Maybe paranoia or willful ignorance. But, it's a trust issue, not an evidentiary issue. Maybe the evidence is there, but if (1) you're not equipped to gather it yourself, (2) you don't trust the people that are so equipped, and (3) you believe their interests do not align with your interests -- is it really rational to accept the evidence anyway? Just differentiating my argument on the basis of bad deregulation as opposed to a basis of bad policy. We don't regulate the cleanliness of restaurants at the federal level anyway, so (fortunately) his opinion won't impact hand-washing regulation.
Good 1- That's really the least of the concerns with climate change. It might get the most news coverage, but compare to other risks, it's barely of any consequences. 2- I think you got this a bit backward. anti-vax tend to be more on the educated side.
can you be rational and paranoia? just honestly curious. I was definitely thinking not rational (to not trust anyone) but maybe there is a rationel for being paranoia.
You can't be rational and paranoid, but that's just because of what those words really mean. For you to actually be paranoid, it has to be irrational, but you can be highly suspicious of others without it being irrational.
All I know is that every type of medicine has side effects. If the government is going to force people to take the vaccines they have to be responsible for whatever side effects occur. But of course, they won't. Because Science.
Major Republicans like Rubio, Boehnor, and McConnell are coming out as pro-vaccination. It also looks like Rand Paul is walking back his comments and even posted a pic of him getting a vaccination.
I apologize if this has been discussed ad nauseam. In my opinion, a large amount of the paranoia related to vaccines can be attributed to the fraudulent study performed by Andrew Wakefield. Besides acting in conflicts of interest, Wakefield manipulated data and variables to make it appear that the MMR vaccine causes colitis and autism spectrum disorder. He then published his findings in the well-known medical journal The Lancet. Numerous research studies since Wakefield's have discredited the claims. He is now a disgrace in the scientific community. However, the widespread media coverage that his conclusions received resulted in widespread dispersal throughout the US and around the world. Many of the people who connect autism with vaccines are/were influenced in some way by Wakefield.
I recall this from a couple of years ago. I think that's still true today. Here is an article on it. http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/mo...cinate-and-feed-children-sugar-and-gmo-foods/
No. Most are just restating talking points but aren't willing to digest critique of those talking points. Truth be told, liberals are guilt of this too.
Probably the best post I've seen by a conservative on this BBS...in more than 5 years. Keep posting, you might make this place interesting.
he makes it boring... his ideas and beliefs (besides believing in god) are rational and reasonable. i love the far right and far left wackos much more.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FyacIlyIr1w?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Republicans are more "anything that pisses Liberals off" than they are against science. Sure, there are a bunch of anti-science nuts in the party these days, but they wouldn't be tolerated unless the political/monetary calculus did not appear to be in their favor. Every Repub likes pissing Liberals off and anti-global warming is the easiest go-to that makes the enemy apoplectic. It's like one big mega wingnut radio show for these guys, public policy be damned.
