@bcglorf I think you're still not responding to the basic point I'm making. It's not really even about science or climate change, but about game theory, and how to make decisions in the absence of certainty.

I've never ingested cyanide, but every scientist, herbalist, toxicologist, and work of fiction has told me it's lethal. For me, that's good enough. I'm not going to eat it, and I'm perfectly comfortable with the government restricting companies from putting it in my food, my water, or the air.

For you, I'm guessing that instead you'd want to dig into the scientific studies on cyanide's toxicity first. Yes, the scientists themselves say the evidence is overwhelming, but you have doubts. You think they're missing something. After all, every time you go looking for problems, you're able to find some detail that sounds fishy to you.

They could just be overlooking some other potential cause of death that just seemed to be cyanide, because obviously cyanide isn't the only thing that can kill people. Maybe the natural mortality rate back then was that high. Who knows? I mean, there's tons of research into that, but you don't accept that work either. So until someone satisfies you that it definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't just natural causes, you're going with the assumption it was that, every time, because after all we don't fully understand the human body.

In other words, you dismiss the science. You don't think it's necessarily wrong, but don't think people should give it any weight when making decisions about how we live our lives. So, you start calling out authors for talking about cyanide as if it's a poison; they're just perpetuating an unsubstantiated rumor, you say. You do argue that congress should put restrictions on cyanide being put in our food, our water, and our air -- but later. You accept maybe there's enough to the science to think it might be harmful if people ingest it over a long enough span of time, but you do argue against the people who say it's a poison that needs to be dealt with right away, because you don't think anyone has a right to be so alarmist about it. After all, the science doesn't say it's important, just, you know, the scientists.

Then one day you run out of amaretto creamer for your coffee, and figure maybe cyanide will be a good substitute, since it does smell like almonds...

My guess is that you probably don't actually do that. My guess is that you trust the scientists and just consider cyanide a poison. My guess is you'd want overwhelming proof that cyanide is safe before you would swallow a cyanide pill. I don't think raising a few doubts about the studies would be enough to convince you -- you'd rather be safe than sorry.

Why the double standard with climate change? What's special about this topic that makes your default assumptions go the other way? Are you sure it isn't something completely unrelated to the science?

There may have been many "other" reasons for the war but the core reason, the main reason and thus one can genuinely say the CAUSE of the war was slavery. It was going to happen eventually no matter what so long as we had founding documents with lines like "all men created equal" in them. Eventually enough people would look around and start to question just what the double standard was all about. The powerful have never been ones to relinquish it once gained, and anyone with enough money to own slaves had a fair amount of power as well. In the end so long as one side was unwilling to give up something this was going to happen. There serves little point in blowing all the smoke around with "oh there were other reasons too", this only serves as a distraction.

There were other reasons for WW2 but are you really going to try and argue that book burning was just as important a reason for the WW2 as the Holocaust? Or the conquering any country they felt like? Because that's exactly what all this "other reasons" crap comes out like. I've disliked Paul for a while now, his old Newsletters only fueled the fire and this just confirms it.

That is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Free speech and free markets are not even close to comparable. You might as well have said:

"Doesn't it sound dumb to argue against free speech?

Yet people have such double standards and argue the same things against free sex with whoever you want, whenever you want."

Can't you see that free speech and free markets are about as similar as free speech and rape/pedophilia?

And, last of all, prior to this posting. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT FREE SPEECH!

So, that brings me to a conclusion. You are either too dumb to be worth talking to, or you are a troll. In either case I am done here.

@Drachen_Jager I know, right? Doesn't it sound dumb to argue against free speech?

Yet people have such double standards and argue the same things against free markets.

Absolutely. I believe that Newt's fidelity issues (given their frequency and consistency) are indicative of a larger lack of personal integrity that I don't find desirable in a presidential candidate. Legally it still does not disqualify him, but I'd sure as heck not vote for him, nor do I think he is above scrutiny. It's much like the people protesting abortion clinics getting abortions themselves, a la "The only moral abortion is my abortion", except replace "abortion" with "affair."

My point of replying to QM's rhetoric (of which the 'sift is familiar with) was to remind him that both cases must be treated the same, as it's just another crossover of sexual transgressions with political career. If he vilified Clinton during the Lewinksy scandal then he is obligated to similarly vilify Gingrich; the flip side being that if he supports Gingrich in spite of his flaws, then he must have opposed Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

P.S. I'm of the camp that thinks QM is just a very good troll and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says. But for the sake of the sift we still have to take his comments at face value.

In reply to this comment by RadHazG:
>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.

But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?

>> ^quantumushroom:

A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.

@Diogenes, you have to take anything Newt, or Cain for that matter, says in broader context. To see if what Newt does is racist, apply the double standard test to Newt's own actions and long history. Does Newt go around giving the scores of white neighborhoods/communities/towns that are stricken with unemployment or poverty the same acrid advice and message? Even more, does he brag or boast about doing so?

No.

Show me that video, and I'll buy the first 5 rounds.

His dogwhistle political maneuvers come straight out of the Southern Strategy cookbook.

gosh darnit, what's this double standard? find some less attractive girls who have guy friends that they want to hook up with. that's been more my experience with having female friends.

As usual, reality disagrees with QM. As usual, he contributes nothing but regurgitated talking points he knows aren't true.

Waste, fraud, and abuse are not unique to the public sector. It happens just as much, if not more it's just covered up better in the private, so you can stop pretending there isn't a double standard.

People like you, QM have no moral ground to be talking about who has moral grounds or not.

The wealthy use and depend on gov't services more, so they should be charged more. It's really as simple as that. I've heard both left and right agree that corporate loopholes should be closed. But as usual, QM misses the point. It has nothing to do with left and right. Our corporate masters have their hooks in both the left and the right so while both the left and the right will pay lip service to closing loopholes, it will never happen unless there is enough public backlash to happen.

Businesses thrived in the past with higher tax rates. They will continue to do so.

Ideaology is worthless. History and countless evidence has shown that higher taxes are not job killers and that the 1 percent are just fear-mongering and attempting to hold the country hostage so they can be even more rich than they already are. You want to fight terrorism? There it is.

Rationality and reason, not ideaology and myth will always win in the end.

I work in IT for state gov't and I think the argument that private sector being more efficient than private sector is a bit deceptive.

I think the reason that phenomenon exists is that private sector is allowed to offer better pay to attract the better talent. Gov't often has a very rigid pay structure for the workers. A few years ago we wanted to hire a database admin and we were forced to take our 3rd choice for the job because the 1st and 2nd demanded higher pay and we simply aren't allowed to meet that demand. Not that we couldn't meet that demand. So gov't is being forced to have one hand tied behind their back to start with so IMO you can't judge public vs private with the same metric. The contest is rigged. Then on top of it, this rigid pay structure only appears to apply to the lower and middle levels of gov't. Very often are the pay grades for the upper level directors and commisioners that get appointed are listed as "discretionary" In other words, the bureaucrats made a back room deal.

It gets even worse typically when a Republican gets in office. The same guy that would give himself and his workers bonuses in the private sector is telling public employees that they're going to lay them off or give them furloughs or de-fund various agencies. It's a double standard. So we have this situation where we elect into government, someone who hates gov't and sabotages it and then whines about how gov't is inefficient. They're the ones that MADE it inefficient. They talk about free markets, but then they rig the game in their favor.

It's even more interesting when we occasionally hire someone who used to work in the private sector. They always complain that we don't have some luxury perk or why we don't have legions of interns to do the grunt work for them. Speaking for myself personally, there was this one time I was helping a coworker set up a presentation with their laptop and a simple projector and this guy who used to work for the private sector started complaining about how we didn't have the sophisticated AV system and the sound proofed auditorium that his private sector job had. He was just that spoiled that he simply didn't understand why we didn't have those things that we didn't even need for a basic presentation.

So if you actually want to talk about efficiency? a Lower or middle level gov't employee typically receives far less pay than their private sector counterpart, but yet is usually expected to produce the same level of work. So in that regard, gov't is far more efficient. It gets muddled when you factor the higher level positions and factor in other agencies. News flash: not all gov't agencies are the same, speaking from experience, some have higher standards than others. You simply can't lump them all and judge them the same way.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dan barker, dinesh dsouza, experiment, bible, double standards' to 'dan barker, dinesh dsouza, experiment, bible, double standards, book of job' - edited by xxovercastxx

I don't see how this double standard exists. At some point in history there was an agreement that these people would get their pensions due to their employment with the government entities.

The same goes for companies like GM, they made agreements to pay their employees.

It's not as if these two entities are some old senile man someone took advantage of, they are made up of many people who at the time thought it was a fair deal.

Now, we have discussions about how it's unfair to expect these companies to pay for agreements they made and are trying to pass things that not only absolve them of what they owe, but then also try to make it so in the future they don't have to negotiate.

On the other side of the coin, we have individuals who have lost their ability to pay and no one is saying that they shouldn't have to pay what they owe whether it's their fault or not they are in that circumstance. The vast majority of them are people who had no hand in creating the financial mess we are in except for maybe buying a house at a vastly inflated price.

So the individual is supposed to pay back their debts, but with companies and governments it's cool if we just vote away their obligations or bail them out.


And then we have the other hypocrisy where the guys elected into government, who are making good money with benefits and pretty much have job security for their term unless they really screw the pooch. They want to tell people who are hired and have to perform their job based on some sort of testing, performance, and other criteria that they can't negotiate. These same people are also held back in their pay rate by time served instead of performance based in some areas of government employment. For this they used to gain some job security (not really true anymore due to cost cutting), good benefits packages, and some retirement security.

We have these discussions about taking their benefits or making them pay more, removing retirement benefits for current and past employees (I don't agree with retro-active cancellation at all, they should pay retired employees, pay partially to current employed based on length of employment, and anyone with very short employment spans or signing on after the passing don't get anything), and keeping them on these neutered advancement ideas they have. There's also massive nepotism in government, which they are not trying to fix..because it allows them to influence business opportunities in their favor during and after their employment whether elected or hired.

Try any civilian work at a military base whether contracted or employed directly by the government, it's full of nepotism. New hires who know someone will hire in on unrelated departments and shoot right past you whether you're a long time employee or know more than them...because they know a guy. They are really blatant with the nepotism.

It's wrong how government operates, especially the higher you go. Negotiation makes it possible for the lower level guys to at least attempt to keep them honest. Instead of making deals and then retroactively changing the terms once they've also gotten rid of the ability to negotiate.

It's not the individuals fault that the government can no longer meet the obligations they made because they removed too many regulations and let the banks and lenders go hog wild for almost a decade. I'm sure if they looked around a bit, they might find some government officials who had a massively growing net worth to accompany that decade of uncontrolled growth. Excusing debts to fix problems they created should not even be up for discussion, it sets a precedent to make bad faith deals to get what they want. And would create the next "exploitable" avenue for all these nepotism filled departments.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Thanks to this vote, Ohioan taxpayers are now BACK on the hook for 66 billion dollars in government union pensions. That's JUST the pensions, nothing else.
Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class.
This is how the people who control the emotional state of left-wingers fool you.
"We're losing a hand, but that's OK, because the Rich Guy is losing an arm!"

I will get back to you on this soon. Some good points to address.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.