Lol poor flint is still denying enviromental science? Does he also deny other outragous theories like gravity and evolution??

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Nationalism Euro style sucks, American style rules.

"Nationalism Euro style sucks, American style rules."

Great argument there.

It's not the words of the pledge, but the ritual itself. It's indoctrinating. And of course, a bit of nationalism doesn't do any harm. But what it does, is putting the ligitimacy of a country/government beyong questioning. I think that people should always question their governmental structure and even the state/country they live in. Perhaps this is Belgian pragmaticism bleeding through, but I don't think we should just accept we live in this or that country/state/governmental structure because it was decided like that a few centuries ago. And that's the danger of nationalism, especially when it has become a daily routine.

+6 Zarf

I am with WFS on this one...

IF a country truly is as great as they claim to be, why do they need to pledge their allegience everyday? The whole purpose of the pledge is to influence the students perception of their country, and with that in mind, do you really support any nation doing this? Would you agree if China were to introduce such attitudes to school children regarding communism?

Flint,

1. The demand for drugs is largely inelastic due to addiction. So causing the price of drugs to increase by eradicating suppliers is ineffective, and only leads to an increase in drug crime. When those addicts can't pay for their addiction, they will get inventive.

2. On sexuality, men are less elastic than women. Moreover, women face higher risks for sexuality. This makes sexuality a market, whereby women are suppliers and men are consumers. If you increase the costs of sexuality by eliminating planned parenthood, or even banning/limiting abortion and contraception, then women will exit the market. This will increase the price of sex and cause more men to seek substitutes, including prostitutes and sluts. With fewer women supplying the same quantity demanded, the increase in STI infections will explode. Keeping sex cheap not only makes everyone happy, but it reduces the number of STI infections.

To support my point, CDC records show that Bush's abstinence only education caused a significant number of teen girls to exit the sex market, but it had a marginal effect on teen boys. Moreover, the number of teen girls who had more than 3 partners a year also increased. In other words, the increase in price due to sellers leaving the market had little affect on the quantity demanded, and this increased the demand for risky sex.

So keep abortion and contraception legal, and their services affordable and available to the poor.

"Which nation has more people dreamed of immigrating to?"

Firstly, what are you basing that on? I think this would be hard to measure since you use "dreamed of immigrating to" unless you wish to poll EVERYONE in the world as to their desired destination to live. I think the source of information that such a claim could be made is the number of immigrants to the US in comparrison to the rest of the world, and purely on a percentage of population, the US does not lead the charge. That honor goes to Australia firstly with an immigrant population of 19.6% in 2005, then Canada with 18.9% in 2005, and the US is 13% of its population. Europe's migrant population is 64 million compared to the US's 45 million (http://www.globalissues.org/article/537/immigration; http://www.un.org/migration/presskit/pressrelease12sept.pdf). According to the report by the UN on immigration, it classifies China as a destination of students and skilled workers in the Asian region (http://www.un.org/migration/presskit/pressrelease12sept.pdf).

We could look at the reasons for their destination, which actually appears more an ease of immigration. The largest source of immigrants into the US is from Mexico, Cuba, China, India and the Phillipines (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2010/ois_yb_2010.pdf). In contrast, immigrants coming into Australia are from New Zealand, the UK, India, China, and Italy (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/trends-in-migration/trends-in-migration-2010-11.pdf). If we look at immigrants to a country like Spain, then we notice a higher portion of Moroccans and North African immigrants (http://www.globalissues.org/article/537/immigration). What this would seem to suggest, is that destination of immigration is not necessarily one of desire, but one of ease and simplicity, ie. they travel to the closest nation to escape their nations problems or in search of a more stable income (http://www.globalissues.org/article/537/immigration).

So to say that the US has more people dreaming to immigrate there, without actually looking at the statistics, is mere speculation.

"Not so many dream of immigrating to there."

There is millions that immigrate to China, many from Korea (both North and South), Vietnam, and some millions more from developed nations for employment purposes (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=838). There is also an estimated 20000 African immigrants in China due to the economic links to African nations (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=838). I too have immigrated to China for education purposes, which has been identified as a destination for education (http://www.un.org/migration/presskit/pressrelease12sept.pdf).

"The Chinese would of course see it as agitprop if done in their nation."

I would again like to know what you are basing this on? I also think that agitprop needs to be defined in this context, because if such a pledge were to be classified as "agitprop" then one would need to define the pledge.

": propaganda; especially : political propaganda promulgated chiefly in literature, drama, music, or art "
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agitprop)

One could argue against this solely on the basis that a pledge is not literature, drama, music, or art. What I think you are trying to refer to though, is using propaganda to influence political support, but then lets look at the definition of propaganda.

": the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person "
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda)

If the Chinese version would be considered propaganda, seeking political support, then what is the pledge of allegience in the US? You answered this in your last post, "Here it is not agitprop, it is reinforcing the idea of a Republic" and to simply say that it is not "agitprop" simply means that it is not communist ideals, and "reinforcing the idea of a Republic" is the spreading of ideas, information for the purpose of "gaining allegience" which does fall under the definition of propaganda.

"Empirically deny your claim that nationalism automatically equates to unquestioning obedience."

And this style of rejection occurs at an older age, when an individual is able to make up his mind (and also at an age where he no longer has to say the pledge of allegience). A pledge is not teaching children enough information for them to come to a conclusion on their own, it is teaching only 1 form of ideology...nationalism. What other purpose does it serve?

"Pretty sure we could go to any Tea Party rally and find plenty of people in the paradox of loving their country but hating their government"

The pledge of allegience doesn't necessarily pledge an allegience to the current government in office, but to the ideals in which that government is supposed to uphold. Of the dislike towards the government from within the Tea Party (and I am asking because I do not know, nor care enough to look it up), how much use the constitution as their reasons for disliking the current government? (since you are pledging an allegience to the values of the nation and not the current party, I would still consider them to be nationalistic within the confines of the pledge).

"To support my point, CDC records show that Bush's abstinence only education caused a significant number of teen girls to exit the sex market, but it had a marginal effect on teen boys. Moreover, the number of teen girls who had more than 3 partners a year also increased. In other words, the increase in price due to sellers leaving the market had little affect on the quantity demanded, and this increased the demand for risky sex."

But when you consider risky investments as expendable, the need for any correction vanishes.

Well, not to change this into a climate change thread (and also because I want Flint to respond to my pledge of allegience comment) but to simply say that scientists should know all the answers and be able to go "this is exactly what is going to happen and since we are talking science if what they say is wrong, everything is incorrect". Science is observation and creating predictions from those observations. Have scientists ever studied climate change? If it has been studied in the past, it would have been using very primitive instruments/methods so they have nothing to base predictions on, nor can they test their theories in a lab (unless you want to test the trapping properties of the gases in question which I think has been proven...will look for a source if I need to).

"Global temperatures have stopped rising.

Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise."

Are there other factors involved? There was clear signs of rising global temperatures, so do sceptics have any idea of what is happening? In fact, sceptics spend more time/resources trying to prove CO2 emissions incorrect to protect their own interests than to research the truth. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, most debates end up in quarrel of politics and economics and away from any scientific debate...if anyone else has ideas as to causes, I am all ears.

Also, greenhouse effects CAN be observed occuring naturally, so why would the same NOT apply to CO2 emissions on Earth? (for this, look at Venus and cloudy days for 2 examples). Also, what else has changed in those decades with increased temperatures that can explain the warming?

That's fine Noir, trust the Batcomputer will explain how a unique surge in global temperatures clearly correlating to human pollution is now not correlating at all.   I recommend we call the energy transfer, "phlogiston" just as soon as the Batcomputer figures out wtf happens to all that trapped heat.  As you say, we have other planets to look at, and boy is all that trapped heat visible.  As heat.

To be a "denier" is to question whether heat energy is trapped within the earth's atmosphere by greenhouse gases, is then mysteriously transformed into other forms of energy within the climate system in a manner not yet observed or explained.   Cause that's what "global climate change" is in 2012.  A mysterious hypothesis without explanation.

Love seeing Einstein get pwned by Wornstrum

Just once, as a sick, twisted social experiment, I think that there should be somewhere in the world that adopts all of the extreme right wing viewpoints that Einstein and co strive for. Then they can all move there, and leave the rest of the world to take steps forward and progress.

"I dream of the Constitution being fully respected as written by the Founders and not of revisionist views."

Seriously! He's not even joking! While we're at it, let's send Turkey back to the Hammurabi code, and Israel back to the 10 Commandments.