I don't think that is how conservatives judge "big government". It is my understanding that when conservatives talk about "big government" they are referring to how far its power reaches not how many people are working for the federal government.
When conservatives talk about Big Government, they are talking about the proliferation of policies they don't like. It has nothing to do with money or number of employees or expansion of services.
I don't think that is how conservatives judge "big government". It is my understanding that when conservatives talk about "big government" they are referring to how far its power reaches not how many people are working for the federal government.
True, I still find it amusing, though I don't like that article so much because it doesn't necessarily take in consideration private contractors and the effects of automation.
Reading the discussions on Scott Johnson's Facebook posts are absolutely astonishing. It amazes me how he has so much patience with people who refuse to accept actual facts.
Reading the discussions on Scott Johnson's Facebook posts are absolutely astonishing. It amazes me how he has so much patience with people who refuse to accept actual facts.
I'm glad someone posted this, as I've recently made the same observation. There was a discussion about "Obama not accomplishing literally anything" that almost made my head implode, as well as a discussion about evolution that I read whilst studying for a molecular bio exam that had me so furious my heart started pounding. Fun quotes from the latter:
"I was an evolutionist for so long but there are a few problems with it I can't overcome. First of all, the cambrian explosion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion. Secondly, why is it that we have never found any fossils that show an animal mid-change. i.e. half fish half monkey (bad example, i know, but you get the idea.)"
And the next response:
"Exactly [Mutual Friend of ScoJo]. Also, why is it that with millions of different species, we all have the same organs, the same bodily processes, etc. Darwin says that evolution is a chaotic and random process of DNA mutations where the 'fittest' outlives the rest. That would mean that animal (and other) life would be much more different from each other, but instead here is an example of an animal very quickly converging to a more advanced form of reproduction."
I could feel the apoplexy threatening to wrench my heart from my chest. Scott, you are a much better man than I for being able to hand that, as well as the small government discussion. Christ.
Urrrggg. Things like that are almost physically painful to read. You just want to take them and sit them down for a weekend and give them a science class. Not that it would do any good, but still.
Well, I am arguing with my two mother inlaws in those recent political threads..... :-p
Though I have to say after my mother in-law just stated that politifact was liberal biased as well and should be disregarded my head nearly exploded. I mean she doesn't trust facts from apparently anywhere, all media is biased and of course you can't trust government sources or foundations.... so what's left? Crazy internet E-mails?
Well, I am arguing with my two mother inlaws in those recent political threads..... :-p
Though I have to say after my mother in-law just stated that politifact was liberal biased as well and should be disregarded my head nearly exploded. I mean she doesn't trust facts from apparently anywhere, all media is biased and of course you can't trust government sources or foundations.... so what's left? Crazy internet E-mails?
If it were not your mother-in-law, you could set them up by sending them blatantly false content from their trusted sources that confirms their bias, then when they happen to use that information in an argument use it against them.
To be fair, I only did that once, with a roomate, about a video game... but I made my point.
I almost unfriended ScoJo because I can't deal with his idiot commenters. They strain my self control. I am training myself not to read the comments on any post by him.
Come on troll my family (or at least help me post facts, it would be a lot easier if more then one person would roll in and smack them with some facts (that they would consider reliable :-p)
Well if you put it that way, sure. When I find time tomorrow, I'll participate. I just didn't want to disrespect anyone due to the fact that they are close family.
I had so many good quips of sarcasm that I held back. I wish I wrote them all down.
I almost unfriended ScoJo because I can't deal with his idiot commenters. They strain my self control. I am training myself not to read the comments on any post by him.
You can keep him as a friend but block his comments from your popping up in your news feed. That may be worth investigating.
Reading the discussions on Scott Johnson's Facebook posts are absolutely astonishing. It amazes me how he has so much patience with people who refuse to accept actual facts.
I'm glad someone posted this, as I've recently made the same observation. There was a discussion about "Obama not accomplishing literally anything" that almost made my head implode, as well as a discussion about evolution that I read whilst studying for a molecular bio exam that had me so furious my heart started pounding. Fun quotes from the latter:
"I was an evolutionist for so long but there are a few problems with it I can't overcome. First of all, the cambrian explosion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion. Secondly, why is it that we have never found any fossils that show an animal mid-change. i.e. half fish half monkey (bad example, i know, but you get the idea.)"
And the next response:
"Exactly [Mutual Friend of ScoJo]. Also, why is it that with millions of different species, we all have the same organs, the same bodily processes, etc. Darwin says that evolution is a chaotic and random process of DNA mutations where the 'fittest' outlives the rest. That would mean that animal (and other) life would be much more different from each other, but instead here is an example of an animal very quickly converging to a more advanced form of reproduction."
I could feel the apoplexy threatening to wrench my heart from my chest. Scott, you are a much better man than I for being able to hand that, as well as the small government discussion. Christ.
I recently came to the conclusion that when someone truly believes there should be 2 sides to every argument, you've lost. There aren't 2 sides to scientific arguments. There's a question, and an answer. And then another question, and an answer.
All I can really do is try to convince them that watching The Biggest Loser is far more important than voting.
I recently came to the conclusion that when someone truly believes there should be 2 sides to every argument, you've lost. There aren't 2 sides to scientific arguments. There's a question, and an answer. And then another question, and an answer.
All I can really do is try to convince them that watching The Biggest Loser is far more important than voting.
This is true in cases where the answer to the question has been found. In cases where the answer has not been found the person who thinks they know the answer is more often the fool.
Who's the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who argues with him?
Arguments are often not about 100% factual data, but include subjective opinions. For example: This movie is a good movie, this movie is a bad movie. Why do you each feel this way? You can tell people why you didn't like the movie or why you did and perhaps they will see it in a new light, but there will probably be ideas that they stick too, because that's just how they are. With political views it is partially showing people facts that back up your personal stance as being the best one, and partly winning people over to your subjective meme. Some people have greedy viewpoints or exclusionary viewpoints, and it is usually not solely because they lack facts. The most frustrating thing is when they ignore factual information that could change their opinion.
I recently came to the conclusion that when someone truly believes there should be 2 sides to every argument, you've lost. There aren't 2 sides to scientific arguments. There's a question, and an answer. And then another question, and an answer.
All I can really do is try to convince them that watching The Biggest Loser is far more important than voting.
This is true in cases where the answer to the question has been found. In cases where the answer has not been found the person who thinks they know the answer is more often the fool.
Who's the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who argues with him?
The answer is still there, it's simply not found yet. It's a perfectly acceptable answer to say "I don't know, we should find out.". There's still not two sides though, at least not in the sense that social arguments have two sides.
There's still just the side of "We have a question, we should find out the answer.". Then there's hypotheses and experimentation.
Arguments are often not about 100% factual data, but include subjective opinions.
You're absolutely right. There can be two sides to many other arguments, I just don't think there's two "sides" to an argument based in scientific matters such as evolution or biology. Science in that sense is more akin to math, where there's a question and an answer. The "argument" in those cases is simply about how best to find the answer and how to interpret the data.
These people are just like O'Brien in 1984 with regards to science and fact. When two and two is not convenient to the Religious Right, "Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
What is two plus two? - factual question with only one answer.
Do these jeans make me look fat? - subjective question with differing 'correct' answers based upon the relationship between the questioner and the answerer.
What is the meaning of life? - philosophical question with no 'right' answer though a well researched and thought out answer may be able to convince others that your answer is more right than theirs.
What's the deal with Neutrinos moving faster than light? - cutting edge science question with two plausible answers:
a. There is a mistake in the testing procedure that will be discovered after the test is duplicated by other researchers.
b. Yup, faster than light, time to look at all we know about physics and adjust accordingly. Great time to be alive!
c. (optional) I have no idea but I'm eagerly awaiting the results.
Evolution is two plus two. We can recreate it in a lab. We have entire museums of carefully preserved specimens and fossils showing the slow, plodding change of form from one ancestral species to the next. These people ignore the "four" of evolution, they choose to say, "No, evolution doesn't exist, two and two is five," to prop up their beliefs and stab at the heart of a much-loathed society of intellectuals who long ago came as close to proving evolution as is possible.
Intelligent design and creationism are no less stupid than geocentrism at this point in time. To argue evolution is to argue the nature of our reality insofar as we can perceive it.
Comments
The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook
"I was an evolutionist for so long but there are a few problems with it I can't overcome. First of all, the cambrian explosion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion. Secondly, why is it that we have never found any fossils that show an animal mid-change. i.e. half fish half monkey (bad example, i know, but you get the idea.)"
And the next response:
"Exactly [Mutual Friend of ScoJo]. Also, why is it that with millions of different species, we all have the same organs, the same bodily processes, etc. Darwin says that evolution is a chaotic and random process of DNA mutations where the 'fittest' outlives the rest. That would mean that animal (and other) life would be much more different from each other, but instead here is an example of an animal very quickly converging to a more advanced form of reproduction."
I could feel the apoplexy threatening to wrench my heart from my chest. Scott, you are a much better man than I for being able to hand that, as well as the small government discussion. Christ.
Though I have to say after my mother in-law just stated that politifact was liberal biased as well and should be disregarded my head nearly exploded. I mean she doesn't trust facts from apparently anywhere, all media is biased and of course you can't trust government sources or foundations.... so what's left? Crazy internet E-mails?
To be fair, I only did that once, with a roomate, about a video game... but I made my point.
I'm tempted to just troll them, but I'll probably spend my time doing something better.
I had so many good quips of sarcasm that I held back. I wish I wrote them all down.
All I can really do is try to convince them that watching The Biggest Loser is far more important than voting.
Who's the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who argues with him?
For example: This movie is a good movie, this movie is a bad movie. Why do you each feel this way? You can tell people why you didn't like the movie or why you did and perhaps they will see it in a new light, but there will probably be ideas that they stick too, because that's just how they are.
With political views it is partially showing people facts that back up your personal stance as being the best one, and partly winning people over to your subjective meme. Some people have greedy viewpoints or exclusionary viewpoints, and it is usually not solely because they lack facts. The most frustrating thing is when they ignore factual information that could change their opinion.
There's still just the side of "We have a question, we should find out the answer.". Then there's hypotheses and experimentation. You're absolutely right. There can be two sides to many other arguments, I just don't think there's two "sides" to an argument based in scientific matters such as evolution or biology. Science in that sense is more akin to math, where there's a question and an answer. The "argument" in those cases is simply about how best to find the answer and how to interpret the data.
Do these jeans make me look fat? - subjective question with differing 'correct' answers based upon the relationship between the questioner and the answerer.
What is the meaning of life? - philosophical question with no 'right' answer though a well researched and thought out answer may be able to convince others that your answer is more right than theirs.
What's the deal with Neutrinos moving faster than light? - cutting edge science question with two plausible answers:
a. There is a mistake in the testing procedure that will be discovered after the test is duplicated by other researchers.
b. Yup, faster than light, time to look at all we know about physics and adjust accordingly. Great time to be alive!
c. (optional) I have no idea but I'm eagerly awaiting the results.
Intelligent design and creationism are no less stupid than geocentrism at this point in time. To argue evolution is to argue the nature of our reality insofar as we can perceive it.