RE: Tea Party and Science

RE: Tea Party and Science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TreasureKY -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 9:57:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR A Q for those who are informed: Are there any Tea Party atheists? I'll take that as a 'No', then. You would be wrong. Again. Atheist/Freethinker Tea Party Atheism and the Tea Party Atheists come to the Tea Party Ayn Rand's Atheists are Crashing the Tea Party

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 10:30:40 PM)
LOLOLOLOLOL someone walked RIGHT into that one, like people asking "are there any fiscally conservative Queer Guys that always prefer the GOP?" I dunno, mayyyyyybe... Log Cabin Guys?

Phydeaux -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 10:59:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Disputing science is not a bad thing. It is when the dispute comes from a place of ignorance. The place of ignorance is believing in human caused global warming when the fact of the matter is that humans weren't around to end the last ice-age. If you really believe that scientists do not take stuff like that into account, then it demonstrates clearly your ignorance on the science. One of the very first questions asked about twenty years ago, was whether the effects of climate change were not simply just the normal 'heat/cooling' cycle the planet has gone through previously. The evidence then and more importantly now, show this is not a normal cycle but something else entirely. Scientists did not come out and just say "oh, its all the humans fault". They had to remove variables from the equation, and test the concept a multitude times over. Its all there in the hundreds of thousands of journals to be had in any decent scientifically accredited college or university. Go have a read. Actually, you are completely, factually wrong. The 2007 IPCC report did not do that. Quite the opposite. It said, in effect - we can't imagine any other cause for global warming - so it must be AGW. Rather than read "hundreds of thousands" of journals - why don't you just go read the 2007 IPCC. I particularly liked the part about the melting himalayans - based on not a single scientific journal. Or how about the multiple sections that quoted unpublished, un peer reviewed - science. But of course, since you only listen to your echo chamber you don't know anything about that.

tweakabelle -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 11:03:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed LOLOLOLOLOL someone walked RIGHT into that one, like people asking "are their any fiscally conservative Queer Guys that always prefer the GOP?" Whatever the merits or demerits of Peon's question, at least Peon didn't make elementary errors of fact such as NoBimbosAllowed's claim that: "Peter Slipper is/was an atheist beloved of the lefty Oz Sydneyite voting demographic blocks, correct?" (post 60 this thread) Wholly incorrect or if you prefer, flat wrong. In fact, Mr Slipper was elected to Federal Parliament here for a Queensland (Australia's version of the US's Deep South) constituency running on a conservative right wing ticket. Check him out in full here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Slipper To describe Mr. Slipper as "beloved of the lefty Oz" is pure fiction, a gross error of fact at an elementary level. Need I add that the rest of NBA's post is of a similar standard? An American equivalent would be to describe say, a Texas or Louisiana Republican as "beloved of the New York left", which would be, I am sure you will agree, highly improbable if not outright farcical.

Phydeaux -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 11:14:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It really doesn't matter whether teabaggers know more a little more science than the average voter. Or a little less ..... What matters is that the Right, especially the Religious Right, ignores or disputes science far more often. (Climate change and creationism being two cases in point.) Interesting how you conflate the Religious right with the Tea Party. Interesting how you ignore the serious point while inventing a wholly contrived point to masquerade as a response Should your silence on my assertion that the Right, and especially the Religious Right ignores science far more often than those to their left, be interpreted as agreement with my assertion? LOL..I'm afraid I don't live on here tweak and you'll just have to live with a few hours before you get a response. So which is it - are you asking do the tea baggers ignore science or the religious right. If you're asking about the religious right - I wonder the purpose in a thread about the tea party. If you're asking about tea baggers - I'm afraid you'll have to ask Dom Ken or Mnotter. I'm not an expert on those practices. Do I think the tea party ignores "science" more often than the left? Ahhh... clearly not. For example. The left has clearly ignored that for 17 years there has been no global warming. The IPCC said so. East Anglia said so. Brit Met said so. Russian Meteorological Society said so. Nasa said so. And yet, here we sit - I can point you to hundreds of posts proclaiming that AGW is alive and well. The question, is frankly, idiotic. First, because you just had a survey result saying (paraphrase) tea partiers pay more attention to science. But that disturbs your biased point of view so you immediately ignore it. Secondly, people are people. Left or right. I doubt either side has a monopoly on virtue. Lets take religious Jews -- for thousands of years proclaiming a faith in YHWH. Pretty conservative. And yet more than 4x the incidence per capita of nobel scientists. Catholic church - whom y'all regard as yahoos - maintained libraries and schools in the middle ages. And for vast areas were virtually the only centers of learning.

DomKen -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 11:17:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Disputing science is not a bad thing. It is when the dispute comes from a place of ignorance. The place of ignorance is believing in human caused global warming when the fact of the matter is that humans weren't around to end the last ice-age. If you really believe that scientists do not take stuff like that into account, then it demonstrates clearly your ignorance on the science. One of the very first questions asked about twenty years ago, was whether the effects of climate change were not simply just the normal 'heat/cooling' cycle the planet has gone through previously. The evidence then and more importantly now, show this is not a normal cycle but something else entirely. Scientists did not come out and just say "oh, its all the humans fault". They had to remove variables from the equation, and test the concept a multitude times over. Its all there in the hundreds of thousands of journals to be had in any decent scientifically accredited college or university. Go have a read. Actually, you are completely, factually wrong. The 2007 IPCC report did not do that. Quite the opposite. It said, in effect - we can't imagine any other cause for global warming - so it must be AGW. Rather than read "hundreds of thousands" of journals - why don't you just go read the 2007 IPCC. I particularly liked the part about the melting himalayans - based on not a single scientific journal. Or how about the multiple sections that quoted unpublished, un peer reviewed - science. But of course, since you only listen to your echo chamber you don't know anything about that. Lies as usual. The IPCC and numerous other groups, including the one paid for by the Koch's to disprove AGW, found no other possible cause. Anyone who can present a theory backed by actual evidence that disproves AGW will go down in history besides Darwin and Einstein but I wouldn't bet on it happening.

Phydeaux -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 11:19:17 PM)
...

DomKen -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 11:19:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Lets take religious Jews -- for thousands of years proclaiming a faith in YHWH. Pretty conservative. And yet more than 4x the incidence per capita of nobel scientists. Do you have any evidence that the Jews who won Nobels were practicing Jews?

Phydeaux -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 11:23:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Lets take religious Jews -- for thousands of years proclaiming a faith in YHWH. Pretty conservative. And yet more than 4x the incidence per capita of nobel scientists. Do you have any evidence that the Jews who won Nobels were practicing Jews? Yes. But do your own research.

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 11:28:18 PM)
thanks for that, Tweakybelle. Now tell us about Craig Thompson and Ian MacDonald. I think you avoided that elsewhere. So I think that other posts on such things on my part are not so up for debate. I'm wrong about them too, or are you merely going to resort to the "blue tie" comments that guaranteed Gillard FAILED and was ousted by her own party? Gillard's a agnostic, right? [;)] oh, and just because Slipper is on the right "now", are you sure he's ALWAYS been on the right? LOL

tweakabelle -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 11:35:34 PM)
quote: Hmm.. You'll have to point it out for me where the wiki says that. Cause here's what I read... Slipper was affiliated with the Liberal Party's Queensland division from 1993 until its merger with the Nationals' Queensland division to form the Liberal National Party of Queensland in 2008, continuing to sit in the federal Liberal Party room until he became an independent upon his election as Speaker in 2011. Phydeaux, in Australia, the conservative right wing of politics is represented by the Liberal and National Coalition. From wiki: "Political conservatism is primarily represented by the Liberal Party of Australia, and its coalition partner, the National Party which historically was the party of the small farmers and espoused agrarianism. Moser and Catley explain, "In America, 'liberal' means left-of-center, and it is a pejorative term when used by conservatives in adversarial political debate. In Australia, of course, the conservatives are in the Liberal Party." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_Australia

Phydeaux -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 11:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Hmm.. You'll have to point it out for me where the wiki says that. Cause here's what I read... Slipper was affiliated with the Liberal Party's Queensland division from 1993 until its merger with the Nationals' Queensland division to form the Liberal National Party of Queensland in 2008, continuing to sit in the federal Liberal Party room until he became an independent upon his election as Speaker in 2011. Phydeaux, in Australia, the conservative right wing of politics is represented by the Liberal and National Coalition. From wiki: "Political conservatism is primarily represented by the Liberal Party of Australia, and its coalition partner, the National Party which historically was the party of the small farmers and espoused agrarianism. Moser and Catley explain, "In America, 'liberal' means left-of-center, and it is a pejorative term when used by conservatives in adversarial political debate. In Australia, of course, the conservatives are in the Liberal Party." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_Australia Yes, I read that and so edited my post. However Ozzie politics is not my strength - there are liberal parties that are fiscally conservative and socially radical. Ie, liberal is a coalition that has widely divergent point of views. I don't see enough there to say whether slipper was loved by the left or not, especially after he was independent.

PeonForHer -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/19/2013 3:01:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR A Q for those who are informed: Are there any Tea Party atheists? I'll take that as a 'No', then. You would be wrong. Again. Atheist/Freethinker Tea Party Atheism and the Tea Party Atheists come to the Tea Party Ayn Rand's Atheists are Crashing the Tea Party Yesss - that makes sense. Thank you for the information. Treasure. Again.

thishereboi -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/19/2013 5:33:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It really doesn't matter whether teabaggers know more a little more science than the average voter. Or a little less ..... What matters is that the Right, especially the Religious Right, ignores or disputes science far more often. (Climate change and creationism being two cases in point.) Interesting how you conflate the Religious right with the Tea Party. Interesting how you ignore the serious point while inventing a wholly contrived point to masquerade as a response Should your silence on my assertion that the Right, and especially the Religious Right ignores science far more often than those to their left, be interpreted as agreement with my assertion? The idea that one side of the political fence is better than the other is based in bigotry. Those who run around and crow about how superior they are to the other group are bigots. I don't always say something to the ones I hear spouting the bullshit but that in no way means I agree with them. I would guess that goes for others as well.

thishereboi -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/19/2013 5:37:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR A Q for those who are informed: Are there any Tea Party atheists? That is an interesting question. Unfortunately I have never actually met anyone in the real world who claimed to be a tea party member so I can't help you. Maybe they are just not that popular in this area but the only time I see them mentioned is on this site and occasionally in a news article online.

PeonForHer -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/19/2013 6:24:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR A Q for those who are informed: Are there any Tea Party atheists? That is an interesting question. Unfortunately I have never actually met anyone in the real world who claimed to be a tea party member so I can't help you. Maybe they are just not that popular in this area but the only time I see them mentioned is on this site and occasionally in a news article online. An Ayn Rand type of atheist might fit in, though, THB. However, from Treasure's links it does seem that the 'fit' wouldn't be comfortable.

TreasureKY -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/19/2013 10:24:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR A Q for those who are informed: Are there any Tea Party atheists? That is an interesting question. Unfortunately I have never actually met anyone in the real world who claimed to be a tea party member so I can't help you. Maybe they are just not that popular in this area but the only time I see them mentioned is on this site and occasionally in a news article online. An Ayn Rand type of atheist might fit in, though, THB. However, from Treasure's links it does seem that the 'fit' wouldn't be comfortable. I would be quite leery of anyone who claimed that they were a perfect fit for any political party or vice versa. It is one of the reasons I find people who disparage whole groups to be repugnant. They fail to see and/or accept that groups are made up of individuals, and individuals rarely fit into an easy mold. It is bigotry, plain and simple. Why is it acceptable to say, "Tea Party members are all ignorant, racist, and worship an imaginary man in the sky", but not acceptable to say, "Blacks are lazy, welfare teet-sucking, and criminal minded"? As far as I'm concerned, neither is acceptable. Groups typically form based on limited points of consensus. Judging a group based on extreme stereotypes is reprehensible... no matter how true you believe it is.

JeffBC -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/19/2013 11:01:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY As far as I'm concerned, neither is acceptable. Groups typically form based on limited points of consensus. Judging a group based on extreme stereotypes is reprehensible... no matter how true you believe it is. Well put. I wish the leaders of these groups understood that because there's many points of agreement that could be worked on in coalitions of such groups.

PeonForHer -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/19/2013 11:52:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY Why is it acceptable to say, "Tea Party members are all ignorant, racist, and worship an imaginary man in the sky", but not acceptable to say, "Blacks are lazy, welfare teet-sucking, and criminal minded"? I don't know, Treasure. You tell me. But I guess one obvious difference is that 'Black' only defines a race whereas 'Tea Party' defines a set of beliefs and political inclinations. Not that we want to go down the Godwin's Law road, natch, but - as a matter of interest, would you also feel uncomfortable describing all members of, say, the 1930s Nazi party, in certain disparaging terms? Or at the other extreme, the Bolsheviks, or various anarchist groups? Re quote: I would be quite leery of anyone who claimed that they were a perfect fit for any political party or vice versa. Of course. Major political parties have to be broad churches. There are always tensions. But in the New Right there's been a very marked tension between the neo-conservative side (authoritarian, ultra-religious) and the neo-liberal side (ultra free market) since Reagan's day. Likewise on this side of the pond, though I don't think the tension is quite as strong here. Religion isn't so strong on the one hand; there isn't the strong influence of the Ayn Rand type of ultra-economic-liberalism either. I would however expect this particular tension to show the more strongly the more right wing the political grouping.

Phydeaux -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/19/2013 3:27:14 PM)
We have stereo types because they are a useful shortcut for our brains. If they weren't useful, we would'n't have them. Just like we go to a restaurant - our brain cuts out all the incident conversations - and we don't "hear" them. And - for the record - other animals stereotype as well.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875