Hello dear friend You picked an inauspicious day to register and then come at us with this one, as today os the day that Rand Paul, (MD, lol...) and Chris Christie are in a race to the bottom of the stupid barrel in order to garner coveted moron votes that are a critical part of the GOP-A-Looza 2016. Expect a number of others to follow their lead. Sigh.
I have to concede on the stem-cell point. Opposing research for moral reasons isn't necessarily anti-science.
As far as anti-vaxxers go, it is both the ultra conservative & the hippy natural types. It just seems in Texas to be conservatives, but in California you'd find the opposite. Now, unfortunately, anti-vax ideas are spreading to all the communities in between. Scary stuff.
I think there's a difference between being against a technology with unknown risks and being against a technology with no known risks. Nuclear power has risks associated with it. It's not that people oppose the idea of fission as immoral or not real science, it's the technological realization of the science - that is - in building a reactor. Now it may be that their concerns are overstated. But it is a rational fear. GMO on the other hand - there is little risk from that food. Most people don't even know what a GMO actually is. Most people don't know that there is a risk because splicing DNA can result in the end food product causing an allergic reaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies The point is not that GMO's are some unknown risk waiting for a disaster, it is that like any kind of other food, there is a need for regulation. Even our organic foods are regulated. But that's different from opposing the science behind GMO which is perfectly understood and there is no gap in the science. There may be gaps in the application of that science however. So again I think you are mixing up being "anti-science" with anti-technology
I will be amazed if I ever see you post actual analysis or commentary. You're like a cheerleader for liberal talking points. People make comments all the time in the D&D that I disagree with, but at least those posts have some inherent value.
Compared to what? So, what do you suggest instead? Stop applying science to look for solutions and instead pray harder? "Meaning of life" isn't a scientific question; its silly to criticize a methodology for not being applicable outside of its own scope. "Science" is the methodology by which we acquire knowledge about the natural universe. The fact that we know so much more today than we did 100 years ago is a testament to science, and yet you're (bizarrely) trying to spin it into an argument for science's limitations.
Well, this is unfortunate but still, the anti vaccination movement is still considered a "left wing" movement. As for what Mr. Rand said, I'm not so sure if they didn't take it out of context. As for flue vaccination- I myself don't see a reason to take it as its usually an outdated strain of the influenza and the vaccin does contain mercury that I prefer not to put willingly in my bodey. But I'm a healthy young person so I do understand why they recommend older people to take it. Anyway I think that in general the political rainbow is like in the metaphore of a rainbow, looks like a mathematical parabola. The edges of the left and right are pretty much on the same line on opposite direction. I take everything that I hear from people on those edges with a grain of salt.
Thanks, I'm aware of this, and I did not say its harmful, just that I, as a young healthy person with a good immune system, does not find a need for it.
Agreed. It's embarrassing an adult would come to a debate to cheer on others with no insight of his own. Lynch mob 101. Say what you want about conservatives, but the majority have their own opinions and always provide facts and evidence to back it up. Lot more "SCIENTIFIC" than but my feelings said so.... everyone else is doing it.... yadda yadda
Most conservative talking points I hear are part of the Fox News echo chamber. I hear regurgitation after regurgitation.
I agree. Those silly physics laws and gravitational theory that Newton discovered, Gallileo thought of, man we laugh at them in every physics lesson, those imbeciles. Science builds on itself, its past failures, its successes, everything. Right now, we laugh at the idea that the atom was modeled as a pudding, but if it weren't for that idea, there wouldn't be any incentive to disprove it. If it weren't for those wrong theories, how could we ever know that we are right?
Bull effing ****. The majority of conservatives regurgitate the garbage they hear pundits spew and ignore the reams of evidence showing that those words are inaccurate. "Always provide facts and evidence to back it up" would have caused me to spit milk out my nose from laughing, had I been drinking milk at the time.
hmm Sounds like the definition of the liberal/low info user base. Pseudoscience is their mantra and people like Bill Nye and Al Gore as their spokesman.
I agree it is very disturbing how much traction this movement is getting especially with Rand Paul's statements. One would hope that Sen. Paul as doctor would know better than rely on unproven anecdotes but apparently not. Then again some of the leading proponents of anti-vaccination are doctors and I've been seeing a rant going around on social media from a cardiologist criticizing other doctors who insist on vaccination.
Yeah, it's really shameful to have a guy on the side of objective observation and fact who asserts that the earth is older than 6,000 years.
