Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Lori Mckenna Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer angrybirds angrybirds angrybirds  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Do Conservatives Really Hate Science?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 618 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jul 4, 2012 10:41:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 11:31:17 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 11:27:55 AM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Drinking again? Isn't it a little too early in the day?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 12:48:42 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 3:08:20 PM PDT
Tero says:
It never ends, now its the swedish chickens again!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 5:19:58 PM PDT
G'day Chris,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't see it last time so I'll put it to you again:

Nice piece of parodic sarcasm.

Your postulation on species' origin and diversity is welcome.

(Gentle lob into forehand backcourt).

071V8

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 6:56:56 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Eric M. O'Neill said:
"They instill in Tom the idea that college professors are a bunch of liberals who waste taxpayer money on unnecessary research. They wouldn't care if professors did this research with their own money, but why should Tom's parents' taxes go toward research on things like butterfly sex."

Why are conservatives so obsessed with sex?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:02:51 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
D:'Why are conservatives so obsessed with sex?'

-Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

16:18 27 February 2009 by Ewen Callaway

Americans may paint themselves in increasingly bright shades of red and blue, but new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:04:21 PM PDT
"Why are conservatives so obsessed with sex? "

Probably because they're not getting any

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 7:12:58 PM PDT
Steve says:
I obviously can't speak for everyone else, and I may be the exception to the norm, but I am a conservative (but not ultra right wing scary conservative), a Christian, and I love science. We live in an age where there are new discoveries everyday, and the amount of knowledge that is readily available is astounding. What's not to love?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:17:16 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
SMF:'but I am a conservative (but not ultra right wing scary conservative), a Christian, and I love science.'

That's lovely, but the fact of the matter is that the political party that espouses a claimed conservative ideology is at odds with your views on science.

It might be worth your spending some time pondering and researching why that is so.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:17:57 PM PDT
Rover says:
I said "... Conservatism is not."
You said "... conservatism definitely is. Glad we agree."

Qualifiers or not, you said conservatism definitely is anti-Science and that we agreed.

That was dishonest. It's not, and we don't agree.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:20:04 PM PDT
Rover says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:25:28 PM PDT
Rover says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:32:01 PM PDT
Rover says:
You said "The problem for conservatives stems to eduations origin. Conservatives originally sought to restrict access to education to the upper class only. So today's public school system was specifically a Liberal movement to begin with and carries a lot of the bias with it even today."

That's laughably false! The first universities were established out of purely religous institutions by religious people for religious people.

You really should study history.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:33:23 PM PDT
Rover says:
The guy makes absurdly false statements like this and gets 5 of 7 yes votes? Doesn't anyone read history?!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:36:32 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 4, 2012 7:40:06 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:37:58 PM PDT
Rover says:
And that proves univerisities by and large aren't hostile work environments for conservatives?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:56:00 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Rover said:
"I said physicists were wrong to conflate metaphysics with physics.
You don't seem to accept the difference either."

Actually I do. One is useful, the other not so much. One relies on evidence, the other mostly on lots of talk.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 8:06:09 PM PDT
Rover says:
Both are very useful.

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 8:58:44 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Rover said:
"Both are very useful."

Keep telling yourself that.

CERN may have found the Higgs Boson. How's that metaphysics coming?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 9:14:11 PM PDT
Rover says:
That's just ignorant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 9:50:34 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
R:'And that proves univerisities by and large aren't hostile work environments for conservatives?'

That universities are 'hostile' environments to anti factual willfully ignorant nonsense is a Good Thing.

Here's the latest gross and willful ignorance from a ReThuglican: -Chris Collins: 'People Now Don't Die From Prostate Cancer, Breast Cancer'-

-GOP congressional candidate Chris Collins knows health care is expensive these days, but he argues it's for good reason: People are no longer dying from deadly forms of cancer.

"People now don't die from prostate cancer, breast cancer and some of the other things," he told The Batavian in an interview that was flagged Tuesday by City & State NY. Collins was discussing his desire to repeal Obamacare.

"The fact of the matter is, our healthcare today is so much better, we're living so much longer, because of innovations in drug development, surgical procedures, stents, implantable cardiac defibrillators, neural stimulators -- they didn't exist 10 years ago," he continued. "The increase in cost is not because doctors are making a lot more money. It's what you can get for healthcare, extending your life and curing diseases."

In fact, a lot of people do die from breast cancer and prostate cancer, despite advances in treatment. An estimated 577,190 people in the United States will die from cancer this year, including about 39,920 deaths from breast cancer and 28,170 from prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.

The organization also points out that uninsured people are less likely to detect cancer in its early stages, making it far more expensive to treat.-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/chris-collins-cancer_n_1647196.html

Yeah, Republicans ARE that stoopid these days. But their own choice. Derision is thus, their well earned consequence. Especially in places of actual learning.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 5:21:06 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Oh look, Haynes made another post.

Still running and hidiing from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work.

Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 5:23:32 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
I said that one category of conservatism is anti-science. You declared that conservatism as a whole is not anti-science.

Both statements are correct; therefore we agree... unless you dishonestly remove my qualifiers to pretend I'm talking about ALL conservatism instead of one subgroup, which is what you blatantly did. Just admit your gambit failed and move on, Rover.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 6:52:05 AM PDT
Bill M. says:
>>I am a conservative (but not ultra right wing scary conservative),
>>a Christian, and I love science. [SMF]
>>
>>That's lovely, but the fact of the matter is that the political party
>>that espouses a claimed conservative ideology is at odds with
>>your views on science. [Andre Lieven]

Not all conservatives automatically side with the Republican party, just as not all liberals side with the Democratic party. Personally, I don't see too much scientific thinking among EITHER party's politicians. I suspect it's because Americans on the whole (including those who go to law school) largely seem to be lacking a basic understanding of science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 7:25:28 AM PDT
Nat says:
Rev. We have always thought and got along but my dear otter I agree that "I think most scientists are viewed as, or claim to be, liberals.>>

which is farking STUPID. only because i love learning science all sciences, i am just one of those people who is addicted to learning. Yea, we exist. Neither of you are accurate. The truth is unless the scientist is in a field that has semi political applications even give a darn about politics. Although, they are very angry that school isn't making students learn advanced physics and work with it fluently then we would be about 300 years or so more advanced technology wise than we are today. We are friggin running late 300 years. That is the biggest political commotion that's interesting.

Also, go actually to wiki search define liberal. Which is like never done by anyone because they just assume they know from public experience. Yeah, that public experience is lying ll over the place and not just what it is to be the other partys and what not.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  45
Total posts:  618
Initial post:  Jun 26, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions