FBI, falsify state department instructions, kill off any of the senders or recipients of her emails, all part of her cover up of whatever the conspiracy over Benghazi was (we don’t know what the conspiracy was, only that there must be one).
Unless they have email from a receiving server that doesn’t show on the sending server, how do they know what email, if any, has been deleted? All anyone really knows is that the ‘nefarious’ Clinton put up her own email server to avoid using the one nicely provided by the government with the caveat that they control what is deleted and when. There are only a couple of reasons for doing this:
You are doing something you don’t want the government seeing. (I’m not saying this is true, but you have to admit it isn’t a long leap to assume this.)
You’re an idiot with no thought to the legal ramifications or possible negative perception.
Firstly, you’ve only given one possible reason for hillary doing this (1. is a motivation, but 2. is just a (false) necessary condition). And it doesn’t make a lot of sense. emails are a pretty insecure form of data. It’s relatively easy to eavesdrop, and of course you have to trust all senders and recipients if hypothetically she planned to mail out her version of mein kampf. I don’t agree that this is the one and only possible motivation for her using her own server.
But secondly remember we were talking about Benghazi and that was only in the context of me saying the hate for Hillary is as irrational as voting for trump. You haven’t even tried to suggest any specific wrongdoing Hillary might have done WRT Benghazi. Just conjecture on top of conjecture, that even playing devil’s advocate would only show “she’s hiding something!”, not anything specific to get upset about.
With Trump meanwhile we don’t have to play that conjecture game. He lies constantly, and his lies are extremely dangerous and irresposible. “Thousands cheered WTC falling” – stir up race / religion conflict. “I may contest the result of the election” / “3 million illegals vote” – make americans lose faith in their elections, possibly their democracy. “80% of murdered whites killed by blacks” – race war.
And on and on.
But if we did do the conjecture game about, say, his tax returns, where would it lead?
So yeah, I am incredulous at this time that there are people who strongly believe in correct data, and logic over gut feeling, and vote for trump.
Well, she obviously did something wrong. She setup her own server and didn’t use the official servers that her job required her to. Let’s see you try that at your job without the compliance department jumping down your throat.
Regardless, here is what I said,
“I was commenting on what I thought other’s believed, not what I believed. I think that many think Trump being caught doing nasty things is proof that he isn’t part of the establishment. Hillary not getting caught is proof otherwise when she is so ‘obviously’ guilty of something, in their minds.”
I’m explaining why I think others give Trump a pass for his actions rather than Hillary. I’m not giving him a pass, nor am I saying she is guilty of anything other than the stupidity of not understanding the consequences of her actions.
