For some reason no matter how much research we seem to have in an area; people still don't seem to believe what the research says. From climate change to LED technology and other renewable resources; the scientists seem to be ever questioned. Though when they are in personal crisis they seem very quick to rely on what the scientist says.
I find it odd that from the same people I hear two completely different political voices, depending on the situation. When it comes to money, meaning ones personal supply, many Democrats seem to be a republican -- though when the group or businesses money is in play, they are far more liberal. You can see this same phenomenon when it comes to the republicans and medical treatment. When it seems like it is a project for the group they seem to be less trusting of the science -- though when they or a family member is ill, they are all for science, and put all their trust in it.
The really interesting part is that this is not a point of contention each and every time these topics come up, only when one is personally involved -- you can really see this when you have an argument with one or the other on such topics and relate them to personal experience. Though most would rather gnaw off their own leg then to admit that they would like to force someone to make a decision that they themselves wouldn't make. The really entertaining bit comes when you give them a set of circumstances, reducing to the ridiculous, that insist they go against their original argument; now sit back and watch the fundamentalist come unglued. I am not really on either side here, just recognizing the hypocrisy.
Unfortunately the problem the problem extends even further when we talk about speech and business. The churches don't want their speech or behavior to be criticized while still insisting, based solely on their existence alone if nothing else, on criticizing everyone else. And again with business processes -- Republicans and Libertarians alike are always one's to want less if any regulation on businesses, right until you try to put a 'marijuana store' next to a church or school -- then it must be regulated. Though if you don't want a drilling company to be depositing nuclear materials in your local waste disposal facility, well that is just some hippy bullshit. Similar to how the people that work at the school act and the expectation they have of the children attending the school, night and day(I think it is also fair to say that this applies to university as well).
To say that one is supposed to have free speech and then we as a society try to control that speech when we find it to be uncomfortable is just as bad, if not worse than, denying the right to free speech all together. We saw this in the Anthony Cumia debacle and others. I don't see anyone from either side coming to the defense of those that are attacked for simply saying something. Though it seems we do, in both main groups, protect people for their egregious actions; curious.
I find it odd that from the same people I hear two completely different political voices, depending on the situation. When it comes to money, meaning ones personal supply, many Democrats seem to be a republican -- though when the group or businesses money is in play, they are far more liberal. You can see this same phenomenon when it comes to the republicans and medical treatment. When it seems like it is a project for the group they seem to be less trusting of the science -- though when they or a family member is ill, they are all for science, and put all their trust in it.
The really interesting part is that this is not a point of contention each and every time these topics come up, only when one is personally involved -- you can really see this when you have an argument with one or the other on such topics and relate them to personal experience. Though most would rather gnaw off their own leg then to admit that they would like to force someone to make a decision that they themselves wouldn't make. The really entertaining bit comes when you give them a set of circumstances, reducing to the ridiculous, that insist they go against their original argument; now sit back and watch the fundamentalist come unglued. I am not really on either side here, just recognizing the hypocrisy.
Unfortunately the problem the problem extends even further when we talk about speech and business. The churches don't want their speech or behavior to be criticized while still insisting, based solely on their existence alone if nothing else, on criticizing everyone else. And again with business processes -- Republicans and Libertarians alike are always one's to want less if any regulation on businesses, right until you try to put a 'marijuana store' next to a church or school -- then it must be regulated. Though if you don't want a drilling company to be depositing nuclear materials in your local waste disposal facility, well that is just some hippy bullshit. Similar to how the people that work at the school act and the expectation they have of the children attending the school, night and day(I think it is also fair to say that this applies to university as well).
To say that one is supposed to have free speech and then we as a society try to control that speech when we find it to be uncomfortable is just as bad, if not worse than, denying the right to free speech all together. We saw this in the Anthony Cumia debacle and others. I don't see anyone from either side coming to the defense of those that are attacked for simply saying something. Though it seems we do, in both main groups, protect people for their egregious actions; curious.
No comments:
Post a Comment