FARK.com: (6847180) Who is more anti-science, Republicans or Democrats? Correct

		Who is more anti-science, Republicans or Democrats? Correct (reason.com)		190
		More: Interesting, Republican, Democrats, Ronald Bailey, White House Office, Consumers Union, scientists believe, embryonic stem cells, taxpayer dollars

• • •

4316 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:19 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6847180

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

190 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

nmrsnr

2011-12-27 08:10:30 PM

Firstly, sports tab? Really?

Secondly, the right denies widely accepted tenets of science, whereas the left does not deny the results, but are supremely leery of unintended consequences. One is actually anti-science, the other is merely jumping at shadows.

One could argue (like the author does) that the left goes too far in its reticence and ends up as anti-science, but so far none of the potential science-denialism of the left (anti-vaxers, GM foods are bad, cell phones give you cancer) have even come close to being instituted as regulation. Vaccines are still universally recommended, GM foods aren't going anywhere, and everyone has a cell phone. No candidate on the left campaigns on any anti-science platform, while those on the right consistently campaign against scientific interests (who needs volcano monitors, $3 million to study bears? Ridiculous, etc.).

propasaurus

2011-12-27 08:42:40 PM

Let me guess, Reason has come up with some way to say republicans are better than Democrats while pretending to be "independent."

dahmers love zombie

2011-12-27 08:44:07 PM

Or, submittard, you could read the farking article, in which the AUTHOR SAYS THAT REPUBLICANS ARE MORE ANTI-SCIENCE. It would require actually reading it to the end, but perhaps this was a bit difficult.

As nmrsnr notes correctly, the left has its share of woo science proponents, but there are basically zero political/social leaders in the mainstream left (nor really in the fringe left) who are ardently anti-science. By contrast, the mainstream right wing is beholden to a profoundly anti-science viewpoint. Every single Republican candidate for president is avowedly creationist. Every single one.

The notion that the left is equally anti-science would be laughable if it weren't so pathetlcally wrong.

namatad

2011-12-27 08:48:02 PM

In September, a pundit fight broke out over whether Team Blue or Team Red is more "anti-science." Microbiologist Alex Berezow, editor of RealClearScience, struck the first blow in the pages of USA Today. "For every anti- science Republican that exists," he wrote, "there is at least one anti-science Democrat. Neither party has a monopoly on scientific illiteracy."

I call BULLSHIAT!

More atheist and agnostics are or vote democrat.
Therefore this is just BS.

And yes, I am asserting a correlation between in the belief in magic sky pilot and anti-science.

We really should pass some laws preventing people who disagree with science from being allowed to use the fruits of science.
Sorry, no antibiotics, no tv, no phones, gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

namatad

2011-12-27 08:49:22 PM

dahmers love zombie: The notion that the left is equally anti-science would be laughable if it weren't so pathetlcally wrong.

well this would also require the tards on the right to actually understand how science works in order to prove that they are wrong ...

abb3w

2011-12-27 09:01:39 PM

FTA: By the way, the Pew poll found that 71 percent of both Republicans and Democrats support mandating childhood vaccination.

"Both sides are bad, so vote Republican.

coco ebert

2011-12-27 09:16:29 PM

That's weird. There was a post in this thread that just disappeared. It wasn't offensive or anything.

Headso

2011-12-27 09:17:14 PM

GAT_00: abb3w: FTA: By the way, the Pew poll found that 71 percent of both Republicans and Democrats support mandating childhood vaccination.

"Both sides are bad, so vote Republican.

Also, how is it bad to mandate childhood vaccination? That helps everyone. Yes, a few children might die, but immunizing an entire population prevents thousands of deaths.

don't mandate, educate... cheesy...

mandates are creepy in general then you have to pay for enforcement, helping people see that it is a good idea to do X is the way to go.

DarwiOdrade

2011-12-27 09:29:29 PM

coco ebert: That's weird. There was a post in this thread that just disappeared. It wasn't offensive or anything.

They moved my boobies when the moved the thread from the sports tab to the politics tab

Headso

2011-12-27 09:40:33 PM

However, that only holds true if groups opposing biotech foods-such as the Sierra Club, the Consumers Union, and Greenpeace-can be considered to be on the fringe of Democratic Party politics.

There are many reasons to oppose big-agra, is their opposition to these companies operations specifically opposed to that narrow issue?

With regard to nukes, the Pew survey found that 70 percent of scientists are in favor of building more nuclear power plants, compared to 62 percent of Republicans and just 45 percent of Democrats.

I think it is pretty debatable depending on the location if building a nuke plant is safe or not.

And with vaccines you have similar trust in them despite prominent dems saying nutty things about it.

abb3w

2011-12-27 09:42:23 PM

GAT_00: Also, how is it bad to mandate childhood vaccination?

It's not; however, the statistic suggests roughly equal percentages OPPOSE them.

TheOther

2011-12-27 09:43:38 PM

DarwiOdrade: coco ebert: That's weird. There was a post in this thread that just disappeared. It wasn't offensive or anything.

They moved my boobies when the moved the thread from the sports tab to the politics tab

*snert*

Headso

2011-12-27 09:44:30 PM

GAT_00: Educate will never stop the random idiots. It should and must be universal.

It's ok if there is some random idiots they should be debunked thouroughly and then mocked. You force things on people and you end up feeding into what those random idiots are saying. Curious now, what do you do if a person refuses to get their child vaccinated?

mrshowrules

2011-12-27 09:45:04 PM

doglover

2011-12-27 10:01:51 PM

nmrsnr: $3 million to study bears? Ridiculous

HOW DARE YOU SIR!

Don't TOUCH our funding.

We're on the cusp.

nmrsnr

2011-12-27 10:12:26 PM

doglover: nmrsnr: $3 million to study bears? Ridiculous

HOW DARE YOU SIR!

Don't TOUCH our funding.

We're on the cusp.
[i25.photobucket.com image 487x423]

I'm all for it, you're problem is with John McCain, but since he did not win I fully expect the first Beariot prototypes to roll off the assembly line sometime this year.

mrshowrules

2011-12-27 10:26:28 PM

GAT_00: Headso: Curious now, what do you do if a person refuses to get their child vaccinated?

Ban from any public schools or universities at any level.

Michelle Bachman says that the HPV virus causes down syndrome so I think people should decide themselves if they want to take that risk.

Snarfangel

2011-12-27 10:40:51 PM

propasaurus: Let me guess, Reason has come up with some way to say republicans are better than Democrats while pretending to be "independent."

Well, let's test that hypothesis scientifically:

So who is more anti-science, Democrats or Republicans? On the specific issues discussed above, I conclude that the Republicans are more anti-science. However, Berezow is right that scientific "ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway."

mamoru

2011-12-27 11:26:48 PM

From TFA: On biological evolution, the survey reported that 97 percent of scientists agree that living things, including human beings, evolved over time

I would really like to know what kind of science that those 3 percent are doing when they disagree with what may be the best supported scientific theory [kanye]OF ALL TIME[/kanye]. I mean, seriously, biological evolution is observed fact, and the theorized mechanisms of that evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, etc etc) are more well supported by the observed facts than many other scientific theories that people generally take for granted.

jaytkay

2011-12-27 11:31:47 PM

GAT_00: Headso: Curious now, what do you do if a person refuses to get their child vaccinated?

Ban from any public schools or universities at any level.

Banning is authoritarian. You must allow choice.

We should simply spread polio and smallpox through the ventilation systems of public schools and universities.

Then the anti-vaxers can choose whether or not they really believe their idiocy .

YoungSwedishBlonde

2011-12-27 11:35:45 PM

Only this level of stupidity could exist in the pages of Reason.

DarnoKonrad

2011-12-27 11:38:09 PM

Only 'Reason' could waste 2000 words on a false dichotomy.

Sabyen91

2011-12-27 11:40:30 PM

Oh, Reason, why don't you live up to your name?

Sabyen91

2011-12-27 11:42:46 PM

jaytkay: GAT_00: Headso: Curious now, what do you do if a person refuses to get their child vaccinated?

Ban from any public schools or universities at any level.

Banning is authoritarian. You must allow choice.

We should simply spread polio and smallpox through the ventilation systems of public schools and universities.

Then the anti-vaxers can choose whether or not they really believe their idiocy .

Well, except they don't just expose their own kids to danger.

Tryfan

2011-12-27 11:43:13 PM

He did, at least, correctly identify the issue as false equivalence.

hawcian

2011-12-27 11:43:13 PM

jaytkay: GAT_00: Headso: Curious now, what do you do if a person refuses to get their child vaccinated?

Ban from any public schools or universities at any level.

Banning is authoritarian. You must allow choice.

We should simply spread polio and smallpox through the ventilation systems of public schools and universities.

Then the anti-vaxers can choose whether or not they really believe their idiocy .

No, you can't do that. You put the vaccinated kids at risk (it's possible the vaccine didn't take, or isn't 100% effective against such a bombardment).

Serious Black

2011-12-27 11:43:40 PM

I had an interesting conversation with my parents this weekend. They're both pretty deep in the Fox News pool (apparently my mom has a crush on Glenn Beck for some reason). The topic of who they were thinking of voting for in the primary came up, and my mom said that she wrote off Michele Bachmann entirely when she said making vaccines opt-out was an egregious abridgement of parental rights to take care of their kids the way they want to take care of them. She got polio when she was a little kid, and it has really farked up her life; she has almost no mobility with her left arm because it ate up her arm muscles. The notion that a presidential candidate would be okay with parents willingly exposing their kids to the risk of debilitating and deadly diseases like polio, smallpox, and measles because leprechauns will poison them by sprinkling magic gold dust in their vaccines scares the bejeezus out of her. There's hope in her yet.

Deftoons

2011-12-27 11:45:13 PM

propasaurus: Let me guess, Reason has come up with some way to say republicans are better than Democrats while pretending to be "independent."

If that's the impression you get from most Reason articles, I would advise reading more than what you see linked from Fark.

DeaH

2011-12-27 11:51:46 PM

Deftoons: propasaurus: Let me guess, Reason has come up with some way to say republicans are better than Democrats while pretending to be "independent."

If that's the impression you get from most Reason articles, I would advise reading more than what you see linked from Fark.

Yes, read something like this. (new window)

Deftoons

2011-12-27 11:53:25 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: Only this level of stupidity could exist in the pages of Reason.

DarnoKonrad: Only 'Reason' could waste 2000 words on a false dichotomy.

Sabyen91: Oh, Reason, why don't you live up to your name?

Ah yes, Fark liberals™ - where they use the "for a source called "Reason..." line because Reason just doesn't bash Republicans enough, and dares put the left in the same boat (GASP!).

whidbey

2011-12-27 11:54:15 PM

Pretty sure it's the Republicans, subby.

Name a prominent respected Republican willing to do what's expected of this country regarding climate change and calling for green energy.

No. It's still an Grand Oil Party, and climate change is considered a hoax as far as they're concerned. Just one example, but the best.

Shvetz

2011-12-27 11:55:48 PM

nmrsnr: Firstly, sports tab? Really?

Secondly, the right denies widely accepted tenets of science, whereas the left does not deny the results, but are supremely leery of unintended consequences. One is actually anti-science, the other is merely jumping at shadows.

One could argue (like the author does) that the left goes too far in its reticence and ends up as anti-science, but so far none of the potential science-denialism of the left (anti-vaxers, GM foods are bad, cell phones give you cancer) have even come close to being instituted as regulation. Vaccines are still universally recommended, GM foods aren't going anywhere, and everyone has a cell phone. No candidate on the left campaigns on any anti-science platform, while those on the right consistently campaign against scientific interests (who needs volcano monitors, $3 million to study bears? Ridiculous, etc.).

This is basically it. Most of the Republican presidential candidates don't believe in evolution. To turn around and equate that with people at PETA saying that it's morally wrong to test on animals is absurd. Not only do Republicans deny the science itself, they argue against any government funded science.

Fark really needs to move beyond the "both sides are bad" mentality. It's like equating shoplifting with premeditated murder. They're both crimes, but maybe we should address them differently.

whidbey

2011-12-27 11:58:07 PM

Shvetz: nmrsnr: Firstly, sports tab? Really?

Secondly, the right denies widely accepted tenets of science, whereas the left does not deny the results, but are supremely leery of unintended consequences. One is actually anti-science, the other is merely jumping at shadows.

One could argue (like the author does) that the left goes too far in its reticence and ends up as anti-science, but so far none of the potential science-denialism of the left (anti-vaxers, GM foods are bad, cell phones give you cancer) have even come close to being instituted as regulation. Vaccines are still universally recommended, GM foods aren't going anywhere, and everyone has a cell phone. No candidate on the left campaigns on any anti-science platform, while those on the right consistently campaign against scientific interests (who needs volcano monitors, $3 million to study bears? Ridiculous, etc.).

This is basically it. Most of the Republican presidential candidates don't believe in evolution. To turn around and equate that with people at PETA saying that it's morally wrong to test on animals is absurd. Not only do Republicans deny the science itself, they argue against any government funded science.

Fark really needs to move beyond the "both sides are bad" mentality. It's like equating shoplifting with premeditated murder. They're both crimes, but maybe we should address them differently.

I've moved past it long ago. I know that pretty ONE side is f*cking this place up.

But apparently there are still so many "independents" here that don't see it that way, I can't blame Fark for casting the net for the lulz...and the pageviews.

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen

2011-12-27 11:58:38 PM

Nice that it's so easy to identify those who didn't bother to RTFA (looking at you, propasaurus, GAT_00, abb3w, YoungSwedishBlonde, DarnoKonrad, Sabyen91)... it would have been quite easy to just skip to the end, where Bailey clearly states:

So who is more anti-science, Democrats or Republicans? On the specific issues discussed above, I conclude that the Republicans are more anti-science.

But let's not let the facts get in the way of your partisan handwringing.

Farker Soze

2011-12-27 11:58:38 PM

hawcian: No, you can't do that. You put the vaccinated kids at risk (it's possible the vaccine didn't take, or isn't 100% effective against such a bombardment).

Or the disease mutates inside the precious snowflake, and becomes vaccine resistant.

propasaurus

2011-12-27 11:59:05 PM

DeaH: Deftoons: propasaurus: Let me guess, Reason has come up with some way to say republicans are better than Democrats while pretending to be "independent."

If that's the impression you get from most Reason articles, I would advise reading more than what you see linked from Fark.

Yes, read something like this. (new window)

Ouch!

Aquapope

2011-12-27 11:59:14 PM

GAT_00: I'm guessing the Dems are anti-science for thinking that the planet is warming since this is coming from Reason.

I just don't understand this. Granted, I've been drinking, but have I been not drinking enough, maybe?

brainiac-dumdum

2011-12-28 12:02:45 AM

Deftoons

2011-12-28 12:03:10 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum

2011-12-28 12:06:46 AM

That article is actually pretty good. But it misses one point on the precautionary principle: you not only have to weigh the possible risks, but also the possible risks of not adopting a specific risky scientific endeavor.

So, while the anti-vaccine crowd might argue that they are just following the precautionary principle, in reality, the proven risks of not using vaccines are so huge; on balance the McCarthy crowd is still in the wrong.

Whereas, anti-nuclear power folks have a stronger argument following the precautionary principle because not using nuclear power doesn't in itself create any greater risks for society--unless you live in a country where the two electricity choices are very starkly either nuclear or something drastically environmentally-damaging. Still, given that latter scenario, the precautionary principle works better than in the vaccine case.

Then, you get to something like global warming, where this applies:

www.mamieyoung.com

Following the precautionary principle is the right choice even if the scientists are wrong.

namatad

2011-12-28 12:07:04 AM

GAT_00: Headso: Curious now, what do you do if a person refuses to get their child vaccinated?

Ban from any public schools or universities at any level.

and double their income tax and double their property tax

/seriously if they are that dumb, they should pay extra to educate other people to help make up the average

GoHomeAndGetYourShinebox

2011-12-28 12:07:45 AM

Absurd. The argument that Democrats are more likely to oppose nuclear power or testing on animals doesn't mean that they don't believe there is any scientific value in them. It just means that they have moral and environmental reasons to prefer different methods of testing and energy.

Republicans, on the other hand, who deny anthropomorphic global warming or the evolution of species are actually claiming that these phenomena do not exist, despite scientific consensus. There is no valid comparison between the two sides in these instances.

I will concede the point about vaccine hysteria among liberals, however, but IMO that is mainly because there are too many stay-at-home moms who believe almost everything Oprah says.

Corvus

2011-12-28 12:12:38 AM

Serious Black: I had an interesting conversation with my parents this weekend. They're both pretty deep in the Fox News pool (apparently my mom has a crush on Glenn Beck for some reason). The topic of who they were thinking of voting for in the primary came up, and my mom said that she wrote off Michele Bachmann entirely when she said making vaccines opt-out was an egregious abridgement of parental rights to take care of their kids the way they want to take care of them. She got polio when she was a little kid, and it has really farked up her life; she has almost no mobility with her left arm because it ate up her arm muscles. The notion that a presidential candidate would be okay with parents willingly exposing their kids to the risk of debilitating and deadly diseases like polio, smallpox, and measles because leprechauns will poison them by sprinkling magic gold dust in their vaccines scares the bejeezus out of her. There's hope in her yet.

That is normal right wing "Well it's important when affects ME. Be when it's other people I don't give a shiat!!" mentality.

davidphogan

2011-12-28 12:14:47 AM

farking retarded: "These are policy differences rather than scientific differences." No, stem cells being banned by God are not a policy difference. They're a total disregard for science.

namatad

2011-12-28 12:14:49 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Then, you get to something like global warming, where this applies:

Following the precautionary principle is the right choice even if the scientists are wrong.

yawn
thread jacking
energy independence? you mean like get our own sun?
preserve rain forests? yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn they might have a flower which will cure something something something. why are we reforesting all of the nothern hemisphere to replace what we cut down??
sustainability? YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNN name 10 resources which we will run out of in the next 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?
green jorbs? and why not let the free market work its magic? why should we support your religion?
livable cities? thanks but chicago and nyc and sf are QUITE livable today. once again, why are you making changes ??
renewables? lol
clean water and air? YAWN the water and air is cleaner than anytime in the last 100-150 years... china? china can take care of its own problems.
healthy children? so you mean healthcare for children? which would do infinitely more for the kids health than destroying the economies

why do these people want to FORCE their views on everyone else?

we could get the same results by making everyone live on small one family farms and forcing everyone to leave the cities
or or or

but they think their plans are COMPLETELY rational, esp if we FORCE those plans on the whole world.

HAVE you noticed how well that went for the USSR and every country which has tried to force views on other???
sigh

god I hate hippies
/you farktards make it SO HARD to vote for the dems.
/FRAKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK will always vote for the dems. SINGLE ISSUE. legal abortion.

RoyBatty

2011-12-28 12:15:03 AM

GAT_00: I'm guessing the Dems are anti-science for thinking that the planet is warming since this is coming from Reason.

Since the article is in front of your nose, and you refused to read it, please don't tell us that you're anything other than anti-reality.

Because the damn author says nothing like this, you're just projecting your own pre-formed bias on it and claiming it to be truthy.

namatad

2011-12-28 12:15:46 AM

davidphogan: farking retarded: "These are policy differences rather than scientific differences." No, stem cells being banned by God are not a policy difference. They're a total disregard for science.

actually, I talked to god earlier today and she said that she was totally in favor of stem cell research.
and she hates republicans

A Dark Evil Omen

2011-12-28 12:16:05 AM

namatad: /you farktards make it SO HARD to vote for the dems.
/FRAKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK will always vote for the dems. SINGLE ISSUE. legal abortion.

We appreciate your support, even if you're wrong about everything except one thing.

RoyBatty

2011-12-28 12:17:03 AM

dahmers love zombie: Or, submittard, you could read the farking article, in which the AUTHOR SAYS THAT REPUBLICANS ARE MORE ANTI-SCIENCE. It would require actually reading it to the end, but perhaps this was a bit difficult.

Unless the headline has changed, you've been taken in, and are reading too much into the headline.

whidbey

2011-12-28 12:17:16 AM

namatad: god I hate hippies

OK, Cartman...

Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.