acupuncture - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
also you dodged what I said about being a serial killer
do you frown upon that rich
So the question now you should pose to yourself (and to those to run the site that you linked to) is by denying evidence are you being stupid or ignorant? I think it is a fair question. You have been given the evidence, now judge by your own definitions.
This is what I mean by all criticism should first and foremost be directed at oneself
You are really no different than anyone else
As for serial killers, they are everywhere unfortunately, and I concur with the laws in this country that are designed to protect citizens
LOL - and that gives you claim to 'stupidity' ?(I am totally cool with that
Have you ever been to SA?
How would you define 'post-industrial' exactly?
Let us take a simple example.
Recent studies have shown that diets that consist primarily of vegetables, fruits, nuts and legumes, and minimize meats (especially less than 1/4 pound red meat per day) will increase lifespan and decrease chronic ailments including heart disease and dementia/Alzheimer's.
How many people on this forum have modified their diet with this information? How many intend to modify their diet? How many will not? If you do not, does this make you ignorant, stupid, stubborn, or what?
Ditto for moderate exercise of at least 20 minutes a day? Do you do this? If not then what does this make you?
Well, obviously, we cannot tell unless we know why the individual doesn't modify his diet. Not enough information. Some may be ignorant, some stupid, some stubborn, so don't care, some are weak-willed. There is no one answer that fits all. Why would you think there is?
Exactly. We don't know.
To what extent is this a problem in the US?
If it is, indeed, a problem - what might be the solution?
From time to time I see reports, surveys and/or articles detailing some of the most outlandish responses people give to - what I perceive to be - some very basic 'truths' about current events, the country we live in, history and so on. Here are some examples from Bill Maher's article New Rule: Smart President ≠ Smart Country - except where set off by brackets, all are direct quotes:
- On the eve of the Iraq War, 69% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Four years later, 34% still did.
- At a recent town-hall meeting [regarding Healthcare] in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare," which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways.
- ...polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is
- ... 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War.
- More than two-thirds of Americans don't know what's in Roe v. Wade.
- Two-thirds don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does.
- Nearly half of Americans don't know that states have two senators and more than half can't name their congressman.
- And among Republican governors, only 30% got their wife's name right on the first try [unable to discern if he's just being sarcastic here or using vocalized pauses to inject a point]
- Sarah Palin says she would never apologize for America. Even though a Gallup poll says 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth.
- A third of Republicans believe Obama is not a citizen, and a third of Democrats believe that George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks
- The average voter thinks foreign aid consumes 24% of our federal budget. It's actually less than 1%.
- But here's one fun fact you can take away: did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That's right, half of America looks at books called the Old Testament and the New Testament and cannot figure out which one came first.
Maher's text may be in dispute - I wouldn't swallow it all. But there are quite a few other sources which often speak of the same theme: We're not too smart. Is this political slandering or a real problem? I tend to think there's at least something to this issue since its come up so many times from many different sources.
Please discuss - and I'd ask that we try and stay centered on the theme "Is this a problem? Why? How?, etc".
Another problem is that in our modern welfare state we insist everybody has to be equal, nobody can suffer the consequences of their stupidity. Which is like rewarding stupidity, while punishing being smart.
That's a bit cold isn't it!?
That's a bit cold isn't it!? Stupid people still need to be cared for in our societies, regardless of how frustrating it is to smart people. I think the average person is ignorant because that's how governments want us. Smart people ask far too many questions and get in the way of powerful people trying to exert more power.
I understand your point, but there is so much at stake when you say 'you got to be cruel to be kind.' People could die if you take away a welfare system. It comes across as punishment for being stupid. In the western world it is difficult to be self-sufficient. For the most part you must go and find employment, i.e. you need to convince someone else to employ you and give you a salary. The barriers to entry for entrepreneurs are so great that most businesses fail within the first year. There was a time you could go to a market place and set a up a stall and sell things. Now, you must pay rent to be allowed to set up a table etc. People are not given the opportunity to grow and not depend on others to feed them.
If a welfare system is removed, barriers in the market place must also be removed to give people a better chance at becoming successful.
By self-sufficient I don't mean growing your own food, but doing what's necessary to convince someone to give you a salary. Not being dependent of the government or charity.
Which I think everyone has the chance to do in a free market system. Few are born too stupid to make a living.
Reducing welfare is not a punishment for being stupid. It's just not rewarding it.
Josh, I mean no insult, but that is usually the argument I hear from the left when bringing up the benefits of reducing welfare.
"It's hard to be self-sufficient. And when we fall on a bad time it may not be our own fault."
My problem with that paradigm is that it denies the individual the basic dignity of being responsible for ones own actions. We would need the elites to control our lives because we are too stupid to do so ourselves.
Another argument is that just because we think certain people should be helped, the state doesn't have to do it. What about private charity.
I can't see how the presense of a welfare state denies the individual the basic dignity of being responsible for ones own actions. I mean you don't have to use it (like me) if you find yourself unemployed.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been unemployed, or anyone close to you?
How about better education and instilling good work ethics in young people? A change in attitudes and culture would, I believe, reduce the number of people who think it is okay to live off the state and at the same time keep a system which can help catch people when they genuinely fall.
But the effect on society is the same, no?
Oh, I have. And I always had trouble presenting myself to employers.
It would be empty words. You can't tell your kids that they have to do well but if they fail you bail them out anyways.