..........

Dude.

Do yourself a favor and research libertarianism (arguably the fastest growing ideology in America right now), it's the best of both worlds. Socially accepting, and economically responsible.

:)

You're right, but I just think it's a good general guideline.

Yes. I would agree with that, especially for the hard sciences. The social sciences are another story though. They like using models for all types of weird things. : )

@Mr Khan: Is it really that simple? Are you asserting that the reason these topics are so hotly debated is just that people are too stupid to look it up? (Evolution, I'd maybe concede, but is climate change so easy to understand for anyone?)
@dsgrue3, of course you do. I have yet to meet a religious person who doesn't. That's not the point, though. Is the biology really simple enough for everyone to understand, though? And, if it is, is it the same for the science behind climate change? Homosexuality? For taxes, while I'm unclear on the specifics, surely, you've argued this with someone else on this forum by now? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I believe there was a Politics thread about someone wanting to raise the taxes (firstly) on the rich very recently/
@KungKras, popularly accepted science has often had to change its course due to evidence, I'm pretty sure. Besides, you can get the right answer through the wrong method, can't you?
@Chark, are all successful societies republics? That seems like an enormous assertion that many would argue is flat out wrong. Many people today strongly believe in democratic principles and relying on intellectuals whom I don't know if I can trust is rather difficult.
@insomniac17, I understand I'm selling myself as a moron here, but please don't think I haven't considered such a commonly used moral issue. I said I believe in saving lives, not utilitarianism, necessarily. In that example, I'm not sure what I'd do; I don't know if one life is less valuable than five. On the other hand, if it were saving a life against taking some rich person's property, that seems perfectly viable to me morally and only the very libertarian fringe of people would disagree. For all these questions you ask, I believe it's a complicated situation that needs to be thoroughly discussed and have no immediate answers. I don't agree that "no action" is the best course of action morally, though. Not at all.
@ArnoldRimmer, of course; that's very very basic philosophy, I think. I still have to make political decisions in real life, though. So I have to find out where to place trust. And why.
@man-bear-pig, I am an innocent child. Do not corrupt me with talk of Thai ladyboys, :P.
@DCOK, oh, I've been looking into libertarianism, alright. For a while now. Please don't be missionary-like by providing me with all of life's answers without actually bothering to consider my questions, though.
@SamuelRSmith, I hope that video wasn't directed at me. I much prefer reading people's reasoning to listening to their idols.

Well I consider myself independent so i wouldn't vote for either Obama or Romney.

Biology is a required course for every high school student, so yes, the science behind it is easily understood at a top level. If you're asking whether anyone can understand all the intricacies involved in genetics, then not without years of additional education on the subject matter.  Most processes can be described in easy to understand terms. If they aren't, then either that source is beyond the scope of your knowledge or it is a bad source.

Science behind climate change is about as basic as it gets. It compares temperature data from weather stations around the globe resulting in an average surface temperature year over year. Personally, I find it an extremely absurd and obtuse notion to compare 100 years of surface temperature variances on a planet 4,600,000,000 years old. That'd be like comparing one second of one day to an entire century.

I am sure someone proposed taxing the rich, but the only result would be more revenue for the government. The government doesn't create jobs, so what is the point of this additional revenue? It certainly isn't stimulating the economy. We tried that, and it failed miserably.

While high school biology is enough to understand the processes, I don't think it's enough to understand the evidence, which is the part that's a problem. And if common people can't understand genetics and genetics is an important factor in politics, then my problem persists.

Also, surely, you're just joking about climate change. Even mere high school science explains a lot more about it, such as greenhouse gasses and other stuff. It's not that simple and to properly understand the science concerning it is probably even harder. Besides, by saying that you're a climate change skeptic, you're basically doubting the scientific consensus, aren't you?

And, I'm not here to actually argue with you about taxes. Your statement was that it's completely accepted that taxes are a bad idea right now, which is obviously untrue since some significant number of people seem to think so (even if they're wrong, as you say).

*Ahem*:

"Do you think this country was founded on informed decisions?! Columbus thought he was in India! And did he worry about being wrong? No. He just called everybody Indians, and we still do it today! Why? 'Cause. You want to be an American? You fill out that ballot because you don't know what you're doing. Just like when we named this country after the fourth or fifth guy who discovered it."

Thank you, 30 Rock. That will be all.