Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Greg Osterman
Recent Activity
-
Greg commented on the article |Jayne,
That was not a "troll-like post" at all. Alex makes the blanket statement that "Sex segregation has no place in public schools." I was simply pointing out, as many people below have as well, that there are mountains of evidence to suggest the opposite. That girls and boys do in fact learn differently, and that sex segregation has resulted in many beneficial results, especially for girls in math and science classes.
-
Greg commented on the article |
This particular program sounds pretty questionable, but I've read multiple articles about the successes of sex-segregation in schools. Particularly in girls-only math classes which have been shown to result in higher math scores for girls than integrated classes.
-
Greg commented on the article |I welcome this new community.
Brandi, I think most people are aware of the Animal "Rights" philosophy, and there are many people who care about the humane treatment of anaimals but don't go so far as to beleive that they have equal rights to humans.
Having a separate community will hopefully allow both communities to be served equally. I would hope that if people like you wind up coming here just to troll for arguments that they would be kicked out. Whats the point of constantly having the same argument over and over again on every blog post?
-
Greg commented on the article |When are people going to realize that putting the rights of a minority up for vote by the majority is patently absurd? If southern states had held popular votes to repeal civil rights legislation in the 60's those would have passed too.
But the government didn't allow that to happen. A government based on liberty is supposed to protect its minority citizens against the tyranny of the masses. What's different now? Why are these referendums even allowed to be on the ballot?
-
Greg commented on the article |I agree with Doug. As a male I've paid higher auto insurance rates than women my whole life. Nobody complains about this being discriminatory because it is based on statistical evidence and actuarial tables. Women's health insurance costs more because each of the conditions Jen talks about can be statistically proven to result in higher medical care costs. That's not discrimination, that's math.
I also agree with Doug that tying insurance rates to an idea of social justice and public good, and not actuarial risk, is an admirable goal for health care reform. But lets discuss it intelligently instead of trying to rile everybody up with claims of discrimination and women's rights violations.
-
Greg commented on the article |I apologise for that last comment, as now I am the one name-calling.
The rest of my point still stands. -
Greg commented on the article |
Natasha,
As pointed out by multiple people in the past, it seems your first and last defense against anybody who disagrees with you is to name-call and insult, and rarely, if ever, provide any factual evidence to disprove them.
Is it too much to ask that an intelligent, civil conversation can be had on these boards? Can you behave like a responsible moderator rather than an angry 5 year old? -
Greg commented on the article |
Greg P,
I have taken a decent look around this community and have found that the only time GMOs, pesticides, etc are talked about is when they are basically being decried as the work of the devil. And anytime somebody mentions considering the benefits of biotechnology, like Aaron here, they are immediately jumped on and abused by the rest of the community, including the moderator.
You say that "This is not a conversation about conventional vs. organic production. There are both positives and negatives associated with both kinds of production methods." Like I said, I have looked around the community and read several articles, and this does not appear to be the case to me. You say that CropLife is biased, and they probably are, but this community is just as biased on the other side.
So in the end it is not a place to have constructive discussions around all the options for creating a sustainable food supply, but a place to come and cheerlead organics and denounce biotech. -
Greg commented on the article |
So really what you mean by "Sustainable Food" is strictly organic food. And you are absolutely unwilling and unable to consider any type of discussion around the possible benefits of biotechnology.
If that's true, then fine. I just want to be clear that you aren't really about discussing sustainable food here, and are only about promoting organics. -
Greg signed the petition |
Impact
1 Action
0 Recruits
Top Causes
|
1 Action
|