Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About YJ02

  • Birthday 07/10/1966

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Psychology, social interactions of sub cultural groups and their effects on the main, cultural anthropology, history (the older the better), political thought
  • College Major/Degree
    BA Social Psychology, BA in History/Poli-Sci - Univ of Pitts, MS in MH and Addict's - St Bonaventure
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    US Army retired FA Surveyor, Father, Grandfather
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

631 profile views

YJ02's Achievements


Meson (3/13)



  1. thanks any suggestions? re wording? word choice? this was OP minus the quote I put in from elsewhere "I believe in the science that states the planet is warming, and warming faster then any natural cycle of warming in the past. I do have issues with those corporations who seem to be looking very hard at finding a way to profit from this. I mean, this issue is very serious. In the past, when faced with a serious crisis-though not as bad as this- the 'fix' was not monetized. It may be now, but back when vaccines were first introduced to combat issues like polio, MMR, and other serious public health threats, didn't the government(s) just do what was necessary? They paid/subsidized the vaccines and instituted a nation wide program of vaccination at no cost, or very low cost, to the recipient. So why do we not have a similar plan now? "
  2. An interesting article on DNA research potentially indicating our social and political inclinations. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/
  3. I typed I did not say that the location of the observer made someone BE on the right or left, just 'how far' right or left I would guess that Bernie Sanders would place Al Gore on the left, but much closer to the center then he is. Sander's location puts Gore to his right; Gore's location puts Sanders' to his left, yes?
  4. ok,( bolded), my fault for the source but lets re-start the question without reference to Thunberg and activism as a Scientist, what do you think of the potential for Vague's research to be put into actual use? https://www.reed.edu/reed-magazine/articles/2018/bacteria-eat-plastic.html ok, why don't you give me an approved list of what I am allowed to talk about according to you? as for the rep, I didn't know I was not allowed to use it. Why is it there? How do you know it was me, when I cannot see who is giving me ratings? and why do you find it so necessary to swear and name call so often? what have I done to personally offend you? thanks You see I tried to discuss on how corporations should be compelled by governments to actively research and develop tools and methods for dealing with MMCC. I added to your example of WW2 industry, where car companies (and others) were made to manufacture war material and halt car production, to show that the same should be done now in this crisis that is far worse and has far greater implications for mankind then WW2 did. But you choose to once again focus on the TIME article ,where, in my previous post I had agreed with you on it. Why do you choose to snipe instead of discuss?
  5. Phi.. as you can see from the qte of iNOW, I was just posting what he challenged me to produce. He made no qualifications of where it could come from or who. He only asked "Where do you see this happening?" I have seen that here- CT, in other threads. But a good portion of what is being said in the political ones are nothing more then repeats of GOP and DEM party talking points As for critical thinking by me. Well, CT is defined by looking at all sides of a topic, analyzing the info, then objectively forming an opinion on it. I did that in this thread with all of my external sources of bias from both sides of the S/P spectrum. I shared my opinion, formed by looking at different sources, identifying their bias, consulting both the bias chart I and iNOW provided, and then formed an opinion I believed as objective (but of course that too is biased) I am a trained mental health and addictions counselor, ad area where so much is based in subjectivity with a very loose adherence to a relatively small body of objective-yet ever changing- reference (like the DSM 5). In my previous career, I have many years of experience in leading, managing and training others. One thing I have learned from all of that is that human behavior is both biased and subjective. Even when there are hard and fast -objective rules and regulations- laws, that are in place to guide and sometimes dictate acceptable behavior and processes ,that is not always the way things go. I have learned that there are nearly always 'gray areas', non binary, in many rules, laws and procedures. And the way many people interact with the rules or behave due to them, is also gray. I have long since held it is best to approach everything by viewing, if possible, both sides of a story/incident before making a judgement of my own. I have also learned that so much of what people do is motivated by their personal or organizational bias and sometimes, prejudice. One place that is very apparent for those who manage to disengage from political party gamesmanship, is in politics and political behavior of voters. It is also in the news media and even in the way people make the decision as to what source of news they should look at. I realize that my worldview and way of thinking is not in congruence with many of the people here. As so many of you are either trained scientists or you process info in the same manner as scientists, my way of thinking --as I expect it to be-- is not just incongruent with some of yours, it may be utter anathema. I am observing the divide in today's socio-political activities. If you could provide me with an example from my posts as to what I typed that is divisive, I will do my best to present my opinions differently in the future and, are you referring to the quoted FB posts people made to me, or OP I made here or responsive posts I made here? thanks this one below the one i posted above after you asked me where I had seen binary bias and hyper partisanship. i gave you a example of it from my experience on a FB thread. none of the posters answered or attempted to answer. they only came at me with statements that had little or nothing to do with the question. and, I believe the question to be legitimate. Let me ask you (anyone here), now, the same question re-posted below: <<and BTW, I would look at any such investigation results from the Ukraine with a lot of skepticism, thinking that it was indeed heavily done with bias and pressure by the Trump admin>> "after all of this (impeachment) and the dems now saying zelensky is a trump hostage and stoolie, would any of you accept a ukrainian run investigation that did find corruption involving Hunter Biden, or would you just see it as trump forcing ukraine to fabricate the investigation results?" thanks for your time!
  6. true. But as I said, she worked on an actual fix for part of the issue and Thunberg rallied people and spread a message. I think both are important Vague wasn't on the nominee list, but you see how a right wing site, with people who may or may not believe in MMCC will throw the proverbial 'spaghetti at the wall' and see what sticks? and though the final choice is with the editors, this year they went hard against the 'people's choice'. so, basically Greta won with just 2% of the vote..another indication- although an outlier- of just how much so many people believe in the 'kick the can down the road' methodology for dealing with climate change? a TODAY show poll on the question https://www.today.com/news/who-will-be-time-s-2019-person-year-see-shortlist-t169374
  7. I am flattered by your attention..really,i am. but you are so temperamental..now I can't even agree with you without you still disagreeing.. so, in effect, you are disagreeing with you but the TIME p.of the year is a fluff fest every year for the media. they portray the winners as if they were gods google search tells us that there are quite a few 'fussy' people out there on the topic : "About 7,870,000,000 results" well, i know you like evidence, so here's some. i won't go and post the other 7.87 billion links though https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/11/time-person-year/ https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/greta-thunberg-bad-choice-times-person-year-105012 https://www.npr.org/2019/12/11/787026271/greta-thunberg-is-time-magazine-s-person-of-the-year-for-2019 https://heavy.com/news/2019/12/time-person-of-the-year-2019/ .
  8. how far to the right someone is depends on how far to the left you and your perceptions are. all relative to the location of the observer. ---ok, bring on the hate Rudy Giuliani the way he was basically 'fluffer in chief' for both candidate and pres-elct Trump, one would have thought that he was to have a official position in the government some people, back then, did wonder why he didn't now, with his continuing travels, it seems apparent he was always meant to be the hatchet man and dirt digger in charge. If he had been appointed to a cabinet post or some other official govt position where he were subject to stricter rules, he would be far less effective (i did not say successful) then he has been and, now he seems pretty confident-with all of his chatter and appearances, that he has something important in his possession is this a head fake or something real? Is it just more trolling of the democrats?
  9. but it was not voluntary in WW2. companies could not continue to build cars or trucks for non military uses, and the rationing of steel and rubber would have stopped production if the govt had not, only cars built by january 42 were allowed to be sold after and then only to those deemed necessary for civilian use with MMCC issues, we are allowing corporations to choose if they will turn their efforts to help ameliorate or reverse the effects of this crisis that goes to my statement that we cannot allow corporations to decide if it is in their financial interests to stop production of items unneeded and begin work on products needed to fight MMCC effects. no matter the impact on its profits in ww2 the US govt-and other govts- required industry to contribute to the war effort; the same should be done now from: https://www.teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24088 exactly!! i agree with you, but one only need look to the coverage by the media every year and the fuss they make over the announcement what you and i think about it is apparently in the minority opinion. sadly more people care about fluff than substance
  10. yes, we did, and it seems we never got anywhere. some tend to believe that a site's bias or political leanings have no impact on how the story being reported is received by a reader but in this article i posted, we can see that it (a site/writer's bias) clearly does have an impact on reader reception one is instantly turned off by the way it is presented, the writer(s) are obvious in their views < warning!!! opinion ahead >> as for who should have actually gotten the 'honor' -- I mean, it is only TIME not the Nobel- that is why I ask you, the scientists as to which person's actions have a greater impact I would say that Vague's project has the potential for physical impact while Thunberg's activities has had a impact on how people think and approach MMCC, perhaps they should be judged separately?
  11. notice how no one answered my question, but just came after me for asking the question? Seems in many segments of our society today, unless you just parrot the status quo with "impeach,impeach" then you get attacked and called a Trump supporters same on the other side-try to point out to a trump supporter that trumps' behavior is far from presidential- or civil, and you get labeled a 'antifa c#ck sucker' what ever happened to the notion of having a discussion about topics without this supercharged emotion? I don't know if Americans will ever be able to have it again.
  12. I just see it has yet one more way our tax money is being spent on a nation that doesn't seem to know how to prioritize its issues. crimea was invaded in 2014, the donbas revolt began shortly after you really dont see any issue with Ukraine "helpless and desperate for western help" still shipping things like main battle tanks to thailand or any weapons any where else while the weapons the US and EU either paid for or physically donated to ukraine, are being used to equip their army? we are giving a handout to a nation that has the means to defend itself from the limited war it is fighting. and if russia was ever serious about taking all of ukraine, no amount of aid we give would make difference unless that has been the notion all along by Trump and the military-industrial complex- give just enough so that Ukraine feels safe but also enough to provoke Russia to feel threatened by our aid? then the excuse will be at hand for deploying thousands of Americans and other nato troops to ukraine to die for someone else's fight in a war that will benefit no one but western arms manufacturers glad i won't be on that trip
  13. This article is based on the state of current american politics and the grinding political intolerance it is creating https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201910/can-polarized-american-politics-find-the-middle-way?fbclid=IwAR1jtWLWc4VUpMrjkC6ZzL_-sezinyQsi1keECjzjZbSdrgWf2fw-wSpGyY Or, just go to any page on facebook or twitter or wherever people are talking about this. join in and say something like " i didn't vote for trump" or "i dont like trump, but i think he has done a few good things. i also think the impeachment process is bad for our nation..." and see what kind of response you get. here is one response i got after i posted a question that went "after all of this (impeachment) and the dems now saying zelensky is a trump hostage and stoolie, would any of you accept a ukrainian run investigation that did find corruption involving Hunter Biden, or would you just see it as trump forcing ukraine to fabricate the investigation results?" responses to me directly but they were also referring to someone else as well in the thread (I am Ted btw) ---
  14. I completely agree with you. let me refine that a bit to ->>>> I don't think we can spend our way out of this with government waiting on private corporations to make the right choice for our continued existence instead of making the right choice for their profit and loss statements and reports to shareholders. ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Meanwhile, to the extent that TIME magazine matters and to whom it matters to. Did TIME make the wrong choice for person of the year by selecting Thunberg-the talker, over Vague,- the actual scientist with a process that will be very impactful on the environment? from: https://100percentfedup.com/time-chooses-angry-teen-climate-actress-for-person-of-the-year-overlooks-college-student-who-discovered-way-for-bacteria-to-eat-plastic/
  15. On all the variables mentioned, long ago I came to view the inclusion of these with politics as variables being forced into the political discussion. As if, at some point in time in the past, the two parties felt a need to simplify the decision making of voters down to lists of party beliefs, bullet points from their platforms "If you are for- gun control, abortion rights, liberal welfare standards, health care for all....., then that is what we believe, you should register as a democrat" same for the GOP with their 'pros and cons, for and against'. It is like the both parties decided they no longer trusted the American citizen to make the decision for themselves in a subjective manner and instead gave them a checklist to use to make the decision for them. And this has made the process one where tolerance of the other side's positions is less and less accepted. Like how, those liberals in rural areas who own guns may be automatically labeled by urban liberals as some type of unknown and incomprehensible entity. "how can you be with us when you own a GUN?!" For people like me, firmly in the middle, I reject the attempts to be put onto a political team of democrat or republican. I also reject the virulent partisanship that has been growing over the last 3 decades as a result of this simplistic method of political self identification. I register as an Independent, then select the candidates I will vote for based on THEIR positions and goals. Not their party's. I realize that there is often times a very small distinction in this regard, but for me, to just go into a booth and vote straight party anything is just a lazy way to claim one has exercised their right. If my chosen candidate has some positions I do not like, i look at what I do agree with as well as the person's demeanor and character/record. If those outweigh, in socio-politcal importance, what I do not agree with, then that is my selection. This is a compromise one must do with yourself and it seems that many people do not or can not get their heads around the idea of balance and finding a middle way. of course, in 2020, this decision will be far easier and require far less scrutiny for obvious reasons. ----------------------------------- On firearms ownership in particular. A few things= I do not think that the mere status of gun owner, makes one a conservative or a liberal in belief or a democrat or republican by party affiliation. I do know too many people who are single issue voters and, as gun owners, always vote republican no matter the candidates stance on other issues. This is an asinine position to take. A firearm is a tool, and like a hammer or a saw, it should be treated and cared for as such. Of course, one must secure a firearm far more then a hammer, but both tools have specific purposes and applications to be used as needed. Nothing more. There are however, and I do know a few of them, gun owners who venerate their firearms, nearly to a religious level. This too is asinine. It seems somewhere along the way, they distorted the meaning of 'respect the weapon' -meaning it is dangerous, treat is as such- to 'worship the weapon'. On semi automatic weapons, there is so much distorted information out there. Incorrect or imprecise info the media spreads about them and too many people, on both sides of the issue- go with this incorrect info and get involved in '2nd amendment fights' sounding like asses the entire time. All driven by emotional reaction from both sides.
  • 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.