ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th November 2017, 04:18 PM   #81
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Liberalism is based on fact and reason. The emotion comes into play when you people refuse to acknowledge basic common knowledge.

Its frustration in the impenetrable brick wall that comes between the edge of a conservative skull and that gelatinous mess that is supposed to pass for a brain on the other side of the skull.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 04:25 PM   #82
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
Indeed. Creationism, climate change denial (and general anti-environmentalism), trickle-down economics, abstinence only education, etc. are all common among elected conservative politicians.

Are there anti-science views that are common among elected liberals? I'm hard pressed to think of any.
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Alt med and anti vax are often held up as such, though many of the biggest name supporters of those are on the right side of the aisle.
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
Here in SoCal the anti-GMO movement seems very firmly left wing. I hear the word Monsanto used as a bogeyman in a manner reminiscent of the way the alt-right uses the name Soros. Nationwide, though, it seems like there are plenty of folks on the right who are anti-GMO. I know Alex Jones has ranted about that sort of thing.
I see anti-nuclear power policy as another popular liberal position that is often based on unscientific reasoning. That said, both nuclear and GMO at least have clear potential to be bad if implemented in ways that can cause problems, even if those problems can be avoided through careful and correct implementation.

This is fundamentally different than trying to deny that climate change is happening, or suggesting that climate change is not caused primarily by humans, or denying that evolution happens, or young-earth creationism, or insisting that Low-Drama-Obama was born in Kenya.

Both sides can be unscientific. I'll start a list

Both sides (on the fringes, at least):
  1. Anti GMO
  2. Anti Vax

Liberal:
  1. Anti nuclear power
  2. Naturopathy, homeopathy, etc....

Republican:
  1. Anti-Evolution
  2. Climate change denialism
  3. Role of humans in climate change
  4. Young earth creationism
  5. Performance of trickle-down economics
  6. Effectiveness of abstinence-only education
  7. Danger of marijuana
  8. medical impact of abortion
  9. Barack Obama's birthplace


Perhaps others can add to the lists. I didn't get into the more fringe-type beliefs from the very far right, the Agenda 21, Der-coming-fur-our-gunz!, Killary's kill list type nonsense which rarely has any liberal counterpart.

Last edited by crescent; 13th November 2017 at 04:29 PM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 04:28 PM   #83
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I see anti-nuclear power policy as another popular liberal position that is often based on unscientific reasoning. That said, both nuclear and GMO at least have clear potential to be bad if implemented in ways that can cause problems, even if those problems can be avoided through careful and correct implementation.

This is fundamentally different than trying to deny that climate change is happening, or suggesting that climate change is not caused primarily by humans, or denying that evolution happens, or young-earth creationism, or insisting that Low-Drama-Obama was born in Kenya.

Both sides can be unscientific. I'll start a list

Both sides:
  1. Anti GMO
  2. Anti Vax

Liberal:
  1. Anti nuclear power
  2. Naturopathy, homeopathy, etc....

Republican:
  1. Anti-Evolution
  2. Climate change denialism
  3. Young earth creationism
  4. Performance of trickle-down economics
  5. Effectiveness of abstinence-only education
  6. Danger of marijuana


Perhaps others can add to the lists.
Danger of marijuana? How about just a wasted life?

Young Earth creationists? Does that number about 100,000 lol

Anti evolution? Maybe 200,000
Also plenty of religious democrats who believe the same thing!
Looks like your list for republicans could be also moved to the drm category!
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 04:34 PM   #84
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Danger of marijuana? How about just a wasted life?

Young Earth creationists? Does that number about 100,000 lol

Anti evolution? Maybe 200,000
Also plenty of religious democrats who believe the same thing!
Looks like your list for republicans could be also moved to the drm category!
If you can find Dems who object to evolution being taught in schools, or who support the teaching of young-earth creationism in schools (another link), go right ahead.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 05:13 PM   #85
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,350
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Go ahead and explain how tax money is going to reduce CO emissions. I also find it fascinating that liberal skeptics are so taken by the global warming hoax. Itís nothing but guessing, itís been shown and proven their models are way off. As far as evolution, that is more guessing. Having just about zero transitional fossils when there should be billions is quite telling.
Excellent job of supporting the premise that conservatives reject reality.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 05:38 PM   #86
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Well, when you can offer up proof on such a subjective issue? For now your opinion is just that.
I did: For example, NRA's recent spots. Take any random sample of Republican campaign ads and you will find plenty of anger and fear mongering.

Also mentioned by others: That allowing gay marriage will increase the homosexuality rate, or even incur God's wrath (or already IS incurring God's wrath in the form of natural disasters.

How do you dispute this as evidence for my point?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 05:42 PM   #87
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Lol
Your point was that anything right was fear and anger.
You do not speak for me. If you thought that was my point, you were mistaken. Where did I even say such a thing? Note: You need to document my use of a universal quantifier such as "anything". That is simply your fabrication, not my words.

So let's be clear from here: You referred to liberals as being guided by emotion. Did you mean to imply that conservatives do not suffer from the same issue? That's how I took it, and so therefore I pointed out you are wrong.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 05:55 PM   #88
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by logger View Post
The whole ideology of liberalism is based on emotion, an inconvenient fact.
Of course, I thought it relevant to go back and point out that you, on the other hand, did in fact use a universal quantifier. Hypocrisy? Projection? Perhaps a combination of the two?

Where's YOUR objective proof of such a subjective issue?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 07:19 PM   #89
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
The problem with "high speed rail" it that people already have a fast an convenient ride from LA to SF. High speed rail will be slower and less convenient, it wont actually be high speed either. It was sold to CA on a lie, that it would cost 30billion but independent estimates said it would be 90, surprisingly shortly after the bonds were passed, the official estimate was raised to 90billion.

Its now being planned based on the sunk cost fallacy. The are building the first leg between two cities in the central valley that nobody actually want's a fast and convenient ride between. But when they've got that built, they come back to the people for more money and saying, We've built this much already.

They treat funding like they do water. In good times they have plenty so the spend profligately then bad times hit and they teeter ever closer to bankruptcy. The unfunded pension liability will bankrupt the state, its just a matter of time. That is directly related to left wing denial of reality. They haven't built any water storage in 20-30 years, in the same amount of time, the population has doubled.
Literally everything you just said is wrong.

There is no ride that is faster or more convenient now. It was never sold as costing $30 billion. It was sold as costing at least $48 billion which it would have been had certain things (like being able to share property with UPRR) had turned out their way. It didn't. So it will now cost about $65 billion.

That said it will still be cheaper than all the alternatives like building new airports or building a new north south freeway. Better for the environment too.

They already have funding lined up to build all the way to San Jose. They only need more funding to further.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 08:03 PM   #90
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,234
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Liberalism is based on fact and reason. The emotion comes into play when you people refuse to acknowledge basic common knowledge.

Its frustration in the impenetrable brick wall that comes between the edge of a conservative skull and that gelatinous mess that is supposed to pass for a brain on the other side of the skull.
There is an emotional aspect to liberalism, it's called empathy and compassion. These things are absent on the Right.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 08:05 PM   #91
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,234
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Tu toque

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/va-at...ry?id=50821176

Dems mong fear just as easily as Reps.
It's a good message of safety, as Republicans are trying to pass legislation making it harder to prosecute those who run over protesters.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 08:10 PM   #92
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,175
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
There is an emotional aspect to liberalism, it's called empathy and compassion. These things are absent on the Right.
I've known a few conservative Christians who seem to demonstrate considerable empathy and compassion in their own lives while voting for politicians who show very little in their policies.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 08:33 PM   #93
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,234
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
I've known a few conservative Christians who seem to demonstrate considerable empathy and compassion in their own lives while voting for politicians who show very little in their policies.
Their empathy and compassion mostly is only for those within their circle.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 09:11 PM   #94
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,504
Originally Posted by logger View Post
I suppose finding one video that I certainly would be bored watching is supposed to negate the fact that liberalism is based on emotion?
Just as nonsense as the Noahfence response below.

Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Liberalism is based on fact and reason....
Actually liberalism is merely the holding of liberal views; nothing to do with fact or reason. You can compare conservative and liberal views and feel that one is superior to the other, but based on what I've seen on both sides, fact and reason are not what drive many people.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 13th November 2017 at 10:28 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 09:17 PM   #95
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,560
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I see anti-nuclear power policy as another popular liberal position that is often based on unscientific reasoning. That said, both nuclear and GMO at least have clear potential to be bad if implemented in ways that can cause problems, even if those problems can be avoided through careful and correct implementation.

This is fundamentally different than trying to deny that climate change is happening, or suggesting that climate change is not caused primarily by humans, or denying that evolution happens, or young-earth creationism, or insisting that Low-Drama-Obama was born in Kenya.

Both sides can be unscientific. I'll start a list

Both sides (on the fringes, at least):
  1. Anti GMO
  2. Anti Vax

Liberal:
  1. Anti nuclear power
  2. Naturopathy, homeopathy, etc....

Republican:
  1. Anti-Evolution
  2. Climate change denialism
  3. Role of humans in climate change
  4. Young earth creationism
  5. Performance of trickle-down economics
  6. Effectiveness of abstinence-only education
  7. Danger of marijuana
  8. medical impact of abortion
  9. Barack Obama's birthplace


Perhaps others can add to the lists. I didn't get into the more fringe-type beliefs from the very far right, the Agenda 21, Der-coming-fur-our-gunz!, Killary's kill list type nonsense which rarely has any liberal counterpart.
I can see your point about nuclear and GMO.

But my point is that you can find anti science views on any fringe. I'd like to keep it to the mainstream. It's easy to find high-level, elected conservatives who espouse such views. It's a lot trickier for liberals.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 09:19 PM   #96
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Let me help you.

Plenty of religious Dems believe in creation, just as many non religious republicans believe in evolution.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 09:21 PM   #97
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post

Where's YOUR objective proof of such a subjective issue?
The same place yours is?
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 09:25 PM   #98
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post

How do you dispute this as evidence for my point?
Because for every bit of nonsense you can put up, I can match it.

Like this
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/o...ald-trump.html
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 09:27 PM   #99
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Excellent job of supporting the premise that conservatives reject reality.
Just the liberal reality, which of course isnít reality at all.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:23 PM   #100
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Because for every bit of nonsense you can put up, I can match it.

Like this
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/o...ald-trump.html
A liberal's editorial is in no way relevant to the discussion of what motivates conservatives. That's twice you've made this mistake. Why is this such a struggle for you?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:25 PM   #101
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by logger View Post
The same place yours is?
I've posted evidence for mine. You have yet to do so for yours.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:27 PM   #102
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
And, of course, I wasn't ignorant enough to make a blanket description of the whole conservative ideology.

You know, like you did for the whole liberal ideology.

You have a much bigger burden of proof because you made a much stronger claim.

Just wanted to remind you of that before we go any further.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:40 PM   #103
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,268
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Considering how many people realize the war on drugs has failed and the "lock 'em up!" approach doesn't solve any problems who simultaneously believe we're just one law away from solving America's criminal use/misuse of firearms problems, I'd say there's more than enough delusion going around in politics and society in general when you get right down to it.

Specifically regarding science and medicine, how many people that are conservative or liberal go off the rails on homeopathic or other snake oil schemes? I'm beginning to believe that along with the innate drive to alter consciousness through drinking/drugging, humans must have an innate drive to believe nonsense.
I believe that restricting access to guns reduces the number of guns in circulation. I believe that because of the different situations in the UK and the USA. You call that a "delusion", derived from a human propensity to believe nonsense.

But it seems to me that the USA is the exception, not the other countries. Laws restricting access don't always work, of course. Not merely the war on drugs, but the 1920-1933 US war on the demon drink are examples of inappropriate legislation. On the other hand, are you beginning to think that restricting use of cars to trained and licensed drivers is a delusional piece of nonsense? I don't.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 11:10 PM   #104
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,268
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Really? I donít remember any of that. The definition of marriage is man and women.
That's your definition, and it's up to you to refuse to acknowledge same sex marriages if you wish.

The law also has a definition, which it can change by recognised procedures when that is considered appropriate. Example: in the U.K. until recently "adult" meant 21 years old or more. Then it was changed to 18 years. But individuals like yourself can define it any way they want. You can say, 18 year olds are too young to be able to vote sensibly, if that is your opinion. What you can't do is prevent them from voting or refuse to count their votes, when they exercise their new rights.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 11:14 PM   #105
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,234
Craig is correct. The definition of marriage is not a union of a man and a woman, it is of two people.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/marriage?s=t
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 01:58 AM   #106
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,953
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Let me help you.

Plenty of religious Dems believe in creation,
Evidence for this...

...and more importantly, evidence that Democratic Party representatives have actively campaigned to have creationism and/or intelligent design to be taught instead of evolutionary biology.

Originally Posted by logger View Post
just as many non religious republicans believe in evolution.
Maybe they do, but in a number of states they don't seem to have enough influence (or be sufficiently bothered) to stop the teaching of creationism as "science" being GOP policy.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 08:57 AM   #107
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,368
This'll end well.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:04 AM   #108
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,789
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Because for every bit of nonsense you can put up, I can match it.
Truer words were never spoken.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:06 AM   #109
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,168
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
This'll end well.
Are you thinking rapture?
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:06 AM   #110
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 615
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Evidence for this...
Maybe they do, but in a number of states they don't seem to have enough influence (or be sufficiently bothered) to stop the teaching of creationism as "science" being GOP policy.
That ought to be easily verifiable, can you provide a link to the bit in the GOP platform that states this? I looked briefly but was unable to verify this claim.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:15 AM   #111
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,064
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
That ought to be easily verifiable, can you provide a link to the bit in the GOP platform that states this? I looked briefly but was unable to verify this claim.
You have to know what fig-leaf to look under. Start with 'intelligent design'.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:24 AM   #112
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,789
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You have to know what fig-leaf to look under. Start with 'intelligent design'.
The specific question is whether creation science (or intelligent design) in the classroom is literally a part of the GOP platform.

Surely no one denies that there are many Republicans who advocate such a thing. That's not the same as it being part of the platform.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:37 AM   #113
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,064
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The specific question is whether creation science (or intelligent design) in the classroom is literally a part of the GOP platform.

Surely no one denies that there are many Republicans who advocate such a thing. That's not the same as it being part of the platform.
Ah, yes, I read the 'GOP policy' and neglected the 'GOP platform' component of the subsequent question. (I also read 'GOP policy' as 'a policy that's almost exclusively advanced by the GOP, as the link shows that some setbacks for the creationists at the state and local level have come from more moderate Republicans taking their seats.)

The platform part is currently under a different fig leaf: 'school choice'. Now there are other reasons (and rationalizations) that Republicans support 'school choice' besides being anti-evolution, (such as being anti-science in other fields like sexual education, or being against policies like transgender acceptance, gay acceptance, fact-based history and what to emphasis, having to go to school with poor kids and resource allocation, etc) but that's still an influential one. They at least don't want to have to teach the basic fact of biology that is evolution, even if creationism isn't taught. 'They' in this case being a sizeable number or Republicans who push for 'school choice'.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:39 AM   #114
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 13,729
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The specific question is whether creation science (or intelligent design) in the classroom is literally a part of the GOP platform.

Surely no one denies that there are many Republicans who advocate such a thing. That's not the same as it being part of the platform.

Here you go.

Quote:
“We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.”
That article is about the 2012 Texas Republican platform. Here is the actual 2016 one which contains the same wording as well as a great deal of other crazy.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

Last edited by Trebuchet; 14th November 2017 at 09:48 AM.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:44 AM   #115
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,560
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The specific question is whether creation science (or intelligent design) in the classroom is literally a part of the GOP platform.

Surely no one denies that there are many Republicans who advocate such a thing. That's not the same as it being part of the platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intell...gn_in_politics

Reading over the official GOP platform is interesting: https://www.gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/

There's a bunch there if you're reading between the lines with a cynical viewpoint. Nothing explicitly stated regarding creationism, but references to god, the Bible, and traditional community values, which could be interpreted in numerous ways.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 10:37 AM   #116
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Just as nonsense as the Noahfence response below.


Actually liberalism is merely the holding of liberal views; nothing to do with fact or reason. You can compare conservative and liberal views and feel that one is superior to the other, but based on what I've seen on both sides, fact and reason are not what drive many people.

Ranb
You're free to be wrong.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 10:42 AM   #117
MuDPhuD
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
An exploration of why current self-proclaimed "conservatives" (a far cry from William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater etc.) reject basic facts.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...g_in_lies.html
Here is an interesting related NYT article on the interaction of politics with social and scientific issues.

"When political elites disagree, their views tend to be adopted first by higher-educated partisans on both sides, who become more divided as they acquire more information."

Seems like because one political party affirms the scientific position, the other political party MUST disagree. Politics (and people) ain't rational.
MuDPhuD is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 11:04 AM   #118
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
To say that rejection of reality is a one-sided problem is itself a rejection of reality. It goes beyond controversial issues like evolution, sex ed, climate change, etc. Most of the issues we are talking about here have more to do with preserving the freedom to think and believe as one wants to rather than embracing a universal objective view of reality. And let's face it, there really is no such thing as a universal objective view of reality; we all filter things through our cognitive biases, education, experience, etc.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 11:08 AM   #119
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,953
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
To say that rejection of reality is a one-sided problem is itself a rejection of reality. It goes beyond controversial issues like evolution, sex ed, climate change, etc. Most of the issues we are talking about here have more to do with preserving the freedom to think and believe as one wants to rather than embracing a universal objective view of reality. And let's face it, there really is no such thing as a universal objective view of reality; we all filter things through our cognitive biases, education, experience, etc.
Those issues are only politically controversial, not scientifically so and hence represent a rejection of reality.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 11:16 AM   #120
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
And let's face it, there really is no such thing as a universal objective view of reality; we all filter things through our cognitive biases, education, experience, etc.

Yes, there is - Math. Math is completely objective, and is the ultimate basis for the hard sciences.

Climate change, and the human role in it, are basic math. Perception does not matter, the math documents the reality.

The application of mathematics, through application of the scientific method and statistical analysis of results clearly supports evolution, the effectiveness of sexual education in reducing teen pregnancy, the age of the earth.

Basic math disproves the effectiveness of trickle-down economics. Some conservative political concepts may have economic value - but not that one.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.