- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Anti- science liberals vs anti-science conservatives: who is more dangerous?
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:18 pm to Tiguar
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:18 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Widespread anti vaccine movement is more damaging than widespread GW disbelief. Both of our worries rely on what-ifs.
Not really.
Vaccines have ingredients. Ingredients that don't need to be in our bodies can be identified, there isn't an 'if' involved.
And global warming arguments are useless. Does the data matter? We need to be more responsible, and not in a bike path kinda way, this recognition has nothing to do with partisan arguments about global warming data.
4
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:21 pm to Zed
Well, there have been isolated measles and mumps outbreaks in select communities already but nothing serious yet.
I'll not argue with GW overall being more harmful if it ends up being as bad as some folks say.
I'll not argue with GW overall being more harmful if it ends up being as bad as some folks say.
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:21 pm to Sleeping Tiger
What negatives effects have vaccines caused? I think we already know the positives...
Better question, have vaccines had a more negative or positive effect on humanity?
Better question, have vaccines had a more negative or positive effect on humanity?
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:22 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Vaccines have ingredients. Ingredients that don't need to be in our bodies can be identified, there isn't an 'if' involved.
DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE MANG OMG
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:23 pm to C
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 on 6/9/14 at 8:24 pm to Sleeping Tiger
I'll take "ingredients that don't need to be in our bodies" over polio.
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:34 pm to TheFolker
From Wiki:
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]
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:38 pm to C
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 on 6/9/14 at 8:38 pm to ZZTIGERS
quote:
What negatives effects have vaccines caused? I think we already know the positives...
Better question, have vaccines had a more negative or positive effect on humanity?
You gave no effort to absorb my point, I should give no effort to answer your question.
Is food good or bad for you? Probably depends on what's in the food, right? If it has trans fats, or it's processed ect it's not very good for you.
A lot of vaccines are helpful and usually work as intended but they contain ingredients that are not good for humans to ingest. They effectively eliminate that chance of a baby getting a certain disease, but at the same time harming the body in other ways, which can be avoided by eliminating toxic ingredients, same as we can get more out of food that doesn't contain harmful ingredients.
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:39 pm to C
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.
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 on 6/9/14 at 8:51 pm to C
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.
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 on 6/9/14 at 9:11 pm to C
quote:
Anti GMO: Really this limits our progress as a society and could lead to famine in certain circumstances.
Correcting an issue like food speculation has a zillion times more importance than GMOs when it comes to feeding the global population.
And GMOs are not the answer everyone thinks they are, it's a misconception that GMOs are helping feed more people.
This post was edited on 6/9/14 at 9:11 pm
Posted on 6/9/14 at 9:14 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
You gave no effort to absorb my point, I should give no effort to answer your question.
You're being ambiguous, actually that's being generous, because you've yet to actual point out what the "toxic ingredients" are, and what ailments they may cause.
Posted on 6/9/14 at 9:14 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
And GMOs are not the answer everyone thinks they are, it's a misconception that GMOs are helping feed more people.
So what are GMOs for in your opinion?
Posted on 6/9/14 at 9:15 pm to Sleeping Tiger
I had an IRL discussion recently with statist libs who blamed anti government libratarians for the anti vaxing
Posted on 6/9/14 at 9:18 pm to C
quote:
So what are GMOs for in your opinion?
I would have ignored the point about food speculation as well if I was you.
GMOs are for making biotech companies a lot of money.
Posted on 6/9/14 at 9:19 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
I had an IRL discussion recently with statist libs who blamed anti government libratarians for the anti vaxing
Okay..
Posted on 6/9/14 at 9:24 pm to Sleeping Tiger
IMO either side, if anti-science, is dangerous.
Posted on 6/9/14 at 9:27 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
I would have ignored the point about food speculation as well if I was you.
No. If GMOs do not allow for greater and more economical production, what are they for?
Posted on 6/9/14 at 9:28 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Just interesting how people blame the other sides for the same thing.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News