How many Republicans attended a March for Science today?

Indeed, more and more people are waking up to the sham of the Democratic Party being a "diverse" and "tolerant" party. Here's a hint to see how tolerant you are: Can you refer to Donald Trump without the "orange" RACIAL insult?

 

To each their own. I disagree. I think in addition to putting power in the hands of those who already have too much, they also create the illusion that if you are wealthy enough, you can get out of all the taxes via loopholes. I also think in the effort to chase those loopholes, they cause unintended activity in the economy.

 

I live in Houston, which is a very liberal city in a very red state.

 

You may be accurate regarding yourself, but many who have been out demonstrating since the Inauguration are simply puppets of people like Soros, whether they believe so or not. The happiest puppet is the oblivious one.

 

I never claimed Soros was a Marxist. There are wheels within wheels in politics today.

 

Non-sequitur, but as Woody Allen said, "A woman is a woman, but a cigar is a smoke".

 

Regardless of how they dress, it is unfortunate that those who participate are mostly liberals. But anybody can. I'm sure there were conservatives there.

About the calls for government support, I don't know how you came to such conclusion If we go by the signs, most were just about Science in general. Of the scientific areas mentioned specifically, there was most certainly many on biology. Mostly those that are being attacked by the right for purely political reasons. .But I did see some ingenious signs in which Sociology and Psychology were addressed... even computer Science.

The problem about these forums is that people can through general, fuzzy and meaningless, ad-hominem attacks against any group of people, and they don't feel they need to back them up with facts. This "liberal" here (me) would be very open to an epistemological discussion about absolutely any science. I underline "epistemological" discussion. Ontological ones too. But only if I know of anything worth saying.

In science, it doesn't matter what scientists agree on or not. The only thing that matters is what they can prove.

On the other hand "science of xxxx is decided" is just a poorly worded statement. Some parts of Climate science (as in any science) are settled, some aren't.

If you are referring to the consensus position on Global Warming, the problem here is that many people confuse two things. And I have seen this more on the right, but not completely absent on the left. They confuse Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW (which is settled Science to the degree in which anything can be considered settled in Science), with Climate Change (which still has many open questions)

 

Higher Education? Since when? The conversation, to my knowledge revolved around teaching children about "waxing the shiv".Joycelyn Elders, remember her during the Clinton Reign of Terror, suggested teaching little children about masturbation. This is not my history, this is the history of the American Left. The Left in this country have this fascination with becoming like Europe, which has lead those who listen to them and just about everyone in this country, into the madness we are faced with now.

 

Not only do they want to do away with facts and skepticism, they would like to also do away with MORALS and TRIED AND TESTED WAYS AND MORAYS that have been in existence since FOREVER! Liberals hate facts that do not "agree" with their thinking, nor anything that limits their imposition upon others, of what they deem as appropriate, which is NOTHING! Yeah, you can say that I do not like Liberals nor Leftist people. They cause more harm than good.

 

It seems you missed my entire point. My point is that, using science as a shield to prevent debate of a political issue is nonsense. This is particularly true if you consider how many other scientific fields run counter to the views of those who lob this attack at others. For example, Conservatives generally do not call Liberals science deniers when they say a fetus is not a person, even though it has a different blood type and DNA of the mother. (please don't spawn an abortion debate; it's just an example)

 

Yet, these who swear by Climate Change LOVE Albert, "The Conman" Gore. He actually does jet around in his private jet, using limousines, using SUVs as limousines and charges astronomical fees for his flock to hear him. He is a hypocrite, plain and simple.

 

Ok. I just find it strange that you would know that the people who Soros finances are marxists, but Soros doesn't

 

He also sold his company to Big Oil, whatever that means.

 

I love your comment about "What ever that means"

 

Not mine. I was commenting on a post by SillyAmerican that dealt with Higher education. If you follow the up arrow ↑ on each post you can trace it back.

I'm not easily "shocked" by government officials bringing up sexual education matters up for Public discussion before implementation. I think it's a good thing. They may be right and we agree that it should be implemented, or they may be wrong and we don't.

Myself, I think I received pretty good sexual education in school. Including some excellent and surprisingly open conferences carried out by some Catholic monks who were invited by my school. Not in the U.S. though. And information about masturbation was provided. We got a chance to learn that many of the things we learned from our "peers" about the subject were actually myths.

 

Well, we are told oil companies are fat cats making huge profits. Yet, they are publicly traded, and their stock sucks ass. If they are making such big profits, how come nobody wants to hold that stock long term?

 

True.

We're seeing government by executive order along with tax bills that ensure gigantic sums for the wealthy and big business while every analysis shows it will add trillions to the debt.

I don't see any responsibility and there isn't even an attempt to pretend that Dems are part of this government, representing people like ME!

 

No, there is NO CHANCE that one idea on curbing carbon without using regulation is actually affecting the understanding of climate change.

You're suggesting the general public is just plain stupid.

 

What are you on about? The DNC is getting everything it wants under Trump! They have blocked literally everything he is doing. He hasn't been able to pass anything, and his EO's are all tied up in court by partisan judges who know damn well they will lose at the SCOTUS.

The notion that he is just pushing his agenda uninhibited could not be further from reality.

 

Human nature is a thing, guy. When you come out with a highly sensationalized movie, that says the world will end tomorrow, or perhaps next week, and the cure is your heating bill will triple, that makes folks hold a grudge. This is then further hampered when next week comes, and we are all still here.

 

Kind of like what took place with the supposed "Rapture", the next day came and I was still alive along with everyone else.

 

I don't know what you are on about.

 

Sorry. I disagree. I happen to think that whenever it is possible to have science settle any discussion (political or otherwise), the debate should be over. But only to the point where it can settle a discussion. Which is not often.

I would call a "science denier" anybody who gratuitously denies Science. I don't care if they're conservative or liberal.

You bring up a great example. I would like to piggy-back on it.

First the background (which you probably know, but I'll enumerate briefly so we are on the same page) :

In your example, the first thing is to determine what "live person" means. A person is considered dead when there are no brain waves (by which I mean "cortical activity" or the type of waves that are measured with an EEG) . That's why it's not immoral to throw them into a hole in the ground. Peer-reviewed scientific studies agree that "brain waves" start at about 24 weeks of gestation. This is not "settled" science, though. Mainly because most experiments in this area are now considered unethical. And justifiably so, in my opinion. What we do know is that neural connections are not present before 22 weeks. These are the facts. what follows are the "opinions"

From the fact that at 22 weeks the embryo is not a "live person", I draw my own position which is that we should allow abortion only up to 20 weeks. Just to play it safe... (with the customary exceptions, of course)

Now.... back to our discussion. Anybody who disagrees with my position is not a "science denier". There are many moral conclusions that could be extrapolated from the science. Others might say that they don't care what the science says, and they use religion (for example) as their parameter. Those are definitely not science deniers either. But anybody who denies the science itself. Who says that the studies don't exist, and refuses to look at them when you supply a reference, without pointing to peer-reviewed studies concluding otherwise, is most definitely a science denier.

The same happens with Climate Change. The science is there. Lots of it. And I can point to it (http://ipcc.ch/) And yet, there are those who say it doesn't exist. Or that it's not valid, but don't show a body of evidence with peer-reviewed research contradicting it.... those are science deniers.

And, as I have said many times, it's not meant as an insult. It's just a description of an observable fact.

 

You're right. He and DiCaprio are the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker of GW. Delivering doom and gloom like an Evangelist preacher while riding in style and luxury. He demands 15 trillion dollars, and we all know his own life style won't suffer 15 cents worth.

 

Thanks for making my point better than I ever could. Using science as an excuse to not have the debate about the moral issue, is no better than using science in order to not have a debate about the political issue.

For the record, I say this a person who is pro-life personally, but pro-choice politically. I think there are smart and honest people who disagree with me, and they should not have my concerns rammed down their throats. In controversial issues, it's best for the government to stay out of them, wherever possible. At least, that is how I see things.

Thanks for the post, it was an interesting read.