Do you fully understand what you support? (law, Dihydrogen monoxide, program)

[AZLiam]

I do not mind that people may agree/disagree with me on topics as long as they can offer a solid argument, but what really angers me is when people jump on the "cause bandwagon" and truly do not understand what it is they are supporting.

This video explains it best:


YouTube - Banning DiHydrogen Monoxide - Penn and Teller

[getout]

Wow. Perfect example. Thank you.

[AZLiam]

There is so much truth to this, and what is truly embarrassing is the amount of people (even celebrities) that are speaking out against the AZ bill, yet do not fully understand it).

Here is a "Cheat sheet" - http://www.abc15.com/content/news/ph...ELk47QVBw.cspx

[Chorizo]

Awesome video - thats funny.

[Benicar]

Excellent! This is precisely what’s happening with the AZ law. On the news this morning, it was mentioned that the law has been amended to clarify what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” and to assuage fears and confusion. Sadly, the sheeple will still oppose, because they have been programmed to do so. Stepford Wives anyone?

[cdgoldilocks]

That is similar to "The Man Show" when they were getting all these stupid women to sign a ballot to end Women's Suffrage. I wanted to slap them.

[Mach50]

So basically you folks are calling anyone who doesn't support the law a gullible, easily-influenced, "pinko" who cannot read and comprehend the bill?

To me this is a cop-out of an argument.

[cdgoldilocks]

No, we are suggesting that perhaps people should read something in its entirety and understand what you are supporting or opposing before you jump on a bandwagon.

Just be informed.

[Mach50]

Originally Posted by cdgoldilocks

No, we are suggesting that perhaps people should read something in its entirety and understand what you are supporting or opposing before you jump on a bandwagon.

Just be informed.

So you realize any opposing side could use the same argument? Basically reducing the overall meaning of such a statement to a cop-out.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by Mach50

So you realize any opposing side could use the same argument? Basically reducing the overall meaning of such a statement to a cop-out.

Only if the argument they were referring to has no basis in the facts of the subject, much like many of the arguments regarding this bill are directly contradicted by the text of the bill.