Does it threaten us more than terrorism? I think so. We're telling people that there's no difference between men and women, and that there's no difference between cows eating grass and corn. Both poison our society in different ways. Of course, the problem is science backs up conservatism, but conservatives don't like science. We're ****** people. ******.
I don't know what you mean about conservatives not liking science. Sure there are discrepencies between the religious right and embryonic stem cell research. However, there are also discrepencies from liberals who want to cut monies to physicians and to pharmaceutical companies yet want a faster pace of discoveries. Perhaps in life there are no absolutes.
The big one is evolution. Evolution is, in addition to being correct, a conservative proposition. Conservatives tend not to like it. Why? Why do we doom ourselves to being ******? We had our chance at being the shining city on a hill.
Fiscal conservative love and embrace science. Unfortunately social conservatives make up about 95 percent of the GOP Conservative base. (despite the newly minted 2009 brand of gop fiscal conservatives,) IMHO the abandonment of science in preference to theological musings for a few extra non-wealthy votes was the fork in the road that placed the Republican party on it's current path.
JJ- Not sure what to make of your post, but agreed that science and politics should NOT mix, despite the fact that both parties have made it political. E.g. Evolution is a fact, and a useful basis for understanding biology. But, it has been politicized by some to appear closer to God, or a better Christian than others I suppose. Vote for me, I'm more religious than that hippy, and I'll make your child's science education suck. 2) Stem cell research, according to initial studies, shows the promise of curing several, wide scale diseases. Babies are not being killed for the cells, contrary to some's beliefs, and our development in this area has been slowed by some politicians. Why did politics stop this one at all? 3) Abortion is a health and reproductive issue, not a legal issue. General consensus around the world puts a human life starting when it can live outside the womb, without the help of machines or the mother. Can't we leave this one to the mother and doctor- and not 80 year old politicians? 4) Climate Change- really, can a politician with a law degree best explain the true effects of carbon particulates in the atmosphere, better than an atmospheric scientist? This one gets me the most. Not many of us here are climate scientists, yet our political beliefs all give us an opinion on this issue. Leave this one for the scientists- oh and by the way over 90% seem to believe one side of this issue. I know this can open up a can of annoying debates, but my point is that all of these above issues are classic examples of important health and science topics being politicized by parties to garner votes. I consider myself a conservative, but have voted for the Democrats as of late. I guess I think government should sometimes get out of the way, and sometimes get involved. In the case of scientific research, personal health, government, get the fck out of the way.
The terms "social conservative" and "fiscal conservative" are largely fictional terms made up by people who aren't conservative and don't understand conservatism. So is the idea that one cannot support both cultural conservatism and the free market. The "divide" is itself largely fictitious. The people that want to outlaw abortion the most also frequently want to cut taxes the most. Cultural conservatism is conservatism; everything else flows therefrom.
Well the beef thing is just true, and the product of this huge government-agribusiness complex pushing petroleum fertilized corn monoculture down our throats. And our president is very much a part of that complex. but there was no real alternative to big corn in this election.
This thread appears kind of dumb, pretty much a circle jerk without even addressing the topic. In the first post, I pointed out that liberals are just as "against" science as right wing social conservatives. Some liberals attack the money flow into drug and medical device development through the socialization of medicine and some direct flow from more needy areas of research such as diabetes and alzheimers and towards more socially charged areas such as HIV. Some social right wing conservatives attack stem cell research and attack evolution. The question remains, "Are any of these individual acts really anti-science"? The answer is no, they are not anti-science, just anti-certain parts of medical advancement. Afterall, there are plenty of conservatives and liberals who work in medicine. A further question is whether these parts of the medical economy effect scientific advancement and how much they effect it. With regards to evolution, I don't see how it has a powerful effect on medical advancement. Maybe some people don't become scientists because they don't believe in evolution. However, I don't see how it curtails drug and medical device development to any significant degree. Socializing medicine on the other hand will have a huge impact. If there is little medical industry, there will be little difference in people investing in medicines verses earth and climate science.
the social conservative is not the same thing as a christian fundamentalist. a new york times editorial writer may consider them the same thing but they are far from it.
