You know, just once I’d like the fucking media to stop painting Republicans as anti-science. Ok, global warming, fine I’ll give you that as a freebie–but how many fucking hundreds of science issues are there OUTSIDE global warming and abortion (which is properly an ethical issue, not a science issue). I mean for crying out loud I know a ton of scientists who happen to also be Republicans. And just because someone’s pet issue isn’t supported [i]doesn’t mean you have to label a full 50% of the political spectrum anti-science![/i]
I thought being skeptical was being scientific…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I thought being skeptical was being scientific…
[/quote]
Nope. Towing the general consensus party line is science.
I learned this during the Planet of the Apes from Dr. Zaius. All facts to the contrary of approved theory are forbidden.
Like, for example, it is agreed by all that there has been no warming, whatsoever, in the last 15 years.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I thought being skeptical was being scientific…
[/quote]
Nope. Towing the general consensus party line is science.
I learned this during the Planet of the Apes from Dr. Zaius. All facts to the contrary of approved theory are forbidden.
Like, for example, it is agreed by all that there has been no warming, whatsoever, in the last 15 years.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/[/quote]
Then Al Gore can not make his millions of dollars.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
You know, just once I’d like the fucking media to stop painting Republicans as anti-science. Ok, global warming, fine I’ll give you that as a freebie–but how many fucking hundreds of science issues are there OUTSIDE global warming and abortion (which is properly an ethical issue, not a science issue). I mean for crying out loud I know a ton of scientists who happen to also be Republicans. And just because someone’s pet issue isn’t supported [i]doesn’t mean you have to label a full 50% of the political spectrum anti-science![/i][/quote]
Just off the top of my head:
How about the mostly republican objections to:
evolution,
stem-cell research,
birth control,
their doubts about carbon dating that conflict with their ideas of the age of the earth
and their continued perpetuation of the ABC link (look it up).
Sorry pal, when many of the people in your party hold these positions, you are anti-science.
I will not even mention their backwards ass views on funding scientific research or the fact that they ignored the vast majority of the statistics regarding our most recent presidential election.
jnd
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
You know, just once I’d like the fucking media to stop painting Republicans as anti-science. Ok, global warming, fine I’ll give you that as a freebie–but how many fucking hundreds of science issues are there OUTSIDE global warming and abortion (which is properly an ethical issue, not a science issue). I mean for crying out loud I know a ton of scientists who happen to also be Republicans. And just because someone’s pet issue isn’t supported [i]doesn’t mean you have to label a full 50% of the political spectrum anti-science![/i][/quote]
Just off the top of my head:
How about the mostly republican objections to:
evolution,
stem-cell research,
birth control,
their doubts about carbon dating that conflict with their ideas of the age of the earth
and their continued perpetuation of the ABC link (look it up).
Sorry pal, when many of the people in your party hold these positions, you are anti-science.
I will not even mention their backwards ass views on funding scientific research or the fact that they ignored the vast majority of the statistics regarding our most recent presidential election.
jnd[/quote]
Are you for real??
First, it’s not my fucking party. I have never registered for them and I will never register for them, at least as far as I can see.
So, all parallelograms are squares huh. I certainly hope YOU’RE not running our math and science funding at least.
I found these two quotes eye catching. I really want to know what these astrobiologist had to say.
Noah’s Ark was also real:
[quote]jnd wrote:
How about the mostly republican objections to:
evolution,
stem-cell research,
birth control,
their doubts about carbon dating that conflict with their ideas of the age of the earth
and their continued perpetuation of the ABC link (look it up).
Sorry pal, when many of the people in your party hold these positions, you are anti-science.
[/quote]
The Gospel Left believe/object to many of these things as well. It just doesn’t sit well with the mainstream media to point out that Black, religious Southerners (who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, surprise!) share many of the same beliefs as the Religious Right.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
How about the mostly republican objections to:
evolution,
stem-cell research,
birth control,
their doubts about carbon dating that conflict with their ideas of the age of the earth
and their continued perpetuation of the ABC link (look it up).
Sorry pal, when many of the people in your party hold these positions, you are anti-science.
[/quote]
The Gospel Left believe/object to many of these things as well. It just doesn’t sit well with the mainstream media to point out that Black, religious Southerners (who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, surprise!) share many of the same beliefs as the Religious Right.
[/quote]
This is true, but if you’re going to hear batshit crazy the Earth is only 6,000 years old lunacy you are much more likely to hear it in a Republican primary. Not that no Democrats feel that way (Democrats also have lunatic religious believers).
You’re more likely to hear scientific bullshit coming from Republican candidates who often must prove how much they love God. You’re more likely to hear fiscal bullshit coming from Democratic candidates who must prove they hate rich people.*
- Obviously both sides have exceptions to these rules so spare me finding the quotes.
I live in Kansas but you can find the same example in Texas. The anti-evolution crowd trying to get creationism taught in science is almost predominantly Republican. We even have some wackos on here who I’ve argued with about it before.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I thought being skeptical was being scientific…
[/quote]
A lot of people believe Noah’s Ark word for word. Being skeptical about the contradictory evidence to that is not being scientific. It’s being flat delusional. It’s not scientific to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, it’s flat delusional.
Here is a politician who must have a real scientific mind. He must be a Republican?Oh, no?I am wrong again.
But then, I remember when Julian Bond introduced legislation in Georgia to vaccinate children against sickle cell disease.
(Later expunged, and changed to a testing program.)
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Here is a politician who must have a real scientific mind. He must be a Republican?Oh, no?I am wrong again.
But then, I remember when Julian Bond introduced legislation in Georgia to vaccinate children against sickle cell disease.
(Later expunged, and changed to a testing program.)
[/quote]
Who’s arguing that the Republicans are the only party with idiots? No one in this thread.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Here is a politician who must have a real scientific mind. He must be a Republican?Oh, no?I am wrong again.
But then, I remember when Julian Bond introduced legislation in Georgia to vaccinate children against sickle cell disease.
(Later expunged, and changed to a testing program.)
[/quote]
Who’s arguing that the Republicans are the only party with idiots? No one in this thread. [/quote]
It merely serves the cause of realism to provide an occasional example.
Aragorn, am I correct in believing that you subscribe to the theory of evolution?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Here is a politician who must have a real scientific mind. He must be a Republican?Oh, no?I am wrong again.
But then, I remember when Julian Bond introduced legislation in Georgia to vaccinate children against sickle cell disease.
(Later expunged, and changed to a testing program.)
[/quote]
Who’s arguing that the Republicans are the only party with idiots? No one in this thread. [/quote]
It merely serves the cause of realism to provide an occasional example.[/quote]
Perhaps, but pointing out that I can find Democrats talking about reducing government spending doesn’t mean I would call them the party of fiscal conservatism. On the whole the type of candidates the Republicans seem to be currently in love with are frequently anti-science. Pushes to have creationism taught in science class is largely coming from them. Does that mean 0 Democrats agree with them? Of course not.
For fucks sake Texas Republicans wanted to ban critical thinking. And the scary thing is that instead of people like that being kicked out of the party Republicans double down with the type of candidates who believe in legitimate rape and other nonsense.
As a rational person I can’t vote for dumbass Democrats who aim to push on a path towards more government control. But how the fuck can I vote for a party who wants to teach creationism in science class? Who thinks the science teacher should open to the Old Testament to date the Earth? How can logical Republicans (and I think we have some on here) not laugh these people out of the gym?
[quote]H factor wrote:
…
For fucks sake Texas Republicans wanted to ban critical thinking. [/quote]
Looks like they succeeded.
[quote]H factor wrote:
It’s scientific to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, it’s flat.
[/quote]
HA! GOTCHA!
Please ignore the selective editing. I’m working toward a career in journalism.
LOL!
Good one Skyzyks