Scientists really need to open their minds and try some faith based environmental research for a change.

Really? Like the time they told us that Russian hackers hacked a power grid?

https://www.snopes.com/report-vermont-p ... n-hackers/
Even if a story is mostly false it's still irresponsible. It is irresponsible to post any article that has not been thoroughly backed up. A few whispers from someone claiming to be from the CDC is not responsible journalism. Not to mention that this only fuels the great orange one's claims of fake news!


I know where you are going with that and they have no business researching gun control because it is the Center for Disease Control! Gun control has nothing to do with diseases. There is plenty of research done on gun control, both pro and con, in the public sector where of belongs.

Guns might as well be a disease. The way people think about them in this country is fucking sick and illogical enough to be one.

It's not fake news. Whoever fueled this story wasn't just claiming to be from the CDC - obviously research was done to make sure it was reputable enough to publish.

Well, the same goes for chemical exposure, heat waves, tsunamis, volcanoes, or radioactive hazards, yet they are allowed to work on those. Double standards? Sad!

Also, the rule says they are not allowed to "use governmental money on pro-gun control" things. If simply making statistics on gun violence is considered propaganda... well, the situation must be really, really bad.

Chemical exposure causes disease! Prolonged exposure to heat causes disease. Tsunamis and volcanoes are acts of nature. Gun control does not fall under any of those areas. Not for the CDC. Statistics on gun violence is not for the CDC so no, they should not use the funds they receive from the government to research that. No double standard here. Gun violence statistics are crime statistics!!

It is probably a mistake to think that the politicians responsible for such a decision did so because they were "offended". Politicians, especially Republicans, are typically only sentimental in speeches. It would probably just be an attempt to fuck with the CDC, or to try to influence their budget without telling them what to put in the budget. Ostensibly, they are trying to influence just how things are expressed; but practically, of course it is just an attempt to control the budget. If we see them as actually offended, as opposed to manipulative strategists, we miss the enemy. And the same goes for many Democrats who give "impassioned" speeches that are in fact just pandering and strategy. (No, jesus, this is not saying "both sides are bad", equivocating, or being an "edge lord". I'm just being evenhanded and sober in saying that the acts of politicians are usually best viewed strategically, and not sentimentally.)

EDIT: Well, it's probably not just about trying to influence the content of the budget. But it's also, or maybe mainly, about forcing things to appear more unified than they are. Giving the impression that more government agencies are on the same page than actually are. But still, just strategy, not sentiment.

You do realize that "Center for Disease Control" [SIC: it's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] is just the name for the national public health institute in America and they don't have to, you know, only work with what's in the name? Because if that was the case the name would be really, really long?

From the CDC's mission statement:



I mean, if you don't want gun research, you can have that opinion. It's stupid, but sure, it's an opinion. But to say you don't want it because the national health institute doesn't have "gun" in its name... That's not an argument.

Also, does that apply to traffic accidents, work-related injuries, everyday domestic injuries, and so forth? Naturally. No using tax dollars on those, either!

Look, it's OK not to want to know stuff. But in the specific case of guns, actually banning simple data and statistics collection means that nobody even intends or wants to base the decisions made and laws enacted on reality, and would rather base them on pure ideology. Guess what else failed because of that attitude? That's right: communism.

And if I recall right, the Congress also banned the Congressional Budget Office from calculating the cost of repealing Obamacare. What a wonderful way to serve the nation! Making decisions blinded and ignorant is the best way to preserve ideological purity.

Without ideology, the Republican party is just a bunch of greedy old bigots stealing from people and discriminating against anyone else.

The actual argument against the CDC researching firearms wasn't because they don't have firearms in the name; that's on par with arguing DOE shouldn't have anything to do with W-87 repairs because they don't have nukes in the name. The argument advanced at the time the law was passed was that a medical organization does not have the expertise to study criminology, and their studies would overly rely on hospital admissions. The GOP already knew how Dems treated the consensus of criminologists on firearm use, and they didn't want to hand Dems a future study of every gun-injury hospital admission knowing they already ignore every study of, say, defensive gun use. The original argument was that FBI or DOJ more broadly should be the ones handling all federal gun research.

Of course, that was the 90's, and by now the GOP just distrusts any research more broadly that isn't chiefly economic. Or about new, more expensive ways to blow up Afghan shanty towns. Most of them can get behind that kind of research.

That's not any better an argument. They want the decisions to be based on incomplete information on the grounds that the specific part they are studying upholds their ideological position while having all of the relevant information from all of the relevant sources could result in the logical conclusions being contrary to their ideology. Obviously it was an effective move politically, but not any more sound than "they shouldn't study guns because guns isn't in their name".

It's called confirmation bias, being disingenuous. Every politician or group has done this in the history of forever to support a specific view for the purpose of convincing constituents, passing bills and the like. When it comes to studies, it also doesn't help that "data" can be interpreted eight million ways to Sunday, making data interpretation or translation a mostly subjective task.

Which is what proves my point that it isn't a better argument.

Earthcubed's point was Democrats intentionally skew arguments by ignoring studies of defensive gun use. So yeah, confirmation bias goes both ways.

Well, the shitty ass GOP just passed their "tax reform" bill.

GOP to everyone: "Merry Christmas, you filthy animals."

I know that I'm beating a dead horse a million times at this rate, but fuck the GOP. I'd say the same to the people who voted for them, but they've already decided they want to be fucked. I'm with Morrigan at this rate: no sympathy for them.

Houses are going to be a lot cheaper after the next economic collapse.

So this justifies Republicans doing the same...? Why are you making a point that further demonstrates what I was talking about in an attempt to criticize my point?

I've had this same conversation a few times on the topic of sexual misconduct with several Trump supporters recently. It goes like this: I ask about Trump groping women. The Trump supporter says "But what about Bill Clinton?" Then I say "Are you saying Trump and Clinton are morally equivalent?" Then the Trump supporter is stumped and changes the topic.

Trump:
*Raises tax rates for the lowest income bracket*
*Cuts estate taxes for upper-middle class*
*Allocates more money to the fucking military-industrial complex*
*Permanently cuts taxes for corporations who are fucking us all*

Yeah, a real "small government" guy, huh?

It's base-level rhetoric that assumes you are actually literally saying only one party or person is doing these things, when really you're trying to have a different conversation which takes for granted that neither party is a bunch of saints and that doesn't need to be explicitly stated. But of course some people need 'BOTH PARTIES DO FUCKED UP SHIT' stated over and over again, loudly, and killing any kind of deeper conversation, rendering everything dumb forever.

Then there's this: http://www.businessinsider.com/congress ... en-2017-12 Warrantless collection of email and phone communication is about to be re-authorized, with so far no sign that liberty-loving Donald Trump will squash it.
MAGA = Monitored by American Government, Always.

Well, liberty wasn't a major theme of his election, but he did talk a lot about bringing law and order back to the dangerous streets, cracking down on others, and making those people respect us again. All that does tend to imply more police powers and more government social control. I believe this is what his voters actually want.

It seems like you started the argument based off "well, Democrats excluding defense-based gun stats isn't enough reason to justify Republicans selectively using stats to prove a point." That just seems like a really amazing logic hoop to jump through to basically go, "yeah, Democrats do it, but don't worry about that! Anyway, this over here..."

I was simply reiterating what Earthcubed said. Your response was just really fucking weird.

Also, drawing a false equivalence to a Trump supporter, nice.

Why are "acts of nature" like volcanoes included in the jurisdiction of the CDC and not gun violence?

Moreover, gun violence involves physical injuries, and research into it would involve hospital records, and of course, mental illness (the favourite talking point of gun advocates who always try to deflect from the issue, ironically enough), all of which fall under CDC jurisdiction, moreso than fucking tsunamis.

Only the NRA and the staunchest gun nuts could ever be opposed to the existence of research. I wonder why that is. :thinking emoji:

I fully agree. My point was that there are supposedly liberty-minded folks such as Alex Jones, who happily adopted Trump as a representative of their cause with no evidence to support that position. This is yet another thing that should push a bunch of Trumpaloompas off the boat, but chances are it won't.

My argument was that the original Republican justification that Earthcubed described for disallowing some research because democrats would do the same was flawed. Your response to that conversation was "Democrats do it too", which was a non-sequitur which doesn't refute the point I made that the justification was flawed. Earthcubed pointed out after my last post that "both sides do it" rhetoric has to be hammered in with some people, but I don't think I'm one of those people considering the conversations I've had with Morri in this very thread about critique of Democrats. The comparison to the Trump supporters was because you did the same thing they do, responding to a criticism with an accusation that the other side does the same, which doesn't actually answer the original criticism posed. If you don't want to be compared to Trump supporters, don't do the same things they do.

But it's not, and that's the thing. You should read again what Earthcubed said if that's your takeaway.


At some point when you call everything and everybody you disagree with a "Trump supporter", the words lose their meaning. But more than that, it's simply not true. Earthcubed's original point still stands and you have failed to refute it. I was simply reiterating what was already said.

Earthcubed didn't make a point, he mentioned some historical background on the issue of Republicans blocking research which I responded to by saying that it wasn't a better argument (on the part of the republicans, not Earthcubed) than the "guns isn't in their name" argument. You made the point that "democrats do it to" which I responded to by saying that that is the same argument Trump supporters make which doesn't respond to criticism of Trump. Drawing a comparison between your argument and that of some Trump supporters isn't calling you a Trump supporter.

This conversation is more evidence that gun nuttery makes otherwise intelligent people go loopy and thus more evidence that the CDC *should* be researching them.

But if he can't claim a moral high ground by painting those who point out flaws in his argument as frothing-at-mouth, hysterical liberals who can't see reason, how will he hold a conversation?

For the record, I'm more or less okay with CDC researching gun injuries, deaths, suicides, attempted suicides, and such. I do wish people would realize the limits of what that research would tell us.

The difference between you and I is that I'm at least willing to look at a situation from a 50,000-foot view, unlike you, who immediately goes into outrage and claims of "Trump supporter" bullshit because it fits your narrative about actually claiming a moral high ground and demanding you know what's best for everybody who doesn't agree with you. And that's the fucking problem. I'm a bit quick on the draw on some things, I will readily admit, but these are usually things that I am absolutely not willing to even entertain in any capacity, (i.e. outright gun bans) because it's reactionary bullshit. If you actually stowed your holier-than-thou attitude to take in more than one perspective in regards to what you're looking at, or the issue you're trying to understand, you would see your worldview and arguments are horribly flawed.

That's the problem with your side specifically in this day and age: claiming you know what's best for somebody else based on some stupid, moral objectivity you probably picked up on some rabid side of the internet. Maybe if you got back to letting people do whatever they fuck they want instead of being the moral police, less people would hate your contemporary perspective. The right has more than enough problems that are spilled daily on all the news sites and Trump is a blight on the United States Of America in pretty much every respect. But don't let this opinion stop you from calling me a Trump supporter.

Seriously, don't even fucking talk to me about "moral high ground" bullshit when I've seen you spit this pathetic opinion at literally every opportunity across multiple threads in this forum. "No, no, we should ban guns, because it is objectively better for you." You're actually a pretty fucking cool dude, and I've admired and respected a lot of your opinions in regards to music and movies through the years. It just so happens when you open your mouth about anything related to politics, it's fucking verbal sewage.

EDIT: Mind the spelling errors.

I can't hold all of this irony. Someone send help.


sensiblechuckle.gif

As, after all, you're a great poster when it comes to politics, when not agreeing with some of the stuff you say makes them a nazi.

Only when they say Nazi shit.

Come on this isn't even hard!

The title of this thread sort of sums up the whole picture. One can't claim to be objective and start such a biased thread at the same time .

Would be curious to see where you think the OP claimed objectivity.

Isn't this how the alt-right is with memes? How conservatives are with the bible? How libertarians are with economic dogma?


Just out of curiosity, what can't you do now that you could before because of moral police? In what way are they stopping you from doing those things?

I never said you were a Trump supporter and realize you're not one, so not sure where that's coming from. I do think you have a tendency to say dumb ass things though, and to reduce every conversation to "well, both sides are bad, we need to state this loudly all the time as if nobody has heard it yet."

And yeah I've said I don't like guns and wouldn't care if they're banned, but you twist that into me not being able to see any bigger picture. Just because I personally dislike guns doesn't mean I think banning them would be realistic. Obviously it wouldn't work, which is unfortunate to me. There are people who have legit arguments for why they like or need guns and that's fine for them. For me I hate them and that's just how I feel. I'm for whatever regulations people could do to curb shootings. I have said that before and you don't seem to get it.

Your inability to see that I can have a personal opinion/feeling about an issue while also realizing that it isn't a quick fix is just insane to me really. I've tried to explain this before, and most of the time when I talk about guns it's just in terms of what I think of it personally - that people have an unhealthy obsession with them and we don't do enough about the problem. You choose to turn that into me saying "ban guns = all problems solved, new world peace." Not my problem. Last time I said peoples' attidues about guns were fucked up and toxic, you came at me saying I was saying guns should be banned just by saying that. And so I did admit I would love to see them banned. But again, I know it wouldn't work and there's more to it than that.

I'd love to see where I've ever actually been this moral police. I never called anyone a Nazi or Trump supporter who wasn't, and never said anyone was some kind of awful misogynist for that other thread about Decapitated. What I have said is that I think some rhetoric people spout on here is unhelpful and even counter-productive. If you think those things are the same, that's on you - if you can't handle me saying I disagree with what people are saying, albeit in over the top language at times, then it isn't my fault there. And yeah I've reacted emotionally on the issue of Nazis, but that's because it's fucking Nazis marching in comtemporary America. My bad for that one I guess...

Would also love to see where anyone ever called someone a Nazi just for disagreeing with them here. I doubt that has happened.

As a separate post, not solely replying to FD, my basic ideology is that I will speak idealistically of my own opinions - it's good to have some blue-sky ideals and best-world-versions of how things would be. For me that would be no gun deaths, universal health care, equal rights for everyone regardless of who you are, etc. However it's obvious those things require work and you have to navigate a lot of different people with different views, that's how a democracy should work. So you can't just demand the best thing right away. You do have to compromise and work with everyone to get anywhere better. So while I have idealistic views on things, aim-for-the-sky type stuff, it doesn't mean I can't read into things and know there's more work to it than just that.

Not everything has to be centrist or middle of the road to be reasonable. You don't have to repeat that both sides have flaws over and over, like some kind of mantra-like chant, to be a level-headed person. You can have strongly held positions and still recognize differences. It seems like people have really forgotten this and conflate any strongly held view to "you're just biased and blindly parroting the views of your party" or some such thing.

''Defying Trump, U.N. General Assembly Condemns U.S. Decree on Jerusalem''

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-united-nations.html


''All of these nations that take our money and then they vote against us at the Security Council or they vote against us, potentially, at the Assembly, they take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars and then they vote against us,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday.

“Well, we’re watching those votes,” he said. “Let them vote against us; we’ll save a lot. We don’t care.”

Does he really think that because the USA gives money to another country, that country must become a yess-man? Beside, China is the biggest creditor of the USA. So it's not so much ''his'' money.
Maybe he will care if the USA lose all of its economical allies (slaves). If he continue that way, the rest of the world will organise themselves witout the USA.

I find it pretty funny in a real fucked up way that you get the most grief for your tone when you're the most prolific female poster in this thread. Almost like there's some kind of connection...