• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Most Americans trust the military and scientists to act in the public’s interest

LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Quetzal said:
I find it interesting how few trust the media.
Click to expand...
The media is a convenient scapegoat.

It is widely watched, has room for the whole variety of viewpoints and degrees of responsibility for what they say, and yet has no decision power of its own.

We may confortably mistrust and even hate it for as long as we want without actually falling into any obvious contradiction for not doing anything about it.

It is just too convenient for people who fail to notice or to enjoy their responsibility over the political reality.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I think they hit a "random sampling glitch" in this one because I'm just not buying those numbers. Or maybe wording glitch, or something, but that just does not reflect the fact America has so many evolution and global warming deniers, were the media is worsening our elections, and for a country filled with people who don't trust the "secular" public education system where angry monkey butt sex is taught and kids told to go ahead and encouraged to sexually experiment with the same sex and even try being the opposite gender, even if that's not your thing, I'm just not believing that of trust/mistrust, and just over 40% having little-to-no trust in religious leaders, and I can list off many churches that I personally know of that factually did schism over leadership (even in states that aren't Indiana).
Definitely one I want to see repeated and closely examined.
Mandi said:
Hm, actually what scientist would be great for president? They would have the smarts but would they have the political knowledge and fortitude?
Click to expand...
A lot of them, probably not. There's a good number of social outcasts, geeks, nerds, and even metal heads and Aspies in the science community. And when you look at people who are the public "face" of science, like Niel Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and even Richard Dawkins, we've only seen one them display the required "tooth and claw" of politics.
I've not read any studies, but I just don't see there being much of an interest in political leadership among scientists. It does happen, but it doesn't seem to happen often.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Mandi said:
Hm, actually what scientist would be great for president? They would have the smarts but would they have the political knowledge and fortitude?
Click to expand...
It sure looks like the general level of scientific education of the community makes far more of a difference than the specific people in decision positions.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
LuisDantas said:
How do you feel about Eisenhower's famous warning?
Click to expand...
It was vacuous.

Conspiracy theorists love to latch upon what a politician says as proof.
But remember that they'll say anything for political gain.
Remember that a politician once....
- Spent a trillion dollars sending us into Iraq on the pretext of WMDs.
- Told us the ACA would cut our insurance costs.
- Told us that we didn't invade Cambodia.
- Told us that she landed under sniper fire.
So Eisenhower is not my prophet.
One must look at the system & its behavior for oneself, & judge therefrom.
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
A lot of people here have family members in the military or grandparents that have been in the military. Most people have an idea about what new recruits are taught. People trust the soldiers not to go along with a coup.

People are not generally aware of the military's increasing levels of automation. It is possible that the military could become too automated, and then it would not deserve as much trust. I would have no confidence in a military of drones, and I don't trust the automated drones that we now have.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Brickjectivity said:
A lot of people here have family members in the military or grandparents that have been in the military. Most people have an idea about what new recruits are taught. People trust the soldiers not to go along with a coup.

People are not generally aware of the military's increasing levels of automation. It is possible that the military could become too automated, and then it would not deserve as much trust. I would have no confidence in a military of drones, and I don't trust the automated drones that we now have.
Click to expand...
Never mind the computer automation, I don't think most people who trust the military are well aware of how oppressive military discipline is.
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
LuisDantas said:
Never mind the computer automation, I don't think most people who trust the military are well aware of how oppressive military discipline is.
Click to expand...
Over here people are familiar with how the military is run. Its not a secret. Many military personnel leave the military and return to civilian life. This is very common here, and you will find ex-military people everywhere. It is unusual for someone to stay in the military for very many years. Most choose to leave. We currently do not compel citizens to join the military at this time, so joining is mostly voluntary. Most people who join do it for college tuition. Once they do some time in the military they get money for college.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
Seems plausible though.
Individuals who serve their country with low pay & some risk seem noble to most.
Click to expand...
You must be talking about the Peace corps or Americorps.
The military is hardly "serving" the country -- at least if you equate 'the country' with the people and not the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex[/QUOTE]
LuisDantas said:
How do you feel about Eisenhower's famous warning?
Click to expand...
Prescient.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Valjean said:
You must be talking about the Peace corps or Americorps.
Click to expand...
That would fit them too, but they aren't the subject of the OP.
The military is hardly "serving" the country -- at least if you equate 'the country' with the people and not the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex
Click to expand...
Prescient.[/QUOTE]
While you disagree, I speak of most in the country, who believe soldiers do serve the country.
We do need a defense, after all.
Don't lose sight of that as politicians misuse our military for offensive wars (as Hillary has done).
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
That would fit them too, but they aren't the subject of the OP.
Click to expand...

Prescient.
While you disagree, I speak of most in the country, who believe soldiers do serve the country.
We do need a defense, after all.
Don't lose sight of that as politicians misuse our military for offensive wars (as Hillary has done).
Click to expand...
There is no existential threat to the US. Our military is not protecting our shores. What are they defending against?
America's enemies are generated by the same military that purports to defend us from them..
 
Last edited:
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Valjean said:
There is no existential threat to the US. Our military is not protecting our shores. What are they defending against?
Click to expand...
At the moment, they're attacking rather than defending.
But we do need a defense for 2 reasons....
1) To defend against an attack. We don't know who might, but it's possible. It's happened before, & could happen again.
2) A strong defense can inoculate us against attack, ie, it would be very much to the detriment of the attacker.
America's enemies are generated by the same military that purports to defend us from them..
Click to expand...
I agree.
That's why I believe in a military solely for defense....not for foreign adventurism.

You need to fix your post.....the quote feature is all goofed up.
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
lewisnotmiller said:
I might have missed it, but trust them to do what?
Click to expand...

This question gets at the difficult of interpreting the results of questions like this. While the poll question was framed as being about these groups doing what is in the "best interest" of "the public," what does that really mean? And is that really applicable to all of these groups? Religious groups in particular are often not interested in serving the general public, they are interested in serving their adherents.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
At the moment, they're attacking rather than defending.
But we do need a defense for 2 reasons....
1) To defend against an attack. We don't know who might, but it's possible. It's happened before, & could happen again.
2) A strong defense can inoculate us against attack, ie, it would be very much to the detriment of the attacker.

I agree.
That's why I believe in a military solely for defense....not for foreign adventurism.

You need to fix your post.....the quote feature is all goofed up.
Click to expand...
D'oh! :oops: Fixed.

Oddly enough, I think we're pretty much in agreement, here.
I can see the usefulness of the Coast Guard and National Guard, and if we have to have a military deterrent my first choice would be a Swiss style system. Under (literally) the pretty scenery they're armed to the teeth.

I think the risk of actual invasion here is vanishingly small. It would just be too costly. There's no way the benefits could justify the risks.
Recall the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The sparsely populated, untrained, poorly equipped Afghans managed to oust a superpower, and there is also the US experience in Viet Nam.

The US is fairly bristling with modern weapons, big and small. We're huge. We have moats on both sides. The logistics just wouldn't justify an attack.

Our military, on the whole, is offensive. The "defense" Department should assume its previous title.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Valjean said:
D'oh! :oops: Fixed.

Oddly enough, I think we're pretty much in agreement, here.
I can see the usefulness of the Coast Guard and National Guard, and if we have to have a military deterrent my first choice would be a Swiss style system. Under (literally) the pretty scenery they're armed to the teeth.

I think the risk of actual invasion here is vanishingly small. It would just be too costly. There's no way the benefits could justify the risks.
Recall the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The sparsely populated, untrained, poorly equipped Afghans managed to oust a superpower, and there is also the US experience in Viet Nam.

The US is fairly bristling with modern weapons, big and small. We're huge. We have moats on both sides. The logistics just wouldn't justify an attack.

Our military, on the whole, is offensive. The "defense" Department should assume its previous title.
Click to expand...
I see more possibilities.
To bristle with weapons is useful.
And the kind of weapons is important because of evolving enemy capability.
I think we should go further by hardening & distributing our infrastructure.
We're quite vulnerable to taking out our electrical, fuel & communication systems.
And finally, we must stop creating enemies with our blundering violent costly military adventures.
Defense is a complex thing....far bigger than military capability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top