Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Desubot wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Are you talking about Christians feeling the need to tell atheists they are wrong, the opposite, or both?

Both. iv been on the receiving end of both lol

Does it count as atheist evangelization if you lobby for better educational standards?

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Are you talking about Christians feeling the need to tell atheists they are wrong, the opposite, or both?

Both. iv been on the receiving end of both lol

Does it count as atheist evangelization if you lobby for better educational standards?

If you want it to, im not one for labeling groups of people. im fine with calling out terrible people though.

Im fine with calling out anyone who insists bible study be a subject in any publicly funded school. Creationism or any non-fact based subject which is wholly disproven and innacurate. Like I said before, Noah's ark should not be publicly funded, nor anyone who would play off as fact, that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. This is the rage most Athiests have, not the fact that you are living your life happy, and spending your Sundays in a church. That is your decision to make. When your preacher starts saying the world is only 6-8k years old, and says carbon dating is the devils work to lead you away from the bible, even the most chaste should probably start thinking there is something fishy going on.

Edit:
Oh and lets not forget the proposed government funded gay conversion therapy from Mike Pence. This is why Athiests have to form foundations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Presumably, decent educational standards would be a non-sectarian issue.

It seems the religious fringe is always trying to "protect" people from any information that contradicts or might be interpreted to contradict the Christian religion.

But left-wingers should not be smug about education. They are pretty much solely responsible for the Puritanical streak ripping through higher education, pumping out a generation of over-protected, constantly offended, entitled clones.

 IllumiNini wrote:

For example, I feel that (even though I'm Agnostic) there has always been a burden on Aheists to prove that any God (or any set of Gods) doesnt exist purely because - to my mind - Athiesm is founded on the idea of scientific proof and that (based on reasonable scientific extrapolation) there is no reason to believe that a God (or set of Gods) exists. In other words: The basis of Atheism as I understand it requires a bit more proof than Religion because Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith.

You have that backwards. Scientific method can't prove that something doesn't exist. It relies on proof to show what does exist.

So science won't tell us that there is definitely no God. At best it will tell us that there is no evidence that there is a God.


Atheists doesn't have to 'prove' that there is no God, any more than religion has to 'prove' that there is*. Some people need proof in order to believe something, but proving it to anyone else is only necessary if you're going to insist that they share your belief. I don't believe there is a God, because I've seen no evidence of such a being. I don't much care if you believe something different... that's entirely up to you.





*Disclaimer - I do draw the line at religious belief being taught as fact with no evidence to back it up. Not because of religion, but for the same reason that I disagree with anything being taught as fact with no evidence to back it up. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.

I'd bet most atheists would say that the question of deity comes down to a matter of probabilities, and not certainties.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd bet most atheists would say that the question of deity comes down to a matter of probabilities, and not certainties.

More or less. I'm happy to entertain the idea that there might be a god (because I can't prove that there isn't one) but I think it's extremely improbable.


And having spent some time with the Bible, if the Christian God does exist, he's not a being I want anything to do with, frankly, because his sales material really doesn't paint him in a particularly rosy light.

 insaniak wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd bet most atheists would say that the question of deity comes down to a matter of probabilities, and not certainties.

More or less. I'm happy to entertain the idea that there might be a god (because I can't prove that there isn't one) but I think it's extremely improbable.


And having spent some time with the Bible, if the Christian God does exist, he's not a being I want anything to do with, frankly, because his sales material really doesn't paint him in a particularly rosy light.

I believe its incredibly improbable that there is a divine intelligence responsible for the creation of the universe. Then when you start mixing in the details of this or that religion (virgin births, people flying, horses flying, the great blue eye of Makumba, etc.), the improbability of the proposition at hand becomes multiplied with each detail.

That's why I've often thought that of all the theist positions I've encountered, the deist position always seemed to me the most plausible of the bunch. While it rests on the "clockmaker" assumption, it typically does not posit many details about the clockmaker, so it does not compound on the original improbability.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

In all fairness, most Christians I know are kind and caring people to begin with. YMMV

Turns out that being an ass is pretty difficult.

My own experience is quite the opposite of Relapse... the majority of Xtians I know are highly judgemental, oftentimes bigoted, occasionally racist, and absolutely NONE of the ones I personally know do much or any charity work, much less giving money. And those that do give money to charities do so much research that it makes my SF 86 clearance checks look relaxed. They absolutely positively want to make sure that not one dime will go to some heathen devil-worshipper who is hellbound.

Most are what I'd consider to be "surface nice"... They smile and shake your hand, say please and thank you, and are polite as can be to your face, but in private are some truly ugly individuals.

 jasper76 wrote:
Presumably, decent educational standards would be a non-sectarian issue.

It seems the religious fringe is always trying to "protect" people from any information that contradicts or might be interpreted to contradict the Christian religion.

But left-wingers should not be smug about education. They are pretty much solely responsible for the Puritanical streak ripping through higher education, pumping out a generation of over-protected, constantly offended, entitled clones.

right and left do not directly equate to theist and atheist. those entitled clones are social justice warriors, and could fall anywhere in the spectrum of theist/atheist. As you yourself call them puritanical that implies their on the right and therefore could not be atheists. By trying to equate the two, you're really just comparing apples to oranges.

I sort of subconsciously did equate, you're right.

 insaniak wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

For example, I feel that (even though I'm Agnostic) there has always been a burden on Aheists to prove that any God (or any set of Gods) doesnt exist purely because - to my mind - Athiesm is founded on the idea of scientific proof and that (based on reasonable scientific extrapolation) there is no reason to believe that a God (or set of Gods) exists. In other words: The basis of Atheism as I understand it requires a bit more proof than Religion because Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith.

You have that backwards. Scientific method can't prove that something doesn't exist. It relies on proof to show what does exist.

So science won't tell us that there is definitely no God. At best it will tell us that there is no evidence that there is a God.

Atheists doesn't have to 'prove' that there is no God, any more than religion has to 'prove' that there is*. Some people need proof in order to believe something, but proving it to anyone else is only necessary if you're going to insist that they share your belief. I don't believe there is a God, because I've seen no evidence of such a being. I don't much care if you believe something different... that's entirely up to you.

Maybe I should have worded myself better. Let me try again:

Let's assume that an Atheist who is also a scientist attempts to explore the idea that God or set of Gods exist exists. They search for proof/evidence but eventually end their search without ever finding proof/evidence of a God or set of Gods and/or finding proof that at least of the things a particular religion holds as fact to be impossible. Now, this isn't proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods doesn't exist, but it's more than good enough for this Atheist/Scientist to conclude that there likely is no God or set of Gods. This is what I mean when I say there's a Burden of Proof for Atheists. I'm not saying that scientific method can definitively prove that God/Gods don't exist, but it can bring us to the point where we can draw reasonable conclusions about their existence.

Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right. In light of this, I feel that the Burden of Proof for Theists (especially those who try to convince others of their beliefs) is higher because not only is this the point to which Atheism is the counter-claim, but any and every religion is a standalone claim in their own right which posits the existence of the supernatural (in one sense or another).

Out of Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism, I feel Agnosticism is the only one not burdened by the requirement for proof because - to my mind - Agnostics only claim that we cannot rationally explain the existence or otherwise of a God or Gods. Now, the reason I say that we (Agnostics) are not burdened by the requirement for proof is because of the following:

(1) If there was any definitive proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods, the position of Agnosticism (as it's currently described) wouldn't exist because we'd be able to rationally explain the existence of a God or set of Gods.

(2) As mentioned earlier, Scientific Method cannot definitively prove the absence of a God or set of Gods, ergo we still can't completely and rationally explain the absence of a God or set of Gods.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Let's assume that an Atheist who is also a scientist attempts to explore the idea that God or set of Gods exist exists. They search for proof/evidence but eventually end their search without ever finding proof/evidence of a God or set of Gods and/or finding proof that at least of the things a particular religion holds as fact to be impossible. Now, this isn't proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods doesn't exist, but it's more than good enough for this Atheist/Scientist to conclude that there likely is no God or set of Gods. This is what I mean when I say there's a Burden of Proof for Atheists. I'm not saying that scientific method can definitively prove that God/Gods don't exist, but it can bring us to the point where we can draw reasonable conclusions about their existence.


(1) If there was any definitive proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods, the position of Agnosticism (as it's currently described) wouldn't exist because we'd be able to rationally explain the existence of a God or set of Gods.

(2) As mentioned earlier, Scientific Method cannot definitively prove the absence of a God or set of Gods, ergo we still can't completely and rationally explain the absence of a God or set of Gods.

While I agree with your premise, I personally think that one can set out to disprove the existence of a particular deity/group of deities.

For instance, there's a meme on a few atheist FB pages that outline how some Western philosophies developed: For the Greeks, the gods lived on Olympus. A person managed to go up, and back down Olympus. Discovering that the gods were not there, religion moved god/gods to the next thing: the "heavens." having conquered flight (as well as one religion sort of swallowing most others in Europe whole), the gods weren't there... So now, we're left with gods being "metaphysical," or in "heaven," which is a realm that cannot be touched by mortals.

Using something of the scientific method, we can take the holy books/beliefs of religion and disprove individual deities, for those who were doubting or wavering in their beliefs. Obviously, there are some who cling on to their beliefs no matter the evidence and knowledge presented to them.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right.

And that, I think, is why you're getting the 'burden of proof' thing backwards.



If I'm going to claim that something is true, the burden of proof is on me, not the guy who doesn't believe me.


So if we're trying (for some reason) to establish who is 'right', it's up to the person who claims that God exists to prove that claim, not the person who doesn't believe them to disprove it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Spoiler:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Let's assume that an Atheist who is also a scientist attempts to explore the idea that God or set of Gods exist exists. They search for proof/evidence but eventually end their search without ever finding proof/evidence of a God or set of Gods and/or finding proof that at least of the things a particular religion holds as fact to be impossible. Now, this isn't proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods doesn't exist, but it's more than good enough for this Atheist/Scientist to conclude that there likely is no God or set of Gods. This is what I mean when I say there's a Burden of Proof for Atheists. I'm not saying that scientific method can definitively prove that God/Gods don't exist, but it can bring us to the point where we can draw reasonable conclusions about their existence.


(1) If there was any definitive proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods, the position of Agnosticism (as it's currently described) wouldn't exist because we'd be able to rationally explain the existence of a God or set of Gods.

(2) As mentioned earlier, Scientific Method cannot definitively prove the absence of a God or set of Gods, ergo we still can't completely and rationally explain the absence of a God or set of Gods.

While I agree with your premise, I personally think that one can set out to disprove the existence of a particular deity/group of deities.

For instance, there's a meme on a few atheist FB pages that outline how some Western philosophies developed: For the Greeks, the gods lived on Olympus. A person managed to go up, and back down Olympus. Discovering that the gods were not there, religion moved god/gods to the next thing: the "heavens." having conquered flight (as well as one religion sort of swallowing most others in Europe whole), the gods weren't there... So now, we're left with gods being "metaphysical," or in "heaven," which is a realm that cannot be touched by mortals.

Using something of the scientific method, we can take the holy books/beliefs of religion and disprove individual deities, for those who were doubting or wavering in their beliefs. Obviously, there are some who cling on to their beliefs no matter the evidence and knowledge presented to them.

I agree, but we can't do this for every possible God and religion. So in other words, for every religion and/or God/Set of Gods we disprove via such methods, there'll be more that we can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right.

And that, I think, is why you're getting the 'burden of proof' thing backwards.

If I'm going to claim that something is true, the burden of proof is on me, not the guy who doesn't believe me.

So if we're trying (for some reason) to establish who is 'right', it's up to the person who claims that God exists to prove that claim, not the person who doesn't believe them to disprove it.

Fair point. I will concede to this.

I will also say that it could still be argued that Atheists still bear a Burden of Proof since it wouldn't go amiss to have something that could trump the whole concept of the Leap of Faith which many religions/beliefs require, but that's a different ballgame to whether or not a God or Set of Gods exists.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right. In light of this, I feel that the Burden of Proof for Theists (especially those who try to convince others of their beliefs) is higher because not only is this the point to which Atheism is the counter-claim, but any and every religion is a standalone claim in their own right which posits the existence of the supernatural (in one sense or another).

Atheism is not always a claim or a counter-claim.

What I often find strange is when someone claims one or the other but then also clings to a diametrically opposed idea. An example is Paul Ryan both strongly advocating (a specific form of) Christianity while also advocating Ayn Rand, going so far as to make some of her writings required reading.

Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".




*I just randomly picked a constellation title.

 Ahtman wrote:
What I often find strange is when someone claims one or the other but then also clings to a diametrically opposed idea. An example is Paul Ryan both strongly advocating (a specific form of) Christianity while also advocating Ayn Rand, going so far as to make some of her writings required reading.

Honestly I think that is mostly explained by Paul Ryan being nowhere near as thoughtful as he pretends to be. But then of course I'd think that, I'm a virgo.

 insaniak wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd bet most atheists would say that the question of deity comes down to a matter of probabilities, and not certainties.

More or less. I'm happy to entertain the idea that there might be a god (because I can't prove that there isn't one) but I think it's extremely improbable.


And having spent some time with the Bible, if the Christian God does exist, he's not a being I want anything to do with, frankly, because his sales material really doesn't paint him in a particularly rosy light.

This is my feeling exactly. There could a God we aren't aware or taught of. If it exists it has no interests in our lives. I feel the Gods people worship are pretty terrible things. You know...hiding their existence - begging for attention by threatening your entire existence in torture? Pretty pathetic Gods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Spoiler:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Let's assume that an Atheist who is also a scientist attempts to explore the idea that God or set of Gods exist exists. They search for proof/evidence but eventually end their search without ever finding proof/evidence of a God or set of Gods and/or finding proof that at least of the things a particular religion holds as fact to be impossible. Now, this isn't proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods doesn't exist, but it's more than good enough for this Atheist/Scientist to conclude that there likely is no God or set of Gods. This is what I mean when I say there's a Burden of Proof for Atheists. I'm not saying that scientific method can definitively prove that God/Gods don't exist, but it can bring us to the point where we can draw reasonable conclusions about their existence.


(1) If there was any definitive proof/evidence that a God or set of Gods, the position of Agnosticism (as it's currently described) wouldn't exist because we'd be able to rationally explain the existence of a God or set of Gods.

(2) As mentioned earlier, Scientific Method cannot definitively prove the absence of a God or set of Gods, ergo we still can't completely and rationally explain the absence of a God or set of Gods.

While I agree with your premise, I personally think that one can set out to disprove the existence of a particular deity/group of deities.

For instance, there's a meme on a few atheist FB pages that outline how some Western philosophies developed: For the Greeks, the gods lived on Olympus. A person managed to go up, and back down Olympus. Discovering that the gods were not there, religion moved god/gods to the next thing: the "heavens." having conquered flight (as well as one religion sort of swallowing most others in Europe whole), the gods weren't there... So now, we're left with gods being "metaphysical," or in "heaven," which is a realm that cannot be touched by mortals.

Using something of the scientific method, we can take the holy books/beliefs of religion and disprove individual deities, for those who were doubting or wavering in their beliefs. Obviously, there are some who cling on to their beliefs no matter the evidence and knowledge presented to them.

I agree, but we can't do this for every possible God and religion. So in other words, for every religion and/or God/Set of Gods we disprove via such methods, there'll be more that we can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
Now, I should point out that I feel that - to some extent or another - Atheism is a counter-claim to religion as opposed to a standalone claim in its own right.

And that, I think, is why you're getting the 'burden of proof' thing backwards.

If I'm going to claim that something is true, the burden of proof is on me, not the guy who doesn't believe me.

So if we're trying (for some reason) to establish who is 'right', it's up to the person who claims that God exists to prove that claim, not the person who doesn't believe them to disprove it.

Fair point. I will concede to this.

I will also say that it could still be argued that Atheists still bear a Burden of Proof since it wouldn't go amiss to have something that could trump the whole concept of the Leap of Faith which many religions/beliefs require, but that's a different ballgame to whether or not a God or Set of Gods exists.

It's fairly easy to prove false many of the events that are depicted in the bible/old testament/quran - whatever holy book. Doesn't matter for the most part to the believers - they consider these arguments tricks and tests to their faiths. This is where I become angry - when facts are ignored and noses go up into the air.

 Ahtman wrote:
What I often find strange is when someone claims one or the other but then also clings to a diametrically opposed idea. An example is Paul Ryan both strongly advocating (a specific form of) Christianity while also advocating Ayn Rand, going so far as to make some of her writings required reading.

Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".

Spoiler:

*I just randomly picked a constellation title.

Part of that I'd attribute to politicians having "sellable qualities", i.e. they adjust their views and opinions to match the voter base.

 jasper76 wrote:
Presumably, decent educational standards would be a non-sectarian issue.

It seems the religious fringe is always trying to "protect" people from any information that contradicts or might be interpreted to contradict the Christian religion.

But left-wingers should not be smug about education. They are pretty much solely responsible for the Puritanical streak ripping through higher education, pumping out a generation of over-protected, constantly offended, entitled clones.

Alas you are correct. You have to also weave in a bit of personal accountability. I see it every day. 18 year old comes in for whatever reason, thinks we will change for him. My organization does not bend, it bends you. Can't follow instructions, lie when they get caught, fail to have integrity with each other, and further more expect everything given without putting in the work. There definately has to be a middle ground between puritanical education, and sissification that seems to be going on. Lets teach our children the universe doesn't owe you shizzle, work for what you want/need and take accountability for your actions. Then maybe we will see things change a bit.

 redleger wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Presumably, decent educational standards would be a non-sectarian issue.

It seems the religious fringe is always trying to "protect" people from any information that contradicts or might be interpreted to contradict the Christian religion.

But left-wingers should not be smug about education. They are pretty much solely responsible for the Puritanical streak ripping through higher education, pumping out a generation of over-protected, constantly offended, entitled clones.

Alas you are correct. You have to also weave in a bit of personal accountability. I see it every day. 18 year old comes in for whatever reason, thinks we will change for him. My organization does not bend, it bends you. Can't follow instructions, lie when they get caught, fail to have integrity with each other, and further more expect everything given without putting in the work. There definately has to be a middle ground between puritanical education, and sissification that seems to be going on. Lets teach our children the universe doesn't owe you shizzle, work for what you want/need and take accountability for your actions. Then maybe we will see things change a bit.

I think their isn't a scale that ranges from puritanical to what you are describing. I tend to notice that my most religious peers tend to be the most sheltered by their parents. Also religious conservatives don't expose their children to issues like LGBT issues and such, under the assumption that being exposed to things that aren't the norm are going to permanently scar them.

I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything, but I have failed to encounter anyone who is constantly offended on the left, and I volunteer with several democratic campaigns. What I HAVE encountered are the people above, who are offended by the world at large, offended by people having different viewpoints, sexual orientations, skin colors, and gender identity than theirs.

Honestly I think it is the boomers projecting, they had some great economic conditions and screwed things up for the following generations, and then the meme about my generation is just something fashionable to pass around. Although it just might be that I surround myself with good people.

On the perspective of being entitled, every generation that are children are entitled to things. Because they are children, and the government requires it. That being said, I think most people my age understand that they have to work really hard if they want something. Especially considering the growing wealth gap and economic conditions that we have had no part in.

They're not hard to find. They typically look like this, and can be found in significant numbers on most college campuses:

 jasper76 wrote:
They're not hard to find. They typically look like this, and can be found in significant numbers on most college campuses:

Is she a millennial? And didn't she get fired for her remarks? If anything, she looks like she was born in the late seventies/early eighties.

Edit:Also, this is a college campus in the middle of missouri. Anyone else notice the really annoying filter on the video?

Edit: Not claiming that every single millennial does not fit the stereotype. Just seems like you guys are beating up a strawman of our generation.

I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.

 jasper76 wrote:
I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.

Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.

Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.

Yes, in fact many of the professors I had in school were of this general stripe, most of whom still teach at the college I attended.

 jasper76 wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.

Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.

Yes, in fact many of the professors I had in school were of this general stripe, most of whom still teach at the college I attended.

What was your degree in? Just curious, because I'm assuming most of those professors tend to be on the English/Vocational Arts side. My Engineering/math professors were all either right-wing or never discussed politics in the classroom.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.

Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.

Yes, in fact many of the professors I had in school were of this general stripe, most of whom still teach at the college I attended.

What was your degree in? Just curious, because I'm assuming most of those professors tend to be on the English/Vocational Arts side. My Engineering/math professors were all either right-wing or never discussed politics in the classroom.

The few college professors I know outside of dual enrollment classes who teach science or math tend to be libertarian/classic liberals.

The only professor I had who discussed anything resembling politics was an expert in Industrial Relations. He addressed it from the factual angle.

Still, though, while this is a fascinating digression, it is definitely a tangent from the actual topic.