Election Day Thoughts: Do you have good friends with vastly different political views from yours?

What is happening in the U.S. now has some shades of my experience as a teenager in Yugoslavia. In 1988 there were basically two sorts fo Yugoslavians: Group A were those who tried to convince themselves the status quo of the ruling regime was sustainable; Group B had given up pretending. It was slightly less divided between these two camps than you had between Republicans and Democrats. Then suddenly you have the fall of the republic, what the West likes to call the “revolution”. It was not so much a revolution as a takeover by radical right wing Serbs who tried to take over all of the old Yugoslavia. The country of course fell apart and suddenly we were no longer “Yugoslavians” but any of various ethnic options. It was clear for some which option to choose but for many of us who had mixed heritage the options were a bit more confusing. But the one thing that was no longer possible—and this is where I find that bile-taste from my youth back home living in post-2016 USA, is that after the Serb “revolution” that really became a coup d’etat, there was suddenly NO middle ground. You were either in favor of the right wing Milosovic goons or you were against them. As a Serb who was ashamed of what other Serbs were doing this was not fun, but it was less fun for those who were the victims. Trump is a Milosovic.

Very insightful post.

I wonder if - and hope that - our culture of separation of powers and peaceful transitions of power will temper that rhetoric. The fact(?) is, despite all the Hitler/Milosevic comparisons, Trump simply doesn't have the same singularity of powers that others have had.

Fingers crossed that the expenditures of the Welfare / Military State will destroy us from within before a hostile takeover, lol.

theJeff wrote:

Very insightful post.

I wonder if - and hope that - our culture of separation of powers and peaceful transitions of power will temper that rhetoric. The fact(?) is, despite all the Hitler/Milosevic comparisons, Trump simply doesn't have the same singularity of powers that others have had.

Fingers crossed that the expenditures of the Welfare / Military State will destroy us from within before a hostile takeover, lol.

I wish you the full joy of your laughter. I can hear it across the ideological Grand Canyon. The other 58% of us are not laughing at all. Being a primate specialist, I know closely laughter is related to fear as a hysterical response. You are scared. So are we. It’s the sort of thing that happens when a society is on the verge of collapse.

Authors of this document have provided expert scientific testimony to Congress on multiple occasions. Several directors are also advisors to the politically influential Heritage Foundation. They have authored editorial pieces in prominent publications. They may not speak for all evangelicals, but they absolutely have a great deal of political influence.

"They all do it" doesn't imply equivalency of the respective cases. In science there is rarely "proof", but strong conclusions can be reached on the basis of consilience of a large body of evidence. That fact is a great deal of the human scientific knowledge is inductive, not deductive.

Not knowing, caring about, or otherwise honestly considering a broad expert consensus on fundamental consequences doesn't strike me as the most reasonable approach to policy making on this or any other topic. I don't know how the practice would be distinguished as being rational versus rationalization.

For what it's worth, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts" is a quote attributed to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

He was a great senator.

The IPCC report from the UN delivered last month makes it unequivocally clear that climate change is real, has been brought on by us, and is only within our hands to change - if we act urgently. There is no credible "nuanced" alternative position to that of the world's leading scientists on climate change.

The IPCC report from the UN delivered last month makes it unequivocally clear that climate change is real, has been brought on by us, and is only within our hands to change - if we act urgently. There is no credible "nuanced" alternative position to that of the world's leading scientists on climate change.

Not everyone agrees with that inference.

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisavery/2018/11/13/ipcc-knows-less-about-future-climate-today-than-it-knew-in-1998-n2535832

theJeff wrote:

The IPCC report from the UN delivered last month makes it unequivocally clear that climate change is real, has been brought on by us, and is only within our hands to change - if we act urgently. There is no credible "nuanced" alternative position to that of the world's leading scientists on climate change.

Not everyone agrees with that inference.

Could you briefly walk us through how you evaluated the credibility of the "'nuanced' alternative position" in your linked article?

Stragar wrote:

theJeff wrote:

Very insightful post.

I wonder if - and hope that - our culture of separation of powers and peaceful transitions of power will temper that rhetoric. The fact(?) is, despite all the Hitler/Milosevic comparisons, Trump simply doesn't have the same singularity of powers that others have had.

Fingers crossed that the expenditures of the Welfare / Military State will destroy us from within before a hostile takeover, lol.

I wish you the full joy of your laughter. I can hear it across the ideological Grand Canyon. The other 58% of us are not laughing at all. Being a primate specialist, I know closely laughter is related to fear as a hysterical response. You are scared. So are we. It’s the sort of thing that happens when a society is on the verge of collapse.

You are effing right I am scared for our country.

Citizen Runner wrote:

theJeff wrote:

The IPCC report from the UN delivered last month makes it unequivocally clear that climate change is real, has been brought on by us, and is only within our hands to change - if we act urgently. There is no credible "nuanced" alternative position to that of the world's leading scientists on climate change.

Not everyone agrees with that inference.

Could you briefly walk us through how you evaluated the credibility of the "'nuanced' alternative position" in your linked article?

I would be glad to walk you through how I evaluated the credibility of the position in that article.

You see, I didn’t. I did a Google search and clicked one of the first things I saw. My goal wasn’t to present a nuanced argument; it was simply to refute the idea that there is only one side to the story.

To be clear: both sides claim to have scientific backing. Both sides’ scientific backing, I am sure, has - on some level - an agenda to push. I won’t be reading the footnotes from either.

Do you know why?

Because I don’t need someone working off of a government grant to tell me that breathing smog and drinking contaminated water is bad. I know that we should explore renewable alternative energy sources without a report from a commission. I am sorry if that statement wasn’t good enough for you before, and I doubt it will be now.

Creationists claim to have scientific backing for their arguments. But the arguments from the scientific community are overwhelmingly supportive of evolutionary biology. Thus also climate change. Having two sides to an argument does not make them equivalent. One side may well be much weaker and even wrong.

I don't think you know what "thus" means.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists believe in the supernatural on some level. Science will never prove or disprove either.

Absolutely agree that two sides to an argument may be unequal, but you are conflating the intent of the thread. This was never a discussion about Creationism vs Evolution. It is a discussion about views on differing policies that may or may not attain common goals in a political, economic, and social sense. "Nuance" would not apply to Creationism even if you could test it in a laboratory setting.

I'm fine and have learned from this interchange. Be sorry that the statement is good enough for you.

theJeff wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Creationists claim to have scientific backing for their arguments. But the arguments from the scientific community are overwhelmingly supportive of evolutionary biology. Thus also climate change. Having two sides to an argument does not make them equivalent. One side may well be much weaker and even wrong.

I don't think you know what "thus" means.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists believe in the supernatural on some level. Science will never prove or disprove either.

Absolutely agree that two sides to an argument may be unequal, but you are conflating the intent of the thread. This was never a discussion about Creationism vs Evolution. It is a discussion about views on differing policies that may or may not attain common goals in a political, economic, and social sense. "Nuance" would not apply to Creationism even if you could test it in a laboratory setting.

Evolutionary theory is established science - as much as is our knowledge of physics - and has nothing whatsoever to do with the supernatural, although behind your pretension word-play you haven't yet grasped that particular nuance. Thus you are a mere gas bag. Conflate that however you like.

The moral of the story in Yugoslavia was that arms dealers (of every ethnicity/religion) & politicians were happy to profit from the civil war, just like ours are!

Armstronglivs wrote:

theJeff wrote:

I don't think you know what "thus" means.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists believe in the supernatural on some level. Science will never prove or disprove either.

Absolutely agree that two sides to an argument may be unequal, but you are conflating the intent of the thread. This was never a discussion about Creationism vs Evolution. It is a discussion about views on differing policies that may or may not attain common goals in a political, economic, and social sense. "Nuance" would not apply to Creationism even if you could test it in a laboratory setting.

Evolutionary theory is established science - as much as is our knowledge of physics - and has nothing whatsoever to do with the supernatural, although behind your pretension word-play you haven't yet grasped that particular nuance. Thus you are a mere gas bag. Conflate that however you like.

First, How, then, do we live together in this world of differing ideas? For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun. -Dan Crenshaw

Second, the theory of evolution, as you rightly labeled it, in no way accounts how matter came from non-matter. It assumes that either 1. matter supernaturally came from non matter, or 2. matter has eternally existed, and that non-moving matter supernaturally moved (as an unmoved mover would violate the laws of physics that you mentioned.) So, I maintain that Creationists and Evolutionists must, on some level, believe in the supernatural.

Best wishes in someday achieving independent thought.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Let us keep our minds open, by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mould the world. But don’t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out! There are still things in this world which are true and things which are false; acts which are right and acts which are wrong, even if there are statesmen who hide their designs under the cloak of high-sounding phrases. --- Walter Kotschnig

Brilliant quote. Tell me: where does this notion of right and wrong come from? Is it the same for all people?