Bevo Incognito
1000+ Posts
04/04/12 11:07 AM
|
|
Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
|
| |
So I read that the Pew research center did a poll a couple of years ago in which 55% of scientists said they are democrats, 6% said they are Republican, 32% are independent, and the rest don't know their affiliation.
Why do y'all think this is?
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
500+ posts
04/04/12 11:10 AM
|
|
I'm guessing you have a theory.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/04/12 11:15 AM
|
|
Perhaps because a lot of scientists depend on government funding for their work. Sucks that there were no Libertarians in the poll.
Post Extras:
|
Hornius Emeritus
10,000+ posts
04/04/12 11:19 AM
|
|
I think ShinerTx may have it.
See my Photographs and Essays of Texas:
The Link
Post Extras:
|
Bevo Incognito
1000+ Posts
04/04/12 11:24 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Sucks that there were no Libertarians in the poll.
How do you know that Libertarian scientists didn't simply call themselves independent, given the alternatives they had to choose from?
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/04/12 11:27 AM
|
|
Is that how you would have answered?
Post Extras:
|
I35
2500+ posts
04/04/12 11:35 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Perhaps because a lot of scientists depend on government funding for their work. Sucks that there were no Libertarians in the poll.
BINGO!!!!
Al Gore: Can you do a $tudy to prove there i$ a $uch thing a$ global Warming?
Scientist: You will have a report on your de$k tomorrow, thank you $ir.
Edited by I35 (04/04/12 11:42 AM)
Post Extras:
|
Ag with kids
5000+ posts
04/04/12 11:53 AM
|
|
In reply to:
So I read that the Pew research center did a poll a couple of years ago in which 55% of scientists said they are democrats, 6% said they are Republican, 32% are independent, and the rest don't know their affiliation.
Interesting...most of the engineers I know tend to be conservatives/Republicans...
Eric '90
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/04/12 11:57 AM
|
|
Quite a difference between a scientist and an engineer. I think you'd have more engineers in the private sector.
Post Extras:
|
Horn-N-LA
1000+ posts
04/04/12 12:09 PM
|
|
Because scientists were the anti-social nerds from childhood that sat in class dreaming of trying to figure out a way to be liked, and if they could prove something, anything, people might like them and accept them?
Greg Davis, sobering up Longhorn fans for 10 years.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/04/12 12:21 PM
|
|
Interesting...most of the engineers I know tend to be conservatives/Republicans...
This was mentioned, but engineer =/= scientist. But most engineers, being better at math than verbal, probably don't know this.
There was a recent poll which said that conservatives don't "trust" science, or that they had the lowest level of trust in science.
It's funny, becasue not too long ago the % of conservatives who believed in global warming was higher than it is today.
The GOP has a real problem with stupid indoctrination, to put it bluntly. If they don't watch it, they're going to be a non-factor pretty soon. Look at them now. Santorum? Really?
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/04/12 12:22 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: Perham1] |
| |
The number of Christians in the NAS is quite low.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/04/12 12:33 PM
|
|
Whoever dares to challenge The One is going to have to be ready for the most vicious attacks in history from the mainstream media. I don't blame the Republicans who want no part of that.
Post Extras:
|
omnipresent
1000+ posts
04/04/12 12:50 PM
|
|
In reply to:
The number of Christians in the NAS is quite low.
THIS
Post Extras:
|
Horn6721
5000+ posts
04/04/12 12:53 PM
|
|
I read a poll that showed polls can be made up to show anything
Post Extras:
|
Leftwith
500+ posts
04/04/12 01:01 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
Everyone in academia is Democrat; why should scientists be any different?
Much like mainstream media, liberals have inserted themselves and taken over.
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/04/12 01:12 PM
|
|
Let's be scientific not just guess.
stat link
73% of scientists are male
78% of scientists are white
94% of scientists are NOT republicans
From this data we can logically hypothesize that the overwhelming majority of scientists are racist white democratic males.
(although the use of racist by definition identifies a skin color of white so I apologize for the redundancy.)
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/04/12 01:24 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: dheiman] |
| |
From this data we can logically hypothesize that the overwhelming majority of scientists are racist white democratic males.
With reasoning like that you must be a creationist.
Or a Republican.
But what am I saying.... you're both!
Some of you are going to extremes (or maybe not extremes, maybe you really don't understand or are aware of the data) to deny that white, evangelical republicans is the biggest bloc that is against science. It doesn't mean that every member of that group is, but as a group, they are.
This is another example where the right-wing evangelical/fundamentalist bloc is damaging the GOP.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
SkySooner
500+ posts
04/04/12 01:25 PM
|
|
I am an engineer and work around many other engineers. Most that I know are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Most are labeled Republican but vote either way depending upon the candidate.
Metaphors be with you!
Post Extras:
|
Leftwith
500+ posts
04/04/12 01:28 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: SkySooner] |
| |
In reply to:
Most that I know are fiscal conservatives and social liberals.
In other words, libertarians. 
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/04/12 01:29 PM
|
|
Engineers are all about science. They just apply it to real world situations.
Post Extras:
|
Uninformed
10,000+ posts
04/04/12 01:39 PM
|
|
I don't know about PEW research's methodology. Who was considered a scientist (for example, were market researchers included), was it just PhDs, did it include potential voters, was it a mail or phone list, where did PEW obtain the list?
The Link
Hookem
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/04/12 01:43 PM
|
|
In reply to:
white, evangelical republicans is the biggest bloc that is against science.
What do you mean against science? Except for a ridiculously small group, virtually all religious people believe in dinosaurs. I will gladly put myself into this group. We believe in cancer curing research, artificial limbs for the injured, heart transplants and the like. Being against science? Are you suggesting half of the population doesn't believe in gravity or thinks the earth is flat?
If by "science" you are referring to the argument of global warming then you have many of us pegged. But I would hardly classify human caused climate devastation as a proven science when it is merely a theory.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/04/12 01:49 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: dheiman] |
| |
What do you mean against science?
Against it. As in, not for it. They don't "trust" science.
Contrary to your claims, the anti-science group within the gop is not ridiculously small. And you are being a bit too clever when you say that virtually all religious people believe in dinosaurs. But believing in dinos isn't really the issue, is it? It is that they believe dinos existed at the same time as did man. So you're creating a rather fraudulent standard there, hoping to pull a fast one over on us. Shame on you.
It would help if you read this link.
Link
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Michtex
2500+ posts
04/04/12 01:49 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: dheiman] |
| |
In reply to:
virtually all religious people believe in dinosaurs.
Of course they do, but they also happen to believe that they co-existed with man.
Post Extras:
|
Michtex
2500+ posts
04/04/12 01:51 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: Uninformed] |
| |
In reply to:
I don't know about PEW research's methodology. Who was considered a scientist (for example, were market researchers included), was it just PhDs, did it include potential voters, was it a mail or phone list, where did PEW obtain the list?
American Association for the Advancement of Science membership list.
The Link
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/04/12 01:56 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: Michtex] |
| |
In reply to:
Of course they do, but they also happen to believe that they co-existed with man.
Not to beat this too much, but you've got to wonder when people can't even distinguish between "believing" that dinos existed vs. believing that dinos existed at the same time as man.
That's some pretty basic stuff, and if you can't even see that what are you even doing in this thread? Comic relief?
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Satchel
2500+ posts
04/04/12 02:01 PM
|
|
and conservatives have lower IQs according to this study:
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice
The Link
Post Extras:
|
Michtex
2500+ posts
04/04/12 02:01 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: Perham1] |
| |
In reply to:
Not to beat this too much, but you've got to wonder when people can't even distinguish between "believing" that dinos existed vs. believing that dinos existed at the same time as man.
They probably thought that Hanna-Barbera were being literal.
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/04/12 02:02 PM
|
|
In reply to:
And you are being a bit too clever when you say that virtually all religious people believe in dinosaurs. But believing in dinos isn't really the issue, is it? It is that they believe dinos existed at the same time as did man.
You give me too much credit. I can only speak for myself and my congregation but I don't know anyone that believes that dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time.
I hate to use the label creationists but if that's what you want to call it then so be it. The bible says God created everything within a 7 day span (technically 6 since he rested on the 7th). Obviously 7 days is not the 168 hours we think of today. Most of the people I talked to believe a day for God could be days, decades, millions of years. A great number of people think dinosaurs could have lived long before man without contradicting the bible. I have no doubt that there are many out there that disagree so my "virtually all" description was obama-esque in its exaggeration but I still think most Christians are not anti science and most understand fossil history.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
SkySooner
500+ posts
04/04/12 02:03 PM
|
|
Pretty much, yes. Now if we could just get a 3rd major party in this country that would be a good thing.
Metaphors be with you!
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/04/12 02:05 PM
|
|
My savior, Jesus Christ, spoke in parables quite often. I expect that his dad did the same. The more you learn about science, the more you realize what a miracle it is.
Post Extras:
|
Uninformed
10,000+ posts
04/04/12 03:12 PM
|
|
In reply to:
American Association for the Advancement of Science membership list.
That methodology actually looks pretty good except for the over-representation of retired scientists. AAAS is heavily weighted towards academia which may effect results. Foreign born scientists working in the US would greatly effect results.
Hookem
Post Extras:
|
Leftwith
500+ posts
04/04/12 03:35 PM
|
|
I used to trust scientists, but then I also used to trust mainstream media.
The cancer that is liberalism is eating up our most valued institutions at an alarming pace. It is beyond sickening.
Post Extras:
|
Crockett
1000+ posts
04/04/12 03:42 PM
|
|
I think it's a matter of scientists being seekers of knowlege. Engineers apply knowledge and like some certainty. By contrast I think of scientists as folks who are on the cutting edge, asking hard questions, doubting conventional responses and not able to be certain about everything. Seems like when I deal with the hard core party faithful, Republicans are certain about everything, even stuff they don't understand or know anything about. Who would feel more comfortable expressing their beliefs at a tea party function, a creationists who believes the world is 6,000 years old or a scientist who believes in man-made global warming?
Post Extras:
|
theiioftx
500+ posts
04/04/12 03:46 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: ShinerTX] |
| |
Ding ding ding ding by Shiner.
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/04/12 03:50 PM
|
|
In reply to:
By contrast I think of scientists as folks who are on the cutting edge, asking hard questions, doubting conventional responses and not able to be certain about everything.
Damn, I guess scientists can't be journalists or politicians.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
BuffaloBayouBevo
250+ posts
04/04/12 03:52 PM
|
|
This isn't necessarily a problem, any moreso than having a disproportionate number of military leadership lean Republican.
Just as we are not fighting wars in pursuit of flat taxes, or whatever, science is not compromised because more scientists identify as Democrats.
Post Extras:
|
Crockett
1000+ posts
04/04/12 06:11 PM
|
|
______________________________________________________________
Damn, I guess scientists can't be journalists or politicians.
______________________________________________________________________
Scientists could be decent journalist, but unless they reach celebrity status, science pays a lot better. But you don't necessarily want a leader who is uncertain. We expect our politicians to have answers -- even if they are canned and insincere -- and to hold to them. When you see a politiician campaigning on a platform, "I can't wait to get to Washington and work for greater knowledge and understanding so we can find intelligent solutions to problems" I'll show you somebody who is going to lose big time to somebody who says "All we need to do to get the economy rolling is cut taxes and repeal Obamacare." Sadly enough, I'd have more trust in the loser, in this case, which is why I do politics on internet message boards rather than volunteering in campaigns or running for office myself.
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
500+ posts
04/04/12 07:29 PM
|
|
In reply to:
and conservatives have lower IQs according to this study:
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
Once again, satchel spews stupid all over hornfans by claiming that all conservatives are racist and prejudiced.
Post Extras:
|
UT1986
500+ posts
04/04/12 08:28 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Pretty much, yes. Now if we could just get a 3rd major party in this country that would be a good thing.
Wow, I'm a geologist and I'm agreeing with a Sooner on political views. What is the world coming to? 
Post Extras:
|
UT1986
500+ posts
04/04/12 08:35 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Damn, I guess scientists can't be journalists or politicians.
Not sure about journalists, but yeah us scientists have integrity and ethics, something that is as foreign to politicians as stromatolites, LOL!
Post Extras:
|
omnipresent
1000+ posts
04/04/12 10:10 PM
|
|
In reply to:
People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb
I had to laugh
bag, you still haven't answered the questions I submitted from yesterday
Post Extras:
|
AustinBat
2500+ posts
04/04/12 10:23 PM
|
|
And no one exemplifies racism and stupidity more than the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons. One needn't be white to be a stupid racist.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/05/12 06:23 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: Leftwith] |
| |
I used to trust scientists...
There is a difference between "science" and "scientists".
The poll I was referencing spoke of trusting science, not scientists.
I guess one can more or less equate the two, which is more easily done with some topics than others, like global warming, and less easily done with, say, evolution.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
rivet
1000+ posts
04/05/12 07:15 AM
|
|
I would trust the independent scientists far more than the democrat or republican scientists! The independent scientists are more intelligent, more honest and resist agendas. Their choice of politics means they're on to something.
For a quarter of a century, Washington and Wall Street have wanted China to become an integral part of the world economy. Their wish has been granted, and now it's time to come to grips with the implications.
Post Extras:
|
accuratehorn
10,000+ posts
04/05/12 07:50 AM
|
|
Maybe most scientists don't want to be part of a right wing evangelical religious cult devoted to inserting religion into government at all levels. Just a theory.
Knowledge is good
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/06/12 02:21 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: dheiman] |
| |
In reply to:
If by "science" you are referring to the argument of global warming then you have many of us pegged. But I would hardly classify human caused climate devastation as a proven science when it is merely a theory
.
The use of the phrase "merely a theory" shows a profound ignorance of what a theory is in science.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Edited by GT WT (04/07/12 10:03 AM)
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/09/12 09:43 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: GT WT] |
| |
The use of the phrase "merely a theory" shows a profound ignorance of what a theory is in science.
Don't you just love it when the same ignorant mistake/misuse of language (theory, here) gets made over and over and over again?
I'm actually starting to think the creationists/anti-science crowd don't know what they are talking about.
Here's a good way to look at it. There are certain data elements within science. You can call them facts, or facts as we currently know them. That does not mean the facts are inviolable. Now, the theory is the framework or structure upon which the facts reside, where the facts/data are construed for the best possible explanatory power. That doesn't mean the current theory is inviolable.
Most of the anti-science/creationist crowd seem to think a theory is merely a guess, or somewhat better than a guess but not much.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Giovanni Jones
500+ posts
04/09/12 10:13 AM
|
|
In short, theory = well-tested explanation for natural phenomona (as opposed to supernatural)
"In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result."
The Link
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes."
The Link
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/09/12 10:45 AM
|
|
In reply to:
If by "science" you are referring to the argument of global warming then you have many of us pegged. But I would hardly classify human caused climate devastation as a proven science when it is merely a theory
The use of the phrase "merely a theory" shows a profound ignorance of what a theory is in science.
Allow me to correct my inappropriate use of the word theory and clarify my meaning.
Yes scientific "truths" are still theories. In my example, global warming should have been classified as a hypothesis and not a theory.
Apparently my unforgivable misuse of the term was so distracting that you missed the point.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/09/12 10:53 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: dheiman] |
| |
In reply to:
Yes scientific "truths" are still theories. In my example, global warming should have been classified as a hypothesis and not a theory.
Not quite. Global warming is pretty much a theory. If you had said man-caused climate change you might have a point.
Meaning, it is without doubt that temperatures are rising. It is not without doubt that man is the primary cause of that warming.
Your misuse of the terms seems to reveal a lack of understanding of the basics. That's not unforgivable, though. Just learn them. You're not going to be making any points if you don't understand what you're talking about.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Clean
1000+ posts
04/09/12 11:23 AM
|
|
Almost all academics are libs. Since most scientists are associated with academia to some degree, it's not surprising that most are dems. Their peers are, so they are. I don't think that it implies anything more meaningful than that.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/09/12 11:59 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: Clean] |
| |
Almost all academics are libs. Since most scientists are associated with academia to some degree, it's not surprising that most are dems. Their peers are, so they are. I don't think that it implies anything more meaningful than that.
That's some bad, bad logic there. Not to mention using some iffy facts. Please link a credible site which says that most scientists are associated with academia, and please specify "to some degree".
Here are some logically defensible reasons:
1. Republicans have taken a lot of anti-science positions lately (climate, evolution, etc) and scientists are just responding to that.
and
I think being a scientist opens one to the idea that certitude is a bad position. Yet certitude is the heart of conservatism. It could be a simple as that.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/09/12 12:02 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: Clean] |
| |
In reply to:
Almost all academics are libs. Since most scientists are associated with academia to some degree, it's not surprising that most are dems.
Many academics are moderate to liberal. There certainly is a healthy representation of conservatives - especially fiscal conservatives.
I think the real reason most scientists are members of or sympathetic to the Democratic Party is the strong anti-science and anti-intellectual position of today's Republican Party. Pro-creationism. Pro-climate science denial. AIDS-denial. Why is there any surprise that few scientists, or any intelligent person, would choose not to be associated with the Republican Party.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
500+ posts
04/09/12 12:11 PM
|
|
In reply to:
I think being a scientist opens one to the idea that certitude is a bad position. Yet certitude is the heart of conservatism. It could be a simple as that.
Coming from you, that's laughable.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/09/12 12:21 PM
|
|
Coming from you, that's laughable.
You seem not to know the difference between ignorant certitude and an appreciation for the scientific method, which has an assurance in the method but not in the outcomes. The data drives the outcomes.
I can't remember if you're on the anti-global warming/pro-creationist portion of the spectrum, but I'll go ahead and make that guess. Do you equate religion with science? Where your certainty in your "revealed" truth is on par with confidence in scientific theories? Therefore, "certainty" in science somehow becomes the same as certainty in one's religious beliefs. That seems to be where you're headed. Your certainty in creationism is merely the flip side of my certainty in evolution; we just arrive at that certainty via different vehicles. Nevermind that the question is inherently a scientific one.
But if you have a substantive point to make, please do so.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/09/12 12:25 PM
|
|
In reply to:
AIDS-denial.
Maybe you can document this a bit further. Are you confusing the GOP with the ANC?
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/09/12 12:30 PM
|
|
In reply to:
I can't remember if you're on the anti-global warming/pro-creationist portion of the spectrum, but I'll go ahead and make that guess. Do you equate religion with science? Where your certainty in your "revealed" truth is on par with confidence in scientific theories? Therefore, "certainty" in science somehow becomes the same as certainty in one's religious beliefs. That seems to be where you're headed. Your certainty in creationism is merely the flip side of my certainty in evolution; we just arrive at that certainty via different vehicles. Nevermind that the question is inherently a scientific one.
Is this you Perham?
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/09/12 12:39 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
Are you saying that prod is not a creationist/global warming denier? I admit that I am making a conclusion. You are assuming that my conclusion is an incorrect one.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
500+ posts
04/09/12 12:40 PM
|
|
In reply to:
You seem not to know the difference between ignorant certitude and an appreciation for the scientific method, which has an assurance in the method but not in the outcomes.
No, I'm pretty sure I have that concept down. I also understand the concept of people like yourself who have so much self-certainty that once you have come to a conclusion, there is no consideration of whether you have included every variable or accounted for every possibility.
I have no issue accepting data from experimentation. I have issues with the idea that if data is not interpreted as you think it should be interpreted, or if someone has the nerve to wonder whether every variable has really been considered, it's a result of stupidity or partisanship.
In reply to:
Do you equate religion with science?
Not really - am I supposed to?
In reply to:
Where your certainty in your "revealed" truth is on par with confidence in scientific theories?
Aren't scientific theories generated by men? Very smart men, certainly, but scientists throughout history have an astounding record of being wrong. And in every instance, the mindset from people such as yourself is that we're sure we're right until it turns out we're not.
You not only display this, but you even go so far as to claim that you "know" that there is no God, that anyone who believes in God is wrong and stupid for doing so - all without a shred of scientific proof to support your opinion. Apparently science opens its mind to all possibilities except for the ones it chooses to reject out of hand.
In reply to:
Therefore, "certainty" in science somehow becomes the same as certainty in one's religious beliefs.
Anyone who believes they can "prove" religious belief needs to go back and review teachings on faith. But in many cases, it does seem they get blurred on both sides.
In reply to:
Your certainty in creationism is merely the flip side of my certainty in evolution; we just arrive at that certainty via different vehicles.
The difference is that I choose not to insult people who took the path you chose. But now I'm confused, I thought evolution was a proven fact. How can it be the flip-side of creationism?
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/09/12 12:42 PM
|
|
No, I was equating this
In reply to:
I can't remember if you're on the anti-global warming/pro-creationist portion of the spectrum, but I'll go ahead and make that guess.
and your jump from that to this
In reply to:
Do you equate religion with science? Where your certainty in your "revealed" truth is on par with confidence in scientific theories? Therefore, "certainty" in science somehow becomes the same as certainty in one's religious beliefs. That seems to be where you're headed.
For a guy that likes to wrap himself in empiricism and logic, you sure engage in a lot of stereo-typing and wild-ass guessing.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/09/12 12:47 PM
|
|
You not only display this, but you even go so far as to claim that you "know" that there is no God....
Well, now you're just engaging in flat-out lying and I respectfull ask you not to do that. But if that's the only way you feel that you can rebut my argument then that's your straetgy, I guess.
But, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself: show me where I have said that. I have said, many times, that there is no way to know if there is a god or not. I have also said that the god as made up by the Christians is more than likely not anywhere close to the real supreme being.
Aren't scientific theories generated by men?
I see where you're going there, and it confirms my assumption.
The difference is that I choose not to insult people....
Maybe not, but you do choose to lie about what they say. Myself, I put the sin of lying above that of being insulting.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/09/12 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
In reply to:
Maybe you can document this a bit further.
In reply to:
AIDS denialism has received some support from political conservatives in the United States. Duesberg's work has been published in Policy Review, a journal once published by The Heritage Foundation but now owned by the Hoover Institution,[52][53][54] and by Regnery Press,[55] as has Tom Bethell's book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, which endorses AIDS denialism.[56] Phillip E. Johnson has accused the Centers for Disease Control of "fraud" in relation to HIV/AIDS.[57] Describing the political aspects of the AIDS denialism movement, Steven Epstein wrote in Impure Science that "... the appeal of Duesberg's views to conservatives—certainly including those with little sympathy for the gay movement—cannot be denied."[52][58] The blog LewRockwell.com has also published articles supportive of AIDS denialism.[59]
That's from Wikipedia (I know it's a hotbed of librul garbage).
The Link
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/09/12 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
For a guy that likes to wrap himself in empiricism and logic, you sure engage in a lot of stereo-typing and wild-ass guessing.
Actually, my guesses are very good.
And, if the other thread (BO being a viable choice) is any indication, my guesses are better than your assertions based on "fact".
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/09/12 12:54 PM
|
|
Since Lew Rockwell said it, I suppose it is a attributable to the whole of the GOP.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/09/12 01:05 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
In reply to:
Since Lew Rockwell said it, I suppose it is a attributable to the whole of the GOP
I would be pleased to hear AIDS-denial isn't a characteristic of the GOP, just like I'd be tickled to hear that a significant part of the GOP isn't into climate-change denial or creationism.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/09/12 01:12 PM
|
|
In reply to:
there is no way to know if there is a god or not. I have also said that the god as made up by the Christians is more than likely not anywhere close to the real supreme being.
If there is no way to know if God even exists, then how could it be more likely that the Christian idea of God is somehow wrong or less likely than another idea?
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/09/12 01:14 PM
|
|
The GOP is a party. Its beliefs are listed on its website right here.
GOP Platform
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/09/12 01:29 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: dheiman] |
| |
If there is no way to know if God even exists, then how could it be more likely that the Christian idea of God is somehow wrong or less likely than another idea?
I didn't say that Xtianity was less likely than any other religion. That seems to be what you're saying here, and I want to be clear that that is not what I said. I said that the Xtian depiction of the supreme being is likely not close to the real supreme being. That is far and away a different thing than to say that Xtianity's version is less likely than another's - which necessarily implies that one of the other religions is "more likely". And if I am saying that another religion is more likely than Xtianity, then I would be claiming to have knowledge that no man has. So, let's get that cleared up now.
But your entire rebuttal is basically a leading question, and one that I didn't make (this seems to be happening a lot here today: people making up stuff and attributing it to me). My position was not phrased in such a way that one could ask me if religion x (or, as you call it, an "idea") is "more likely" than another. That makes this a relative comparison between religions, or ideas, and my statment was not a relative one. Do you understand this distinction?
What I said was that the Xtian version of the supreme being (and all other religions, as far as that goes) is not anywhere close to the real version. I said nothing about Xtianity being more likely, or less likely, than another religion or "idea".
Most religions are equally in error, and equally valid.
*************
edit to add:
Also, I said "more than likely"; not "more likely".
There is a difference.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Edited by Perham1 (04/09/12 01:33 PM)
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/09/12 01:44 PM
|
|
In reply to:
I said that the Xtian depiction of the supreme being is likely not close to the real supreme being.
I understand your distinction but clearly you do not understand my point that since we cannot prove God either exists or doesn't exist there is no way to make any supported claim about the Christian belief. I never stated that you compared Christianity to another religion, but you did state that it was unlikely that the Christian belief is an accurate depiction of the supreme being. You might be right and the real supreme being is nothing like their idea, however you could be wrong and the Christian belief is 100% accurate. Any guesses you have are simply that guesses.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/09/12 02:14 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: dheiman] |
| |
I understand your distinction but clearly you do not understand my point that since we cannot prove God either exists or doesn't exist there is no way to make any supported claim about the Christian belief.
Wrong. One certainly can make a "supported claim" about the Xtian belief. Being a man-made story, as are all other religions, there is very little chance the real god is a vengeful dude who wiped out most of the earth's population with a flood, or who impregnated a virgin with his son (who is also himself), who then sacrificed his son (who is also himself) to save man from himself. I mean, you can believe that story if you want and that's fine, no harm no foul, but to think that the real god is like that? Don't be so literal.
The Xtian version of god is one of many. What makes you think that any version of god is accurate?
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
500+ posts
04/09/12 03:04 PM
|
|
In reply to:
But, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself: show me where I have said that. I have said, many times, that there is no way to know if there is a god or not. I have also said that the god as made up by the Christians is more than likely not anywhere close to the real supreme being.
OK fair enough, I will retract that you used the specific words I attributed to you. But like many others on this board, you find ways of saying things without saying the "exact words.
For example, right after you posted this, you say:
Being a man-made story, as are all other religions, there is very little chance the real god is a vengeful dude who wiped out most of the earth's population with a flood, or who impregnated a virgin with his son (who is also himself), who then sacrificed his son (who is also himself) to save man from himself. I mean, you can believe that story if you want and that's fine, no harm no foul, but to think that the real god is like that? Don't be so literal.
Oh yeah, you clearly are hedging your bets on that comment! No absolute certainty or dogmatic philosophy there!
In reply to:
I see where you're going there, and it confirms my assumption.
I have a feeling you don't.
In reply to:
Maybe not, but you do choose to lie about what they say. Myself, I put the sin of lying above that of being insulting.
I really should stop assuming that people mean what they say on this board. Or that stating as fact that 'all religions are man-made" does not equare to "I know God doesn't exist."
Post Extras:
|
UT1986
500+ posts
04/09/12 04:20 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Myself, I put the sin of lying above that of being insulting.
Perham1 are you an aethist or an agnostic?
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/09/12 04:32 PM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
In reply to:
The GOP is a party. Its beliefs are listed on its website right here.
I'm not sure a party has beliefs but it's members certainly do. How many of the Republican candidates for President this cycle accept climate science? How many are avowed creationists? How many believe in a world-wide flood? How many believe in a young earth?
Contrast the answers to the questions with the positions of scientists and you'l find the answer to why scientists tend to not be Republican.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
chango
2500+ posts
04/09/12 07:00 PM
|
|
Well if you reach the age of 13 and still believe in the Garden of Eden and the Great Flood you aren't going to be a scientist.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/09/12 07:49 PM
|
|
I believe they were both great parables. Am I allowed to remain an engineer?
Post Extras:
|
Uninformed
10,000+ posts
04/09/12 08:22 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Well if you reach the age of 13 and still believe in the Garden of Eden and the Great Flood you aren't going to be a scientist.
Similarly, if you reach the age of 13 and believe everything you are taught, you aren't going to be a great scientist either.
Hookem
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/10/12 06:02 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Or that stating as fact that 'all religions are man-made" does not equare to "I know God doesn't exist."
Ok, I see that we need to discuss this point so that you understand it. First, let's state the conclusion, which is that saying that "all religions are man-made" is not the same as saying that "I know that God doesn't exist". Second, let's discuss the reasons for that conclusion. There may be a supreme being out there. That supreme being may never have interacted with us humans, or with earth during its 4.5 billion years (or, if you prefer, earth's 10,000 years).
Saying that all religion is man-made is most definitely not the same as saying that god doesn't exist, or even moreso that "I know that god doesn't exist." It just doesn't follow. A god can very well exist, and all of humankind's religions may be just fabricated stories and myths.
Why do you think that saying that all religions are man-made necessarily means that "I know that god doesn't exist"?
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/10/12 06:04 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: UT1986] |
| |
In reply to:
Perham1 are you an aethist or an agnostic?
I'm not atheist, but it depends on how that term is defined. Do I "know" that there is no god? No. I don't think anybody can know that at this time. I tend to think that there is a supreme being, but I'm a monotheist, not a polytheist like Christians.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/10/12 06:17 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: GT WT] |
| |
In reply to:
How many of the Republican candidates for President this cycle accept climate science? How many are avowed creationists? How many believe in a world-wide flood? How many believe in a young earth?
Contrast the answers to the questions with the positions of scientists and you'l find the answer to why scientists tend to not be Republican.
As a child, I don't remember the GOP being so aggressively ignorant regarding science, nor do I recall them being held hostage by the evangelical right-wing. Back then, the GOP was the common-sense, fiscally prudent party (or maybe not, but that is how I remember them). Now, they are somewhat of a joke where 3 candidates raise their hand during debates proudly proclaiming that they don't believe in evolution.
I've said over and over: the evangelical wing is doing real damage to the GOP. The GOP has got to get rid of that bloc and get back the normal, intelligent/scientific literate voters, or they are going to be in trouble for a long time.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/10/12 06:32 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: dheiman] |
| |
In reply to:
however you could be wrong and the Christian belief is 100% accurate. Any guesses you have are simply that guesses.
And then every other belief could be 100% accurate, right? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Xenu and Scientology? Joseph Smith and his golden tablets?
I'm saying that I don't think any of those belief systems, Xtianity included, accurately depict the supreme being. People select their religion based not on the truth or accuracy of their religion, but what religion they were raised in (mostly their parents), or what the predominant religion of the region is, or to fit into the culture.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/10/12 06:39 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: Perham1] |
| |
In reply to:
I've said over and over: the evangelical wing is doing real damage to the GOP. The GOP has got to get rid of that bloc and get back the normal, intelligent/scientific literate voters, or they are going to be in trouble for a long time.
I wonder what President Eisenhower would think about today's Republicans. I don't think he would be happy.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/10/12 06:58 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: GT WT] |
| |
In reply to:
I wonder what President Eisenhower would think about today's Republicans. I don't think he would be happy.
Agreed.
If, or more likely when, the Republican nominee loses this next election (not saying that I want the GOP pick to lose, just that that's probably how it's going to shake out) I wonder what the GOP response will be? Will it be "oh, we really have to revamp our base and start appealing to people other than elderly, white, angry voters", or will it be "we lost because we didn't adhere strictly enough to our party purity - we weren't "conservative" enough". I hope it's not the latter.
Here's my look on politics and religion. I remember back in the GWB heyday, where my local large church (full disclosure: PC-USA, so not fundamentalist) parking lot was filled with vehicles festooned with GWB bumper stickers; where the sermons had frequent mentions of the virtuousness of the GOP and the (snicker, snicker) weaknesses (both moral and fiscal) of the Democrats. That's not too bad, but what galled me was all the so-called good "Christians" who thought nothing about starting a bogus war in Iraq where untold young people were killed for no reason; who didn't complain at all when we were torturing people; who were silent when the Patriot Act was eroding our civil liberties. They had no understanding of government. Only that "their side" was now in power and the "other side" was out. They didn't know that once government gets its hooks in there is very little to do to relax that grip. To them, if you weren't conservative you weren't Christian. They also were quick to cite their bible when it came to reasons to not help the poor. But, of course, they just loved their tax cuts.
So basically, I've come to the conclusion that I'm way more Christian than all of them. I think we should try to help those less fortunate than us, we should give the immigrants who have been here awhile a break (yes, even if they got here illegally), that children of illegals should receive a public education, that we should use the brain god gave us and (gosh) accept science, that if gays want to marry let them, that abortion should be legal (doesn't mean I like it, but it should be legal).
What I find amusing is that not too long ago one could "believe" all those things and be accepted in the Republican Party. Today? Not a chance.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/10/12 07:52 AM
|
|
Keep fliipping the red herrings back and forth between yourselves.
As evidenced by the Dem's recent loss of the house, their tenuous grasp of the Senate, and the strange chance that the sitting incumbent Dem President could actually lose the election, I think you two should move on to issues that the voters actually care about.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/10/12 07:54 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
In reply to:
Keep fliipping the red herrings back and forth between yourselves.
As evidenced by the Dem's recent loss of the house, their tenuous grasp of the Senate, and the strange chance that the sitting incumbent Dem President could actually lose the election, I think you two should move on to issues that the voters actually care about.
This coming from a guy who doesn't even know what a scientific theory is....
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/10/12 08:44 AM
|
|
What makes you think that?
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/10/12 08:48 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
My apologies. I was confusing you with another poster.
I don't have the necessary facts to make that claim about you.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/10/12 09:10 AM
|
|
DFWag,
Let's get your perspective. Has the GOP lost touch with it's core values? Has it become so radicalized that Republicans past (Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon, et al.) wouldn't recognize it?
If it has moved to the extreme right and repudiated moderation & compromize is it in the long-term risking loss of relevance?
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/10/12 09:18 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
In reply to:
To them, if you weren't conservative you weren't Christian. They also were quick to cite their bible when it came to reasons to not help the poor. But, of course, they just loved their tax cuts.
It seems our churches have changed as much as our political parties. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years to the membership of each. I wonder if 'radicalized' ends up being the same as 'marginalized'.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/10/12 09:21 AM
|
|
I think the evangelical voting bloc has indeed injected their values into the conversation and I am not comfortable with that despite my personal faith. As I mentioned the other day, I felt this was on horrible display during the Terri Schiavo episode. I am dismayed by creationism as this reflects a very, very conservative portion of the Christian community and not the view of the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and host of other denominations.
That being said, I don't feel the the choice of John McCain or Mitt Romney as presidential candidates somehow legitimizes this view as a key plank of the Republican party. I don't think the House Leadership spends any time crafting policy to advance evangelical goals. I view this as politicians pandering to a voting bloc.
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/10/12 09:22 AM
|
|
If you look at the last several Presidential nominees from both parties, I think it is safe to say that the Democrat party has moved much farther left than the Republican party has moved to the right. Obviously the Tea Party has been a dominant force over the last few years, but I believe that Barack Obama basically created that movement. Look at the nominees:
Mitt Romney (likely) moderate
John McCain - moderate
George W Bush - conservative but a spender
GWB
Bob Dole - pretty pragmatic
George Bush - Moderate
As opposed to:
Barack Obama - socialist tendencies
John Kerry - elite leftist
Al Gore - environmental wacko
Bill Clinton - Moderate
WJC
Michael Dukakis - Liberal
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/10/12 11:54 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
DFWAg,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that the nomination of McCain & the coming nomination of Romney are centrist. I guess I would feel better if those nominations weren't so villified by significant numbers of Republicans.
I'm glad to see Romney gather the support he did. I'd rather the rank-and-file of the GOP didn't have such fascinations with Sarah Palin & Rick Perry. I'm conservative on some issues and liberal on others and I'm scared to death of the extreme right of the Republican Party. I suspect there are others like me that vote against anything GOP because of our distaste for a significant part of the Republican Party.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/10/12 11:59 AM
|
|
I feel the same way about the "leaders" of the Democrat party such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
I know there are some good people in the party but I would not give you one nickel for any of these clowns.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/11/12 08:20 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: ShinerTX] |
| |
In reply to:
Barack Obama - socialist tendencies
John Kerry - elite leftist
Al Gore - environmental wacko
Bill Clinton - Moderate
WJC
Michael Dukakis - Liberal
Shiner,
We all have our perspectives. To say that President Obama has "socialist tendencies" seems to me to be the same as saying he has 'Muslim tendencies'. It's meant to be a perjorative. In reality, Obama is no more a 'socialist' than most other politicians, including Republicans. Most of them support well-fare and social safety nets. Most of them support an expansive role of government. Obama & Bush are more similar politically than they are different.
As for Kerry, you don't want the 'elite' in leadership roles? I can understand why someone from the extreme right doesn't want a 'leftist', but surely you want an elite leader.
Al Gore the "environmental wacko". It sounds like you think anyone concerned with the environment is a 'wacko'. I don't think you don't mean that.
Bill Clinton as a 'moderate'. I don't know. He seems like a nice guy to me. Maybe we can promote him to right-of-center.
Michael Dukakis - liberal. I wonder when 'liberal' became a bad person? I find most of the liberals of my acquaintance to be likeable sorts. They love their families. They love their country. They want to do good. I can see attacking their ideas, but not them personally.
Oh, well.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/11/12 08:37 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I wonder when 'liberal' became a bad person? I find most of the liberals of my acquaintance to be likeable sorts. They love their families. They love their country. They want to do good.
I think generally this is true. Liberals aren't bad people and are individually very likable. It has been said many times that conservatives use logic and liberals use emotions to influence decisions. I also think this is true in its purest form as in driven by the heart vs driven by the brain and not in any way derogatory.
The biggest problem we have is fiscal and I'm ready to put aside social conflicts to straighten out our national bank account. If I thought a democratic candidate was fiscally conservative and prepared to make the hard decisions to get us out of debt I truly think I could support that candidate. As it stands I'm not sure the republicans have presented anyone capable of this either but in my opinion their candidate (assuming Romney now) is closer to that end goal.
I had no illusions that Bush was a fiscal conservative but I again thought he was closer to one than either Kerry or Gore. Since neither won we cannot be sure but Bush was much farther than I had hoped from being fiscally conservative. The best I can say about Obama is that he isn't any better than Bush.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/11/12 08:58 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Mitt Romney (likely) moderate
John McCain - moderate
George W Bush - conservative but a spender
GWB
Bob Dole - pretty pragmatic
George Bush - Moderate
As opposed to:
Barack Obama - socialist tendencies
John Kerry - elite leftist
Al Gore - environmental wacko
Bill Clinton - Moderate
WJC
Michael Dukakis - Liberal
I accepted a few years back that my version of moderate is a liberal's version of a conservative and vice-versa. I am just down to what I believe in these days and try to do the best among the choices that might advance these beliefs. They all end up wandering from their rhetoric and making convenient choices on the margin that betray what they held forth as core principles.
What is that Khruschev saying that Nixon quoted? "To be a Statesman, you sometimes have to act like a politician." That is why he starting fixing prices despite having Milton Friedman and George Schultz in his cabinet. It has only gotten worse from there.
Post Extras:
|
BuffaloBayouBevo
250+ posts
04/11/12 08:59 AM
|
|
In reply to:
It has been said many times that conservatives use logic and liberals use emotions to influence decisions. I also think this is true in its purest form as in driven by the heart vs driven by the brain and not in any way derogatory.
I think this used to be true, and the touchy-feely "its for the children!" mentality was always what turned me off about liberals. However, I think this has shfited to the poin that Republicans have become the party of "feelers." Not just Boehner, but just read this board, and people are either getting irrationally angry at an imaginary construct of Obama or weepy about an America lost (as if this country has ever been static in its value, demographics etc.)
The Republicans began to accumulate real power in the 1960s because of intellectuals like Buckley and Irving Kristol. However, in the past decade the party is no longer fueled to the same extent by genuine ideas, but rather anger, angst, and general weepiness.
The Republicans are now just as much a bunch of hyperemotional teenagers as the Democrats were thirty-forty years ago.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 09:17 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I think this used to be true, and the touchy-feely "its for the children!" mentality was always what turned me off about liberals. However, I think this has shfited to the poin that Republicans have become the party of "feelers." Not just Boehner, but just read this board, and people are either getting irrationally angry at an imaginary construct of Obama or weepy about an America lost (as if this country has ever been static in its value, demographics etc.)
The Republicans began to accumulate real power in the 1960s because of intellectuals like Buckley and Irving Kristol. However, in the past decade the party is no longer fueled to the same extent by genuine ideas, but rather anger, angst, and general weepiness.
The Republicans are now just as much a bunch of hyperemotional teenagers as the Democrats were thirty-forty years ago.
I completely agree.
I've been trying to understand and quantify why this change has taken place. Not to beat a dead horse, but my hypothesis so far points to the evangelical crowd who have brought their influence to the GOP. This hasn't been good for the GOP.
There's a lot of stupidity on both sides of the aisle. But to call Obama "socialist"? Give me a break.
When the GOP starts offering solutions, which necessarily will include cuts to defense and entitlement programs alike, as well as increases in taxes, then things will be on the right track.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
1000+ posts
04/11/12 09:36 AM
|
|
In reply to:
If it has moved to the extreme right and repudiated moderation & compromize is it in the long-term risking loss of relevance?
I know it's really tempting to look at everything in a vacuum and ignore any outside factors. By this measure, I think you could probably argue that the GOP has gotten more conservative in some areas. Having said that, couldn't the increased emphasis on spending cuts be a function of a runaway deficit? (for example)
I would also argue that most of the social issues that you consider "crazy" and "extreme" actually haven't changed, but rather society has changes and moved away from them somewhat. Evangelicals felt safe that the government would leave them in peace for a long time, but in the last several years the government has become more and more active in trying to mold social opinion. Now we have a DOJ that has repeatedly attempted to interfer in religious organizations' activities. Is it any wonder they might want someone in office who would respect their consciences and beliefs? Or at least understand them?
What changes in the party have their been that can't be explained by a change in nature or intensity from the other side of the aisle?
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 09:41 AM
|
|
In reply to:
By this measure, I think you could probably argue that the GOP has gotten more conservative in some areas.
Lol. You "think" that you could "probably" argue that the GOP has gotten more conservative in some areas?
Wow. You are really neck-deep in denial.
Let me put it this way. I KNOW that I could DEFINITELY argue that the GOP has gotten more conservative in some areas.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
1000+ posts
04/11/12 09:57 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Let me put it this way. I KNOW that I could DEFINITELY argue that the GOP has gotten more conservative in some areas.
So now agreement isn't even enough, it has to be agreement to the same fervor that you hold? That's kind of weird...
So what are these areas? Just curious if we're thinking of the same things.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 10:08 AM
|
|
It is quite clear to the most casual observer that the GOP has become more conservative in some areas, that's all I'm saying.
I'm saying nothing of degree of fervor, prod. Again, you seem to be misreading the text. I'm just saying that it is quite obvious that the GOP has become conservative in some areas.
One of them is abortion.
See? That wasn't so difficult.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/11/12 10:37 AM
|
|
Or you could argue that the Democratic party has become more permissive.
There is more polarization but saying 9 out of 10 Republicans now not liking abortion under any circumstance versus 8 out of 10 is not really any big change.
As you can see here, Repubs have always been against it by a very clear margin.
Gallup data linked here
Long Run Opinion Poll on Abortion
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/11/12 10:39 AM
|
|
But I will grant that there is clearly a trend in more Rebublicans favoring a total ban on abortions. That is pretty clear from the data.
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
1000+ posts
04/11/12 10:41 AM
|
|
In reply to:
One of them is abortion.
At what point has the GOP ever been pro-choice? If your argument is that they were always pro-life, just not as strident about it, I go back to my original point. When something you view as objectionable isn't getting a lot of favorable press and isn't being promoted actively in society, you don't feel the need to speak out on it as much.
Can you really argue that pro-choice activists haven't become more and more insistent not only on abortion being accepted, but on it being promoted and paid for by taxpayer money?
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 10:44 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
In reply to:
Or you could argue that the Democratic party has become more permissive.
Wrong, Not that the Dems may not have become more permissive, but wrong in phrasing the issue now as a relative one, whereby you seem to be saying that the Dems becoming more permissive negates the GOP becoming more conservative.
So, yes, you can say that the Dems may have become more "liberal". What you cannot say, however, is the "or" aspect of it.
I have little to no hope that this point will be understood.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/11/12 10:47 AM
|
|
Care to address the other data-points? Should I have little or no hope that you will?
Seizing on that one point and ignoring the larger data-sets and positions directly addressing your point is more weak sauce.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 10:51 AM
|
|
In reply to:
At what point has the GOP ever been pro-choice?
And where did I say that?
You really need to read better, prod.
I never said that the GOP was pro-choice; what I said was that the GOP views regarding abortion have become more conservative. That means.... the GOP could have been orginally pro-life by, say, a 52-48 ration, but now are pro-life by, say, 75-25. In both cases, they were not pro-choice.
Second, are you aware that Roe was not opposed by a majority of Christians at the time of its ruling? The objection came much later.
But seem to have lost sight of my objection.
I have not said that pro-choice activists have become, or not become, more insistent. That is irrelevelant to my critique of your incorrect statement.
Abortion should be covered by taxpayer funds. To deny that is absurd. To deny that is to let one's selective emotions carry the day.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 10:53 AM
|
|
Re: Why are so many scientists dems and not republican
[re: DFWAg] |
| |
In reply to:
Care to address the other data-points? Should I have little or no hope that you will?
In what context? That they prove the GOP has not become more conservative in some areas? Because, if you recall, that was my point. It was not that the Dems haven't become more liberal.
Please better define what you're looking for, because you're not addressing my critique.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
1000+ posts
04/11/12 10:54 AM
|
|
In reply to:
wrong in phrasing the issue now as a relative one, whereby you seem to be saying that the Dems becoming more permissive negates the GOP becoming more conservative.
That's like saying that I can drive my car down the road a half a mile and then wonder why my house has moved. Of course it's relative. If society in general becomes more lax, then of course positions that were at one time moderate are going to seem conservative.
The question still stands - on what issues have conservatives changed their views? I'm not arguing that there aren't any, but abortion isn't one of them.
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/11/12 10:56 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Abortion should be covered by taxpayer funds. To deny that is absurd.
Honest question:
Based on your comment, would you categorize abortions as elective surgeries?
For the sake of this discussion let's keep it simple and omit rape victims, that's a different discussion entirely.
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 11:01 AM
|
|
In reply to:
The question still stands - on what issues have conservatives changed their views?
You seem incapable of learning. Go back and read my above post where I already explained that.
I'll give you a hint: I said that the GOP has become more conservative; that is not the same thing as saying they changed their views. I've already explained this, so you must not be capable of getting it. I'm kinda serious about that. I don't want to say you're not bright enough to understand it, but come on, how many times will it take? The GOP view may not have changed, but it may have become more conservative. Is it really that difficult a concept?
Abortion is one of those topics. That is quite clear. You saying it isn't is an artifact of your inability to address the issue at hand.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 11:04 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
1000+ posts
04/11/12 11:13 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 11:20 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
msdw24
2500+ posts
04/11/12 11:24 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 11:31 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
1000+ posts
04/11/12 11:31 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/11/12 11:34 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 11:35 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
UT1986
500+ posts
04/11/12 11:38 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 11:41 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
msdw24
2500+ posts
04/11/12 11:51 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
1000+ posts
04/11/12 11:55 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 12:16 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/11/12 12:25 PM
|
|
Edited by GT WT (04/11/12 12:38 PM)
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 12:40 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/11/12 12:47 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/11/12 12:56 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/11/12 01:01 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/11/12 01:15 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
1000+ posts
04/11/12 01:20 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
msdw24
2500+ posts
04/11/12 03:03 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/11/12 03:35 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/12/12 06:46 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/12/12 07:04 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 07:19 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/12/12 07:36 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
DFWAg
1000+ posts
04/12/12 07:53 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Bronco
250+ posts
04/12/12 08:22 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/12/12 08:52 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 09:46 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/12/12 09:58 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/12/12 10:07 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 10:09 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/12/12 11:32 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 12:12 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/12/12 01:17 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/12/12 01:20 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/12/12 01:29 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/12/12 01:38 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/12/12 01:53 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/12/12 02:03 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/12/12 08:06 PM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/13/12 07:19 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Michtex
2500+ posts
04/13/12 07:24 AM
|
|
Edited by Michtex (04/13/12 07:46 AM)
Post Extras:
|
ShinerTX
1000+ posts
04/13/12 07:39 AM
|
|
Post Extras:
|
Shop the Co-op |
Email A Friend |
Contact Us
Pages in this thread: 
Rate thread
Print Thread
