Posts by LoveUniHateExams

Tribalistic and Racist tendencies may well be innate. Racist thought that takes root and brings forth action is taught - but surely racist thought that takes root is innate?

I think you and me have each got it half-right.

There are aspects of racism that are innate; other aspects are taught.

43

when i see polls suggesting trump has a 95% chance to lose the presidency, according to drudge report, which is now totally liberal, and i see the huge crowds of trump supporters as opposed to the 20 people showing up for biden rallies, i have to wonder what i should believe.

do i believe my lying eyes or am i totally messed up?.

LoveUniHateExams

Ok ,I took what Simon said on his post about the pollsters claiming 96% voted for Hillary Clinton .And she did get the popular vote didn`t she ? - she got more votes, but not 96% of the votes.

46

If Whites Are Inherently Racists.....

by minimus in

jw
friends

does that mean that blacks are too?

?.

LoveUniHateExams

Racism is taught behaviour, as is religious belief, and the two go hand in hand quite often. Nobody is born Racist.

We are born not conscious of race or colour as being anything remarkable

^^^ This is debatable. If racism is taught behaviour, who taught the world's first racist?

Behaviour is a phenotype, coded for by our genes. Although behaviour has a great amount of plasticity and can be taught (some people do learn racism from their parents), behaviour also has an innate aspect - originating from the genes in people's DNA.

Humans have been 'othering' other groups of humans throughout human history. I would suggest that this behaviour is innate.

21

What`s wrong With American Politics ?

by smiddy3 in

what`s wrong with american politics ?.

96% of american people who got off there arse to vote, chose hillary clinton to be president of the united states of america over donald trump.. and the electoral college overode the will of the majority of the people who bothered to vote , and gave the office of president to donald trump who was the 2nd choice, an also ran , of the will of the people.. it`s a furphy to say that some larger blue/red states can dictate to smaller red/blue states or vice versa to rig the elections ,simply because people can, and do change there preferences in any one state whether it be traditionally red or blue.. both democrats and republicans are both guilty and responsible for the gerrymander that is the electoral college.. there i`ve said it ,.

nobody else seems to be able to say it how it is ,.

LoveUniHateExams

96% of American people who got off there arse to vote, chose Hillary Clinton to be president of the United states of America over Donald trump - you sure about that statistic?, lol ...

43

Polls Vs. Crowds

by minimus in

jw
friends

when i see polls suggesting trump has a 95% chance to lose the presidency, according to drudge report, which is now totally liberal, and i see the huge crowds of trump supporters as opposed to the 20 people showing up for biden rallies, i have to wonder what i should believe.

do i believe my lying eyes or am i totally messed up?.

LoveUniHateExams

There's definitely a trend in the polls - both in America and Britain.

Polls on the 2016 Brexit referendum had Remain winning.

Polls on the 2016 US election had Hillary winning (lol).

Polls on the 2019 UK election had it close (it was a Tory landslide; Corbyn was routed, lol).

And now polls say that Biden is comfortably ahead.

The one thing to remember, even if you forget everything else, is that polls are designed and carried out by humans. And all humans are biased.

3

David Attenborough's new book

by LoveUniHateExams in

i haven't read his new book, but i've read bits of it that were serialised in a newspaper.. attenborough is a fascinating man and has a lot of interesting things to say.. his new book is about the environment and how to save it, basically.. he wants us to drastically cut down our meat intake and eat more fruit and veg.

this got me thinking.

how would that work?

LoveUniHateExams

I haven't read his new book, but I've read bits of it that were serialised in a newspaper.

Attenborough is a fascinating man and has a lot of interesting things to say.

His new book is about the environment and how to save it, basically.

He wants us to drastically cut down our meat intake and eat more fruit and veg. Nothing wrong with that, but he also wants us to stop using pesticides on crops. This got me thinking. How would that work? If more fruit and veg are to be eaten, we'd need more crops to feed the world's population. Pesticides do help put fruit and veg on our table. Without pesticides, there'd be no guarantee that people would be fed.

I think this is a problem with many who want to help the environment - they don't think of the details. Attenborough begins his book by saying that, originally, humans lived in balance with nature as hunter-gatherers. What this means is that mortality was high, starvation, killed in wars, etc. to keep the population down. This is why we've made such progress.

How we learn to keep the progress we've made and cut down our emissions is another thing.

Everyone breathing breathes out CO2. There is no solution, other than killing billions of people (which is obviously wrong).

18

Eliminate the Oil Industry?

by Anony Mous in

a lot of countries are on the side of eliminating the oil industry altogether as well as zero-emission alternatives like nuclear power.. in the us, biden has promised to eliminate all federal lands oil production when he takes power in 2021 (30% of the united states) as well as native american tribal lands which account for 8 percent of all oil, 9 percent of all natural gas, and 6 percent of all natural gas liquids from 96,000 wells (10% of the total wells in the us).. in europe, oil and gas production has been largely eliminated except for the nordic countries and the uk (which the eu recently lost access to), germany is funding a major oil pipeline as is china from russia and russian-controlled portions of ukraine, even after trump cut off all builders from russian oil pipelines, the russian government is now trying to build the pipeline themselves with potential disastrous results.. venezuela's economy collapsed largely due to the government taking over and eliminating the oil industry companies.. in the mean time, control for most non-us energy sources is now wholly dependent on russian and middle eastern governments.. california and germany eliminated oil-based energy sources and now mandate 30% of their power from 'green' wind and solar alternatives.

germany energy costs now hover around 25c/kwh and california is not far behind with 16c/kwh both experiencing rolling blackouts in major cities and importing 60% of mostly coal and gas energy from their neighbors.. the world currently has 300 years worth of oil at the current rates of usage which have stagnated due to improved efficiencies.

co2 emissions in the us have dropped in the last 3 years for the first time in decades despite (or because) reduced oil and gas regulations.. do you think given the above facts, eliminating the oil industry is a good thing?

LoveUniHateExams

We can lower CO2 emissions and go greener in all manner of ways, but we can't 'eliminate the oil industry'.

Oil is used for so many products.

Humankind, particularly in the West, has made so much progress, although we certainly need to lower emissions and pollution levels.

The only way to eliminate the oil industry entirely and 'live in harmony with nature' would be to abandon all the progress we've made and go back to being hunter-gatherers.

Billions of people would die, but there'd be 'balance', lol.

34

Hunter Biden—Will He Affect The Election?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think he’s done incredible damage to biden.

he must be in hiding in his dad’s basement too.

i think this is the october surprise people have been wondering about.

LoveUniHateExams

@Funky - are all 50 states being polled in the same way?

Is a random selection of people in each state being polled?

Are there ways a polling company might use to slant the results in favour of one candidate or the other?

And, of course, how do we explain the fact that Clinton was a strong poll favourite in 2016?