|
conservatives are throwing around the recent CBO report for evidence for that =/
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
Still a lousy result and illustrates again why we should have single payer but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:conservatives are throwing around the recent CBO report for evidence for that =/ It's pretty amazing how popular that modified Protestant work ethic is with republicans. (Any working-class citizens who labor fewer than 40 hours are clearly just going to get into trouble in their free time, especially if welfare or unemployment are involved. There is no such thing as a bullshit job. Nobody should ever not be employed until at least age 65, unless they earned it by being rich.) Sure we need more people generally being productive, but it isn't automatically for the best that someone is working 52 hours weekly. If they can cut back to 37 hours and actually afford insurance now, that's great. More time for family/friends/hobbies/fitness, and someone else can pick up those hours they dropped. Anyone who's looked at a worker productivity vs wages chart from 1950 to now knows there's nothing inherently impossible about a 35-hour workweek.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:It's pretty amazing how popular that modified Protestant work ethic is with republicans. (Any working-class citizens who labor fewer than 40 hours are clearly just going to get into trouble in their free time, especially if welfare or unemployment are involved. There is no such thing as a bullshit job. Nobody should ever not be employed until at least age 65, unless they earned it by being rich.) Productivity doesn't have to be measured with at-job hours. People enjoying hobbies or learning at home is still productive in a sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Productivity doesn't have to be measured with at-job hours. People enjoying hobbies or learning at home is still productive in a sense. I totally agree. Never would've learned film-SLR skills if I had to work in a factory as a kid. Same for any number of weird computer skills outside of woodworking and machinery. I'm personally in favor of single-payer coupled with GMI as far as federal standards go. I was dealing with the subject on republican terms, mostly out of rhetorical spite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Interlude posted:Still a lousy result and illustrates again why we should have single payer but whatever. Yeah but hopefully in a few years once the sky hasn't fallen (Although with stuff like this seems like that time will take longer) it can be more appealing to the public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
IT BEGINS! ...If it hasn't already, which I'm sure it has.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
How many packs of joints do you smoke every day?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
There's so many ways of ingesting weed that aren't smoking just call him a moron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
 Conflicts of interest are NBD for any organization, right guys?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
staticman posted:IT BEGINS! ...If it hasn't already, which I'm sure it has. Marijuana contains a bunch of known carcinogens in high doses, but as VideoTapir implies, usage rates are usually lower, so negative outcomes will probably also be lower except for the likely very small percentage of users who become heavily addicted and do develop "smoke weed erryday" use patterns. nsaP, you don't have to smoke a carcinogen to develop cancer from it-chewing tobacco is the obvious alternate example, but yes, pot brownies are probably also cancer-causing. Interestingly, we don't technically have data on cancer development rates in human users of marijuana- it's been too hard to determine exposure levels, plus there's a lot of crossover between marijuana and tobacco use. Taaaaaaarb! posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Since when did conservatives give a poo poo about tar levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 14:51
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Since when did conservatives give a poo poo about tar levels. When states started legalizing the liberal devil weed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Marijuana contains a bunch of known carcinogens in high doses, but as VideoTapir implies, usage rates are usually lower, so negative outcomes will probably also be lower except for the likely very small percentage of users who become heavily addicted and do develop "smoke weed erryday" use patterns. nsaP, you don't have to smoke a carcinogen to develop cancer from it-chewing tobacco is the obvious alternate example, but yes, pot brownies are probably also cancer-causing. Isnt the major factor in the carcinogenic effects of weed the partial combustion products? youd have a bunch of free radicals floating about in the lungs, especially on more waxy and oily strains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Just got linked to http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio                
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:pot brownies are probably also cancer-causing. . Rigged Death Trap posted:Isnt the major factor in the carcinogenic effects of weed the partial combustion products? youd have a bunch of free radicals floating about in the lungs, especially on more waxy and oily strains. Nicotine is toxic, like in high enough concentrations it is poison - cannabinoids are neurotransmitter analogues and don't think they cause similar cell damage. Respond to the guy with an e-cig ad. Less combustion/smoke damage - same active ingredients.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Can someone tell me how the hell evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics? Isn't that just that a closed system never loses entropy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:Just got linked to That link showed up on my Facebook feed yesterday, but thankfully it was posted by an astrophysics PhD candidate and then mocked by all his science friends  This fuckin' guy in the image I quoted is the most annoying one I think. Absolutely reeks of "I took grade 9 science and am now an expert" smugness. Edit: ^^^ It doesn't, that's why it's so dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Wait a minute. Do they think a creature is a closed system so it can't change because that would require energy? Is that what they're supposed to be saying?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Wait a minute. Do they think a creature is a closed system so it can't change because that would require energy? Is that what they're supposed to be saying? They think the Earth is a closed system... and forget about the Sun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:They think the Earth is a closed system... and forget about the Sun. But even if it was, you can still move energy around a system, you just can't gain energy overall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
This is peak smugface. Also, Slate already has a rebuttal to each sign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:They think the Earth is a closed system... and forget about the Sun. But how do you explain sunsets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:But how do you explain sunsets? Angular momentum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Still a bad idea to smoke it, just because inhaling any sort of particulate such as smoke is really bad for you in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:They think the Earth is a closed system... and forget about the Sun. They don't know poo poo about what constitutes a closed system, so they think the second law of thermodynamics applies because they've been told it applies. Creationists prey on a lack of knowledge by throwing out a ton of poo poo that might, at first blush, sound reasonable or logical or scientific, but is debunked with a greater understanding of what they're actually talking about. And you combine that with people that are predisposed to think creationism is right and you got a lot of people thinking the second law of thermodynamics apply and half-lifes were once faster or are unpredictable and unreliable. Look at all the creationist v. evolution debates, or don't and just loving go to one of their websites where they lay out all the argument they've been using since forever. It's a bunch of poo poo that makes more sense the less you actually know about the subject matter. It's also usually just poo poo that you can fling out there rapid fire, knowing that each argument takes more time to refute than it took to put out there. Whatever gets let over you just claim was proven or agreed with or what the gently caress ever. Plus you get to look aggressive while them dumb scientists look like they're just on the defensive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Can someone tell me how the hell evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics? Isn't that just that a closed system never loses entropy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
I love when they argue that the sun doesn't count because it doesn't provide any new "information". Demonstrating that they have no idea what the second law of thermodynamic, entropy, or information means in a scientific context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:I love when they argue that the sun doesn't count because it doesn't provide any new "information". Demonstrating that they have no idea what the second law of thermodynamic, entropy, or information means in a scientific context. One of Ken Ham's creationist scientist people addressed the study where some bacteria evolved to survive on citrate, and his refutation was that it didn't add any "new information" but rather the bacteria just flipped a switch for genes they always had. As proven by the following information: I said they had it, so they did. I think it was about this particular experiment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
At one point there must have been a guy who knew enough about thermodynamics to figure out it could be a problem for the existence of life, but had a brainfart so big he completely forgot about the sun. Then that quote showed up on fstdt.com and was roundly mocked. That must have been at least a decade ago and I cannot believe that there would be people today that still think that's a good argument against evolution. That guy must be trolling, especially with that smug face. But then again, there's Poe's law and all...
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Entropy increases therefore simple organisms can't evolve into more complex ones. It causes a bit of a paradox when you try to explain Lego to them. I just love that the second law of thermodynamics argument they use would mean that creating complex things would be impossible. Like, say, houses or babies. Since both houses and babies are things that happen, then the second law of thermodynamics as they understand it must be bullshit, which means it can't disprove evolution. If they made it laymans terms like "Things always tend towards less complication, therefore evolution can't happen", even a grade school student would be able to point out the huge flaw in that argument. By couching the argument in pseudo-science, it is able to be digested by the followers in a way that reinforces their beliefs with no chance of cognitive dissonance. It's humbling to remember that while I can see the problem, they can't. What things can't I see that I'm as confident in as they are in their beliefs? Do I really know what I think I know?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
shalcar posted:I just love that the second law of thermodynamics argument they use would mean that creating complex things would be impossible. Like, say, houses or babies. Since both houses and babies are things that happen, then the second law of thermodynamics as they understand it must be bullshit, which means it can't disprove evolution. If they made it laymans terms like "Things always tend towards less complication, therefore evolution can't happen", even a grade school student would be able to point out the huge flaw in that argument. Well, houses are build by humans, who are rational beings. One might say they are intelligent, and that they are the creators of said house. Intelligent Creators, if you will. Has anyone ever seen a house just build itself?  (no caves don't count)As for the babies, something something divine plan something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Neither of you is Gish Galloping fast enough. You would make horrible creationists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Neither of you is Gish Galloping fast enough. You would make horrible creationists. Woah, I had no idea that guy died.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:I love when they argue that the sun doesn't count because it doesn't provide any new "information". Demonstrating that they have no idea what the second law of thermodynamic, entropy, or information means in a scientific context. Which is sad because how the Sun played a role in us being here is fascinating. We are creatures that exist only because we can consume organisms that directly use the Sun's energy to convert simple molecules into complex molecules we need. Or we can consume animals that eat those organisms. Or sometimes even animals that eat animals that eat those organisms. When you get down to it, all food you eat only had the energy it did because the Sun imparted it into the food.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
And a lot of that initial food is a trick to get you to carry it's plant babies far away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
I don't even understand how people like this navigate life. In what world is science non-provable, untestable, and unable to be repeated? She is just completely making up a definition of science to fit her stunted world view.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I don't even understand how people like this navigate life. In what world is science non-provable, untestable, and unable to be repeated? She is just completely making up a definition of science to fit her stunted world view. I think she's pushing the philosophy of science angle, where you can't prove science works without using science in the proof, you can't deduce whether something you discover is true or if it's an approximation of truth, etc. The obvious response is that science is more useful than creationism and intelligent design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
They seriously couldn't find a non white fundie?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:08
|
|