Dispelling another left-wing LIE: Only Republicans & the right are anti-science.

How about comparing apples to lugnuts?

Abortion is the INTENTIONAL killing of the unborn...no one is saying people should be DENIED healthcare. If you want healthcare...pay for it.

However, if you want to compare those who push abortions & death panels...now you might be on to something...

 

Yep. Denial of basic science by liberals is rather hypocritical, given that they consider themselves to be the 'elite'...

 

In your mind the Washington Post is left-wing?


Similarly in your mind, the New York Times is equivalent to the USA Today?


Some people on the right are so incredibly clueless that is embarrassing. The USA today is not a joke because of any political bent, it is a joke because it is written on a level which is amenable to the lowest common denominator. It is like the morning show of daily broadsheet newspapers. No one of intelligence takes it seriously, and it has nothing to do with their politics.


PS. Though that in no way addresses the article. The article points to very real trends, but where it falls flat is in saying these trends are just as prevalent among Democrats as opposition to evolution and global warming is among Republicans. That simply isn't true. There ARE Democrats who think that way, but they are a minority. Republicans who ignore science in favor of politics are a huge majority.

 

I'm surprised the writer didn't talk about racial differences. If I was going to write a post on "anti-science liberals" I'd probably include that.

http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123

There are people all around the spectrum who ignore science when it's convenient. People have a tendency to latch on to ideas first and think up justifications for them later when roadblocks get in the way. (I'm guilty of that)

 

What does this silly and irrelevant cartoon have to do with anything?

 

That article is really bad. It tries to make an argument that the left ignores science and takes some REALLY BAD examples to try to prove it.

The hate against nuke power is NOT a science issue. The people mostly know the facts. They just are scared of those VERY RARE meltdowns like what just happened in Japan. Statistically very rare but still very possible.
I myself and for nuclear power. But I can fully understand why some people don't like it AND I realize it's not for scientific reasons. They don't like it because they don't like the risks associated with it.

Also, animal rights is ANOTHER non-science issue. Some people just believe animals deserve more rights. Like the nuclear issue I DO NOT AGREE and am pro-animal testing (except on endangered animals). However the argument here is equally weak because it's not a science issue.

Science cannot prove morals or ethics.

 

So you didn't have a point, you were just trolling. That is all I needed to know.

 

Anti-Science you say? No science is the sender we can trust, but we can't always trust the message we receive from science. Well sometimes you have to agree that yes the messenger, the scientist middle-man, was rewriting the message every chance he got, so that the messenger is unreliable.

Take Nuclear power. We've learned that the industry was given special favors to dumb down safety requirements. Nuclear contamination has been found in drinking water across the USA above safety levels. Safety levels that were already elevated to take into account the daily radiation dose we get from Chernobyl-contaminated dust scattered across the northern hemisphere, not to mention the strontium atoms we've absorbed into our bodies, since 1980s, because our bodies think it is calcium.

Now take genetically modified food. Did you know there is an Apple species in the UK that escaped into the wild, it has a red inside? Everyone's fears about GM-nature contamination became true, because that GM Apple has a genetic code so strong that it alters (cross-pollinates with) the natural apple trees and turns them into the GM form. They are in the wild, spreading like weeds, wiping out the natural apples.

Finally, take the vaccines. I agree that there are important vaccines to get, and I also think the HPV vaccine is important (Studies say 50% of men have HPV). However, Mercury build up in the body is something to be afraid of and exposure should be limited whenever possible to essential life-threatening diseases only.

 

The issues some "anti-science" dems disagree with in that article aren't matters of accepting science. They're matters of safety and morality. Very few of the anti-vacc dems think that vaccines don't work. I would go so far as to bet that less than 1% of the adult population thinks that vaccines don't work. The anti-vacc people simply think that the vaccines have bad side effects. Same with nuclear power. We all know that nuclear energy is real, but some people are afraid of the meltdowns that do happen, or their concerned about proper waste disposal. Lastly, we all know that testing on animals is effective. Some people just think the rights of animals are equally important as the rights of humans.

Contrast that with the rep anti-science issues: evolution and global warming (embryonic stem cells excluded, as that's a morality issue). The rep camps that disagree with those two ideas think that they aren't real. They don't think that evolution is physically dangerous, or that global warming is morally offensive. They think these things just don't exist/aren't happening.

I'm sure the are some dems/progressives who disbelieve some scientific ideas. However, the anti-science contingent in the republican party is much larger and more influential than the anti-science faction in the dem party.

 

That was a very interesting article... Now do me a favor and list for me the Democratic presidential candidates in modern history that have suggested that vaccines are dangerous and maybe parents shouldn't get their kids vaccinated. No rush... take your time.

 

I gotta go with the Cat on that one.

 

First off, people must have the cognitive capacity to understand science, and how to interpret the data. In seeing the radical simple minded banter here on the forum and the bolsetering of party affiliation, I can assure you conservatives lack that cognitive ability.

Science is more than a true or false question, and has more explaination that a simple yes or no answer. Science is more complex than the simple explainations of 12 year old mentality. It takes a developed brain to apply scientific models and interpret scientific conclusions. By the way, Scientology does not count as real science, nore does christian science.

If you do not understan what I state here, I will not waist my time trying to explain it to one that lacks the cognitive capacity to understand.

In other words, I refuse to go to a war of intellect against a enemy who has no weapons.

 

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Yeah...tell me about 'waisting' your time...you sound about as knowledgeable on science as Planned Parenthood:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3eUVjnhs1c"]Planned Parenthood's "War on Science" [/ame]

 

Your post and the article are in themselves misleading by using false premises, i.e., only Republicans and the right are anti-science

Now if we were to compare the percentages, right wingers overwhelmingly disregard science.

 

Ya and then the right tries to turn this into a debate about abortion.

Impressive...and so very intellectually opaque.

 

Yup, but now we can track them....

Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'



Researchers have determined that genetics could matter when it comes to some adults' political leanings.

According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, "ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4." That and how many friends you had during high school.

Source: Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene' | NBC San Diego


All we gotta do now is build a Liberal Gene detector and install it on predator drones...

 

Would it be too much to ask, for you to at least attempt to make a substantive contribution to this forum? I know trolling is easier, but thinking and posting substantively is more satisfying. You should try it, you may like it.

 

Did you read the article? It compares not believing in evolution to the point of being carefull with geneticly modified crops.

One is anti science, the other is calling for science to answer questions.

LOL

 

I know you have serious comprehension issues, but I thought even YOU could grasp the lunacy of the liberal's darling -Planned Parenthood - war on science.

Too much for you, eh? Too bad.

 

Or gender differences either, for that matter. But for all of their inconsistencies, at least the left is consistent with one thing; they consistently only support or believe in something when it substantiates part of their agenda. Be it science, tolerance, equality, or what have you, they will support it to the death when it backs up something they are peddling, but they will abandon it in the blink of an eye the minute it no longer serves them.

They literally don't understand the idea of unbiased commitment to principle.

 

So unsurprisingly the answer is no.

 

Still waiting...

 

When have any Liberals argued against any pre-natal science?

You are not more likely to get AIDS from gay sex. You are more likely to get AIDS from having unprotected sex with a gay person who has AIDS.

Having sex with a gay person who doesn't have AIDS will not give you AIDS no matter how many times you do it.