Started By
Message
locked post

Anti- science liberals vs anti-science conservatives: who is more dangerous?

Posted on 6/9/14 at 7:42 pm
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27835 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 7:42 pm
So ignoring the clear minded amongst us, here is a brief list of generally the far left and right positions that ignores what can be dangerously referred to as settled science that has a consensus.

Far left:
Anti vaccine
Anti GMO produce
Anti nuclear
Anti genetically defined sexual differences

Far right:
Anti evolution
Anti AGW
Anti genetically defined sexual preference


Up vote for the right being more dangerous, down vote for the left. Please suggest additions and comment on the dangers of each.


ETA: From wiki LINK

quote:

Left-wing antiscience[edit]
One expression of antiscience is the "denial of universality and... legitimisation of alternatives",[citation needed] and that the results of scientific findings do not always represent any underlying reality, but can merely reflect the ideology of dominant groups within society.[14] In this view, science is associated with the political Right and is seen as a belief system that is conservative and conformist, that suppresses innovation, that resists change and that acts dictatorially. This includes the view, for example, that science has a "bourgeois and/or Eurocentric and/or masculinist world-view."[15]

The anti-nuclear movement, often associated with the left,[16][17][18] has been criticized for overstating the negative effects of nuclear power,[19][20] and understating the environmental costs of non-nuclear sources that can be prevented through nuclear energy.[21]

Right-wing antiscience[edit]
The origin of antiscience thinking may be traced back to the reaction of Romanticism to the Enlightenment, French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. This movement is often referred to as the 'counter-enlightenment'. Romanticism emphasizes that intuition, passion and organic links to Nature are primal values and that rational thinking is secondary to human life. There are many modern examples of conservative antiscience polemics. Primary among the latter are the polemics about evolutionary theory[22] and modern cosmology teaching in high schools, and environmental issues related to global warming[23][24] and energy crisis.

Characteristics of antiscience associated with the right include the appeal to conspiracy theories to explain why scientists believe what they believe,[25] in an attempt to undermine the confidence or power usually associated to science (e.g. in global warming conspiracy theories). Another feature of "conservative antiscience" discourse is the widespread use of informal fallacies, in particular the false dilemma, appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, and the appeal to probability fallacies.[citation needed]
This post was edited on 6/9/14 at 8:36 pm
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124311 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 7:43 pm to
<= =>
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
69947 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 7:44 pm to
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
71564 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 7:46 pm to
Anti-vaccine dullards are the most dangerous.
Posted by Tiguar
Montana
Member since Mar 2012
33131 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 7:48 pm to
Anti vaccine will have the most immediate and damning impact.
Posted by Zed
Member since Feb 2010
8315 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 7:54 pm to
The only one of those things that seems all that significant is resistance to climate change, if it proves to be as bad as predicted. The right wins this one.
Posted by BlackHelicopterPilot
Top secret lab
Member since Feb 2004
52833 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 7:54 pm to
The ones in power.

Is why I love gridlock.
Posted by Sleeping Tiger
Member since Sep 2013
8488 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:01 pm to
GMOs are bad, but what really should be talked about is farming practices, too often the debate is simply about GMO vs non GMO.

Vaccines are bad, even if you think they're good it's evident that most contain unnecessary toxic elements.

Support for nuclear energy highlights the short term thought process and normalcy bias most people live by.

Anti evolution is insane, everything is evolving.

Global warming debate is irrelevant. Both sides have an agenda. The left uses it as a way to bring about more taxes and government control. The right denies it as a way to justify continued unchecked destruction of the planet. The truth is it doesn't matter what the data says, we need to be more responsible, starting now. A system that requires constant growth is not sustainable.
This post was edited on 6/9/14 at 8:02 pm
Posted by Zed
Member since Feb 2010
8315 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:09 pm to
From a quick google search:
quote:

Although the data clashes with some peoples' perception of the typical vaccine skeptic, it chimes with previous surveys. In 2009 the Pew Research Center found almost 50% more Democrats than Republicans said they would take the swine flu vaccine. More detailed data emerged last year from a Public Policy Polling survey of 1,247 U.S. voters. PPP found 12% of people who described themselves as very liberal believe vaccines cause autism, compared with 22% of hardline conservatives.
quote:

What both surveys show is that antivaccination views are held by just a small minority of people. As the Yale-Harvard report puts it, "a very large supermajority believes that the benefits of childhood vaccinations outweigh their risks."
LINK
Posted by Tiger n Miami AU83
Miami
Member since Oct 2007
45656 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:16 pm to
Neither.

Both harmless tards imo.
Posted by gerkin
Member since Sep 2011
1195 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:23 pm to
i think the "danger" is that the anti-science crowd from the far right outnumbers the fringe hippy anti-vaccine crowd by a considerable amount.

Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54753 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:38 pm to
quote:

Anti vaccine


This is idiots of both stripes.

Exhibit A: Mograyback.
This post was edited on 6/9/14 at 8:40 pm
Posted by novabill
Crossville, TN
Member since Sep 2005
10471 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:39 pm to
The problem is that too science is for sale. Do you the pharmaceutical companies would influence the science related to vaccines? Further, I would imagine the that many scientist are smart enough to know that some findings, should not be shared or it can cost you.

Remember the heat generated by the "The Bell Curve"? I remember very little discussion about the truth of the position offered by the author, but about the racism that such a view represented. This guy caught grief for his science. Do you think that this would have an impact on future scientist and their findings?

Of course science is good, but I do not think that we should believe everything that scientist try to sell us.
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27835 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:51 pm to
My thoughts:
Anti-Vaccine: Obviously incredibly stupid and opens up others around us to disease. Another huge problem associated with liberal causes is allowing illegal aliens access to schools without documented vaccinations.

Anti GMO: Really this limits our progress as a society and could lead to famine in certain circumstances.

Anti Nuclear: Clear advantages as we continue to improve the technology. The worst part is their advocacy against central storage of waste materials. Making nuclear facilities store all materials locally is just increasing our exposure to either a severe accident or terrorist type actions.

Anti-Sexual differences: Really this is just a mental condition that will make mentally unstable males and females feel inadequate when they try to mimic the opposite sex.

Anti -evolution: Meh, but speaks to a group that can be influence to take illogical actions that may be much more dangerous.

Anti-AGW - Probably depends on what you mean by AGW. As temperature changes have slowed, if expect temperature changes to be gradual and oceans to rise (as the most serious concern) over centuries and not decades, i don't think this is a big deal. We can adapt. Most cities will need to replace all of their infrastructure over a century so gradual movement away from the current coastline shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Anti-Sexual preference - Obviously impacts "acceptance" of feelings. Similar to the far lefts ignorance of sexual norms, the opposite is dangerous in ignoring genetic abnormalities and the affects on the psyche of the individual.
Posted by catholictigerfan
Member since Oct 2009
56242 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 9:51 pm to
quote:

Anti evolution


religious right only

quote:

Anti AGW


oh global warming, it is so overblown by the left, sure some deny it but the left blow it out of proportion for their own political gain.

quote:

Anti genetically defined sexual preference


this is not been proven like some claim.
This post was edited on 6/9/14 at 9:53 pm
Posted by Quidam65
Q Continuum
Member since Jun 2010
19315 posts
Posted on 6/10/14 at 8:47 am to
I think the anti-vaccine crowd spans both sides.

On the far left you have the celebrity moms (Jenny McCarthy, Kristin Cavallari).

On the far right you have the "big pharma" conspiracy kooks with a dose of the extreme faith-healing crowd thrown in.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram