Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

She was the one that said it was Zygote until the moment of birth and apparently you agree so I stand by my assertion that you are fine with misusing the word zygite in orrder to make killing an unborn baby more palatable

FoxHastings said: ↑
You may call it all the erroneous names you want, A human being, a baby, a pogostick, a princess, a bun but it will always and only be a zygote.... with NO rights until it's born.

 

What's clear is you think it's a zygote until it is born.

FoxHastings said: ↑
You may call it all the erroneous names you want, A human being, a baby, a pogostick, a princess, a bun but it will always and only be a zygote.... with NO rights until it's born.

 

BUT thanks again for proving the title of the thread is correct. Science HAS frightened some people for a long time...and they feel a need to "misrepresent" what others post because hey have no good argument.

 

You can run but you can't hide.

FoxHastings said: ↑
You may call it all the erroneous names you want, A human being, a baby, a pogostick, a princess, a bun but it will always and only be a zygote.... with NO rights until it's born.

 

You can repeat the "misinterpretation" but you'll never have a good argument

 

It's a direct quote and you will just have to deal with it.

FoxHastings said: ↑
You may call it all the erroneous names you want, A human being, a baby, a pogostick, a princess, a bun but it will always and only be a zygote.... with NO rights until it's born.

 

Why don't you explain why this Inter-Glacial Period is colder than the previous Inter-Glacial Periods?

 

History clearly proves that this sentiment is well founded.

 

isn't funny how these right wingers believe in double think - despite all the proof that Congress and the courts are on Trump's side, they still pretend Trump is up against it

phooey

 

Right wingers always claim to belong to the party of principles and Christian moral values. But their actions clearly reveal the Pharisee in many of them.

 

Nope. Never.
Self pity - a sure sign of low self esteem.

 

Good post. Even more significant would be the thoughts of Mr Conservative Barry Goldwater. Just imagine what a principled person like him would be saying about Trump and his programmed disciples.

 

China says China has a good ways to go and that they are going to do it.

I don't have a problem with that - it's clear they are doing what they say they are.

 

It's not "all about the regulation".

We DO know what was being done before each piece of regulation. We know, for example, that automakers refused to install seat belts. There was a sound reasonn for that - their competitors weren't doing it, and price is a signifiant factor in auto corporation success. We know what happened to our rivers - and we know why.

We do regulate drugs. And, our pharma products are incredibly good because of it.

As for those drugs that are illegal, I'm open to hearing proposals. It's not as if "just say no" worked. It's not as if we grow cocain here. And, we do know an increasing amount about adiction. So, feel free to propose an improvement.

 

Because I am under no obligation to respond to your strawman!

 

Those principled genuine conservatives of yore would be appalled to see what the GOP has DEGENERATED into with a scumsucking racist nationalist in the Oval office who they would have impeached in a heartbeat at the first opportunity because it would be what is best for the nation.

 

You believe China ?? Too funny.

 

Improvement... good objective; elusive answers.

I think first, that requires a realistic understanding of the problem by the general public. That includes an understanding that you don't cure the disease by treating the symptoms, and that is hard to get across. It includes recognition that while what we are doing makes us feel it is a righteous effort- it's not working.

It requires a recognition that the only real regulation that is consistent is self-regulation. It's difficult to control peoples actions or inclinations by legislation, good or bad. If we could, there would be no crime. We have laws because so many people do not regulate themselves, or do so in a way that harms others. Laws cannot cure addition.

I think addiction is a state of mind, complicated by a physiological predisposition and vulnerability. The drug may be any of many things; anything a person may become dependent on to ease whatever feeling or situation they are trying to avoid.

The cure- is personal strength in terms of a person finding themselves capable of determining their own path and destiny- and not needing to be dependent; rejecting the very concept of being dependent. How do we cultivate that? It is perhaps a cultural issue, going back to how we live and raise our children. As such, there is no short term answer, no universal cure. To some degree this will always be with us, and in various way probably always has. However it is an epidemic issue today.

I have considered one idea in regard to illegal drugs that I think has potential. It's obvious we can't control the flow of drugs themselves, nor the addicts who buy them.
But there is a way to gut the illegal drug industry in short order- and that is to take the profit out of it.
How?

Recognize the scope of the problem and that we cannot achieve the goal we want in the way we are attempting it now.
Accept that addicts will get drugs, and control of addiction hinges upon controlling the drugs themselves, but again, not in our present way. We need actual control.

Key- Set up a government source to supply them, at cost of production.
What happens? Illegal drugs are no longer profitable. Cartels, street dealers, etc lose all incentive- the only real incentive that motivates them.
Drug-related crimes from stealing and prostitution to pay for drugs to cartel murders dry up.
Drugs no longer contain poisonous boosters like fentanyl, and drug deaths should fall dramatically.
Addicts are identified, and can be enrolled or reached by rehab programs.
In addition to rehab, re-education and programs designed to integrate ex-addicts back into the mainstream economy could be added.

Now if we were to attempt this- the outrage over the government participating this way would be vast, regardless of the long-term potential.
Many people can't see beyond today, and their moral indignity would rule their position.

The cost of doing this would be high- but I doubt that it would begin to equal the cost of what we are doing now.
Both in financial economics and human economics, I can see it as being a far better path.
Could it be done? IF you could get the public on board; IF you could get it through congress without having it compromised into a political project and bureaucracy- and IF you could get it well-managed and efficiently goal-oriented, perhaps.
Very big IF's.

When you find yourself on the wrong road, you don't correct the problem by going faster or turning on the radio. I think that is somewhat what has happened with the war on drugs; we haven't a prayer of winning, we refuse to recognize that, and have not been open to the idea of seriously changing course.

 

Analysts know what they are actually doing.

So, I don't have to believe their leaders.

But, the fact of the matter is that they are doing what the leaders said they would do.

Also, let's remember that their serious environmental problems are a strong motivator. It's not as if they are merely doing what the IPCC told them to do. In fact, let's remember that the IPCC doesn't tell ANY COUNTRY what it should do.

 

I don't agree.

Regulation happens when self-regulation FAILS. And, not before.

So yes - when people or corporations present our nation with problems, creating regulation is one of the several methods of correcting that.

Well, we still have to address the problems of those who are addicted, of course.

Beyond that, we're trying your idea with marijuana, except that we aren't getting the government involved in growing or supplying it. In general, it's good that our government isn't in the business of supplying product. There is a name for the economic model that has the government supplying products.

Free market capitalism is better at it.

Plus, government can still be as involved as we want it to be through regulation. We can keep pot store fronts from being across the street from the high schools, for example. I'm glad we have such regulation here in Seattle.

Finally, I'd point out that for the harder drugs, death is a real possibility. And, we've found that this death penalty isn't an adequate deterrent.

 

They are selling green energy to the west. By so doing they are generating profits and weakening the economies of the west by increasing their energy costs. Wake up !!!

And yes, this is exactly what their leaders intend.

 

They are installing that technology in China, too.

Analysts say they are adding about 2 football fields of solar per HOUR in China.

They are making large investments in other clean energy technology, too.

They don't really have a choice. Their cities are in horrible condition due to the use of fossil fuels.

 

What analysts are those ??

The Chinese will do nothing to negatively impact their economic growth. And they will do everything they can to harm the economies of the west.

 

Even if that were true it wouldn't constitute a justification for the USA to cede the clean energy segment to China.

The US already has far more people working in clean energy than in coal. We should be promoting that growth, not trying to give even MORE advantage to fossil fuel in order to stifle actual free market competition.

We need to be looking more forward than backward in identifying where our economy can expand - even if one of the results is more clean energy!!

 

It is the progress left and so called science that feels the need for control. There is a fake and biased so called media bias Fact Check that labels all opposition to their version of climate change and global warming pseudoscience or a questionable source. They also label all who believe in the existence of angels or promote any form of creation or intelligent design as pseudoscience. It’s the pro science secularists who are insecure bigots who feel the need to label, censor, and content control others viewpoints. It wouldn’t be so bad if MBFC and it’s so called scientist founder was a stand alone organization. Sadly as MBFC brags there are many absolute idiots out there who use that service in their own spaces in order to use their ratings as a censorship tool to content control religious and social conservative beliefs they don’t like. It’s not that conservatives are anti science but that the secular so called pro science crowd are so hateful and bigoted against conservatives and Christians.