Agnostic.com

5 4

The Venus Project.

SCal 7 Jan 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

100 years ago? Honestly, has politics ever been good?!
More than ever, it seems to me that politicians don't do much more that billionaires' PR.
[i.pinimg.com]

0

I'm more cynical than he is. Politicians are dirty, sometimes evil, selfish, pricks that know exactly what they're doing.

2

This is a powerful statement. At some point, we became convinced that "politician" was a profession. No longer does a politician have to be well versed in something substantial (science, education, history, economics, sociology... THEIR COMMUNITY!) as politics is now thought to BE the thing of substance. Now as a politician the only thing you have to know about the people you seek to represent is how to influence them.

2

As I repeatedly say on here “ conditioning “ plays a huge part in our behavior especially here in the United States where we’ve been conditioned to eat at the trough of us vs them.

Sports, politics, religion, race, dietary habits, and what part of the country even there has to be an enemy and if there isn’t an enemy they’ll turn us against ourselves.

Hell they’ll even go as far as to pit husbands and wives against each other. So our conditioning lends to us ignoring even the obvious about the people and the reasons that we fight for and each other.

2

There could be no truer statement made about the appointees of trump than this!!

I think this speaks to both sides.

@marine I think you missed the point friend.

@ghettophilosopher Nope I am right on the money, the people he has appointed know nothing about the departments they head and his objective is to destroy these departments and that which they stand for.

@Marine

Is it possible those departments should be destroyed?

Why does this message lead you to only attack one side?

The point is obviously that both sides are incompetent.

@Marine While I completely agree with your observation, it's tangential at best. Political appointments are exactly who this statement is NOT talking about. Appointees don't get elected. They don't campaign. So while in this case, their lack of expertise (or in fact any knowledge over their given purview), is a valid concern, they're not politicians. This statement in particular doesn't apply to them.

I don't agree there either @BryanLV. Neither side is incompetent. In fact, they only got to where they are because they are very savvy. Rather, they mostly have the wrong competencies. They struggle to move us forward because they lack understanding with regard to the problems that need to be addressed. They don't struggle with climate change, for example, because they're idiots; they struggle with it because they're not scientists (admittedly, there's some benefit of the doubt thrown in here for sake of argument, but I think the point stands).
Politics for its own sake is useless at best and dangerous at worst.

@ghettophilosopher

You said neither side is incompetent, then followed it up with saying they have the wrong competencies. That's just playing semantics and being disagreeable. If they have incorrect competency, then obviously they are incompetent in some more meaningful area.

On your climate change example, I will leave you with this. Climate change "scientists" polls may say "scientists" are in the consensus, but what is rated as a "climate change scientist" for the sake of these polls?

There are many scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections and consensus. These scientists have said, "That it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling"

If you look at the period of time that humans have been mapping things like ocean currents, glacial patterns, and many other geological features of the Earth, it can easily be deduced by many scientists, and it is, that the statistical body of evidence is not enough to accurately draw many of the conclusions that have been stated. Many of the studies are government funded and run and meet an end goal to grab power or authority to tax some given area for revenue.

There are many scientists that argue global warming is natural, that the cause is unknown, or that the impact of global warming is inaccurate or overstated.

Be careful when scientific consensus is claimed, because a majority of scientists have also been incorrect in the past to the detriment of society. Things must be put to test.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:272105
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.