Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 19, 2014, 06:31:09 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1048
1  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What religion are you? on: December 11, 2014, 01:31:36 am
OK, I won't do the embedding thing, angus.  But "don't pick a fight where none exists"?  Read what you wrote again, dude (emphasis mine):

Atheism is not a religion.  

That's not a defensible statement. In fact, before monotheism and polytheism became all the rage thousands of years ago, most religions were animistic or featured ancestor worship.  Even now there are a few really old Asians who practice some atheistic form of religion.

Your brand of atheism, even, which purports to be anti-religious is filled with such fervor that it might even be classified as religious zealotry were it not for your lack of concern for any ultimate reality.

Were you trying to say it's indefensible to claim that atheism is a religion?*  Because, if so, yeah, we agree, but you wrote the opposite of what you meant.  I think you could also understand that most people will read it as written, and then take the digressions in your follow-up as trying to justify the statement.  That's why I kept reiterating things we agreed on (because they seemed to conflict with what you wrote), and expressed confusion about your digressions (because I wrongly assumed they were meant to justify what you wrote).  The use of "err," which you apparently took as hostile, was genuine confusion.

I wasn't being a prick -- I was confused, because of your writing error, dude.  Subsequent personal attacks were completely unjustified.

(* - If you were meaning to claim what you wrote, I have no idea what your argument is, or why you think we don't disagree, or why you're angry with my response.)
2  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: ID: 2010 State Treasurer General Election Result on: December 10, 2014, 06:07:45 pm
Discuss with maps
3  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Attempted Gas Attack on Furries in Chicago! on: December 10, 2014, 06:05:51 pm
You are all overthinking this. Furries are weird and silly (this is undeniable) and this bizzare incident is thus funny, particularly since no one actually died. That's all. As I said above, it's like if there was a gas attack at the Gathering of the Juggalos.

yeah no I just don't think people being totally terrified is funny based on how weird I find them.  I don't connect those concepts "weird" and "funny to see suffering."  Not overthinking that, bro.
4  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Attempted Gas Attack on Furries in Chicago! on: December 10, 2014, 05:37:23 pm
Yeah seeing as we're posting in a forum dedicated to election trivia, we really have no grounds to be criticising other people's hobbies. I mean, I find the idea of dressing as a fox pretty weird, but I expect most furries would probably find the idea of staying up to check the results of a by-election in a country they don't live in pretty weird.

Agreed.  I've actually noticed this behavior as more common among geeks and left-wingers.  It's like we feel the need to put ourselves in the pecking order, and prove that we're not "that" weird/bleeding-heart.
5  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What religion are you? on: December 10, 2014, 05:27:25 pm
It may remind you of religious zealotry, but that doesn't make it a "religion."

I agree with that, and I said exactly as much.

Err...you replied to "atheism is not a religion" with "that's not a defensible statement."

To answer your question, I'd say that considering atheism to be a religion is rather like considering Christianity to be a religion, in a sense.  In a very specific sense.  Christianity, of course, is a broad umbrella term which includes many religions.  More, I'd argue, than even the OP included in his poll.  But, hey, you have to draw the line somewhere.  The term atheism works sort of that way as well.

It's true that atheism and Christianity both include subsets.  Including subsets doesn't make something a religion.

Of course one classification system for religions--but probably not the only one--is to group them by the number of deities supported.  Thus, a religion might be called mono-, poly-, or atheistic.  So in that sense atheism, while not specifically a term referring to a single religion, might be a characteristic of a large number of religions, mostly extinct I'd imagine.

There are religions that are compatible with an absence of belief in God.  That does not make the absence of belief in God a religion.  The fact that a belief is compatible with a religion does not make that belief a religion.

Atheism, of course, can also refer to the non-religious variety, and, increasingly, to the anti-religious variety.  Anyway, Hockeydude's schtick has always been more anti-religious rather than irreligious.  It's fine, of course.  I just think we should call it like it is.

OK, I can't really speak to Hockeydude's attitudes or beliefs.  But using "atheist" as shorthand for "anti-religious" seems like a bad idea.  They're different concepts, and most atheists in polls don't identify as anti-religious.

As for your definition of religion, it's not bad.  It used to be the three Cs  (and Hockeydude's brand of anti-religion certainly has all of those), but now it also includes something about Ultimate Reality, or what you call "metaphysical truth."  This, of course, is lacking in Hockeydude's on-line persona, although whether it exists in his real persona I can only speculate.  This is precisely why I used the subjunctive, and I would not argue with the statement you made that I quoted.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.  Hockeydude is not asserting a metaphysical truth.  He's either asserting a truth about metaphysics, or a truth about beliefs about metaphysics.  Neither of those things are religious belief.  It might be belief about religion, but that's different.  Understand?
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Obama won 44% of Hispanic Republicans in California. on: December 10, 2014, 04:22:58 pm
What was the sample size?
7  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How do you say "either"? on: December 10, 2014, 03:57:47 pm
I'm glad I'm not the only one who says both and has no idea why Tongue I've even developed made-up, subconscious rules.  I'll find myself thinking, like, "damn, no, I meant eye-ther!" like I would for farther/further.  I'm not sure what my internal rules are, but I'm pretty sure (like King) that "eye-ther" is the version I use in fancier contexts Cheesy
8  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Attempted Gas Attack on Furries in Chicago! on: December 10, 2014, 03:54:15 pm
It's sort of an interesting question how we approach these sort of weird subcultures. 

Part of me says, this is gross.  It's somehow a weird sex thing, right?  That's gross, and I don't think I need to go into why.  On top of that it's childish and emotionally messed up on some level.  It's like these people are psychologically broken in a way that they need to disassociate from their humanity and identify with make-believe creatures.  It's sort of the definition of not comfortable in your own skin.  And, there's something laughable and ridiculous about it.  How do you not make fun of someone who's really into dressing up like a half-man-half-skunk?

On, the other hand, people are allowed to be into weird sex stuff, within obvious limits.  It may be gross to me and you, but people also hate gay people for the same reason, they find it gross (not to conflate the two things).  And, perhaps, this is by far not really a weird sex thing.  Maybe it's just like judging gay people by the craziest gay sex addicts or music fans based on groupies.  If it's just a weird nerd make-believe thing, is it really unique?  And, aren't we all into silly make-believe to distract ourselves from the ways in which we're psychologically damaged whether it's sports, or sci-fi or spy novels or make-believe governments?

So, maybe it's best to leave these people alone and not say such mean things about them.

Agreed.  I don't think it's super-p.c. to say any of this.  A group doesn't have to be an "oppressed minority" to feel some sympathy for them, or just not care what they do to be happy.  Even if this just were a sex thing, I have no idea why I should bring myself to care or resent it.  It's gross to me?  Yes, so is fat people having sex.  So is drinkable yogurt.  I just don't understand the reaction here.  Yes, it's kind of funny to me, but that's not a rationale to be a mean-spirited douche, let alone the visceral hate.

It also always bothers me when people find harmless hyper-minority groups (<5%) to mock.  It's not because they're "oppressed."  It's because it seems so safe -- there's almost no chance you'll ever get pushback, and anyone who wants to argue with you about it will probably feel uncomfortable doing so.  I wouldn't call it bullying, but it seems pretty lame and potentially dickish.
9  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte? on: December 10, 2014, 03:43:09 pm
You asked how I would handled it and I answered.

I asked you some questions about the implications and rationale of handing it that way that you didn't answer.  I'm particularly interested in the concern that you're supporting positions that fuel blanket skepticism of GMO safety that's killed projects involving GMOs that could probably have saved lives (like Golden Rice, which contrary to the GMOWatch type hacks, clearly has a role in good).  Why is that acceptable collateral, but pesticides aren't?  And why not attack pesticides directly, avoiding that collateral?

But let me self be clearer; I think the GMO fear which is usual brought up is moronic, but at the same time I see GMO as we use it today as a net negative (at least in food production), and as the American government is unable or unable to protect its citizens from the negative effects of GMOs, I support using the anti-GMO movement as useful idiots in sabotaging the production of GMO crops, of course we will see some collateral damage in GMO meat production, but hey you can't make a omelet without breaking a few eggs.

I understand your position.  What specific GMOs do you object to beyond Roundup Ready projects?  Also, what do you think of the debate over the harshness vs. quantity issues involving herbicides/pesticides?

Of course the techno utopian tools will see that as very bad and bring up a lot of theorectical crops, which are a solution to world hunger, even if none of those crops have never brought into production, even through they have be poster children of the GMO movement from the start. Where are salt resistant tomatoes, the protein enchanced rice and all the other wonder crops, which have been brought up the last 15 years as the solution to world hunger. Their seeds are not sold because there are no money in them.

That's not quite true.  There have been attempts to fund technology like Golden Rice.  Guess who torpedoed it?  Organizations like Greenpeace, under pressure from anti-GMO people, under the basis of ambiguous safety.  That's my point/concern -- you do realize that feeding into that crap is a collateral of your position, which is meant to solely attack one specific GM product class (Roundup Ready)?
10  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What religion are you? on: December 10, 2014, 03:32:57 pm
Atheism is not a religion. 

That's not a defensible statement.  In fact, before monotheism and polytheism became all the rage thousands of years ago, most religions were animistic or featured ancestor worship.  Even now there are a few really old Asians who practice some atheistic form of religion.

Your brand of atheism, even, which purports to be anti-religious is filled with such fervor that it might even be classified as religious zealotry were it not for your lack of concern for any ultimate reality.

What does that have to do with atheism not being a religion?

Religion is the assertion of some metaphysical truth.  It's not merely a strong conviction in something, or even an irrational one.  Hard atheists assert the absence of a metaphysical truth of God, but that's a belief about metaphysics, not a belief in metaphysics.  But there are few hard atheists anyway -- even among the ranks of anti-religious zealots.  Most of them, even the Dawkins types, are soft atheists (agnostics).  They don't actively assert belief in the non-existence of God, but instead claim belief in the existence of God is completely unreasonable.  That's even further from a religion.  It's a belief about beliefs about metaphysics.  Again, definitely not a "religion" by any coherent definition I know.

tl;dr It may remind you of religious zealotry, but that doesn't make it a "religion."
11  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: ArcGIS on: December 09, 2014, 02:37:16 am
I use ArcGIS frequently at work. I prefer QGIS for home use, and that's what I would recommend to any serious hobbyist who wants to get into GIS software.

^^

Minus the work part...I just used to use ArcGIS.
12  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte? on: December 08, 2014, 03:04:18 pm
To what purpose besides feeding into people's hysteria about 'frankenfood' that we probably eat every day?  

There is such a thing as too much information.....      

Most (if not all) commercial GMO plants (animals is a different matter) are made with the purpose of increase their resistance toward pesticides (meaning more pesticides can be used, when usiong these crops), I personal think that people should be able to choose to limit the effect of their food on the environment.

That seems like a pretty contested claim to me.  Unfortunately, herbicide/pesticide tracking was terminated under the Bush presidency, so we just have some estimates, which vary from a slight decrease in use to a marked increase.  On top of that, there seems to be some debate about whether the chemicals we're using are less harsh than before.  I don't really know much here, although I sense on-balance, I'd guess there's an increase in the use of harsh chemicals, but it seems almost entirely fueled by the use of a subset of GMOs (Round-up Ready).

But how do you want to handle this?  You want to label all GMOs because a subset of them correlate with higher environmental use of herbicide/pesticide?  You don't want to limit the labeling to those GMOs, or label in a way that doesn't imply that genetic modification is intrinsically an issue, as opposed to herbicide/pesticide use?  Especially considering we already have a label regimen (organic certification) explicitly to guarantee non-use of pesticide/herbicide, and voluntary labeling is always an option, this seems both unnecessary and unnecessarily sloppy.

I would prefer that the government handled it, but as your example with Bush administration show we can neither expect or hope that would happen, which is why I'm fine with hysterical anti-GMO activists doing their best with labelling and sabotaging it in other ways.

Here's the truth GMO can be useful, but we really don't need it to feed ourselves, no matter what techo utopians among us thinks, so if the government is unwilling or unable to regulate it, well I'm all for activists doing their best to bring it all down.

You didn't really respond to what I said, dude.  I asked you why you want to label GMOs for simply correlating with bad things, instead of focusing on the bad things themselves, and asked why you think it's a good idea to exploit irrational fears of GMOs to attack an issue (pesticides/herbicides) that's not even relevant to all GMOs.  I pointed out an optional labeling regime already exists for this purpose (organic certification), too.  You just repeated your basic opinion without addressing any of these concerns.

You're also shifting the burden for no particular reason.  So what if "we really don't need [GMOs] to feed ourselves"?  Why is the test absolute necessity?  If it has more use than it does harm, it's a good thing, even if it's not absolutely necessary.
13  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte? on: December 06, 2014, 09:07:16 pm
To what purpose besides feeding into people's hysteria about 'frankenfood' that we probably eat every day?  

There is such a thing as too much information.....      

Most (if not all) commercial GMO plants (animals is a different matter) are made with the purpose of increase their resistance toward pesticides (meaning more pesticides can be used, when usiong these crops), I personal think that people should be able to choose to limit the effect of their food on the environment.

That seems like a pretty contested claim to me.  Unfortunately, herbicide/pesticide tracking was terminated under the Bush presidency, so we just have some estimates, which vary from a slight decrease in use to a marked increase.  On top of that, there seems to be some debate about whether the chemicals we're using are less harsh than before.  I don't really know much here, although I sense on-balance, I'd guess there's an increase in the use of harsh chemicals, but it seems almost entirely fueled by the use of a subset of GMOs (Round-up Ready).

But how do you want to handle this?  You want to label all GMOs because a subset of them correlate with higher environmental use of herbicide/pesticide?  You don't want to limit the labeling to those GMOs, or label in a way that doesn't imply that genetic modification is intrinsically an issue, as opposed to herbicide/pesticide use?  Especially considering we already have a label regimen (organic certification) explicitly to guarantee non-use of pesticide/herbicide, and voluntary labeling is always an option, this seems both unnecessary and unnecessarily sloppy.
14  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte? on: December 06, 2014, 08:54:24 pm
@Alcon

GMO companies don't have to prove to you or me - people who have actively sought information; and they certainty don't have to prove anything to rabid anti-GMO'ers who seek out absurd "facts" about transgenics. They need to prove to Joe Public what they are peddling is safe.

Your example of vaccines is a good one to prove my point actually. When vaccination programmes are announced without education or transparency - just a bunch of didactic men in white coats, they are fertile breeding ground for anti-vax conspironuts and shyster spivs. The public as a whole is not stupid, but it is susceptible to misinformation especially when Big Companies or Big Government is one of the parties. Public education and transparency about vaccines, yes, does not convince the fruitloops among us. They will always return to echo chambers to whine. But it has convinced the public as a whole that vaccines are good. That is the only escape for GMO's to escape the self-imposed mire they find themselves in.

I'm prepared to predict food companies will soon start providing the GM labels of their own volition.

That doesn't really address my point, though.  The number of Westerners who errantly believe GMOs are either unsafe, or that the evidence is unclear, vastly outweighs the number who know it's safe.  Simply labeling a food as "GMO" is not going to increase confidence, because it's not going to change the rate of those opinions.  If anything, having something commonly regarded as suspect labeled -- even voluntarily -- will probably make people assume it is, in fact, suspect.

You point out that increasing awareness about vaccines has helped decrease vaccine skepticism.  Mostly agreed.  The problem is that this is because vaccines have special, positive messaging -- "vaccinate your children and they won't die of diseases."  It's this, not telling people that vaccines are safe, that has helped push people toward belief in vaccines.  In fact, if you tell people that evidence shows vaccines aren't unsafe, they become more suspicious of vaccines, because you remind them that vaccine risk claims exist.  This isn't my intuition.  We have research that substantiates this.

There simply is no positive messaging analogue with GMOs.  When it comes to irrationally risk-averse people, there's no countervailing risk we can freak them out with.  "It's safe" doesn't work with vaccines, so I doubt it will work with GMOs.  I might be wrong, but I see no reason to believe I am.
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: December 05, 2014, 04:56:39 pm
Here's where YouGov most recently had Wyoming on approval and disapproval on same-sex marriage (SSM):

WY    33    50    -17

I don't know where the 53-39 poll came from. If such is the pattern, then it would seem that soon after SSM is tolerated by law, the public follows. Maybe people find that it does not hurt them.  

PPP could poll North Carolina. This could compel me to update the approval rating for SSM in at least one state.

Why does Wyoming get this reputation of being all libertarian and whatnot... like a gaggle of cowboys that don't want the government involved in anything?  They are clearly just a bunch of nasty hicks like the rest of Republamerica.  

I think there was a time where it was like that, but the energy boom of the late 2000s brought in a lot of white trash. I think as the value of Hydrocarbons decreases, that these people will move out and things may or may not turn to normal in the next few years. Though even then, I don't think they are anti-Government as they are "we don't really care about feminism or civil rights or religion for that matter, we just want to get rich and enjoy the outdoors".

Wyoming's population hasn't really changed enough to cause any kind of seismic shift in their politics.  Also, I doubt that young energy industry workers are substantially more socially conservative than native Wyoming citizens.  They probably vote at fairly poor rates, too.

The interior west may have a "leave me alone" approach to politics, but that often takes the form of "don't force social liberalism on me and my family."  I guess that's libertarian in a way, but in a socially right-wing way.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: in other good news, GMO labeling loses in OR and CO on: December 05, 2014, 01:21:56 pm
Ideally there would be complete transparency over foods. I think it's unhealthy as a society to treat food production as some unfathomable black box industry, seeing as agriculture is both the most a) essential and b) problematic economic sector. I think, broadly, I support this only on a federal scale though - it is very problematic to have a piecemeal approach to this issue.

Ideally, in a world of infinite time and resources, where people rationally parsed information, there would be complete transparency on everything.  Unfortunately, that's not our world.  We have to prioritize transparency in terms of its benefits and its costs.

GM is extremely unfairly maligned, mainly due to the bastards that produce GM seeds and the inherent fear of the novel. I'd certainly trust some GM crops over some of the "non-transgenic-but-rather-screwed-up" crops that are completely unregulated because the category of "essentially all food" is much too scary for activists to take on, preferring the easy targets like

Agreed.

@MB. People do like to trot out the "peer-reviewed research" line and they are absolutely right - but for one brutal flaw. No GM crop is the same as the other. Most are harmless, and probably better than the sort of crap sold as "organic". Perhaps they are less necessary than its bright-eyed proponents declare, but are essentially standard crops. But no GM crop is the same as the other - and just because every GM crop out there so far is OK, does not mean everything is awesome in the GMO world. A lot of (sane) anti-GMO's are not concerned about genetic modification, per se. (As I said the sane ones, not the "OMG FRANKENFOODS!!!" types that Green parties like to whip up on these sort of debates. No, they're concerned about the world that surrounds GMO's.

Agreed, also.  Labeling products merely as GMO is useless information.  Labeling specific GMOs is somewhat more useful, because they could potentially cause allergic reactions or other issues.  This is true with conventional breeding too, though.  This isn't a compelling reason to treat information disclosure different with GMO than other forms of genetic manipulation.

I've talked about the DoA prematurely releasing GM papaya earlier this thread, which was annoyingly ignored because everyone finds it much more enjoyable to call each other morons (the comparisons with nuclear power are breathtaking). Luckily for GMO company's PR manager, it was safe - but it is a warning about the dangers of being doey eyed about "scientific advancement". And even in infancy the GMO industry has been remarkably non-transparent and arrogant, with the government providing rather arbitrary regulations. It's not a good start.

No disagreement, although I think calling that "lucky" is a stretch.  There's no reason to believe it would be unsafe.  Also, as much as this happening is problematic, it doesn't really have anything to do with labeling GMOs.  The agriculture industry isn't a good one, and agriculture (especially with novel technologies) presents some issues we should be thoughtful about.  No disagreement there.  GMO labeling is just neither thoughtful nor helpful.

GMO's are not inherently evil, and they certainly aren't inherently good. The decision to use GMO's should come down to one thing (and my opinion on the matter consistently fluctuates depending on the time of day): are they necessary to feed all the people currently projected to be living on the planet. Not profits on cash crops. (excepting plastic-producing GM crops which are fantastic). Not because "it's progress and that means it's good, because progress is good".

I don't think progress has to be "necessary" to be good, but otherwise agreed.

It is difficult to underestimate the danger approaching the field of agriculture, especially if current trends continue. The world population is increasing, the amount of arable land is decreasing and the rapid increase in productivity associated with the Green Revolution is at a standstill. GM proponents say that their techniques are the only way to counteract this disturbing trend, but I've never seen evidence that GM crops are necessary - especially considering the many, many (i hate to use this word, as agriculture is inherently an unnatural activity) more "natural" (please forgive me for using that horrific word non-ironically!) ways to increase productivity, decrease demand (no, not eugenics), push efficiency and also limit land use/decrease environmental devastation.

Are those alternatives equally or more cost-effective and unproblematic, though?  I don't see why the standard is "necessary."

TL/DR : Don't hate the crops, hate the players; GM proponents need to focus on less arguing with nutcases and more on the supposed need for the bridge they're selling.

Something like 40% of Americans actively believe that GMOs are harmful, and another chunk are unsure.  I'm not saying positive advocacy isn't worthwhile, but the whole anti-GMO movement is fueled by "I'm scared that I don't know what's in my food!" nonsense.  Maybe positive advocacy is the way to combat that trend, but when only a small minority of people are aware of the evidence of the general safety of genetic engineering, it's not the best environment for positive advocacy to succeed.
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: in other good news, GMO labeling loses in OR and CO on: December 05, 2014, 01:01:46 pm
It might provide no benefit to you. But to the larger group of "consumers," yes, there are many of us who would prefer this stuff be labeled. And there are plenty of valid reasons to not want to eat GMO food. For me, it's not a food safety issue, it's a food quality issue. I find genetic modification frequently prioritizes crop hardiness and sugar content, not taste or quality.

Even if that's a fairly weak correlation, it's a totally rational consumer preference.  However, how does it justify mandatory labeling?  I've already explained some of the issues I see with a labeling regime -- it increases costs (probably modestly) in the supply chain, and feeds into people's gross, anti-technology paranoia, which spills over into ridiculousness like bans on Golden Rice.  Even if there's a valid consumer preference here, why is it one that should be regulated, as opposed to left to market demands?

Also, this same concern applies -- perhaps even more acutely -- to "natural" genetic manipulation through breeding practices.  In fact, in recent history, that's probably the main purpose for which we've used conventional breeding.  If we support mandatory labeling GMOs of for the reason you offer, why should we not label that too?

I hope the right side wins.  The arguments made by idiots who don't want GMO labeling are ridiculous.

Thanks, dude.  I've made several thoughtful posts on this issue in threads you were in, responding to your arguments.  If you're the "right side" and I'm an "idiot," would you like to respond to these arguments?
18  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte? on: December 05, 2014, 12:49:29 pm
Unfortunately, we've seen this with vaccines, and we'd see it with GMOs.  If you do a massive public campaign asserting something is safe, or doesn't cause cancer/autism/whatever, it makes people who were previously skeptical about it more paranoid.  Considering that this information is both useless to the consumer, and apparently counterproductive from a public education perspective, I don't think there's a good argument for labeling GMOs.  And "what's wrong with more information?" is a really weak one.  The problem is that, even if it was totally neutral, non-damaging information, requiring the information creates legal liability and demands on the supply chain...plus, like АverroŽs Nix is saying, there's nearly an infinite number of permutations of information.  Why cherry-pick and disclose the one piece of information that is going to play into irrational fears?

This issue just drives me crazy.  Democrats can be so insane about it.
19  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Washington '14: The Dullest Midterm That You Ever Did See on: November 29, 2014, 05:38:57 pm
Yeah, Oakville is a small town between Olympia and Hoquiam/Aberdeen.  Oak Harbor was basically tied (50.1% No), but it's a way different town than Langley.  Lots of retired and current military.  (Although I-594 actually passed military bases statewide, 61%-39%).

Here's a beautiful I-594 map of King County.  bgwah, no complaining about the color scheme.  (Click for larger, uncompressed version - slow load time)

20  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Dixie Reborn on: November 27, 2014, 12:50:51 am
Whoa.  I get how his post was tone-deaf and knowingly provocative, but many of the responses here are kind of crazy.  "Filth"?  "Vermin"?  I feel like some of you are enjoying your self-righteous anger way too much here.  Especially if he's trolling and you're just giving him attention.
21  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Washington '14: The Dullest Midterm That You Ever Did See on: November 26, 2014, 09:11:43 pm
Top I-594 towns:

Seattle - 87.91%
Bainbridge Island - 83.60%
Langley - 82.86%
Mercer Island - 81.83%
Port Townsend - 81.61%
Lake Forest Park - 79.79%
Wapato - 79.23%
Shoreline - 78.34%
Yarrow Point - 77.66%
Beaux Arts Village - 77.33%
...
Oakville - 25.88%
Ione - 22.98%
Krupp - 22.22%
Lamont - 20.83%
Starbuck - 20.29%
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gallup: US Postal Service, FBI and NASA are the best Government agencies on: November 23, 2014, 05:47:46 pm
hahahaha, 87% of Americans claim they have an opinion on the Federal Reserve board.

Right, America.  Right.
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: in other good news, GMO labeling loses in OR and CO on: November 21, 2014, 03:53:19 am
Bumping this because this is nonsense:

Everyone cheering this should be ashamed of their shilling for Monsanto. Disgusting.

Any decent human being should stop and think at least ten times before deciding to take the same position on any issue as Monsanto, probably the most evil corporation not directly involved in fossil fuels.

I've thought about my position more than ten times.  Have you thought about yours once?  Besides "it mildly inconveniences a company that I don't like," do you have any rational reason to support this?  It may mildly inconvenience Monsanto, but it also increases an irrational, common stigma against a technology with some very significant upsides.  If you're not going to dismount from your moral high-horse to analyze a policy realistically, at least be moralistic consistently.  The hardcore anti-GMO people have derailed projects like golden rice, and other projects that save lives.  Why aren't they abysmal in your book?

I don't see the problem with giving consumers information on what is in their food they eat, so I would have voted yes.

That's not quite what genetic engineering is.  It's not "in your food."  It's a production method that makes food chemically different, but not in a uniform way where identifying something as "genetically engineered" is helpful to the consumers.  It's not the same thing as natural hybridization, but that's the same deal.  If you're going to label every input, protection method and technique used in making food, no matter how unimportant, you're going to have a 20-page label that lists largely useless information.  Cherry-picking GMO status doesn't make sense.  It also feeds into the (baseless) perception a lot of Westerners have that genetic engineering is unsafe.  There are some reasonable concerns to discuss about our food supply, but this is a depressing bogeyman, especially for the New Age-y elements on the left.
24  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How much do you like or dislike Oklahoma? on: November 21, 2014, 03:37:10 am
Never been there, but I've had a romantic image of it ever since reading John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath in middle school, which is only reinforced by songs like "Okie from Muskogee." When I was 11, the deadliest attack by domestic terrorists in history targeted the Federal Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, flattening a school or day care. More recently it has given us the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts. You never know what to expect from Oklahoma.

...what part of the lyrics to "Okie from Muskogee" gives you an idealized view of Oklahoma?  Is it the part about holdin' hands and pitchin' woo? Tongue
25  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: favorite U.S. city tournament (round 3) on: November 20, 2014, 04:21:00 am
I'm just here to vote against Kent.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1048


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines