ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Teague wrote:
I see why you fail to understand. There's no establishment, of course not. That's why you live in an oligarchy right now with no democracy. The establishment hasn't skewed things towards the rich at all. That's why the gap between rich and poor hasn't grown like a fucking chasm the size of the gran canyon. Oh, it has!

Why do you think zero progress has been made towards climate change? Why is big oil still getting subsidies? Fracking is fine, of course it is and bribing politicians is what you do in a democracy. Tax cuts on top of tax cuts for the rich. Who cares about poisonous water or 6 month long gas leaks or polluting local towns that see cancer rates increase dramatically. What does the EPA do again?

And you obviously don't give a shit about healthcare, 45000 Americans dying every year. Fuck all those old people and kids and going on about the kids, fuck their education too. They don't need it and we love having them in life long debt! Anyway we can bring back slavery and we'll do it! Want to start with the military industrial complex next? How they butchered hundreds of thousands or Iraqi's not to mention elsewhere but lets end with torturing people, you know, the kind of thing Nazi's do.

Now here, you need to drink this because it will blur things for you. It'll take the black and white and turn it into a grey for you. Watch some tv, the propaganda will sooth you and soon you'll forget about it all. When the rich took all your money, you won't mind because you'll get it back, pragmatically, in little pieces rather than just giving back what they stole and you can keep defending the establishment, because it's not all black and white after all, people aren't dying, or losing their homes, or being shot by their own police force or being tortured - that's not evil, that's what the nice teddy bear tells you so it must be true.

Go give it a hug.

None of these things, not a single one of them, that you are attributing to me resemble anything I've said anywhere, ever.

Why do people act as if politics is something grown-ups talk about when such discussions inevitably yield this sort of simplistic, dishonest bullshit?

There's so much straw flying around that it's obscured your strawman.

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Some economics courses and a bit of grounding in history might be more apropos.



Well it is much easier to have wealth equality when no one has much of anything. I don't know about Willie71 but I'd rather live in a society where a one percenter has forty really big houses with all the niceties and I only have a small house with most of the niceties than in a society where no one has a house with any niceties.



The alternatives to a free market system are planned economies or no economies, and we've seen how well planned economies work out. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" never quite works out that way. Some people end up with more than others, it's inevitable. Anyone read Animal Farm?

All of your statements are wrong. False dichotomies,

Well, isn't that convenient? All of my statements are wrong. Willie71 goes about tossing out statements like "In many African cultures, the distribution will be more equal." without explaining what cultures in Africa he's talking about or where he gets this piece of information.

I know of a few cultures in Africa where distribution of wealth is fairly equal. I also know of some cultures in Australia and South America where wealth is divided fairly evenly. So I have to go with the cultures that have the most even wealth distribution as for who Willie71 is talking about. Foraging cultures, also know as hunter gatherers.

In many, if not all, of those cultures wealth is so evenly divided because there is no wealth. But if you take a step back for a wider view you'll see that these people are living on the fringes of more modern cultures. And given this view the more equal distribution of wealth that Willie71 is talking about vanishes.

In the worst of inner cities neighborhoods and backwards rural area's the distribution will be more equal also. I fail to see why Willie71 would consider this type of equal wealth distribution a good thing.

In mentioning "how our individualistic culture works" and wealth equality in "many African cultures" at the same time I have to assume that Willie71 is professing the benefits of collectivistic cultures over what "we" have now in the US, Canada, Australia and Western Europe where health, peace, freedom, and at least a chance of economic betterment are far more abundant than anywhere else at any time.

Willie71 wrote:
The last is the one I will comment on. Mixed economies tend to be more stable over time, and have more equal wealth distribution.

I wonder if Willie71 would care to point out a nation or two of any significant size where a stable growing mixed economy isn't heavy on the free market side? I can certainly easily name some nations where everything was going to hell or had gone to hell until they jettisoned their collectivistic planned economy ideals for individualistic free market principles. I find it simply amazing how fast an impoverished nation can be turned around by embracing open markets and free trade where they were lacking before.

Willie71 wrote:
You seem to think it's an either/or proposition, but it really isn't.

Yes, in a way it is an either/or proposition. You either have a free market to go along side your social programs and taxation for those programs or your mixed economy is fucked. History has shown that you can have almost any combination of economic systems in a successful mixed economy as long as one of the components is a free and open market and a top down planned economy is not one of the components.

A free market does not mean an open free-for-all without rules and regulation. It simply means an economic system where the government does not determine supply and or demand and or set prices or control wages by fiat, tariffs, discriminatory tax policies, ect...

Willie71 wrote:
The US has a mixed economy, with the rules favouring the wealthiest individuals.

Yes it does, as do many other modern western nations, and one of the biggest problems with more of them than just the US is the wealthy not paying what I and many others consider their fair share in taxes.

You are describing a mixed economy. The libertarians go on about a free market economy, which basically doesn't exist. Maybe those economics courses are in order? I'm not referring to the fiction taught in Anerican propaganda houses (schools) Just because you believe what you have is a free market does not make it so.

The German and Canadian economies do pretty well overall, and consistently, if we erase the bullshit Harper did, trying to be more American.

crank wrote:

purplerat wrote:

crank wrote:Purplerat, go away, you've been all over the place, you're not even on the same book, much less page. Caught projecting, you descend further into irrelevancies. I'm going to go do some plumbing, much more intellectually stimulating than this argument.

lol, I thought you said you were done with this two or three pages ago. Everybody else understands what was being discussed except you.

Willhud acknowledged as much when I summed my understanding of his original point.

purplerat wrote:@crank

The long and the short of it is that I'd say the amount of influence religion has on my life from a government or policy standpoint on a day to day basis is probably more in line with Canada or Europe than Texas or Utah. Which is, as I understand it, what Willhud was originally getting at.

willhud9 wrote:Yep.

Yet you've continued tilting at windmills. I do hope you find something better to do.

Do you not understand that my argument is that what you and Willhud are saying isn't correct, and there are the many posts where I show why that is a very limited, narrow perspective leading to the wrong conclusions? That's what is being argued, you can keep insisting it isn't, but it's the argument I started FFS, I think I know what it is.

The long and the short of it is that I'd say the amount of influence religion has on my life from a government or policy standpoint on a day to day basis is probably more in line with Canada or Europe than Texas or Utah.

Teague wrote:
I think you should look at the evidence. That would be the wealth inequality gap to see how good things are working out for everyone as that's a good indicator when you have a rigged system.

crank wrote:

Thommo wrote:For contrast, according to this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... hreat.html

Yet a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests show that 54 private schools are still being funded by local authorities, while continuing to teach that the Earth began with Adam and Eve.

The number in the UK is about 54 (as of last year). They are doing so illegally. If that were scaled up to a population the size of the US, this would be about 270 illegally and 0 legally instead of the thousands in the US that can actually do so legally.

The problem in the US is undoubtedly heavily geographically restricted (which is Purplerat's point), and thus not "endemic" or "ubiquitous", but it is on a different scale than in other developed nations nonetheless.

I never said teaching creationism was ubiquitous, I said the effects of religion on our country were. I will say the effects on education are far more widespread than you may think. See my previous post for how some of that occurs,

Also, Texas used to have the blessing of this couple that had an enormous amount of power in what textbooks got OKed for its schools. The fact that it is such a big state meant that the textbooks it chose were sometimes the only ones many other states had to choose from. That couple is dead, but others have risen to keep their efforts going. But, I can't say the industry is so restricted these days, technology has hugely lowered the cost of printing custom books, so I doubt Texas has anywhere near the sway it used to. AronRa has many videos available online that go into a lot of these issues, and he can be quite entertaining and interesting. I have no idea how many people across the country got educations somewhat diminished by this crazy religious busybody couple, but it's going to be a large number over the years.

Teague wrote:

crank wrote:

Thommo wrote:For contrast, according to this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... hreat.html

Yet a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests show that 54 private schools are still being funded by local authorities, while continuing to teach that the Earth began with Adam and Eve.

The number in the UK is about 54 (as of last year). They are doing so illegally. If that were scaled up to a population the size of the US, this would be about 270 illegally and 0 legally instead of the thousands in the US that can actually do so legally.

The problem in the US is undoubtedly heavily geographically restricted (which is Purplerat's point), and thus not "endemic" or "ubiquitous", but it is on a different scale than in other developed nations nonetheless.

I never said teaching creationism was ubiquitous, I said the effects of religion on our country were. I will say the effects on education are far more widespread than you may think. See my previous post for how some of that occurs,

Also, Texas used to have the blessing of this couple that had an enormous amount of power in what textbooks got OKed for its schools. The fact that it is such a big state meant that the textbooks it chose were sometimes the only ones many other states had to choose from. That couple is dead, but others have risen to keep their efforts going. But, I can't say the industry is so restricted these days, technology has hugely lowered the cost of printing custom books, so I doubt Texas has anywhere near the sway it used to. AronRa has many videos available online that go into a lot of these issues, and he can be quite entertaining and interesting. I have no idea how many people across the country got educations somewhat diminished by this crazy religious busybody couple, but it's going to be a large number over the years.

Survey Shows Americans Lead the World in Climate Denial


With Brits in 2nd place FFS!!

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

crank wrote:

Thommo wrote:For contrast, according to this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... hreat.html


The number in the UK is about 54 (as of last year). They are doing so illegally. If that were scaled up to a population the size of the US, this would be about 270 illegally and 0 legally instead of the thousands in the US that can actually do so legally.

The problem in the US is undoubtedly heavily geographically restricted (which is Purplerat's point), and thus not "endemic" or "ubiquitous", but it is on a different scale than in other developed nations nonetheless.

I never said teaching creationism was ubiquitous, I said the effects of religion on our country were. I will say the effects on education are far more widespread than you may think. See my previous post for how some of that occurs,

Also, Texas used to have the blessing of this couple that had an enormous amount of power in what textbooks got OKed for its schools. The fact that it is such a big state meant that the textbooks it chose were sometimes the only ones many other states had to choose from. That couple is dead, but others have risen to keep their efforts going. But, I can't say the industry is so restricted these days, technology has hugely lowered the cost of printing custom books, so I doubt Texas has anywhere near the sway it used to. AronRa has many videos available online that go into a lot of these issues, and he can be quite entertaining and interesting. I have no idea how many people across the country got educations somewhat diminished by this crazy religious busybody couple, but it's going to be a large number over the years.

Survey Shows Americans Lead the World in Climate Denial


With Brits in 2nd place FFS!!

Doesn't seem like much of a correlation with religiosity.

Teague wrote:

religiosity and climate denial are both forms of propoganda. Religion is anti-science so I'm not surprised to see the US at the bottom going on from what Crank has said. So how is it you see no correlation with religiosity?

purplerat wrote:
GB is at the bottom with the US while more religious countries are near the top. Do I really have to explain what a correlation is?

purplerat wrote:@crank

The long and the short of it is that I'd say the amount of influence religion has on my life from a government or policy standpoint on a day to day basis is probably more in line with Canada or Europe than Texas or Utah. Which is, as I understand it, what Willhud was originally getting at.

crank wrote:It's pretty clear you're not listening to what I say. You keep harping on how this and that aren't something where you live, but you live in a country with large percentages who are, and you're denying that that has any effect at the national level, and you're wrong. The education you blithely brush off is a great example. You think the country isn't impacted by having maybe 30% of the population getting a crap education and deny a lot of science because it conflicts with their religion? You see no avenues for pathologies arising from such things? Like as an example, poisoning the respect for science? Which is a great help in denying climate change? You want to assert that isn't playing a part? You say "believe what is most convenient for them.", and what is a big factor in what is 'convenient' for them? You think the religious rationales don't play a part?

This happened yesterday, at the RNC. It's Ben Johnson talking, someone who was doing well for a while in his campaign for president. He is generally respected by a large percentage of the GOP:

"One of the things that I have learned about Hillary Clinton is that one of her heroes, her mentors, was Saul Alinsky. Her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky," Carson said. "This was someone she greatly admired and that affected all of her philosophy subsequently."
Carson went on to ask the crowd, "Are we willing to elect someone as president who has as their role model somebody who acknowledges Lucifer?"
As Vox explains, Carson is referring to the widespread, and incorrect, notion that Alinsky dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to "Lucifer." In fact, Alinsky dedicated the book to his wife, Irene, but acknowledged Lucifer as "the very first radical," in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.
Earlier in the day Tuesday, Carson responded to a reporter who asked him what he planned to say in his speech, "Only God knows the answer to that."

How common do major candidates in national elections in other developed countries talk like this and without serious objections or disapproval? And I'm not talking about the partisan aspects, but the bringing up of lucifer as something real and something to be feared and rejected?

When are you going to come out and say how worthless the efforts of all those organizations and other similar ones are in their work fighting the influence of religion? Do secularists in other countries feel that great a need for fighting religions influence? I'm not ignoring what you've said, you are ignoring the wider implications of the issues I've raised. You don't even attempt to address most of what I've said, picking out pieces that you then see only within a narrow scope, exposing what at best is a parochial view, lacking the perspective needed to see the harms impacting the country as a whole. You even admit it is 'profoundly damaging' in 'certain areas of the US', but those areas are not a small section of the country, it's like a quarter to a third of the population. Who thinks 'profound damage' to that much of the nation isn't going to cause any collateral damage to the rest? Throw off the blinders, try to broaden your perspective.

crank wrote:Purplerat, go away, you've been all over the place, you're not even on the same book, much less page. Caught projecting, you descend further into irrelevancies. I'm going to go do some plumbing, much more intellectually stimulating than this argument.

Teague wrote:
I think you should look at the evidence. That would be the wealth inequality gap to see how good things are working out for everyone as that's a good indicator when you have a rigged system.

Teague wrote:

crank wrote:

Thommo wrote:For contrast, according to this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... hreat.html

Yet a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests show that 54 private schools are still being funded by local authorities, while continuing to teach that the Earth began with Adam and Eve.

The number in the UK is about 54 (as of last year). They are doing so illegally. If that were scaled up to a population the size of the US, this would be about 270 illegally and 0 legally instead of the thousands in the US that can actually do so legally.

The problem in the US is undoubtedly heavily geographically restricted (which is Purplerat's point), and thus not "endemic" or "ubiquitous", but it is on a different scale than in other developed nations nonetheless.

I never said teaching creationism was ubiquitous, I said the effects of religion on our country were. I will say the effects on education are far more widespread than you may think. See my previous post for how some of that occurs,

Also, Texas used to have the blessing of this couple that had an enormous amount of power in what textbooks got OKed for its schools. The fact that it is such a big state meant that the textbooks it chose were sometimes the only ones many other states had to choose from. That couple is dead, but others have risen to keep their efforts going. But, I can't say the industry is so restricted these days, technology has hugely lowered the cost of printing custom books, so I doubt Texas has anywhere near the sway it used to. AronRa has many videos available online that go into a lot of these issues, and he can be quite entertaining and interesting. I have no idea how many people across the country got educations somewhat diminished by this crazy religious busybody couple, but it's going to be a large number over the years.

Survey Shows Americans Lead the World in Climate Denial


With Brits in 2nd place FFS!!

purplerat wrote:
Do you understand how ridiculous the notion of pro-life or anti-gay constitutional amendments are? They might as well be proposing the bringing back of slavery.