Agreed. Part of me wants to laugh at them, but part of me is scared because they actually do lobby special interest groups and actually make policy changes because of it.
Too much of their philosophy is emotion driven and based on absolutes. AHHH NUCLEAR BOMB == BAD THEREFORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS == BAD. THIS LOGIC IS INCONTROVERTABLE!!!
This is something I've found extremely ironic. It's old news, but relevant to the article.
After years of doing damage to the nation by opposing nuclear power, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has officially renounced his anti-nuclear groups, and called on other environmentalists to do the same.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
What the real pity is, is that these people were the ones who made it so incredibly difficult (litigation and monetarily) to build a new power plant. Back when opposing nuclear power was the cool thing to do, they lobbied and pushed for increasingly ludicrous laws and fees to try to stymy the growth of nuclear power. I'm sure they had good intentions, but this is just a classic example of a bunch of people latching on to a flawed idea, and then doing a ton of harm with it. As a result of it, now that they realize how dumb they were, or maybe just ruled by emotion, and call on people to start building power plants again, it's almost impossible to do it based on the litigation they themselves fought for.
In some way (of course they aren't the sole reason), they helped contribute to our complete dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and if you buy into what they say the war is about, they started it themselves.
To be honest, I really do hope that environmentalists start jumping on board here to try to make up for the damage they did. Make no mistake, I'm totally for not littering, and maybe even not building on the land of endangered species, but man, Greeenpeace has done some dumbass shit. By all means, nuclear power should be regulated, and standards enforced, but it really isn't the anti-christ. Seriously!
"Cassowaries, deftly using their surroundings to conceal their movements, have been known to out-flank organized groups of human predators."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary
Iran could have a nice culture if they weren't sexist, racist, and allowed freedom of religion. Frankly, those are tough to gloss over, so yes I think they are defining characteristics.
As I previously stated, I'm not really into universal morals in general, but those 3 are pretty clear cut to me. If you happen to be of the opinion that it's just fine for other cultures to embrace those tenants, then we are simply at an impasse.
I completely agree. It mostly is just about the bottom line, and I do understand that everyone has a different learning style. I do think, that on a whole (and not intending to marginalize you), the people who are in college right now would rather read 100 pages on paper then 100 pages online (not news, but actually something that actually had to be learned). Beside that, I agree with you 100%.
Yes, I'm speaking from the perspective of a person who has spent time in the middle east, and who's sister has actually spent time in the middle east. Freedom of religion? Why don't you try doing some research about the persecution of Christians in middle eastern countries. Or wait, how about Jews? Seriously, http://www.cnn.com/ - Try it, it'll help.
Now, I don't think that there are universal morals that everyone should follow, and that every country and culture should have exactly the same rules as ours. However, I don't think that religious persecution, racism, and sexism is playing nice. If you're all for that, then cool, I wouldn't expect you to have any problems with those in question countries.
I'm talking about the people, like me, who have had digital learning force-fed to them.
I started out with the physical texts in grade school. By the time I got to college, I began to get bombarded with "read these 300 pages online" and most of us just wanted to shoot ourselves in the face. Most of my generation has had both. Most of us choose a combination (physical augmented by digital) and I'm fairly happy with that. I understand that not all colleges are the same, but I think pretty much every student has had exposure to e-learning of some sort by now.
"There are plenty of studies that have been done to show that...."
All valid points. I happen to be an auditory learner, so I guess none of this matters to me anyway:)
I don't disagree with anything that you say, though I will clarify. My personal opinion is that most people would rather read a book in their hands then off a screen. Now, the people who read this post might come from a subset of the population who have a higher likelyhood of agreeing with you, but go talk to most people who aren't in the science fields and I think you'll find the opposite.
I consider myself an early adopter and a person who's generally always interested in finding a competetive advantage, but one thing is for sure: when it comes to studying, I like to have something tactile in my hands.
It's almost as though interacting with a paper medium is easier to deal with then a digital medium, and through that interaction I tend to learn more. It's why I've printed out all the Powerepoint slides to class and write on the slides in longhand rather then add notes on the actual slides themselves. I'm not sure if that's something that will eventuially change as people start becoming more exposed to computers at an early age, but I do believe that in my generation (college) people still generally prefer to have a non-digital medium for actual learning. I've rarely run into anyone who would rather read a digital textbook then have some sort of physical document/book in their hands.
Maybe it is all spin... but I still don't want my wife or sister to live there. Do you seriously think that Iran as a nation is not sexist? I have an idea, lets make Hillary Clinton wear a veil, and then ask her if she feels a sense of equality.
Women are not equal under Iran's constitution, adopted in 1979 after the revolution that overthrew Shah Reza Pahlavi. The constitution mandates that the legal code adhere to Sharia law, the Islamic moral code based on the Koran. Article IV of that constitution states: "all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria."
-msnbc.com
With that being said, Iran is a hell of a lot better then Saudi Arabia (a country, interestingly, that we're much friendlier with, but then again they don't have a nutcase for a leader) when it comes to racism and sexism, but anyone who thinks that Iran isn't sexist really needs to pull their head out of... the sand.
For the record, I'm personally starting to think that we should just stay the hell out of the Middle East and Israel all together, and just let them finish what they've been trying to do to each other for the past few millenium.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Part of me wants to laugh at them, but part of me is scared because they actually do lobby special interest groups and actually make policy changes because of it. Too much of their philosophy is emotion driven and based on absolutes. AHHH NUCLEAR BOMB == BAD THEREFORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS == BAD. THIS LOGIC IS INCONTROVERTABLE!!!
This is something I've found extremely ironic. It's old news, but relevant to the article. After years of doing damage to the nation by opposing nuclear power, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has officially renounced his anti-nuclear groups, and called on other environmentalists to do the same.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
What the real pity is, is that these people were the ones who made it so incredibly difficult (litigation and monetarily) to build a new power plant. Back when opposing nuclear power was the cool thing to do, they lobbied and pushed for increasingly ludicrous laws and fees to try to stymy the growth of nuclear power. I'm sure they had good intentions, but this is just a classic example of a bunch of people latching on to a flawed idea, and then doing a ton of harm with it. As a result of it, now that they realize how dumb they were, or maybe just ruled by emotion, and call on people to start building power plants again, it's almost impossible to do it based on the litigation they themselves fought for.
In some way (of course they aren't the sole reason), they helped contribute to our complete dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and if you buy into what they say the war is about, they started it themselves.
To be honest, I really do hope that environmentalists start jumping on board here to try to make up for the damage they did. Make no mistake, I'm totally for not littering, and maybe even not building on the land of endangered species, but man, Greeenpeace has done some dumbass shit. By all means, nuclear power should be regulated, and standards enforced, but it really isn't the anti-christ. Seriously!
"Cassowaries, deftly using their surroundings to conceal their movements, have been known to out-flank organized groups of human predators." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary
Creepy.....
Iran could have a nice culture if they weren't sexist, racist, and allowed freedom of religion. Frankly, those are tough to gloss over, so yes I think they are defining characteristics.
As I previously stated, I'm not really into universal morals in general, but those 3 are pretty clear cut to me. If you happen to be of the opinion that it's just fine for other cultures to embrace those tenants, then we are simply at an impasse.
rofl... well said.
Because there's no patch for human stupidity. http://www.jinx.com/men/sweatshirts/geek/social_engineering.html
I completely agree. It mostly is just about the bottom line, and I do understand that everyone has a different learning style. I do think, that on a whole (and not intending to marginalize you), the people who are in college right now would rather read 100 pages on paper then 100 pages online (not news, but actually something that actually had to be learned). Beside that, I agree with you 100%.
Yes, I'm speaking from the perspective of a person who has spent time in the middle east, and who's sister has actually spent time in the middle east. Freedom of religion? Why don't you try doing some research about the persecution of Christians in middle eastern countries. Or wait, how about Jews? Seriously, http://www.cnn.com/ - Try it, it'll help. Now, I don't think that there are universal morals that everyone should follow, and that every country and culture should have exactly the same rules as ours. However, I don't think that religious persecution, racism, and sexism is playing nice. If you're all for that, then cool, I wouldn't expect you to have any problems with those in question countries.
I'm talking about the people, like me, who have had digital learning force-fed to them. I started out with the physical texts in grade school. By the time I got to college, I began to get bombarded with "read these 300 pages online" and most of us just wanted to shoot ourselves in the face. Most of my generation has had both. Most of us choose a combination (physical augmented by digital) and I'm fairly happy with that. I understand that not all colleges are the same, but I think pretty much every student has had exposure to e-learning of some sort by now.
"There are plenty of studies that have been done to show that...." All valid points. I happen to be an auditory learner, so I guess none of this matters to me anyway :)
I don't disagree with anything that you say, though I will clarify. My personal opinion is that most people would rather read a book in their hands then off a screen. Now, the people who read this post might come from a subset of the population who have a higher likelyhood of agreeing with you, but go talk to most people who aren't in the science fields and I think you'll find the opposite.
I consider myself an early adopter and a person who's generally always interested in finding a competetive advantage, but one thing is for sure: when it comes to studying, I like to have something tactile in my hands. It's almost as though interacting with a paper medium is easier to deal with then a digital medium, and through that interaction I tend to learn more. It's why I've printed out all the Powerepoint slides to class and write on the slides in longhand rather then add notes on the actual slides themselves. I'm not sure if that's something that will eventuially change as people start becoming more exposed to computers at an early age, but I do believe that in my generation (college) people still generally prefer to have a non-digital medium for actual learning. I've rarely run into anyone who would rather read a digital textbook then have some sort of physical document/book in their hands.
Maybe it is all spin... but I still don't want my wife or sister to live there. Do you seriously think that Iran as a nation is not sexist? I have an idea, lets make Hillary Clinton wear a veil, and then ask her if she feels a sense of equality.
Women are not equal under Iran's constitution, adopted in 1979 after the revolution that overthrew Shah Reza Pahlavi. The constitution mandates that the legal code adhere to Sharia law, the Islamic moral code based on the Koran. Article IV of that constitution states: "all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria."
-msnbc.com
With that being said, Iran is a hell of a lot better then Saudi Arabia (a country, interestingly, that we're much friendlier with, but then again they don't have a nutcase for a leader) when it comes to racism and sexism, but anyone who thinks that Iran isn't sexist really needs to pull their head out of... the sand.
For the record, I'm personally starting to think that we should just stay the hell out of the Middle East and Israel all together, and just let them finish what they've been trying to do to each other for the past few millenium.