US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I got into fight on FB with some twit I used to work with because he's still using long debunked welfare myths in his support of Romney (couldn't provide a single cite to substantiate his "hordes no incentive to work people", imagine that). Yeah, hit those crippled, elderly, children with sticks til they get out there and work.... so, who's hiring?

oh....

Vexx, if he is one of your ex-CIA colleagues, please remember that he knows about the commercialisation of those cybernetics at A-51. Just that he is deluded that people can pay for them without the repo-man ever knocking on their door.

[willx]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Vexx, if he is one of your ex-CIA colleagues, please remember that he knows about the commercialisation of those cybernetics at A-51. Just that he is deluded that people can pay for them without the repo-man ever knocking on their door.

You know too much ..

And for something completely different.. Apparently Captain America is going to become POTUS.
http://kotaku.com/5944251/captain-am...?post=52774753

[Vexx]

A annoying yet disturbing poll by the Economist that might be enlightening to our overseas forumites (or annoying and disturbing as well). It provides a rather blunt picture of the cultural divide within the US . Almost completely separated realities...

http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/09...about-religio/

[Sumeragi]

I don't see why that is disturbing. It is a fundamental difference, so why would it be disturbing?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I don't see why that is disturbing. It is a fundamental difference, so why would it be disturbing?

Being ''fundamenal'' do not prevent to be ''disturbing'' . What could be disturbing is the almost clear cut betweem each group.

[Zakoo]

I'm not surprised, I always considered US as a country with a heavy christian base.

It's not really disturbing, I won't judge this I'm not supposed to do it, but for a european, it certainly is very different, even if most west european country do have a national religion, it's very rare when a politician tries to make God enter the debate, it's like suiciding himself.

I think unlike US, Europe has a massive muslim/other religions communities, most immigrates in US comes from Mexico/south america meaning ... christian country. Even if there are differences between catholicism and protestantism, they are closer between themselves than to the others, even more when there is a "common ennemy".

But still, if the only cleavage between DEM and GOP is about how much they talk about God, it's quite sad for you, debates must be quite boring. /troll

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Being ''fundamenal'' do not prevent to be ''disturbing'' . What could be disturbing is the almost clear cut betweem each group.

And that's what I don't find disturbing at all. Is having a clear cut difference so disturbing as to be a fundamental problem of the state as a whole?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

And that's what I don't find disturbing at all. Is having a clear cut difference so disturbing as to be a fundamental problem of the state as a whole?

I do not find it disturbing myself, only said than it could be. The problem is how do you manage to make a country working when both side have less and less in commond?

Eastwood "If somebody is dumb enough to ask me to go to political convention and say something, they're gonna have to take what they get,"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ugh-to-ask-me/

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

A annoying yet disturbing poll by the Economist that might be enlightening to our overseas forumites (or annoying and disturbing as well). It provides a rather blunt picture of the cultural divide within the US . Almost completely separated realities...

http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/09...about-religio/

Even if US is a Christian nation, are you sure most of them are behaving like good Christians?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Even if US is a Christian nation, are you sure most of them are behaving like good Christians?

Some did talked about ''addapting'' the bible to their conservative view.
The would be acting like good christians, they would just change what is being a good christian

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Even if US is a Christian nation, are you sure most of them are behaving like good Christians?

No, they're not. And it's pathetic.

[SaintessHeart]

Look, even Murdoch's mouthpiece isn't siding wih Romney :

Charting Romney's 47% Don't Pay Income Tax

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I don't see why that is disturbing. It is a fundamental difference, so why would it be disturbing?

Let me try an analogy.
Person A considers the axiom that "Parallel lines never converge" to be an innate truth.
Person B considers the axiom that "Parallel lines always converge" to be an innate truth.

Person A asserts that a triangle always has 180 degrees based on that.
Person B derives an assertion that such is NOT the case.

They start shooting at each other over who is right.

Problem is, Person A created that axiom based on the concept of a completely flat plane of existence, their intuitive grasp of reality.
Person B has discovered evidence they live on a very large sphere, undetectable over *small* distances, a reality not detected by intuition or "common sense".

... basically when we have a significant fraction of the country operating under completely different axioms, there isn't likely to be compromise, discussion, or acceptance of data on the matter. That is disturbing.

[Sumeragi]

And? That's reality. That's life. That's how the world runs, and trying to deny is being intolerant of the difference. The United States, in the end, is in a very civil situation despite all the "disturbing", because it is actually less clear cut than most of the world.

Basically, I see "disturbing" to be the sign people don't know how extreme things can be.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

And? That's reality. That's life. That's how the world runs, and trying to deny is being intolerant of the difference. The United States, in the end, is in a very civil situation despite all the "disturbing", because it is actually less clear cut than most of the world.

Basically, I see "disturbing" to be the sign people don't know how extreme things can be.

So, that's being intolerant of people who are intolerant over differences? o.O

We're *currently* civil about it (though we haven't been quite recently in history - many people have died in the US over the issues relating to this). I expect violence to escalate as people who hold extremist positions decide their "innately correct way of seeing things" isn't going to be snapped up by the general population.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Problem is, Person A created that axiom based on the concept of a completely flat plane of existence, their intuitive grasp of reality.
Person B has discovered evidence they live on a very large sphere, undetectable over *small* distances, a reality not detected by intuition or "common sense".

I can't say for sure if Person B is supposed to be a very religious individual or someone very knowlegeable in many high level scientific theory

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

I can't say for sure if Person B is supposed to be a very religious individual or someone very knowlegeable in many high level scientific theory

It could be either one ... my underlying point is that unless everyone in the room is using the same underlying facts from which to derive different opinions, there won't be resolution without violence.

You and I, look at the same data and we have very different ideas on how to address them.

If one of us is looking at old data, corrupted data or no data, there's no resolution to be had. That is a core problem we're facing in the US.

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

I can't say for sure if Person B is supposed to be a very religious individual or someone very knowlegeable in many high level scientific theory

Although this may not be the case in the example you highlighted I do think a case can be made that science or more specific the belief in technology and progress follows a similar psychological dynamic to that of religion. The belief in progress is deeply instilled in society and much of the underlying assumptions based around this are often built on nothing but acts of faith.

Also, people often say they believe in science and believe in theory x,y or z but in reality their knowledge of the theories in question are often (not always) minimal. People trust the words of an expert which is nothing more than an act of faith since you have not seen the evidence yourself, you have faith the person is honest. Now in most matters this is okay and this faith is most secure and best placed when it comes to the harder sciences and when we are talking about well established theories but people often place an enormous degree of faith in science that is far from proven and this faith is especially questionable if the theory is uncertain and is based on a soft science. Such acts of faith, which are quite prevalent in mainstream society is not much different to the act of faith a religious person might place on the religion they chose to follow.

To give an obvious example just ask peoples' views on capitalism, socialism or communism. And then ask how these paradigms operate but when asking this question ask about how these theories work in the textbook AND how these theories work in practice. If a person can answer these questions and answer them honestly it wills be an enlightening process. In any case the act of misplaced faith is not limited to religious nutters, after all faith is the unwavering believe in a set of belief structures despite the lack of hard evidence to support it. Since our knowledge of the world is far from complete then we must place some faith in the actions we undertake.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by monsta666

Although this may not be the case in the example you highlighted I do think a case can be made that science or more specific the belief in technology and progress follows a similar psychological dynamic to that of religion. The belief in progress is deeply instilled in society and much of the underlying assumptions based around this are often built on nothing but acts of faith.

You're going to have to explain this one, because it doesn't make a damned lick of sense.

Originally Posted by monsta666

Also, people often say they believe in science and believe in theory x,y or z but in reality their knowledge of the theories in question are often (not always) minimal. People trust the words of an expert which is nothing more than an act of faith since you have not seen the evidence yourself, you have faith the person is honest.

No, you look at what's actually looked at as fact by those in the field. Unlike religion, one must prove a scientific theory or fact and undergo peer review. There's math to back it up.

Originally Posted by monsta666

but people often place an enormous degree of faith in science that is far from proven and this faith is especially questionable if the theory is uncertain and is based on a soft science.

Examples?

Originally Posted by monsta666

To give an obvious example just ask peoples' views on capitalism, socialism or communism.

That's economics, not science. It is, at best, a social science, and no one would consider that actual science along the same veins of physics, chemistry, and biology.

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by GDB

You're going to have to explain this one, because it doesn't make a damned lick of sense.

For the last 300 years there has been a unprecedented rise in the level of technology and human progress in society. The assumption that is deeply instilled in most societies is that technological advances will occur at a similar rate as in the past. Also another embedded assumption in this narrative is the believe that technology is a purely good force and it will solve all problems and if a problem exists innovation and technology will solve it. And finally the other assumption made in this is that advancing technology is synonymous with greater human progress.

These assumptions are hardly ever tested on any real scientific basis yet people place an enormous degree of faith it is true, to the point that is almost a religion. Now I am not saying this belief is wrong rather I am saying these underlying assumption portrayed by the mainstream must be closely examined because without close examination and scrutiny what we have here is not far different from a religion.

Originally Posted by GDB

No, you look at what's actually looked at as fact by those in the field. Unlike religion, one must prove a scientific theory or fact and undergo peer review. There's math to back it up.

That is true. And as I said, most of time it is perfectly safe to place faith on experts because these theories undergo an a lot of scrutiny via peer review. However the reason I still say it is an act of faith is you have personally not studied the source material yourself. Often you have taken a secondary source (be it through textbooks or other materials from some expert) and assumed it is true. Unless you reach the level of a master degree or PhD and undertake the painstaking process of studying the source material then some faith most be placed on the expert. Now this faith is reasonable because as you state much of the science we see today must undergoes extensive peer review before it is accepted into the mainstream.

However there are many theories (even in the hard sciences) were our knowledge is incomplete yet often we still have to make choice. When information is incomplete then some faith has to be placed on what we think is right. This fact is true regardless of whether you are an expert or layman.

Originally Posted by GDB

That's economics, not science. It is, at best, a social science, and no one would consider that actual science along the same veins of physics, chemistry, and biology.

Off course no one considers a social science in the same vein as physics, chemistry or biology. Yet economics plays a big role in our life, and because it plays a big role we must confront our economic realities and place faith in various theories of economics. You cannot tell me that people do not place strong believes in the market economy, socialism or any other economic paradigm. Just chat to any random American about socialism or communism and tell me that the conversation can remain strictly rational. People place a large degree of faith in each paradigm even though it is a social science.

And on the other-side many people who hold strong believes on the market may reject climate change which is based on more solid hard sciences. Another example is the rejection of evolution in biology while maintaining a believe in the social science of capitalism. But leaving the field of economics we can move into sociology or physiology and see people often make gross assumptions or acts of faith in seemingly big lifetime events, just consider how people handle things like relationships. Again the common theme under all this is we operate in a world were our knowledge is incomplete yet we must make decisions with incomplete or even corrupted information so some faith must be placed in the decisions we make. Moreover, even if good information is available people can still act irrationally because of their belief structure. All these things are issues related to human behaviour and these traits are not limited to people of a religious disposition.