As America Grows More Polarized, Conservatives Increasingly Reject Science and Ration

[Phantasmal]

It is quite funny listening to those on the far left mock those on the far right for ignoring science when convenient. Because both sides choose to ignore science when it suits them. For some on the far right it is evolution that they question. At least they have the excuse of centuries of indoctrination of their families with religious beliefs. What is the left's excuse? Oh yeah, they don't have one. On the left, countless rubes will continue to ignore genetics so that they may dehumanize an unborn child for the sole purpose of having the 'choice' to kill the child. On the left, they scream consensus with regards to global warming in a manner similar to those that demanded that the earth was indeed flat and the center of the universe centuries ago. They want to ignore the scientific method the author mentions so that they may pound their chests like neanderthals and scream to the world that they are positive man is the main factor in global warming (now climate change, because well that can provide them cover for when we have a decade of stagnation in global temps). The far left nuts proclaim that we are having more 'severe' weather than ever before and that the world is warmer than ever before (and by ever, they mean the last 120 years or so, because, well, that is how old the Earth is to the far left nuts).

Pollution is a problem. It needs to be resolved as fast as we can. That said, global warming models have been blowing up consistently. To declare a consensus as so many on the left do and proclaim the matter resolved is moronic at best. At least the far right has indoctrination as an excuse for ignoring science... what again is the left's reason?

Okay, straw boy, using this thread to once again bring up two of your favorite rants against the left, global warming and abortion.

 

[Rationalist]

Rejecting the fact that an unborn child is both alive and human is equivalent to believing in a flat earth. I would say that is a very good comparison.

genetics proves it is human. That is 100% verifiable FACT. If it wasn't alive, then it would spontaneously abort. There would be no abortion 'argument'.

Pro-abortionists simply wish to dehumanize the child (which goes completely against scientific fact) so that they can feel better if they 'choose' to kill it.

Does anyone seriously argue that it is not human? I believe the argument is that they are not yet fully a person, because they lack a sense of identity, self-awareness, etc.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Okay, straw boy, using this thread to once again bring up two of your favorite rants against the left, global warming and abortion.

LOL... straw boy?

Those are two areas where the left enjoys denying Science. The thread was started on the topic of mocking those who deny Science. The OP was biased towards the times when the far right ignores it... as in evolution.

Now tell us Rana... what was a straw man? What did I state that has not been stated on this board numerous times by those on the left?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Does anyone seriously argue that it is not human? I believe the argument is that they are not yet fully a person, because they lack a sense of identity, self-awareness, etc.

Yes. They do. Which is what I am referring to.

It is comical to watch. Get Apple talking on the subject.

The only valid argument is whether or not an unborn child should be entitled to basic human rights protections or not. It is a legal issue.

There was a time when blacks were viewed as 3/5 person. There was a time when Jews and Poles were treated as subhumans. Those definitions are always done by those that wish to kill. dehumanize or make them seem of lesser value so that they can 'justify' killing them.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What a silly argument Dixie. No one said believing in God was a rejection of science. Rejecting science is a rejection of science. DUH! Talk about strawmen. Name one scientist who tries to prove God does not exist? Show me one peer reviewed publication that does so. You can't. You know why? Cause science has nothing to say about God. Whether God exists or does not exist is completely outside the scope of science.

Then you agree with me and disagree with the OP, and the insinuation in it, that people who believe in God are "rejecting science." Good for you!

As for evolution never explaing origins. No shit Dick Tracey. More Scientific illiteracy.

You're agreeing with me again, and refuting the OP's assertion these "proven facts" are being rejected by the religious. Again, good for you!

Biological evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life and if you were honestly discussing this topic you'd recognize that fact.

I am honest, that's why this is exactly what I said, and I am happy to see you agree 100%.

Biological evolution models speciation, not the origins of life. So please get your facts straight.

My facts are straight, again, you are saying the same thing as I am saying, and refuting the OP. Good job!

As for evolution refuting creationist theory, your right. It has not. It doesn't have to. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATIONIST THEORY!! At least not in any meaninful scientific sense or context.

Nice to see you finally acknowledge I am right and the OP is wrong. And I agree, no need to capitalize... there is no physical scientific theory for a non-physical supernatural entity... how ridiculous would that be?

 

[apple0154]

Yes. They do. Which is what I am referring to.

It is comical to watch. Get Apple talking on the subject.

The only valid argument is whether or not an unborn child should be entitled to basic human rights protections or not. It is a legal issue.

There was a time when blacks were viewed as 3/5 person. There was a time when Jews and Poles were treated as subhumans. Those definitions are always done by those that wish to kill. dehumanize or make them seem of lesser value so that they can 'justify' killing them.

Someone call?

Let’s start at your post, #28.

It is quite funny listening to those on the far left mock those on the far right for ignoring science when convenient. Because both sides choose to ignore science when it suits them. For some on the far right it is evolution that they question. At least they have the excuse of centuries of indoctrination of their families with religious beliefs. What is the left's excuse? Oh yeah, they don't have one. On the left, countless rubes will continue to ignore genetics so that they may dehumanize an unborn child for the sole purpose of having the 'choice' to kill the child. On the left, they scream consensus with regards to global warming in a manner similar to those that demanded that the earth was indeed flat and the center of the universe centuries ago. They want to ignore the scientific method the author mentions so that they may pound their chests like neanderthals and scream to the world that they are positive man is the main factor in global warming (now climate change, because well that can provide them cover for when we have a decade of stagnation in global temps). The far left nuts proclaim that we are having more 'severe' weather than ever before and that the world is warmer than ever before (and by ever, they mean the last 120 years or so, because, well, that is how old the Earth is to the far left nuts).

Pollution is a problem. It needs to be resolved as fast as we can. That said, global warming models have been blowing up consistently. To declare a consensus as so many on the left do and proclaim the matter resolved is moronic at best. At least the far right has indoctrination as an excuse for ignoring science... what again is the left's reason?

To answer your question, “At least the far right has indoctrination as an excuse for ignoring science... what again is the left's reason?” the answer is no one on the left is ignoring science. They are using common sense which, apparently, is not all that common on the Right. Whether or not man is the main reason for global warming certain pollutants in the atmosphere do add to global warming. Also, the fewer pollutants in the air, the better. Again, just good old common sense.

As to your argument regarding science and genetics all that science can determine is if the fetus is composed of human material. Science has no idea if the 50% of fertilized cells that spontaneously abort carried all the necessary genes to be classified as a human being so we can get rid of the idea every fertilized cell is human, let alone a human being.

Then there’s the argument a fetus is an organism, however, an organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. It has to be a complete unit and a fetus is not a complete unit. Starting out, its organs are non-functioning and some remain so until shortly before birth, such as its lungs. Now, science can either change the definition of organism to include something that is not a complete unit or science can say a fetus is not an organism but it can’t be both ways. It is not logical.

Human beings decide on the classification of things, human beings included. From our laws to our culture to basic rights human beings are considered individual creatures, meaning they have individual bodies. They do not live inside other human beings and they definitely don’t have any right to use another human being’s organs and body without the other person’s permission. If such was the case if a person required a kidney or lung they could demand a family member donate one of theirs.

Picture a rapist/murderer (say, 21 years old) in prison with kidney failure demanding his 41 year old mother donate one of her kidneys. If she was compelled to offer use of her kidney when he was a fetus by what logic wouldn’t she be obliged to offer a kidney now in order to save his life?

You see, as with most things the Right is unable to think things through. They are quick to say a fetus is a human being but claim it’s OK to kill that innocent human being depending on how it was created. (Rape. Incest.) Does a rape or incest make the fetus a little less human? Are they 3/5 of a person (to use your term) or just a bad person? What can possibly justify killing such innocent human beings assuming, of course, they are human beings?

Of course, those weird situations do not arise if one understands what science is telling us. It is saying a fetus is composed on human material and it is living material. The exact same conclusion they would come to if they analyzed a piece of skin or an organ. That’s ALL science tells us.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Someone call?