Jump to content

Ten oz

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    5523
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    17

Ten oz last won the day on March 27 2019

Ten oz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

977 Glorious Leader

5 Followers

About Ten oz

  • Rank
    Genius

Profile Information

  • Location
    Washington D.C.
  • Interests
    Homebrew, Hiking, Cycling, independent video, politics
  • College Major/Degree
    Armed Forces Resident training
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Evolution
  • Occupation
    Electrician

Recent Profile Visitors

16514 profile views
  1. Wealth attainment is the over arching motivation for a lot of people in American society. Many view attending University as just a platform to a good paying job, deify business owners because they provide jobs, and many even project positive traits upon those who merely inherited their wealth. The fixation on money supersede all else. In U.S. politics Environmental discussions are nearly always boxed into economic discussions centered around jobs and costs. If even one Billionaire might get their wings clipped by a policy, no matter what the science says, it is a hard stop politically. Likewise for Healthcare, nutrition, public safety, etc. Economic concerns take precedence and it often isn't even close. Of course its short sighted. Long term economic outlooks would be improved by following science. Not just that but money is worthless if humans extinct ourselves. However when it comes to money real time generally satiates ones passions greater than future potentials. I think if given the choice most people would take a millions dollars today over $2 million ten years from now. That is where I see the real battle existing. People already see the jobs related to Oil & Gas. Already understand the economic benefit. To accept the science the damage burning Oil is doing to the environment there needs to be an equal economic impetus people can see in real time. America isn't divorced from science America can't divorce science from money.
  2. I am not opposed to incremental improvement. Steps in the right direction is a useful place to start. Of course more needs to be done but good isn't the enemy of great.
  3. I think a lot of people mistakenly assume media is already policed to a greater degree than it is. That laws in place for false advertising and journalistic licensing ensure a reasonable amount of truth in anything broadly circulated. This assumption of protection contributes to the problem as it promotes confidence in the information seen. At a minimum the govt should strive to implement the sort of regulations people mistakenly assume already exist. For example ads used to monetize YouTube videos are clearly labelled as Ads and even include timers letting one know how long the Ad will last. It creates a sense that there is a clear delineation between advertising content and others types of content. However there is not. In execution and impact there is no meaning difference in advertising between a something labelled as an Ad and content that serves the same purpose. YouTube fitness videos as an easy example. A video will have Ads for some supplement or whatever attached. Then separately the video itself will be of people who have sponsorships to promote particular products. So one clicks on a video thinking they will learn proper squatting form, knowing skip the Ads, then watch what basically might be a deceptively produced informerical for squatting accessories. I think people should be able to discern between professional and non professional, sponsored and non sponsored, content. If a YouTube fitness personality receives money from a company (regardless what they claim that money is for) that info should be clearly identified just as Ads are. People should be aware they are not seeing unbiased information. Likewise for professional accounts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook etc, etc. Asking social media giants to determine what is real and what is fake is too tall an ask. Their algorithms only know what is clicked on and viewed. Not what's true or false. However asking the Social Media giants to label professional accounts is easy. Alphabet Inc (Google) knows which YouTubers they are sending money to and can add revenue source disclosures that application process. I think knowing that the RNC, DNC, NRA, NAMBLA, Scientology, or whomever is paying the personality and or for the content viewed would make a big difference in how people view that content.
  4. I am not familiar with competition being used this way. In deterministic evolutionary game theory and studies like Prisoner's Dilemma selfish or self serving behavior is the opposite to cooperation. Not competition. I think that is where some of this conversation gets lost and people are posting past each other. Competition is being used as a substitute for selfish behavior (?).
  5. I agree that it is unattainable. There will always be limits. I think even if unrestricted by govt social norms would still demand a prescribed etiquette. In a aggressively male dominate society women would still feel intimidate or forced to follow social norms. The laws regarding speech would only serving as semantics. Likewise for a Jewish person living in a anti-semtic dominant society. Regardless of govt standards. Speaking freely against or in a different manner to social norms runs risks. At a job interview saying certain things can prevent one from getting the job. Assuming one wants the job they must follow a specific etiquette or face the consequences of not getting the job they want. Whether it is Govts, employers, peers, family, clergy, or etc we all have censorship in their lives. It is arbitrary. The standard ethical arguments I am familiar with are that we draw the line at speech which threatens or promotes violence. Yet I see the predominant religions in the world often using threats and promote violence. I think the very concept of Hell exists as a threat. So as above it comes down to social norms/etiquette rather than anything definitive. Just the collective whims of a give society.
  6. You wrote "cooperation at every level from the cellular to the eco-system." That is the conflation I was referencing. That isn't a description of both competitive and cooperation behaviors being favored. It is a messy contextually misuse of how national selection works and the meaning of cooperation. Matters vital for an organism to live or interacting with its environment are called processes not cooperation. There are biological processes. That is a field of study. It is not useful to broaden the meaning of cooperation as you are. Cooperation has goals. Biology 101 studies the biological process. Not the pros & cons of competitiveness. Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without cooperation with one another? Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without competitiveness towards one another?
  7. Natural Selection isn't a process which should be conflated with cooperation in nature. More species have gone extinct than currently exist. The only species that can exist are the ones with characteristics suitable to the environment.Cooperation implies some form of intentional unified effort. Evolution doesn't have motives or goals. You're broadening definition out to the point they have no meaning. Describing ocean tides as cooperating with gravity may sound poetic or easily digestible but is inaccurate. Tides are influenced by gravity. There is no cooperation at play. A human individually would struggle to meet the demands of survival. Human's are a group living animal. Not a solitary animal. Humans require the assistance of other humans to survive. Humans evolved that way. We (Humans) are a cooperative species. We have lived in groups the entirety of our species existence. Sharing our knowledge, skills, goals, etc has allowed civilization to thrive. Competition has not been useful as cooperation.
  8. ^^^^I could be reading into this wrong. 100% could be imagining what isn't there. To me the face Melania makes is a reaction to the brief interaction between between Donald and Ivanka and not just dislike Ivanka. Melania smile, while forced as it mostly always is, seems standard. As Ivanka passes Donald moves a little and appears to look down at wear Ivanka is walking, what she is wear, or etc. That brief look is what appears to receive the negative response. It is hard to see on the video in the tweet because of the way its framed. Below is a wide shot.
  9. I don't think Melania writes her public statements or takes much interest in them. Melania hasn't shown any interest in politics at all that I can perceive. Doesn't appear to be altruistic in anyway. She looks like a hostage a lot of the time. We know the White House has speech writers and publicists. I assume "Be best" came from those writers. Writers have a more strategic way of looking at things. Be best is Innocuous enough to mean whatever one want to project on to it. I do not think it is specifically meant to mean anything. I think it's meant to be brief, cute, repeatable, and so on. I think this thread has probably already given Be best more thought than Melania has given it.
  10. @MigL, competition confined to international sport and organized sports broadly have clear established rules which cannot be changed mid play and all participants are volunteers. If people who didn't want to participate in a hockey game were forced to and the rules of the game manipulatable by top players than it would absolutely be bullying. The Olympic games and FIFA worldcup are poor analogies. No one is entering those competitions who doesn't want to be there, has had time to prepare, conformations of what the rules will be, etc, etc. Rate Race of life itself is far less of a safe pace. The rules are dynamic and people are often forced to participate in ways they do not want to and aren't comfortable with.
  11. You are creating addendums to your initial point and supporting them with disassociated evidenced. Who wins or loses an elections isn't directly connected to what motives a political ideology.
  12. Republicans are specific to the U.S. . It is a U.S.-Centric dichotomy being discussed.
  13. In practice there is no meaningful difference between a conservative vs republican. The margins of support during elections are virtually identical. Likewise for Democrats and liberals. The distinction appears to merely exist as a preference in labeling.Ultimately their political habits are same.
  14. In 2019 polling showed 46% of people were somewhat or very concerned about themselves or a family member being victims of a terrorist attack, Here. In 2019 polling showed 48% of people were somewhat or very concerned about themselves or a family member being victims of a mass shooting, Here. Statistically even levels of fear among the population for terrorism and mass shootings yet Right-wing attitudes between the two very greatly. When it comes to fear associated with gun violence the Right is not willing to do anything. When it comes to fear associated with terrorism the Right is willing to do a lot. Fear doesn't appear to be motivating factor or else one would assume the Right would equally care about gun violence as they do terrorism. Polling shows half (50%) of the U.S. believes Christians face discrimination, Here. Among republicans 75% believe White in the U.S. face discrimination, Here. The political left-wing, far as I can tell, doesn't respond to those claims of discrimination. The Left doesn't appear burden with shame the Christians and White Republicans may accuse them of xenophobia. I do not assume this.
  15. Ten oz

    Biden’s VP Choice

    I am not implying it is predictive of anything. Just that its interest. Clinton, Bush, Obama are the last 3 Presidents to consecutively all serve out 2 full terms since Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson left office in 1921. So it would be unique in that respect if Trump were to get another term. It is possible that the streak of consecutive 2 term presidents says something about the nature of partisanship and media politcal advocacy in modern politics. If Nixon was POTUS today I don't think there is a chance Watergate would be enough to force him out of office. Especially if Nixon has devoted cable news pundits making his defense around the clock and social media.To that point had Bill Clinton been POTUS in Nixon's day such a public lie as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" would probably have resulted in his removal from office. I also don't think Bush could have survived 2 questionable elections where it was broadly suspected his campaign cheated. The threshold to get rid of a Presidents seems far greater today. So much so I have no idea what will happen if Trump declares victory in November, claims the vote in various swing states is wrong, and just refuses to leave. Yeah, just an additional thought I had after we (StringJunky and I) cleared up who the last incumbent to lose was
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.