Mr Spinkles
Mr
I can respect other views that are supported by specific examples and evidence. Got any?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientific American Backs a Presidential Candidate
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Your post showed otherwise.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Just because I can doesn’t mean I will. Views earn respect by being supported, not by being spoken.
Sorry, I KNOW I'm missing the context here, based on your general positions, etc, but I'm just gonna make the dumb point quickly here, and you can hopefully give me the context in which you were talking...
Making a mistake doesn't make one 'anti-science'. Disregarding scientific evidence in favour of non-scientific opinion and positioning does.
Everyone has a level of ignorance of science, or scientific concepts. Even scientists.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
.
I see absolutely no evidence that Biden is anti Science.
That he had a slip of the tongue that was immediately jumped on, shows nothing about his attitude to science.
His ready acceptance of scientific advice, however, certainly does.
They were both in nappies at the same time, I don't know which is now further down the road to senility. Though Reagan was well advanced in that diretion during his term in office.
A three year gap in either direction is insignificant.
However electing presidents that are too old for the job seems to be the American way.
Last edited:
Cooky
Veteran Member
Would it make more sense for them to back the candidate with an anti-science agenda?
It makes perfect sense for a science magazine to fight against scientific illiteracy. I don't want to see my dopey country get even dopier, either.
I don't know if there are any anti-English or Social Studies candidates, but we shouldn't let that slide by either.
exchemist
Veteran Member
That seems to be what is happening under Trump. What a way to run a modern industrial nation in the 21st century, having an administration that disregards science.
He's just been at it again, by the way:
QUOTE
President Trump on Wednesday rejected the professional scientific conclusions of his own government about the prospects for a widely available coronavirus vaccine and the effectiveness of masks in curbing the spread of the virus as the death toll in the United States from the disease neared 200,000.
In a remarkable display even for him, Mr. Trump publicly slapped down Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the president promised that a vaccine could be available in weeks and go “immediately” to the general public while diminishing the usefulness of wearing masks despite evidence to the contrary.
The president’s comments put him at odds with the C.D.C., the world’s premier public health agency, over the course of a pandemic that he keeps insisting is “rounding the corner” to an end. Mr. Trump lashed out just hours after Dr. Redfield told a Senate committee that a vaccine would not be widely available until the middle of next year.
UNQUOTE
(From here:Trump Again Scorns Science on Masks and Vaccines)
exchemist
Veteran Member
This seems to be what a number of people seem to be doing here, certainly.
Well . . . ah, you tend to use long acupuncture needles on people for effect.
That's an excuse for incivility.
Great confidence that you have The Truth, & disdain
for those with other views doesn't inspire conversation.
Last edited:
I'm unsure why you're continually attracted to my posts.
Must be my pheromones.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
The right is anti-education in general.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Sweeping generalizations like that are useful for vilifying perceived groups, yes... But other than that, it's actually just a pile of BS.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Who typically cuts education funding, dumbs down the curriculum, etc?
You are pleading for the attention.
And you supply it.
I must have the kavorka, eh.
Cooky
Veteran Member
That seems like an oversimplified question. I don't know what it means to "dumb down the curriculum", or what someone wants to use the money for when increasing funding...
You watch too much Seinfeld.
Aye, there are complexities to education. The left generally
favors government providing it, & opposes private options
favored by the right. These factions also argue about what
should be taught. Both are pro education, but they differ
on many aspects, eg, funding, curricula, venues, religion.
Did you know the term, or have to google it?