What is it with conservatism and science?

[Khadgar]

So there aren't Revisionist Liberals? They are also Revisionist Republicans, I'm not saying that there isn't.

Oh I'm sure there are. There's kooks of every political persuasion you, I, or Zeus would care to think of. I find your specific example that there's a liberal push to not teach about the Holocaust however laughable.

[Biteme]

"Global warming is a hoax"*

*If you must argue with this, do it in another thread. This isn't the point of this topic.

Then why give it as an example? There is no solid science indicating man-made global warming exists, so this is a completey ridiculous example of your point. ...but you already knew this or you wouldn't have felt it necessary to say that. Your creationism/evolution example is just as invalid. You need to do some more research as to what those terms mean. Creationism has many different forms, and you focus on the literal Biblical interpretation espoused by a few Protestant sects. A more educated understanding of what creationism entails leads to no conflict with evolution at all. Evolution deals with how things evolve from other things. In spite of widespread misconceptions on the matter, evolution does NOT pretend to explain how things started. Creationism, on the other hand, offers explanations of the ultimate origin of life but does not describe the mechanics of what happens after that. There is no conflict, except for those who intentionally just base their understanding of the topics on some bigoted sound bites. Please don't be one of those people.

Now, if you have ACTUAL examples of bad science out there, feel free to present them, but please don't make ridiculous and unsupported generalizations like that without even having a basic understanding of what you are stating.

[Megaloria]

But some Liberals want only certain material to be taught "inoffensive material." and also I too believe that God gave man and animals the ability to adapt and evolve to survive.

Such as?

Some Liberals are revisionist historians. Some also think that the Holocaust shouldn't be taught, because some germans might take offense.

Maybe revisionist is too strong a word. I agree that there a lot of very frustrating liberals who have their head in the sand about personal responsibility. They don't want to teach about the Holocaust because it might offend someone. It SHOULD offend everyone. It should make people sick to their stomach. This is how we learn lessons. Stained-Glass Liberals are all find and dandy when they show off their diverse colours, but they lack the transparency of a simple window.

[Lizardiar]

I've never heard that. Where do you live?

East Coast. I have learned from the internet to never say exactly where you are from. I am in a democrat controlled state and that is all I am saying about which state.

I hear the insane arguements like, lets get rid of suger, butter, and salt in schools because its the schools fault kids are fat.

[Dempublicents1]

I've never heard that. Where do you live?

East Coast. I have learned from the internet to never say exactly where you are from. I am in a democrat controlled state and that is all I am saying about which state.

I hear the insane arguements like, lets get rid of suger, butter, and salt in schools because its the schools fault kids are fat.

I think the argument is more like, 'Let's serve healthier foods in schools, since children generally eat at least one of their meals here, and too many children are overweight."

[Khadgar]

I've never heard that. Where do you live?

East Coast. I have learned from the internet to never say exactly where you are from. I am in a democrat controlled state and that is all I am saying about which state.

I hear the insane arguements like, lets get rid of suger, butter, and salt in schools because its the schools fault kids are fat.

Well that's just absurd. Everyone knows it's McDonald's fault. Or Coke, or Pepsi. I don't remember which it is this week.

Though I do think school food leaves a great deal to be desired in the healthful category, also the food designation seems to be misapplied.

[Ferrous Oxide]

Does anybody else miss the days when conservatism stood for something? Now everybody thinks it means "We hate gays and Jews".

[Khadgar]

Does anybody else miss the days when conservatism stood for something? Now everybody thinks it means "We hate gays and Jews".

Welcome to America. They also hate taxes and science.

[Farnhamia]

Does anybody else miss the days when conservatism stood for something? Now everybody thinks it means "We hate gays and Jews".

Since Bill Buckley died there hasn't been a conservative I'd care to listen to.

[Lizardiar]

I've never heard that. Where do you live?

East Coast. I have learned from the internet to never say exactly where you are from. I am in a democrat controlled state and that is all I am saying about which state.

I hear the insane arguements like, lets get rid of suger, butter, and salt in schools because its the schools fault kids are fat.

Well that's just absurd. Everyone knows it's McDonald's fault. Or Coke, or Pepsi. I don't remember which it is this week.

Though I do think school food leaves a great deal to be desired in the healthful category, also the food designation seems to be misapplied.

It isn't anyone else's fault except the parents, they could easily just say "No, your not getting five king-size butterfingers." and it's their responsiblity to feed their kid better, not just sit back and just blame the school for it.

[Ferrous Oxide]

Does anybody else miss the days when conservatism stood for something? Now everybody thinks it means "We hate gays and Jews".

Welcome to America. They also hate taxes and science.

Really, in almost all cases, I'd be considered a liberal. I'm just anti-bullshit; you commit a crime, you go to fucking jail. You intimidate our country, we're not going to pander to you. Is that so complicated?

[JarVik]

I'm not saying it's strange, what I'm saying it's strange that people will argue for something despite all evidence to the contrary that they are incorrect.

You must have seen that as regular occurance on this forum by now so it shouldn't be a big shock its like that in the real world too.

Hell, I'd even expect it to be more common in the real world.

It's not that I don't sympathize, I hate stupid too.

A while back I had an argument with one of my bosses that 3 is a bigger number than 1, and I couldn't convince him that was true! He effectively wanted some numbers to "go away" so he thought we could just divide by 60 to change the units and now everything is decimals. Decimals are small, so all the numbers are the same now so we can ignore them. I spent 20 minutes trying to convince him that it doesn't intrisically change anything by changing the units, he just laughed and said "I can't see how"
I hate having meetings with that guy. The worst part is he's "educated" too

Just remember your dealing with the great unwashed collection of humanity that thinks football games are worth rioting over and that Pro wrestling is entertainment worth paying money for.

[Lizardiar]

Does anybody else miss the days when conservatism stood for something? Now everybody thinks it means "We hate gays and Jews".

Welcome to America. They also hate taxes and science.

Really, in almost all cases, I'd be considered a liberal. I'm just anti-bullshit; you commit a crime, you go to fucking jail. You intimidate our country, we're not going to pander to you. Is that so complicated?

That makes you a Democrat, not a Liberal.

[Khadgar]

East Coast. I have learned from the internet to never say exactly where you are from. I am in a democrat controlled state and that is all I am saying about which state.

I hear the insane arguements like, lets get rid of suger, butter, and salt in schools because its the schools fault kids are fat.

Well that's just absurd. Everyone knows it's McDonald's fault. Or Coke, or Pepsi. I don't remember which it is this week.

Though I do think school food leaves a great deal to be desired in the healthful category, also the food designation seems to be misapplied.

It isn't anyone else's fault except the parents, they could easily just say "No, your not getting five king-size butterfingers." and it's their responsiblity to feed their kid better, not just sit back and just blame the school for it.

Oh I concur, I just think the school ought do a good job of feeding them things that are both edible and not deadly.

[Enadail]

Then why give it as an example? There is no solid science indicating man-made global warming exists, so this is a completey ridiculous example of your point. ...but you already knew this or you wouldn't have felt it necessary to say that. Your creationism/evolution example is just as invalid. You need to do some more research as to what those terms mean. Creationism has many different forms, and you focus on the literal Biblical interpretation espoused by a few Protestant sects. A more educated understanding of what creationism entails leads to no conflict with evolution at all. Evolution deals with how things evolve from other things. In spite of widespread misconceptions on the matter, evolution does NOT pretend to explain how things started. Creationism, on the other hand, offers explanations of the ultimate origin of life but does not describe the mechanics of what happens after that. There is no conflict, except for those who intentionally just base their understanding of the topics on some bigoted sound bites. Please don't be one of those people.

Now, if you have ACTUAL examples of bad science out there, feel free to present them, but please don't make ridiculous and unsupported generalizations like that without even having a basic understanding of what you are stating.

Yaaaah... gotta argue with this one.

There is no solid EVIDENCE (not science... science is a process) that indicates climate change is solely on human actions, but there is sufficient evidence that we're making the problem worse.

When people say creationism, it means literal creationism. People who believe God started evolution are not creationists. When discussing creation vs evolution, the start of the process is a secondary factor, as evolution says NOTHING about the start of life, just the process by which it progresses. So as much as you're trying to smooth out the problem, which is nice, you are sorely mistaken. Creationism, as a colloquial term, does in fact refer to the phrase "God dun it", and not to "God got things started".

[Lizardiar]

Oh I concur, I just think the school ought do a good job of feeding them things that are both edible and not deadly.

But it shouldn't be only the school's responsibility to feed the kids healthy things.

[Farnhamia]

Oh I concur, I just think the school ought do a good job of feeding them things that are both edible and not deadly.

But it shouldn't be only the school's responsibility to feed the kids healthy things.

No one says it is only the school's responsibility.

[Ferrous Oxide]

That makes you a Democrat, not a Liberal.

The Democrats sound about as packed with bullshit at the Republicans, really.

[Ifreann]

Quite simply because they think science will "prove" things contrary to their beliefs.

[Khadgar]

Oh I concur, I just think the school ought do a good job of feeding them things that are both edible and not deadly.

But it shouldn't be only the school's responsibility to feed the kids healthy things.

I agree. What they do feed them should be healthy though, even if they're eating cardboard.

I stopped eating at school at age 13 because it was just nasty.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Why does it seem strange to you that people argue and fight for what they believe in? Also, do you have evidence that what they believe in isn't there? They can't prove it is and you can't prove it isn't.

In logic, and in science, the default position is that of non-existence. The canonical example here is Russell's teapot. While we have no evidence to suggest that there is not a small teapot orbiting the Sun, this does not mean there is.

Then why give it as an example? There is no solid science indicating man-made global warming exists, so this is a completey ridiculous example of your point. ...but you already knew this or you wouldn't have felt it necessary to say that.

Yeah, no.

Your creationism/evolution example is just as invalid. You need to do some more research as to what those terms mean. Creationism has many different forms, and you focus on the literal Biblical interpretation espoused by a few Protestant sects. A more educated understanding of what creationism entails leads to no conflict with evolution at all. Evolution deals with how things evolve from other things. In spite of widespread misconceptions on the matter, evolution does NOT pretend to explain how things started. Creationism, on the other hand, offers explanations of the ultimate origin of life but does not describe the mechanics of what happens after that. There is no conflict, except for those who intentionally just base their understanding of the topics on some bigoted sound bites. Please don't be one of those people.

Given that it we are talking about the sort of people who say "teach the controversy, put [strike]creationism[/i] intelligent design in science classes" yes, there is a conflict.

I also find it amusing you claim that there is no scientific evidence for climate change in one breath, and then defend creationism with the other.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

"Global warming is a hoax"*

*If you must argue with this, do it in another thread. This isn't the point of this topic.

Then why give it as an example? There is no solid science indicating man-made global warming exists, so this is a completey ridiculous example of your point. ...but you already knew this or you wouldn't have felt it necessary to say that. Your creationism/evolution example is just as invalid. You need to do some more research as to what those terms mean. Creationism has many different forms, and you focus on the literal Biblical interpretation espoused by a few Protestant sects. A more educated understanding of what creationism entails leads to no conflict with evolution at all. Evolution deals with how things evolve from other things. In spite of widespread misconceptions on the matter, evolution does NOT pretend to explain how things started. Creationism, on the other hand, offers explanations of the ultimate origin of life but does not describe the mechanics of what happens after that. There is no conflict, except for those who intentionally just base their understanding of the topics on some bigoted sound bites. Please don't be one of those people.

Now, if you have ACTUAL examples of bad science out there, feel free to present them, but please don't make ridiculous and unsupported generalizations like that without even having a basic understanding of what you are stating.

Judging by this post, you're probably not from America, as you seem to dismiss the biblical literalism version of creationism as some "fringe" element. Over here in America, the majority, not the plurality, the majority of adult citizens do not accept evolution. It is disingenuous to dismiss biblical literalism as a fringe element and pretend that most creationists accept evolution.

[Lizardiar]

That makes you a Democrat, not a Liberal.

The Democrats sound about as packed with bullshit at the Republicans, really.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2009/06/17/beck-difference-between-fish-and-politicians


Watch. It's not Democrat bashing either.

[Enadail]

http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2009/06/17/beck-difference-between-fish-and-politicians


Watch. It's not Democrat bashing either.

I'm... I'm not sure what to say... is it odd, the first thing that annoyed me is that he claims the spine helps us make hard decisions, in a literal sense?

[Lizardiar]

http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2009/06/17/beck-difference-between-fish-and-politicians


Watch. It's not Democrat bashing either.

I'm... I'm not sure what to say... is it odd, the first thing that annoyed me is that he claims the spine helps us make hard decisions, in a literal sense?

You've never heard the quote, "Grow a spine!"?