How about if we call them "people who learned from their mistake and are determined not to repeat it"? If you want their help to actually build a better country for the future, you might start there.
Face it, you're a partisan hack and ignored the wrong-doing until "not your guy" ended up in office.
And now you're assisting your guy with his present-day wrongdoing -- not historical wrongs, but wrongs that are being committed right now and will be committed tomorrow and are planned for many tomorrows to come. And all those people you hate just announced their policy, and they're on the right side of the issue.
I did not say anything about that being "a justification" or "the purpose" of anything. The point is that terrorists are less of a threat now. Consider it a complete coincidence if you want. Consider it a mistake to take terrorism seriously in 2001 and 2002 if you want. None of that changes the point.
People who worried about terrorism in 2002 may see less reason be as worried about it now. Why shouldn't they change policy to reflect a new situation?
Back in 2001 and 2002 we'd just been the victims of a terrorist attack. In the years since then, most of the dangerous terrorists were lured to Iraq and Afghanistan and killed.
Now it's 2014 and the President is using the IRS, EPA, and ATF to harass and attack his political opponents. Government threats are real and present. Terrorist threats are becoming faded memories. Why shouldn't people change their policy positions to fit changing situations?
What's this bullshit about caring about people? We want the government to stop bullying everyone and controlling everything. Then you can choose your own insurance coverage and/or go to whatever doctor you choose. You don't need a government overseer to care about you. Be a free, independent person, make your own choices, and care for/about yourself.
Rather than choose which is better for everyone, I would let them choose for themselves. I'm against banning GMOs and against banning creationism. I don't support government schools because the government shouldn't be telling anyone what to think. The country wouldn't suffer if the phrase "some people don't believe in evolution, choosing instead to believe God created all creatures in their current form" were uttered in a science class, but the country wouldn't be helped either. The government should neither censor creationism nor teach it, neither promote it nor compartmentalize it.
Evolution vs. creationism is a topic rarely discussed among religious people. Among anti-religious bigots it is discussed all the time, because bigots tend to be obsessed with differences in beliefs or characteristics. The different people are always bad, always dangerous and threatening to them. But these threats are almost never actualized. They're a "what if" scenario, or a callback to something that happened in a different place or time. Hence the original question: "the creationists hurt... who exactly?" Realistically, they don't. People should choose reason and fairness over bigotry.
Freedom and reason will improve our quality of life, because free people want better lives and reason allows them to make better choices. Government control and bigotry degrade our quality of life.
Do you think these impure thoughts and confusing messages should be censored from our textbooks and banned from our schools? How should we dispose of these books that are so harmful?
Unlike in the Soviet Union, we have individual choices here. We can choose to learn anything from creationism to evolution or anything else we wish -- unless the government controls the schools and censors the lessons. We should learn to avoid the Soviet Union's failures.
We also have the internet, where info about science and all other topics is abundant. The science topics don't get crowded out by the non-science topics -- there's enough space for all ideas.
That's an interesting story/prediction about one possible future. I'm not sure why being "dependent on other nations" in an interconnected future world is a huge tragedy that must be avoided.
Is it worse than children dying of malnutrition?
Are you for reforming the FDA to make US medical technology research more competitive? Or is medical technology research competitiveness only good as a taking point versus religious folks?
Do you think it's more likely the GMO foods being sold to Hawaiians is of the "really noble" variety or the "eeevil profit driven corporation" variety?
Do you think Hawaii is a cartoon world full of "eeevil" villains and "really noble" heroes? I thought it was a real place.
Besides making yourself a target for anti-religious bigots, what harm of any kind comes from professing and supporting creationism?
Meanwhile, anti-GMO pseudoscience supports malnutrition and some of the diseases and deaths caused by malnutrition. And anti-vaccination pseudoscience leads to children dying of preventable diseases.
Which one matters to you depends on what type of person you are.
How about if we all read different books? Then we'll have lots of different ideas to discuss. It'll be like we're thinking individually instead of just following along with the group.
Slashdot Mirror
When the poor start to starve...
Why wouldn't "the poor" decide to produce something instead of starving? Why do you think so little of "the poor"?
If you actually looked at a crowd of "the poor" in the US, you'd conclude they're not in danger of starving any time soon.
Keeping the masses reasonably well off...
In a free country, there wouldn't be "the masses", nor would anyone be "kept". Free people are individuals. They make their own choices.
How about if we call them "people who learned from their mistake and are determined not to repeat it"? If you want their help to actually build a better country for the future, you might start there.
And the rest of us actually want smaller, less powerful, less intrusive government.
Face it, you're a partisan hack and ignored the wrong-doing until "not your guy" ended up in office.
And now you're assisting your guy with his present-day wrongdoing -- not historical wrongs, but wrongs that are being committed right now and will be committed tomorrow and are planned for many tomorrows to come. And all those people you hate just announced their policy, and they're on the right side of the issue.
I did not say anything about that being "a justification" or "the purpose" of anything. The point is that terrorists are less of a threat now. Consider it a complete coincidence if you want. Consider it a mistake to take terrorism seriously in 2001 and 2002 if you want. None of that changes the point.
People who worried about terrorism in 2002 may see less reason be as worried about it now. Why shouldn't they change policy to reflect a new situation?
Government schools continue to be ridiculous.
Nope. No one justified anything. Stop trying to change the subject.
Making it OK for the President to use the IRS to to harass and attack his political opponents?
"Suddenly" the President is using the IRS to harass and attack his political opponents.
---
Meanwhile, one party presides over operations that spy on Americans and the other party just came out strongly against it.
Back in 2001 and 2002 we'd just been the victims of a terrorist attack. In the years since then, most of the dangerous terrorists were lured to Iraq and Afghanistan and killed.
Now it's 2014 and the President is using the IRS, EPA, and ATF to harass and attack his political opponents. Government threats are real and present. Terrorist threats are becoming faded memories. Why shouldn't people change their policy positions to fit changing situations?
What's this bullshit about caring about people? We want the government to stop bullying everyone and controlling everything. Then you can choose your own insurance coverage and/or go to whatever doctor you choose. You don't need a government overseer to care about you. Be a free, independent person, make your own choices, and care for/about yourself.
If they can't control the judges then how can they control everyone?
He could end the secrecy. The President can de-classify anything, anytime he wants.
People spinning "what if" stories with ISPs as evil bogeymen hurting small independent content providers like Google and Amazon and Netflix.
Yet another government agency acting outside the law. Ho hum. Just a technicality.
Acting is accordance with the law is such a burden; when will our benevolent government overseers finally be free of it, once and for all?
Maybe it's not pure donkey meat.
Rather than choose which is better for everyone, I would let them choose for themselves. I'm against banning GMOs and against banning creationism. I don't support government schools because the government shouldn't be telling anyone what to think. The country wouldn't suffer if the phrase "some people don't believe in evolution, choosing instead to believe God created all creatures in their current form" were uttered in a science class, but the country wouldn't be helped either. The government should neither censor creationism nor teach it, neither promote it nor compartmentalize it.
Evolution vs. creationism is a topic rarely discussed among religious people. Among anti-religious bigots it is discussed all the time, because bigots tend to be obsessed with differences in beliefs or characteristics. The different people are always bad, always dangerous and threatening to them. But these threats are almost never actualized. They're a "what if" scenario, or a callback to something that happened in a different place or time. Hence the original question: "the creationists hurt ... who exactly?" Realistically, they don't. People should choose reason and fairness over bigotry.
Freedom and reason will improve our quality of life, because free people want better lives and reason allows them to make better choices. Government control and bigotry degrade our quality of life.
Do you think these impure thoughts and confusing messages should be censored from our textbooks and banned from our schools? How should we dispose of these books that are so harmful?
Unlike in the Soviet Union, we have individual choices here. We can choose to learn anything from creationism to evolution or anything else we wish -- unless the government controls the schools and censors the lessons. We should learn to avoid the Soviet Union's failures.
We also have the internet, where info about science and all other topics is abundant. The science topics don't get crowded out by the non-science topics -- there's enough space for all ideas.
I have zero problem with GMO foods as a general matter. "GMO" means as much to me as the word "chemicals"; it's devoid of substantive meaning.
It means the same thing as "evil spirits" used to mean.
That's an interesting story/prediction about one possible future. I'm not sure why being "dependent on other nations" in an interconnected future world is a huge tragedy that must be avoided.
Is it worse than children dying of malnutrition?
Are you for reforming the FDA to make US medical technology research more competitive? Or is medical technology research competitiveness only good as a taking point versus religious folks?
Do you think Hawaii is a cartoon world full of "eeevil" villains and "really noble" heroes? I thought it was a real place.
mod parent up
Because the creationists hurt ... who exactly? Someone who died 100 or 1000 years ago? There are children dying of malnutrition today.
Besides making yourself a target for anti-religious bigots, what harm of any kind comes from professing and supporting creationism?
Meanwhile, anti-GMO pseudoscience supports malnutrition and some of the diseases and deaths caused by malnutrition. And anti-vaccination pseudoscience leads to children dying of preventable diseases.
Which one matters to you depends on what type of person you are.
No. Nothing like in the article. "Selective immunity" is worse than nothing.
How about if we all read different books? Then we'll have lots of different ideas to discuss. It'll be like we're thinking individually instead of just following along with the group.