Brainteaserfan

Then also 100 years ago, people utterly dispised the politicians from 'the other (political) side'? Did they paint some insulting demonic horns or something on the faces of James A. Garfield or Woodrow Wilson, like they do with portraits of Bush or Obama?

Are you suggesting that the country has always been as divided as it is today, and that this has always been as explicitely expressed in the politics as today?

 

 

Ok, so you say that the federal state isn't very important, and that the individual city or state government is more important to people than the federal government.

But that's more an argument why people just don't care about federal politics. It's not an argument to stay together.

 

The national pride that you describe however is a very (very!) good reason to stay together. Whether it's true that people would be in the US in a flash if permitted, I don't know. I think at least Europe is equally popular (yes, I am also proud).

 

 

I'm from the Netherlands, and if you split that up into even smaller countries, individual streets would become nations.

 

But I don't understand why you turn the question around (in fact, I think you avoid my question - but maybe I am asking something very sensitive). My proposal to split up the USA stems from an idea that the country is divided, and that this divide is visible in the way people vote in the American two-party system.

The Netherlands is quite different: our government is traditionally a coalition of usually 2-3 parties with different political ideologies, and an opposition of another 5-10 parties. Voters regularly switch parties, and not many voters are truly faithful to their party.

 

Back on topic: is that melting pot a good enough reason to stay united? I think there are parts of the US who (and I generalize and sterotype now) do not like outsiders. Those are typically in the 'red' states. Those don't really seem to fit in the melting pot you describe.

I don't think that there is quite as big a divide as you think. Perhaps we are portrayed that way in other countries. As another poster pointed out, we would need to splinter into several countries. Besides, the two parties aren't usually that different. (The primaries are what count, and allow for far more than two people two be chosen. Year to year people may vote for different people there, and although they may continue voting for the same party, their party may have changed a good deal. )

What do you mean by, do not like outsiders?

I purchased the stone with a bunch of others at a garage sale, I posted it on a different website where I was told it can't be identified with the pictures I provided so I figured maybe someone here can ID it, here is a link with all the info on the rock including picture

 

http://www.mineral-forum.com/message-board/viewtopic.php?t=1844

The second one looks like slightly dirty quartz to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuartzUSGOV.jpg

The first, I have no idea on.

As has been covered earlier in the thread. Functioning ecosystems provide services fundamentally crucial to human life. Ecosystem function is reliant on an as yet, poorly documented diversity of organisms and maximized diversity makes these systems resilient to environmental fluctuations. As a result, if a human induced species introduction reduces the biodiversity and therefore function of an ecosystem, as is usually the case with introduced species, it is in our utilitarian best interest to prevent that reduction in diversity and function.

 

There is no need to invoke any ethical or moral argument to strongly support concept of anthropogenic causes of species extinction being disadvantageous - and that doesn't discount ethical and moral arguments either.

I don't disagree, (ecology isn't my strong suite) but I'm wondering, wouldn't that be interfering with natural selection? If so, how would that be good for us, as I thought that natural selection was good?

If not, aren't we just as natural as any other animal?

Do Americans among each other share more similarities than people in - for example - the UK and the USA?

 

I mean, as humans, we agree on a lot of issues already. As Western people, we agree on even more. And as English speaking people, we agree on even more. If you set aside all those things, is there anything left that's typical for only Americans? What I'm trying to get at perhaps (I'm not really sure) is: What makes an American an American? And is that common thing strong enough to form a bridge between the political (and cultural?) differences between the different parts of the USA?

America is supposed to be a diverse melting pot. We have that in common and are proud of it. We do not want to split, although I'd like to see stronger state's rights.

Let's turn the question around. Whatever country you are from, what do all your citizens have in common that is typical for just the inhabitants of your country? Should your country split up?

Do Americans among each other share more similarities than people in - for example - the UK and the USA?

 

I mean, as humans, we agree on a lot of issues already. As Western people, we agree on even more. And as English speaking people, we agree on even more. If you set aside all those things, is there anything left that's typical for only Americans? What I'm trying to get at perhaps (I'm not really sure) is: What makes an American an American? And is that common thing strong enough to form a bridge between the political (and cultural?) differences between the different parts of the USA?

America is supposed to be a diverse melting pot. We have that in common and are proud of it. We do not want to split, although I'd like to see stronger state governments.

Let's turn the question around. Whatever country you are from, what do all your citizens have in common that is typical for just the inhabitants of your country? Should your country split up?

Personally, I think it's time for a civil war in America.

I think if we had this civil war, though, America would easily be split into 5 regions.

We could easily isolate a lot of American issues if we start using nuclear power.

The problem from that would be an attack on such power plants (a nuclear war of sorts).

I don't think that a civil war would be effective because we have too strong a central government/military. Any "rebellion" would be quickly quelled.

We do use nuclear power, just not as much as we should. Cars could travel long distances for almost free, thinking of the heat recently, cheap AC etc. But even if we were in a separate nation that used nuclear power, can you imagine how mad that would make those in other parts of the split US? We might 'contaminate' them!

Reading the replies so far, I am confused. The posts seem to contradict each other (at least, that's how I read it).

 

A couple of people mention (civil) war if the country would be split up. This suggests that the situation is volatile?

On the other hand, and contradicting the previous, a lot of people say that the US is actually quite united, with many morals that are the same for all people living within the borders. Christianity, and the constitution (spelled with a normal or capital C?) seem to unite the country too?

How can Christianity unite people when some states are practically entirely non-religious? And how can the constitution unite people when politics divides people?

And finally, some posts suggest that there isn't a dislike of one particular party, but instead an equal dislike to politics in general.

 

From where I sit, I really got the feeling that the average person from Massachusets or Vermont is quite different in a lot of ways to a person from Alabama or Texas (taking quite random examples)... and that these people want quite different things from their government, and would probably want to lead very different lives in general. Or am I stereotyping too much?

 

Looking forward to see some more replies.

As an American, I feel that we do agree on most issues, however on the few that we don't, only a small fraction of people are represented. Only those in the "middle". Those on the other sides (more than two) feel irked and dissatisfied. I do not want to split, I want stronger state's rights so that more people can be represented and happy.

Tea party who?

Lol -sorry about that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

I'm especially interested in how those outside the US view the tea party movement.

I thought things would go badly when the US continued to cut taxes during a time of war, but it never occurred to me congress would agree to pay for war, but not budget for it. How could they do this? Personally I think everyone who voted for paying for war without insisting this cost be in the budget, should be voted out of office.

 

John Boehner seems to me the most corrupt man ever, as he lays blame for the mess the Bush administration got us in on Obama, and says nothing about the war debt being part of our national debt problem, because somehow congress approved of the spending but not how to cover the cost, pushing the problem of paying for the wars into the future.

 

Watch our war debt grow

http://costofwar.com/en/

Not to defend Mr. Boehner, but....

didn't Obama get us into the Libya war? And then when Mr. Boehner has a budget that doesn't include Obama's (semi-illegal) war, it's somehow his fault?? While Bush was president, he had his fair share of criticism, it's Obama's turn now, and he has started many expensive projects. Obama hasn't been ending Bush's wars, he's been continuing them.

http://www.progressive.org/wx031911.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2010/0320/Hold-on.-Healthcare-reform-will-cost-more-than-1-trillion

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

Yeah, it made the Army base martyr wannabe go ballistic in frustration at so little successes terrorists were making in the homeland, so he had to take things into his own hands and make some news. Then, there was that shoebomber guy, and that other guy, and that other guy ... I lose track of them all. Just go to the airport an hour earlier once a year. What's the big deal? How has terrorism prevention affected YOU today? In the past month? In the past year? Maybe since bin Laden is now dead, we can just drop everything and go back to what we are doing. Kind of defies the meaning of "al Qaeda", but excuse me if I think that it's a tad bit soon.

How has it affected me? Let's see, how many tax $ would that be..... Friends having to go halfway around the world to fight.....

And where I live, I have to arrive 3 hrs before the plane leaves.

For the foiled terrorist attempts, I'll quote myself.

"Lastly, those foiled terrorist attacks seemed to be due to intelligence which would probably already have been occurring without any extra money being spent on terror. Thus, IMO, the two are unrelated. "

The two meaning that terrorist prevention money isn't usually what gets them.

I can't think of a single IRA terrorist who died during terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland or the UK mainland. I'm sure you remember The Troubles.

You are right. Dumb me. How many times does it take me to remember not to say every, all never etc.

However, that is on the edge of what I would consider a terrorist group. They, IMO, were more of a guerilla group.

@zapatos - I don't have much time now, I plan to have more time later to discuss this.

However, very quickly... People can change their "upsetness" much easier than they can change whether they are rich. I mean by that that if they had common sense, or a relative did in explaining it to them, then they would not more upset if their loved one was murdered by a terrorist. (sure I'd be upset if a loved one died, but not much more whether blown up than struck by lightning. Of course, neither has happened to me so I guess I don't really know)

Yes, I did try looking for a source, but when I google anything with terrorist, many useless links come up. Thanks for the source, I see that there are a few more attacks where the terrorist didn't die than I realized.

Lastly, those foiled terrorist attacks seemed to be due to intelligence which would probably already have been occurring without any extra money being spent on terror. Thus, IMO, the two are unrelated.

The last bit about defunct organizations I was wondering what they had to do with the rest unless they were caused to be defunct by the war on terror. I didn't see any evidence for that though. Perhaps I didn't do enough following of the links.

No, it doesn't matter to me either way. I won't know the difference. But it would matter to my family. I would be much more devastated if my child died because someone was angry that an artist I didn't even know drew a cartoon of Allah, than I would be if my child was struck by lightning.

 

Hmm. Could be. Do you have any references to back up this assertion?

 

 

Yes, I agree. It seems the amount we spend is exorbitant.

 

What I find interesting is that since it is exorbitant, some people no longer seem to have empathy for those victims of terrorism. If this were a thread in the Medical forum and someone brought up a rare disease that only affects very few people living in a certain area, I don't think people would immediately criticize them for talking about it. If the topic is terrorism though, its "eh, quit whining and wasting our time, other things kill even more people!".

 

Seems to me some are taking out their frustration for what they see as an outrageous response to terrorism on the victims of terrorism, instead of on the policy makers.

When I say 1, 2 etc I mean the 1st group of words, 2 the 2nd etc.

1. Maybe people need to not be so upset then.

2. Why don't you show evidence to the contrary? In every well known terrorist event that I can think of, the terrorist died.

4-5. The difference is that if a cure for a rare disease is found, it will generally save several people's lives each year, or at least raise their standard of living. Historically, when a disease is studied, eventually a cure, partial cure, or something that contributes to medicine is found. Not, IMO, that way with terrorism.

Earth is finite as is its abilty to recuperate and accomodate. We only delude ourselves and will suffer the consequences by behaving as if it is otherwise. Already the icecaps are melting and the ocean levels are rising as are the atmospheric temperatures. We look at Venus and say that it could have once been more earthlike. We glibly speak about a runaway greenhouse effect which transformed it into the veritable hell it is today. Then we turn around and continue to mindlessly Venaform. Keep that word well in mind- Venaform, because that's exactly what we are doing-slowly but surely setting the conditions for earth to eventually become another Venus. But hey! We aren't gonna be around so let the next generation worry about it. So will the next and the next generation rationalize the Venaforming until our descendants curse us for our callous stupidity and selfishness.

 

Stephan Hawking calls it worse-case scenario.

 

 

BTW

Not everyone agrees that earth can literally become another Venus since there are vital differences between the two planets that might make that total transformation impossible.

Sea levels rising? Due to we "stupid and selfish" humans? News to me!

http://www.sustainableoregon.com/oceanlevel.html

Maybe it is just me but I don't understand how being struck by lightning is equivalent to being randomly murdered. It is true that the end result is a dead body, so I get that part. What I don't get is how people see no difference in the means to the death.

 

If a kid riding his bike is hit by lightning people don't really get mad, they get sad. If a kid on a bicycle is hit by a car and the driver was distracted by a cell phone, then the driver will likely be punished in some way. If the driver was drunk and should have known better, the punishment would be more severe. If the driver had followed the kid home from school, knew where he would cross the street, then sped up and purposely hit him, it would be worse yet. And finally, if the driver had first sexually tortured the kid before throwing him out of the car and running him over, in many US states the driver would be facing the death penalty (if he lived that long).

 

So none of those means of death matters more to you than being hit by lightning? Like I said, maybe it's just me.

Does it matter to you whether you die by a burst of energy from a bomb or a lightning strike? Either way, you die by a burst of energy.

A terrorist's punishment is similar to your last case scenario who may live. A terrorist almost always dies so he has, in essence, already inflicted the death penalty upon himself.

IMO, both means of death would be similarly awful.

 

 

By the way, where is this guy when we need him most? But then, eighty more 15 or 16 year old dead kids shouldn't really matter one way or another; or should it?

It matters just like being struck by lightning matters. Lightning kills (there are many estimates, google to see the wide range of estimates) roughly 75 people each year. So, it matters, but not any more than lightning and is just about as hard to prevent as lightning.

http://www.weather.gov/om/lightning/medical.htm

Note: that's just US deaths.

 

Note can some one explain to me at grade 5 level what the controversy is and what they are scared nay happen.

I think they are worried about religious protests mostly. We could discuss that in the religion forum. Still, the idea of a partly human animal is, IMO, rather scary. Can you imagine an intelligent snake? Makes me shudder!

For american middle and high schoolers:

http://soinc.org/

Your notification options are here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=notifications

Thanks!!

How do I disable all email notifications? (pm, posts etc)

Hello,

 

Is it possible that some one would be willing to proof read my paper

 

Hari

If you put it somewhere where those on this forum can view it, I'll give you some feedback, but I don't feel very qualified to be "proofing" your paper.

I am not suggesting the cost or loss of innocent life due to the war on terror is justified, or that we are completely successful, however we can do something about terrorists.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

I think though that the more people killed, the more we have that are angry at us, and more that become potential terrorists. Therefore, I think that the war on terror is quite counter-productive. Just because people won't join Al Qaeda doesn't mean that they won't commit acts of terror against the US or other involved nations.

Yes, collateral damage to civilians i.e. the result of attacking enemy positions, has never been a rule of engagement for either the United States or its allies, other than twice in 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How fortunate for the world that super arsenals are still controlled by somewhat, "sane" super powers.

I think that will change soon, and that, IMO, very much needs discussion.

The economic impact the last time four jets were used by terrorists was significant.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

We cannot do anything about terrorists though. Even if we make planes much more secure, they will just move to buses, trains, cars etc. More security and getting more afraid of the terrorists is just going to impact the economy more, and generally make things worse.

I understand why many people get frustrated by the level of time and effort that goes into fighting terrorism. The amount of money spent for each life saved is ridiculous.

 

I also understand why many people are happy with the level of time and effort that goes into fighting terrorism. It is more than just the number of lives lost to terrorism. If three airliners full of passengers are blown up in the air in a short time, there may very well be a significant impact to the economy as people limit their travel and tourism. I think there is also a big emotional impact. I for one would be much more upset if a terrorist randomly chose to kill my child, than if he died of cancer.

 

But I don't understand why it is a waste of time discussing terrorism for those who want to, whether or not we can do anything about it, and whether or not there are far bigger problems. First, I doubt that very many problems are solved because they are discussed in this forum, certainly no far, far bigger problems. Second, I am sure many people on this site like to participate in discussions because they enjoy the topics and learn a lot (like me!).

 

No matter the importance of the topic or how trivial, people should be able to discuss what they like, whether it meets the approval of others or not. If someone feels a topic is a waste of effort they can just move on to something more worthy of their time. No need to criticize others just becasue of the subject matter, or to decide for others what is worthy of discussion.

 

We may have gotten to ideas on how to stop/limit terrorism if we hadn't been sidetracked by a discussion of whether or not we should have the discussion.

I can't figure out how to use the quote properly on this little mobile device, so I apologize in advance for that.

About the economy. With all the security (which isn't actually that secure, see a 2007 GAO study http://cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=3502791&videofeed=36 ), I think that I am more likely to stay at home due to the security rather than the terrorists.

I was not trying to decide what was worthy of discussion for you or anyone else, I was saying that IMO, it's not "worth" discussing unless new points are made. As for whether anything will be learned, if you learn that it doesn't need to be discussed that's still learning something. And for accomplishing anti-terrorist discussion, I, nor anyone else here is preventing discussion.

Rigney, don't back down off this, it is very true that more people die from other causes every year, probably more people die slipping on soap in the bath tub but terrorism is an attempt to disrupt our entire first world civilization. Terrorism affects every one. Fear of terrorism has far reaching consequences to all of us. literally billions of dollars are spent to try and ensure that terrorists do not succeed in disrupting the every day comings and goings of our society. Terrorists and the fear they spread costs us billions and living in fear touches the lives of nearly every one.

 

Terrorism disrupts not only business and the money trade creates that provides for all of us to live our lives it also disrupts entire governments and causes war and subjugates entire populations and incites them to do horrendous things that they normally would not do. Terrorists of the fundamentalist religious types incite the subjugation of women, influences governments to go to war, terrorist stifles the advance of our entire first world civilization. This effect probably kills more people in third world countries by keeping first world countries from helping than anything else. You are correct Rigeny, terrorism is a huge evil that needs to be stopped if for no other reason it keeps us from fixing things that kill far more people.

Yes, terrorism is a huge evil. However, it largely disrupts things because so much is done to prevent the unpreventable. I think we should ignore terrorism other then to prosecute those living involved. IMO then all of a sudden it will be a much smaller problem.

If we are not going to waste our time discussing a topic if there are far worse problems to discuss, then perhaps we can cut out these recently discussed posts:

 

What is the opposite of love?

I'm looking for a word.

Rain

What is your perception of Germany?

Anything in Brain Teasers.

Ether model.

Are CANDU reactors safer?

Why use the Wankel engine?

Evidence of human common ancestry.

Anything in Homework Help.

 

This place is going to get real boring if we limit discussion to only the REALLY BIG problems.

Maybe I should change the order of the sentence. We should not waste time discussing terrorism because we can't really do anything about it, and there are far, far bigger problems anyway. I have not yet seen any ideas discussing in this thread as to how we should stop/limit terrorism (which by rigney's next post seems to have been his intent for this thread)

I doubt it.

 

Considering the economic pickle the EU is currently in, the US's fierce independence, and the stark differences between the political atmosphere in the States and in Europe, I doubt we'd get along very well.

And, even if the US did want to, the US doesn't meet many of their requirements. So even if we wanted to, we'd have to make some drastic changes.

Where did that happen?

 

Somebody here started a thread on terrorism and you hijacked it with another topic and ostracized them for posting about terrorism. That is off topic and not conducive to the discussion raised in the OP for this thread! Why don't you start a thread on dying children if that's what you'd like to discuss instead of trying to steer another's that way? Wouldn't that be more productive for both topics than trying to imply my-concerns-are-more-important-than-yours tactics?

His point, simply stated, was that we shouldn't waste our time discussing terrorism because there far worse problems to discuss, and we can't do anything significant to prevent terrorists anyway. If someone is crazy enough to blow themselves and others up, you can't really stop them. At best, intelligence agencies may stop a few.