Slashdot Mirror
Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'
ndogg writes with news that Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has counterattacked those critical of conservative views on science, saying that they're 'anti-science' themselves. From a CBS report:
"In his remarks Monday, Santorum went beyond his usual discussion of the importance of increasing domestic energy production to deliver a blistering attack on environmental activists. He said global warming claims are based on 'phony studies,' and that climate change science is little more than 'political science.' His views are not 'anti-science' as Democrats claim, Santorum said. 'When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment,' he said to applause, and cited local ordinances to reduce coal dust pollution in Pittsburgh during the heyday of coal mining."
Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'
Not only is he from the party that brought you Intelligent Design, he is the candidate that epitomizes anti-science.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
... how stupid America really is ...
Please don't feed the troll.
I'm not sure if I should say that Santorum is anti-truth, or go with the less harsh, anti-reality.
Maybe next he can explain to us about how all of the studies regarding contraception are clearly wrong. Or was contraception an "Obama conspiracy?" I forget...
Scott Swezey
Santorum claiming that environmentalists are "anti-science" is like saying anti-rape activists are against sex. What a fucking lunatic, I can't believe this is the best the GOP can come up with. Are they sitting this one out or something?
Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas. The more ideological the wing of the party, the more busses they find driving by.
By the same token, both parties are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.
Science is in good company though; politicians will do the same with the Supreme Court, the Constitution, Religion, or anything else that they can get their hands on.
...considering it's coming from someone whose view of science is something that you believe on faith, ignore inconvenient research, and consider even the slightest doubt or margin of error that an opposing viewpoint has to completely debunk it. It's not science to believe that since you have 100% confidence in your faith-based theory that has no evidence, but you can imagine a miniscule source of error in an opposing theory, that the person with the fewest doubts "wins". But just try telling a "Creation Scientist" that...or someone who believes on faith that there is not any possibility that there is human-caused global climate changed. They hold their views on faith, their minds will not be changed no matter how much evidence they're presented with.
To begin: I would like to hear Santorum's definition of "science". How would he describe science, its methods, and its purpose? That should be good for a few yuks.
His opinion might fit perfectly with his understanding of science.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
Calling someone "anti-science" because they advise restraint when using up natural resources and changing the environment, is like calling someone "anti-capitalist" if they refuse to spend all their money and go into debt.
Huh...I think I just figured out Republican fiscal policy.
Humans survive by adapting their environment to their needs.
This is wrong. Whilst we do adapt our environment somewhat, the key to our success as a species was and still is the fact that we are also adept at adapting _to_ changing environments. The diversity of the biomes humankind has thrived in shows this. In the early history of humankind not an awful lot of engineering of our environment took place. The vast majority of it only happened once we _adapted_our_skillsets_ to allow us to work raw materials into manufactured items, thus enabling us to 'adapt' ourselves shelter (as opposed to, say, digging a rabbit warren).
Any failing system can be made to look like a success by spending money just as a stone can be made to fly by throwing it in the air.
When the stone strikes earth you'll just say I didn't throw it hard enough... for the purposes of ideology lets ignore orbit... which isn't flying anyway.
Try it... find a crack head... an actual crack head... ideally he should be in withdraw but not cleaning himself up. Just shivvering and the picture of a human mess.
Then give him a billion dollars to start an industrial concern. People will get employed. There will be activity.
But there will also be a strong burn rate. And at some point he'll have eaten through that billion dollars. At which point the activity will slack of.
Solution?
Give him more money, right? Rinse repeat.
The japanese did a similar thing in the 90s by pumping cheap credit into failed japanese businesses. They were called the Zombie corporations because they were dead but kept alive by the debt. People like you, argued that if they were just given enough money they'd come back to life. They never did. Japan went through a prolonged recession for no reason.
You base your position on the post WW2 growth of the US economy and basically nothing else. What you ignore is that europe and asia were destroyed by that war where as the US was not. So why did the US enjoy decades of undisputed trade dominance? BECAUSE WE BLEW UP EVERYONE ELSE"S FACTORIES!!! It's kind of obvious isn't it?
You can run up all the debt you like, the chinese will still be there eating your margins. If you want to repeat the post WW2 economy then you're going to need to blow up china's factories. Game for WW3?
No? Then maybe we should try something else that also works.
I don't think you'll do it... because you're ideological and your ideology simply doesn't believe in these things. But the universe doesn't care what you believe... it is what it is...
Cheers.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Nobody on the left has a bold scientific vision
The left? I thought you were talking about Democrats?
Dilbert RSS feed
Whatever the bible says about life, the universe, and everything, it is most assuredly NOT a theory in the true scientific sense. It a mix of myths and goatherder tales and is no different in that regard than creation myths from native americans, the incas, or any other religion.
No, it didn't work. Look, I have no problem with pumping a little money in to get an engine to turn over... the spark plug that fires the engine is fine.
But this isn't a spark plug issue... you're spending good money to fund systems that are running at a net loss.
it's like those fusion energy projects where they pour 10 megawatts of power into some chamber to get a self sustaining fusion reaction going. That's fine as a experiment. hell, maybe they'll get it working some day. But it isn't something you could use to actually power the grid.
Why? Because the net output from those reactors is always something like 9.5 megawatts... about .5 megawatts less then was put into them.
Look at your stimulus programs and see how much money was put in and how many jobs were saved.
In one estimate it was over 500,000 thousand PER JOB. In most cases it would have been more efficient to simply give each of those people half a million dollars.
Worse, it isn't even Keynesian. Keynesian economics requires that the stimulus money go to NEW and UNPLANNED projects that wouldn't have happened at all with or without the recession.
So for example, if you sent a manned mission to mars that would be Keynesian because it wasn't something we were going to do. But instead most of the money went to state budgets to retain EXISTING workers or to pay for projects that were ALREADY going to happen such as paving roads.
That isn't Keynesian. That's just a bailout with no particular plan. If you want a Keynesian stimulus package then you need to fund totally new projects and hire people that are NOT CURRENTLY EMPLOYED. You have to hire as many unemployed workers as possible.
Even a new war would be more Keynesian then what Obama did. Just pick some random country and attack it. Recruit a million people into the army... and have fun.
that was Keynes's argument. Your belief that you can just make everything work by throwing money at it isn't even Keynesian... it's just irresponsible.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And King Canute led the court to the sea, commanded the tide to turn back and it did not. He then turned to the onlookers and said what could be translated into modern terms as "can you stupid fuckers see now that you can't do everything just by talking about it?"
It's depressing that the "we can define our own reality" bullshit has crept in so far. The only way to directly change physical things is to do physical things
As would Orwell.
Attack your opponent with what your opponent should be attacking you on.
Turn the truth and the meanings of words completely around.
It goes so far beyond lying that I'm not sure that there's a word for it outside of a Newspeak dictioary.
Check your premises.