Friday, August 21, 2015

Question Everything

I considered the last Vociferation I posted to be somewhat lackluster, so I put forth more effort into this issue. This one is both about Climate Change and a common argument I hear from people I debate which I have wanted to tackle for some time.

I find it iritating when I rattle off some study or fact and a person points out to me how studies can be manipulated or how scientists can be paid to produce a result. It does not iritate me because it is untrute. I am well aware of how facts can be skewed. The problem I have that line of reasoning is that no one ever explains to me why the particular fact or study I have cited is wrong. I want to know the why and how. To me, saying a study can be fabricated would be like telling me my grandmother has the capacity to lie and therefore I should not believe a word she says.

Yes, studies can be wrong and facts can be presented in such a way to be misleading. It is good to question them given this fact, but it is never good to dismiss something out of hand merely because it can be manipulated. If that were the case, we could believe nothing.

Everyone should have the courage to dig a little deeper and confirm whether or not the evidence is true or false. Both for things we should be skeptical of, like our government, and of the things we place trust in, like institutions of science.

Friday, August 7, 2015

My thoughts on the Iranian Nuclear Deal

This comic expresses my support for the Iranian Nuclear Deal. I chose this topic because polling shows that the majority of Americans oppose the deal.

I am one of those liberals who finds Obama to be too moderate. I consider Obama to be a more centrist politician. One of the issues on which I think Obama is far better than Romney would have been is on Iran. I regard diplomacy as a much better option to war.

I debated on how to tackle this topic. Mainly because there was a Rick, the Cryptozoologist issue a few years ago that dealt with this issue. It posited the idea that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would only set it back a year, and would only embolden Iran. That is my main argument for diplomacy. Still, I wanted to do something different for this strip. I try my best not to retread.

I researched the arguments of those opposed to the Iranian Nuclear Deal. I didn't find many of their arguments to be serious. Perhaps hiding behind all the hyperbolic talk are some legitimate concerns. I haven't found them. What I see in people who attack the deal are people who don't like Iran. It seems to me that people don't like this deal because it doesn't remove the Iranian regime from power.

I can relate to these opponents of the deal in that I don't care for the Iranian government. I just don't think we should be the world's policeman. It isn't practical for the Untied States to simply wipe out everyone who disagrees with us. We won our philosophical debate with the Soviet Union without the need to invade their country. The United States instigated regime change in Iran before, and that did nothing to curb it's radicalism. Some would argue it did the opposite.

I find it hard to accept the arguments of those who express disgust at Iran for it's human rights record when they support doing business with governments that are just as bad, if not worse.

I would also point out that Benjamin Netanyahu has been making dire, apocalyptic predictions about Iran for years and none of them have come to pass. All in all, I think the Iran Nuclear Deal is good.