Talk:March for Science

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent Edit War

What I was objecting to was the implication (as per your edit comment "socialism is the solution") that these people were demonstrating in favor of socialism. You appeared to be falling into the trap, that I see all too often here, that "anyone who disagrees with me is a communist". Or socialist. Or terrorist. Or practicer of "liberal deceit". Or "liberal denial". Or whatever. You can do better than that; I've seen you do it.

Now you may believe that the global climate change problem can't be fixed without adopting socialism. Heck, you might even be right; I'm not an expert. But I hope that's not true. (Keep in mind that Karl Marx believed that socialism was the cure for the problems of late 19th century England, and we know how that turned out.) So the question is: Were these people demonstrating in favor of socialism? I don't think so. I can't say that there was not a single "we need socialism" banner anywhere in any of the demonstrations, but I sure didn't see any.

If you believe that socialism is required to fix the climate problem, the place to say so is the page on climate change or global warming, or whatever.

These people had a real disagreement with the Trump administration, on a number of science-related issues. And it ought to be possible to explain that disagreement properly. I don't know precisely what Perry and Pruitt's position is on these matters, but there must have been some real issue that brought out a few hundred thousand people.

OK, my reference to CP admins calling it a "hoax" was intentionally inflammatory. Just as it is inflammatory for them to call it a hoax. I can't stop the admins from making inflammatory statements, but, as I suggested above, I can do better than that. I will take it out.

SamHB (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

When I reverted your edit, I did so because the sentence was inaccurate (I am specifically referring to the Trump Administration part, not the CP part, even though I don't think that should be added either). I have seen and heard statements from both Rick Perry and Scott Pruitt stating they believe the climate is changing and that they even believe humans have some sort of role in it. However, the sentence you added misrepresented their stated positions, making it seem like they don't believe the climate is changing.
What I meant by the "socialism" line was that the Trump Administration most widely differs from these marchers on the issue of whether government regulations (basically, socialism) is necessary to ensure a healthy environment. And I think it is accurate to call it socialism -- government regulation on the economy, on businesses, and on individuals, in order to save the Earth. President Trump and his administration disagree on the solution, regardless of what the best term of it is. They believe that being environmentally friendly does not equal doing away with the free market. And all this is based on what I've read and heard them say (I actually watched an interview with Sec. Perry on Saturday).
And to be clear, it was not me who labeled climate change a hoax. Hopefully I have explained everything well, but if not, please let me know. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
Thank you for doing my work with the removal of the "hoax" comment.
I'm OK with the article as it stands. If you are also, then we are cool. The "inflammatory"/"hoax" comment wasn't aimed at you of course. Looking at the edit history of the other article, it must have been aimed at Ed Poor. Which actually wasn't a good idea, since he once blocked me, a million or so years ago, for a "snide remark". But neither of us is as hotheaded as we used to be. Nevertheless, I should avoid that kind of stuff, especially as I am trying to project a "levelheaded elder statesman" persona these days, many blocks later.
But I'd like you to be more careful in labeling things "socialism", as in your comment above "government regulations (basically, socialism)". You may very strongly disagree with the types of regulation (presumably carbon credits, renewable fuel subsidies, that sort of thing, right?) but it's wrong and unhelpful to call it socialism. This is the sort of trap that I see people fall into all the time. Government regulation is as American as apple pie. In fact, it's as American as the U.S. Constitution. Article 1 section 8, the famous "commerce clause". People disagree enormously on how the commerce clause should be used; it is perhaps the biggest economic debate that we have in this country. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that it is what brought out a few hundred thousand people on Saturday.
By all means, debate the rightness or wrongness of the various parties' positions on these issues. SamHB (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
I would disagree with your "government regulation is as American as apple pie" phrase. There really was no government regulation in the economy until the late 19th century (when American was about 110-120 years old), and even after it appeared, it remained quite light until the Great Depression period. You are right about how much people disagree about the Commerce Clause. I believe it has been perverted beyond recognition since the Great Depression, and if judges interpreted it the right way, much federal regulations would be ruled unconstitutional. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
Sorry, I meant the concept of government regulation is as American as apple pie. There is no doubt that current government regulation, and government operations in general (size of the tax code, complexity of the budget, complexity of laws in general, number of lawyers, etc.) is vastly more than in the early days of the nation. In fact, society in general is vastly more complex. SamHB (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
And by the way, I made a small change to the article, and other than that, there are no problems that I notice with it. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2017 (EDT)