5 ms·

We all know it's an awful situation. But what do you do about it?

by 777466 14y ago

hexagonc 14y ago
You know, I feel ashamed every time I think this because I know I haven't fully thought it through, but why do we need to share the same country with these bird-brained politicians? I mean, would it really be so bad to let these people secede and have their own country? Yes, there is the argument that we are stronger (in some sense of the word) together than apart, but who really gains from this arrangement? Let them live in their own middle ages like the Taliban and leave everyone else alone.
- bduerst 14y ago
  Honestly, the solution here would be to give the federal government less control and allow the states to have more control. The states were established so that U.S. citizens could move to the state with the laws that best suited them.
  - bippi 14y ago
    That sounds fantastic, and it's a good thought---but at a certain point we are all interdependent on one-another. Relative to belief in science and global warming, what Arkansas does with its air certainly affects areas outside of Arkansas.
    - cobrausn 14y ago
      That's why we have a federal court system, right? If areas outside of Arkansas have a problem with what Arkansas is doing to their air, they can produce evidence in a court of law and put a stop to it. If the areas outside of Arkansas have a problem with what they teach their students (and it's really that damaging), well, just let a clear winner emerge over time. (Not sure why we're picking on Arkansas)
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > The states were established so that U.S. citizens could move to the state with the laws that best suited them. Citation needed.
  - mcguire 14y ago
    "the solution here would be to give the federal government less control and allow the states to have more control" {{Citation needed}}
  - Jtsummers 14y ago
    That's not really an accurate description of why the states were established. The initial states were the consequence of different centers of colonization and the limits of transportation and communication speeds. Their borders were mostly arbitrary geographical boundaries (hey, there's a river!). They developed unique economic and cultural traditions based on what could be grown, produced, or not, in their borders. That people didn't want to join them up into one stronger federal government has stronger ties to the general tribal nature of people and the significantly different economic and cultural needs. Movement between them was hardly the motivation.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      > That people didn't want to join them up into one stronger federal government has stronger ties to the general tribal nature of people and the significantly different economic and cultural needs. To be fair, one of the reasons was to limit the power of the federal government. But that power was limited partly in order to prevent one state from having power over another; that's why the Senate is so laid out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise), and one of the reasons the federal government is seated in neutral territory (Federalist #43).
- HillOBeans 14y ago
  I know I'll probably get down-votes for this, but its probably good that there ARE people who would at least question Evolution and the Big Bang. There are significant problems with both theories, but most people just assume "its a fact" not because they KNOW, just because thats what they've always been told. But there are plenty of reasons to doubt without having to invoke religion.
  - woodchuck64 14y ago
    Pick one.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    People do question evolution and the Big Bang. They do it by developing alternate models that take into account all the evidence we already have available to us, and see if their alternate model has sufficient explanatory power. If you're not doing this, you're not questioning the prevailing models. Making a public statement from a position of secular authority is not questioning evolution and Big Bang; it's a demonstration of your own ignorance and nothing more.
  - hexagonc 14y ago
    One should always be open to the possibility that a pet theory can be falsified, but doubting some form of evolution and the big bang theory is probably irrational at this point. Quite simply, there are no better explanations for the universe and the diversity of life on earth. If you doubt some form of evolution, then you will have your work cut out for you to find a better theory. An alternative theory will have to explain geological and biological data at least as well as evolution without falling prey to falsifying data. It'll also have to make non-trivial predictions about future geological and biological observations. If you're determined to doubt something you can certainly do better than doubting evolution and big bang theories.
- Roboprog 14y ago
  Blame Lincoln. The South tried to secede, but the Union of course did not let them. Big mistake, if you ask me, as "holy" as the fighting of the Civil War is presented in this country's history. I think the Northern US would have been better off without the South, culturally and economically. But what do I know, as most of my ancestors (except for a few natives) came here after the Civil War.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    It's been years since I've had a history class, so I'll just speak hypothetically. If I were running a country at risk of being divided, I might go to war to prevent secession if the rebelling territories had resources I needed. Examples include cotton, rivers/ports/shipping lanes, farmland, etc.
- ars 14y ago
  Because it would only take a single generation for each group to split in half. Are you planning to to do mass migrations every few years to force people with different opinions to go to a new location? And why is there a need for geographical separation of ideas anyway? People have wrong ideas about TONS of things. What makes this one so important that you would split the country over it? For most people the biological origin of the world is a very unimportant issue. And do NOT answer me that the difference is scientific belief of not, because most people have no understanding of the science at all, no matter what they believe. What it's actually a proxy for is acceptance of authority or not. Some people believe this authority, some this one - but there is no real difference between them - neither one actually understands the subject matter at all.

We all know it's an awful situation. But what do you do about it?

by 777466 14y ago

We all know it's an awful situation. But what do you do about it?

You know, I feel ashamed every time I think this because I know I haven't fully thought it through, but why do we need to share the same country with these bird-brained politicians? I mean, would it really be so bad to let these people secede and have their own country? Yes, there is the argument that we are stronger (in some sense of the word) together than apart, but who really gains from this arrangement? Let them live in their own middle ages like the Taliban and leave everyone else alone.

bduerst 14y ago
Honestly, the solution here would be to give the federal government less control and allow the states to have more control. The states were established so that U.S. citizens could move to the state with the laws that best suited them.
- bippi 14y ago
  That sounds fantastic, and it's a good thought---but at a certain point we are all interdependent on one-another. Relative to belief in science and global warming, what Arkansas does with its air certainly affects areas outside of Arkansas.
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    That's why we have a federal court system, right? If areas outside of Arkansas have a problem with what Arkansas is doing to their air, they can produce evidence in a court of law and put a stop to it. If the areas outside of Arkansas have a problem with what they teach their students (and it's really that damaging), well, just let a clear winner emerge over time. (Not sure why we're picking on Arkansas)
- saraid216 14y ago
  > The states were established so that U.S. citizens could move to the state with the laws that best suited them. Citation needed.
- mcguire 14y ago
  "the solution here would be to give the federal government less control and allow the states to have more control" {{Citation needed}}
- Jtsummers 14y ago
  That's not really an accurate description of why the states were established. The initial states were the consequence of different centers of colonization and the limits of transportation and communication speeds. Their borders were mostly arbitrary geographical boundaries (hey, there's a river!). They developed unique economic and cultural traditions based on what could be grown, produced, or not, in their borders. That people didn't want to join them up into one stronger federal government has stronger ties to the general tribal nature of people and the significantly different economic and cultural needs. Movement between them was hardly the motivation.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > That people didn't want to join them up into one stronger federal government has stronger ties to the general tribal nature of people and the significantly different economic and cultural needs. To be fair, one of the reasons was to limit the power of the federal government. But that power was limited partly in order to prevent one state from having power over another; that's why the Senate is so laid out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise), and one of the reasons the federal government is seated in neutral territory (Federalist #43).
HillOBeans 14y ago
I know I'll probably get down-votes for this, but its probably good that there ARE people who would at least question Evolution and the Big Bang. There are significant problems with both theories, but most people just assume "its a fact" not because they KNOW, just because thats what they've always been told. But there are plenty of reasons to doubt without having to invoke religion.
- woodchuck64 14y ago
  Pick one.
- saraid216 14y ago
  People do question evolution and the Big Bang. They do it by developing alternate models that take into account all the evidence we already have available to us, and see if their alternate model has sufficient explanatory power. If you're not doing this, you're not questioning the prevailing models. Making a public statement from a position of secular authority is not questioning evolution and Big Bang; it's a demonstration of your own ignorance and nothing more.
- hexagonc 14y ago
  One should always be open to the possibility that a pet theory can be falsified, but doubting some form of evolution and the big bang theory is probably irrational at this point. Quite simply, there are no better explanations for the universe and the diversity of life on earth. If you doubt some form of evolution, then you will have your work cut out for you to find a better theory. An alternative theory will have to explain geological and biological data at least as well as evolution without falling prey to falsifying data. It'll also have to make non-trivial predictions about future geological and biological observations. If you're determined to doubt something you can certainly do better than doubting evolution and big bang theories.
Roboprog 14y ago
Blame Lincoln. The South tried to secede, but the Union of course did not let them. Big mistake, if you ask me, as "holy" as the fighting of the Civil War is presented in this country's history. I think the Northern US would have been better off without the South, culturally and economically. But what do I know, as most of my ancestors (except for a few natives) came here after the Civil War.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  It's been years since I've had a history class, so I'll just speak hypothetically. If I were running a country at risk of being divided, I might go to war to prevent secession if the rebelling territories had resources I needed. Examples include cotton, rivers/ports/shipping lanes, farmland, etc.
ars 14y ago
Because it would only take a single generation for each group to split in half. Are you planning to to do mass migrations every few years to force people with different opinions to go to a new location? And why is there a need for geographical separation of ideas anyway? People have wrong ideas about TONS of things. What makes this one so important that you would split the country over it? For most people the biological origin of the world is a very unimportant issue. And do NOT answer me that the difference is scientific belief of not, because most people have no understanding of the science at all, no matter what they believe. What it's actually a proxy for is acceptance of authority or not. Some people believe this authority, some this one - but there is no real difference between them - neither one actually understands the subject matter at all.