http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/progressive_quiz.html
I scored 355/400, which apparently puts me to the left of Karl Marx.
Oh, and the map:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/progressive-map/
Arkansas :bleeding:
155/400. I think the the war and terrorism questions flung me into the conservative camp.
170.
Fuck you, communist scum. :P
Quote from: Slargos on March 12, 2009, 09:47:47 AM
170.
Fuck you, communist scum. :P
My strident leftism is mainly a reaction to the goddamn utter stupidity of the people around me.
230
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 12, 2009, 09:47:47 AM
170.
Fuck you, communist scum. :P
My strident leftism is mainly a reaction to the goddamn utter stupidity of the people around me.
Agreed. You become what you hang out with. I've often found myself assuming the mannerisms of my peers and superiors, but I have always made a conscious choice of avoiding hanging out with leftist liberaltards.
I've decided to make an exception for Viking since I am confident that he has the potential to change his errant fundie-liberal athetist ways.
Free movement of goods and labour, pssssh.
311/400
Oh boy but it's, as usual, due to my total hatred for anything religiously related.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 12, 2009, 09:52:59 AM
311/400
Oh boy but it's, as usual, due to my total hatred for anything religiously related.
Commie >:(
293/400
G.
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 09:55:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 12, 2009, 09:52:59 AM
311/400
Oh boy but it's, as usual, due to my total hatred for anything religiously related.
Commie >:(
#25 baby!
Awesome, I'm further left than the French.
Grey Fox: #25?
73 :D
I'm undoubtably the most progressive member of the board.
258/400, or "very progressive." The average American score is 209.5.
215/400
Some of those things were bizarre. Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 09:59:06 AM
I'm undoubtably the most progressive member of the board.
Genocide of lesser races is undoubtedly a progressive stance. :)
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 09:59:43 AM
215/400
Some of those things were bizarre. Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?
In Wyoming they sure are convinced of that...of course, the severance tax is how the state gets its money...
287
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 09:59:43 AM
215/400
Some of those things were bizarre. Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?
I would imagine that would depend on what kind of alternative fuels one is talking about.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 09:59:43 AM
215/400
Some of those things were bizarre. Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?
I doubt conservatives would oppose alternative fuels if they were cheaper than oil and coal. However, that would require government subsidies to be competitive.
191/400
Conservative
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:04:30 AM
I would imagine that would depend on what kind of alternative fuels one is talking about.
So they would be in favor of giving billions to Russians and Arabs?
Conservatives are idiots when it comes to energy policy if that is really their position.
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 09:58:46 AM
Awesome, I'm further left than the French.
Grey Fox: #25?
Question #25 : The primary responsibility of corporations is to produce profits & returns for their shareholders, not to improve society.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:01:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 09:59:06 AM
I'm undoubtably the most progressive member of the board.
Genocide of lesser races is undoubtedly a progressive stance. :)
It certainly can be. After all, what is the goal of progressives? To advance, and to improve conditions. Not every group needs to make it in order to advance.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 10:05:41 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:04:30 AM
I would imagine that would depend on what kind of alternative fuels one is talking about.
So they would be in favor of giving billions to Russians and Arabs?
Conservatives are idiots when it comes to energy policy if that is really their position.
They're in favor of giving billions to evil Canadians and Mexicans. :P
The effects of global warming are exaggerated. Conservative energy policy is quite intelligent given that there is no better alternative to fossil fuels.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 10:05:41 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:04:30 AM
I would imagine that would depend on what kind of alternative fuels one is talking about.
So they would be in favor of giving billions to Russians and Arabs?
Conservatives are idiots when it comes to energy policy if that is really their position.
I would imagine it varies from person to person.
Besides, there's never been an American who wasn't an idiot when it came to energy policy.
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:08:18 AM
They're in favor of giving billions to evil Canadians and Mexicans. :P
The effects of global warming are exaggerated. Conservative energy policy is quite intelligent given that there is no better alternative to fossil fuels.
Only because we have not found it yet. Energy is the key to the economy and oil will not last forever. A cheap energy source would be an economic bonanza of extra-ordinary proportions. Turning your back on something so fundamentally vital because of dislike of environmentalists is moronic. Environmentalists are not really that in favor of alternative energy, they are only allies of convenience and will turn on us if we find out nuclear or "bird killing" wind energy is part of the solution. It is telling you throw that ridiculous canard in my face as if there is no better reason to look for alternative fuels than that when I had not even mentioned it.
Besides Mexico is running pretty low on Oil and Canada is only useful during periods of high oil prices.
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:07:56 AM
It certainly can be. After all, what is the goal of progressives? To advance, and to improve conditions. Not every group needs to make it in order to advance.
Except that one has taken an absurd stance when they talk as though it is a good idea to separate people into races.
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:09:25 AM
I would imagine it varies from person to person.
Besides, there's never been an American who wasn't an idiot when it came to energy policy.
Well that is true.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 10:10:32 AM
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:08:18 AM
They're in favor of giving billions to evil Canadians and Mexicans. :P
The effects of global warming are exaggerated. Conservative energy policy is quite intelligent given that there is no better alternative to fossil fuels.
Only because we have not found it yet.
Mexico is running pretty low on Oil and Canada is only useful during periods of high oil prices.
There is no other option. We aren't going to find a higher density or more efficient form of energy than oil.
Canada is the #1 source of oil for the US, and Mexico is a close 3rd to Saudi Arabia. These countries are useful in general, not only during periods of high oil prices.
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 10:13:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:07:56 AM
It certainly can be. After all, what is the goal of progressives? To advance, and to improve conditions. Not every group needs to make it in order to advance.
Except that one has taken an absurd stance when they talk as though it is a good idea to separate people into races.
Not at all. Races allows for easy stereotyping, which allows us to determine whether a person is likely to be good or evil.
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:14:07 AM
There is no other option. We aren't going to find a higher density or more efficient form of energy than oil.
Yeah and we will never fly or land on the moon either.
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:15:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 10:13:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:07:56 AM
It certainly can be. After all, what is the goal of progressives? To advance, and to improve conditions. Not every group needs to make it in order to advance.
Except that one has taken an absurd stance when they talk as though it is a good idea to separate people into races.
Not at all. Races allows for easy stereotyping, which allows us to determine whether a person is likely to be good or evil.
Quebecois: Good or evil?
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:15:03 AM
Not at all. Races allows for easy stereotyping, which allows us to determine whether a person is likely to be good or evil.
Which is why it is an often used tool of the ignorant.
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:14:07 AM
Canada is the #1 source of oil for the US
Not if the hippies have their way.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 10:16:29 AM
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:14:07 AM
There is no other option. We aren't going to find a higher density or more efficient form of energy than oil.
Yeah and we will never fly or land on the moon either.
Your statement is absurd.
If greenists emerge victorious, the US economy will be crippled and the 1930s will look like progress. Solar and wind are interesting weekend hobbies. They are not an alternative to oil.
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 10:19:11 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:15:03 AM
Not at all. Races allows for easy stereotyping, which allows us to determine whether a person is likely to be good or evil.
Which is why it is an often used tool of the ignorant.
By everyone.
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:14:07 AM
Canada is the #1 source of oil for the US
Not if the hippies have their way.
Canadian hippies or American hippies?
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:17:00 AM
Quebecois: Good or evil?
Not inherently evil. They just have a few cultural quirks that can cause them problems.
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:23:15 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:17:00 AM
Quebecois: Good or evil?
Not inherently evil. They just have a few cultural quirks that can cause them problems.
Ontarians: Good or evil?
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:22:20 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:14:07 AM
Canada is the #1 source of oil for the US
Not if the hippies have their way.
Canadian hippies or American hippies?
Both. Canadian hippies have been kissing up to Obama, hoping that he'll somehow ban oil. Of course, they've received the same contemptuous cold shoulder that Obama gives everyone.
The West wants out! >:(
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:14:07 AM
We aren't going to find a higher density or more efficient form of energy than oil.
That's not true. E=mc
2.
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:23:48 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:23:15 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:17:00 AM
Quebecois: Good or evil?
Not inherently evil. They just have a few cultural quirks that can cause them problems.
Ontarians: Good or evil?
They're not a race. As a group, they're silly, betraying even their own shallow affectations.
259
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:26:37 AM
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:14:07 AM
We aren't going to find a higher density or more efficient form of energy than oil.
That's not true. E=mc2.
Sure, fusion power plants will be feasible in fifty years, or so they said fifty years ago.
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:32:23 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 10:26:37 AM
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:14:07 AM
We aren't going to find a higher density or more efficient form of energy than oil.
That's not true. E=mc2.
Sure, fusion power plants will be feasible in fifty years, or so they said fifty years ago.
I was thinking total conversion of matter to energy.
But yeah, fusion power suffers from the fact that nobody is really interested in such a difficult and expensive project. Why would they be, when they can keep using fossil fuels, but get great press at a much cheaper cost by building a few fields full of windmills.
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:20:34 AM
Your statement is absurd.
If greenists emerge victorious, the US economy will be crippled and the 1930s will look like progress. Solar and wind are interesting weekend hobbies. They are not an alternative to oil.
Your statement is just ignorant.
No it will not. Those are perfectly functional energy sources and have been for years and their costs are continually going down. Besides it is not like anybody is going to quit fossil fuels cold turkey, they will be phased out over time. The immediate future is generating energy from several energy sources. No "Greenist" is interested in doing anything to lessen or increase the costs of energy production, quite the contrary. We are going to produce more energy at a cheaper cost. Finally, oil is mostly used as fuel for vehicles you moron and does not even directly compete with solar or wind (except in a few exceptions). Coal and natural gas are the fossil fuels that would be phased out by solar and wind, but those fuels are only intermittent and could not do more, it appears to me, than act as a useful supplement.
Of course energy was alot cheaper in the 30s so maybe we are taking the US back there.
Further fossil fuels are massively subsidized to the tune of hundreds of billions worldwide and that does not even include the armed forces that fight and die to secure them. If they are so superior then why do they require so much public expense and political wrangling? I think we can do better.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 10:44:57 AM
... oil is mostly used as fuel for vehicles you moron and does not even directly compete with solar or wind (except in a few exceptions). Coal and natural gas are the fossil fuels that would be phased out by solar and wind.
You moron, greenists want to use solar and wind to power our electric grid, which would charge the batteries of federally mandated electric cars.
104
Only derspeiss has me beat. <_<
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:47:10 AM
You moron, greenists want to use solar and wind to power our electric grid, which would charge the batteries of federally mandated electric cars.
Ok conspiracy man. If it is not profitable it is not happening and that is the goal: to make it work and make it make money.
We are going to transform the worlds energy production through the private sector and beat the federally subsidized fossil fuel beast.
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:47:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 10:44:57 AM
... oil is mostly used as fuel for vehicles you moron and does not even directly compete with solar or wind (except in a few exceptions). Coal and natural gas are the fossil fuels that would be phased out by solar and wind.
You moron, greenists want to use solar and wind to power our electric grid, which would charge the batteries of federally mandated electric cars.
Who the fuck are you?
It was really hard fanthom electricity being produce from Fossils fuels back when I learn that.
217/400.
244/400
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 10:50:07 AM
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:47:10 AM
You moron, greenists want to use solar and wind to power our electric grid, which would charge the batteries of federally mandated electric cars.
Ok conspiracy man. If it is not profitable it is not happening and that is the goal: to make it work and make it make money.
We are going to transform the worlds energy production through the private sector and beat the federally subsidized fossil fuel beast.
The only way alternative energy is going to "make money" is if the government institutes a highly regressive and unnecessary carbon tax.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 09:59:43 AM
215/400
Some of those things were bizarre. Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?
IIRC, the way the question was worded, it made it sound as if solar and wind power are our only alternatives to not using fossil fuels. I put myself down as strongly disagreeing-- neither solar nor wind power are proven alternatives yet.
IMO if you agreed with the statement, you were in favor of crippling the economy further and/or seriously distorting the market.
So for me, for now, fossil fuels FTW.
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 11:06:53 AM
YOU BITCH. >:(
You two could duke it out over me if you like.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 12, 2009, 11:12:03 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 11:06:53 AM
YOU BITCH. >:(
You two could duke it out over me if you like.
What chance do I have against the man who lives by Brokeback Mountain? :(
290.
207/400
I love how it assumes that your position on things like Iraq are any kind of indicator of your "progressiveness". It speaks to the herd mentality of the left on matters that have nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with BUSHHH IS TEH HILTAR!!!!
Someone should tell zombie JFK that he wasn't "progressive". And LBJ. And Roosevelt, the war-mongering conservitard!
322/400
first post!
293
I got 273 out of 400. I am not sure about some of the questions though.
I just realized that it's a bit ironic to call someone a Commie while using a Brezhnev avatar.
100/400 :)
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 09:59:43 AM
215/400
Some of those things were bizarre. Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?
Questionnaires like this are problematic, or misleading. Probably not many people feel the future is mainly fossil fuels. The choice here probably shouldn't between remaining on fossil fuels OR moving to other alternatives. We actually need to be doing both while we decide on how to move forward the changes, and what those changes are. Kind of misleading to present the question like it was. Probably the same for some other questions. But over all this wasn't a bad poll, and made me think on some of the questions. I've seen worse, often in polls mailed out to me that pushes a particular agenda. I've even responded to some of them on how useless or misleading their questions were.
Quote from: Korea on March 12, 2009, 11:34:21 AM
I got 273 out of 400. I am not sure about some of the questions though.
We can merge our scores baby. Hot 155 and 273 action.
191/400
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:04:05 PM
I love you.
:-*
Do you know what it feels like to say "I love you" to someone and not hear it back? I do. :'(
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:04:05 PM
I love you.
:-*
Do you know what it feels like to say "I love you" to someone and not hear it back? I do. :'(
Is "bah" or "moo" not an equivalent substitute?
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 09:59:43 AM
215/400
Some of those things were bizarre. Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?
IIRC, the way the question was worded, it made it sound as if solar and wind power are our only alternatives to not using fossil fuels. I put myself down as strongly disagreeing-- neither solar nor wind power are proven alternatives yet.
IMO if you agreed with the statement, you were in favor of crippling the economy further and/or seriously distorting the market.
So for me, for now, fossil fuels FTW.
The market is already distorted in favor of fossil fuels through decades of directed foreign policy and subsidization. I do not understand why this sort of distortion is praised by free market types but anything that throws a tiny bone at anything else is bad distortion. If it were a free market we would have gone to alternatives long ago.
But anyway certainly solar and wind cannot do the job all by themselves for the forseeable future, by their very nature they can only act as a supplement and can only become useful on a large scale with a 'smart grid' that can adjust for variable energy sources. Unless some sort of remarkable advance is made in energy storage, of course.
I am not sure what you mean by "proven" I was not aware of evidence that suggested the energy produced by a wind turbine was not the same as energy produced by coal burning. I am pretty sure both are very "proven" sources of electricity.
Finally, you are probably right and it was a misleading question. Typical.
Quote from: KRonn on March 12, 2009, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 09:59:43 AM
215/400
Some of those things were bizarre. Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?
Questionnaires like this are problematic, or misleading. Probably not many people feel the future is mainly fossil fuels. The choice here probably shouldn't between remaining on fossil fuels OR moving to other alternatives. We actually need to be doing both while we decide on how to move forward the changes, and what those changes are. Kind of misleading to present the question like it was. Probably the same for some other questions. But over all this wasn't a bad poll, and made me think on some of the questions. I've seen worse, often in polls mailed out to me that pushes a particular agenda. I've even responded to some of them on how useless or misleading their questions were.
Yeah this is what makes following politics so frustrating. You literally cannot trust anything to give you decent facts.
Quote from: Syt on March 12, 2009, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:04:05 PM
I love you.
:-*
Do you know what it feels like to say "I love you" to someone and not hear it back? I do. :'(
Is "bah" or "moo" not an equivalent substitute?
I for one consider half black gay men to be more than beasts.
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 12, 2009, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:04:05 PM
I love you.
:-*
Do you know what it feels like to say "I love you" to someone and not hear it back? I do. :'(
Is "bah" or "moo" not an equivalent substitute?
I for one consider half black gay men to be more than beasts.
Mistake.
Anyway, we need more nuclear power.
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 12, 2009, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:04:05 PM
I love you.
:-*
Do you know what it feels like to say "I love you" to someone and not hear it back? I do. :'(
Is "bah" or "moo" not an equivalent substitute?
I for one consider half black gay men to be more than beasts.
More than beasts? Monsters?
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:30:57 PM
I for one consider half black gay men to be more than beasts.
Yes, but more what?
Quote from: Syt on March 12, 2009, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 12, 2009, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:04:05 PM
I love you.
:-*
Do you know what it feels like to say "I love you" to someone and not hear it back? I do. :'(
Is "bah" or "moo" not an equivalent substitute?
I for one consider half black gay men to be more than beasts.
More than beasts? Monsters?
Monsters do not exist. Outside Ohio.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2009, 01:37:00 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:30:57 PM
I for one consider half black gay men to be more than beasts.
Yes, but more what?
Jesus Christ. From now on I'm handling my Languish love life through PMs. Oh shut up.
252/400
meh....
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:39:15 PM
Jesus Christ. From now on I'm handling my Languish love life through PMs. Oh shut up.
:'(
230/400
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 01:38:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2009, 01:33:44 PM
Anyway, we need more nuclear power.
I agree! :hug:
You can't hug each other with nuclear power arms... or something :-[
104. I didn't feel that a lot of the questions were worded in ways that I could answer them with a simple agree/disagree, so I put down a lot of 5s.
282, a score that would be lower but for the frequent use of "always" and other "loading" terms in some of the pro-conservative statements. Of course, I'm always going to land on the progressive side of things if for no other reason than that modern conservativism holds what I do for a living in contempt.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 12, 2009, 02:18:03 PM
104. I didn't feel that a lot of the questions were worded in ways that I could answer them with a simple agree/disagree, so I put down a lot of 5s.
I put very few 5's, and felt I would have put more if the questions had been worded slightly differently.
Wouldn't all your 5's have pushed you more towards the middle? You scored almost as "conservative" as I did.
I put in "5" on abortion and issues like that. Things I shy away from a having a real opinion on. So that likely threw me into the conservative camp, since i didn't click 'give them a wire hanger'.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 12, 2009, 02:18:03 PM
104. I didn't feel that a lot of the questions were worded in ways that I could answer them with a simple agree/disagree, so I put down a lot of 5s.
:hug:
I had you pegged as "more conservative" than me though...
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2009, 02:30:43 PM
:hug:
I had you pegged as "more conservative" than me though...
I am, just in different areas. I don't define foreign policy adventurism as conservatism, but the test does. ;)
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 02:19:40 PM
282, a score that would be lower but for the frequent use of "always" and other "loading" terms in some of the pro-conservative statements. Of course, I'm always going to land on the progressive side of things if for no other reason than that modern conservativism holds what I do for a living in contempt.
There were a lot of them in the pro-liberal side as well.
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2009, 02:35:01 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 02:19:40 PM
282, a score that would be lower but for the frequent use of "always" and other "loading" terms in some of the pro-conservative statements. Of course, I'm always going to land on the progressive side of things if for no other reason than that modern conservativism holds what I do for a living in contempt.
True, it's a bad test generally.
There were a lot of them in the pro-liberal side as well.
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 02:19:40 PM
282, a score that would be lower but for the frequent use of "always" and other "loading" terms in some of the pro-conservative statements. Of course, I'm always going to land on the progressive side of things if for no other reason than that modern conservativism holds what I do for a living in contempt.
Yes, and hardly any of even the most conservative religious people would answer they "agree" to the statement "Homosexuality is unnatural and
should not be accepted by society."
They might agree to no marriage or something, but not that. The questions are worded in such a way that you get a higher score.
I bet I would be 250+ if they didn't have the loaded question about Iraq/war.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 12, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
Yes, and hardly any of even the most conservative religious people would answer they "agree" to the statement "Homosexuality is unnatural and should not be accepted by society."
:shifty:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 12, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 02:19:40 PM
282, a score that would be lower but for the frequent use of "always" and other "loading" terms in some of the pro-conservative statements. Of course, I'm always going to land on the progressive side of things if for no other reason than that modern conservativism holds what I do for a living in contempt.
Yes, and hardly any of even the most conservative religious people would answer they "agree" to the statement "Homosexuality is unnatural and should not be accepted by society."
They might agree to no marriage or something, but not that. The questions are worded in such a way that you get a higher score.
Actually, I think it's just too vague. "Acceptance" can mean anything from allowing it to happen/exist to outright promotion of it, depending on whom you ask.
I don't know. After reading Marti's posts for the last year, I'd be hitting "Strongly agree" on that suppressing the homo question.
170/400
Some fairly silly questions in there. The economic ways generally did it, most actual social questions were roughly neutral so it "sunk" my score. :D
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:02:19 PM
Actually, I think it's just too vague. "Acceptance" can mean anything from allowing it to happen/exist to outright promotion of it, depending on whom you ask.
:D What exactly does "outright promotion" of gaydom look like?
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 03:08:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:02:19 PM
Actually, I think it's just too vague. "Acceptance" can mean anything from allowing it to happen/exist to outright promotion of it, depending on whom you ask.
:D What exactly does "outright promotion" of gaydom look like?
Have you met Martinus? ;)
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 03:08:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:02:19 PM
Actually, I think it's just too vague. "Acceptance" can mean anything from allowing it to happen/exist to outright promotion of it, depending on whom you ask.
:D What exactly does "outright promotion" of gaydom look like?
Have you met Martinus? ;)
For reasons already stated, Marty is one of the greatest allies that opponents to homosexuality could ever have.
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 03:15:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 03:08:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:02:19 PM
Actually, I think it's just too vague. "Acceptance" can mean anything from allowing it to happen/exist to outright promotion of it, depending on whom you ask.
:D What exactly does "outright promotion" of gaydom look like?
Have you met Martinus? ;)
For reasons already stated, Marty is one of the greatest allies that opponents to homosexuality could ever have.
Agreed. That's not his
intent, however.
Marty doesn't really promote homosexuality though. He promotes the trite stereotypical conventions associated with it.
174
Jeez, anyone notice any loaded questions?
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 03:08:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:02:19 PM
Actually, I think it's just too vague. "Acceptance" can mean anything from allowing it to happen/exist to outright promotion of it, depending on whom you ask.
:D What exactly does "outright promotion" of gaydom look like?
Freddy Mercury. You see him, and you're like "Oh, gays are cool and talented and not so bad after all."
Then Martinus comes along and before you know it you're herding them into cattle cars.
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 03:39:27 PM
Freddy Mercury. You see him, and you're like "Oh, gays are cool and talented and not so bad after all."
Then Martinus comes along and before you know it you're herding them into cattle cars.
;D ;D ;D
243/400
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:24:42 PM
Agreed. That's not his intent, however.
No, but the point is that "gay" isn't really something you can evangelize. People are attracted to members of the same sex or they aren't. Those that are shouldn't be shamed into behaving against their natural predilections, those who aren't can't really be swayed to turn. Is there any advertising on Earth that would make you suddenly think "hmm, maybe I should go fuck some guys?"
239/400. I am Progressive. I don't feel like it though. I've always thought of myself as center-right. I think the questions on religion tipped it heavily the other way. If not for those it would probably say I'm a Fascist pigdog.
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 04:35:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:24:42 PM
Agreed. That's not his intent, however.
No, but the point is that "gay" isn't really something you can evangelize. People are attracted to members of the same sex or they aren't. Those that are shouldn't be shamed into behaving against their natural predilections, those who aren't can't really be swayed to turn. Is there any advertising on Earth that would make you suddenly think "hmm, maybe I should go fuck some guys?"
If you distill it all the way down to just sexual preference, then yeah, you're right. But that's not what I was talking about.
The only point I was trying to make was that "acceptance" is a vague term.
218.
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 04:40:32 PM
The only point I was trying to make was that "acceptance" is a vague term.
Agreed. "Acceptance" in that context could merely mean that it is not criminalized (as it was, and still is in some countries). Or does acceptance mean that you can not discriminate based on sexual orintation? Or does it mean full recognition of gay marriage?
Based on what you mean by "acceptance" I would either support it or not.
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 04:35:13 PM
No, but the point is that "gay" isn't really something you can evangelize. People are attracted to members of the same sex or they aren't. Those that are shouldn't be shamed into behaving against their natural predilections, those who aren't can't really be swayed to turn. Is there any advertising on Earth that would make you suddenly think "hmm, maybe I should go fuck some guys?"
Perhaps but I could totally see someone who is gay who might think "hmm, maybe I should go have sex with women." In fact, I'd say that many gays have thought that at some point in their lives. But of course, that's not because of advertising, but evangelism does play a role.
I couldn't be arsed to take the quiz; but I listen to Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis and King Crimson a lot...so that makes me really progressive. ;)
Quote from: Josephus on March 12, 2009, 04:53:31 PM
I couldn't be arsed to take the quiz; but I listen to Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis and King Crimson a lot...so that makes me really progressive. ;)
8)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 12, 2009, 04:54:46 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 12, 2009, 04:53:31 PM
I couldn't be arsed to take the quiz; but I listen to Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis and King Crimson a lot...so that makes me really progressive. ;)
8)
And Rush too. ;D
I got 335/400. ;D
256
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 03:08:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 03:02:19 PM
Actually, I think it's just too vague. "Acceptance" can mean anything from allowing it to happen/exist to outright promotion of it, depending on whom you ask.
:D What exactly does "outright promotion" of gaydom look like?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDaszN9ByxM
I have a dream that one day, people across the world will know how to quote properly.
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2009, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 04:40:32 PM
The only point I was trying to make was that "acceptance" is a vague term.
Agreed. "Acceptance" in that context could merely mean that it is not criminalized (as it was, and still is in some countries). Or does acceptance mean that you can not discriminate based on sexual orintation? Or does it mean full recognition of gay marriage?
Based on what you mean by "acceptance" I would either support it or not.
It's alright. I don't "accept" your lifestyle either.
304
My brother got a 340. Funny.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 12, 2009, 09:28:12 PM
My brother got a 340. Funny.
He's my new favorite filp-i-can!
:p
If FunkMonk married a girl from Topeka their kids would be FlipTopCans. HAR HAR HAR.
WTF happened to the forum?
101/400.
Apparently, im just not progressive.
Ah shit, I'm more conservative than Lettuce. I might need to take that quiz again...
its just on account of, im an isolationist and I have populist tendencies. Dont feel too bad, yes?
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 02:19:40 PM
282, a score that would be lower but for the frequent use of "always" and other "loading" terms in some of the pro-conservative statements. Of course, I'm always going to land on the progressive side of things if for no other reason than that modern conservativism holds what I do for a living in contempt.
Uh, I've lost track. What is it you do for a living now? Speaking as a conservative, I'm not sure that there's any profession that I hold in contempt
per se.
I got 106, by the way.
300/400. Pretty liberal, I've veened off to the left during this recession.
Martinus and I are the most left-wing people on Languish. :o
Quote from: Queequeg on March 12, 2009, 10:27:48 PM
300/400. Pretty liberal, I've veened off to the left during this recession.
Nonsense, it was your Obama worship that did it.
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:56:13 PM
Martinus and I are the most left-wing people on Languish. :o
Marty's not nearly as left-wing as that. His hatred of everything evangelical and constant focus on gay issues overshadows his other views.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2009, 01:04:32 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:56:13 PM
Martinus and I are the most left-wing people on Languish. :o
Marty's not nearly as left-wing as that. His hatred of everything evangelical and constant focus on gay issues overshadows his other views.
How do you know what I am for and against? I'm for regulation to protect consumers, the environment and employees; I'm for universal healthcare; I'm against invigilation of citizens and torture (I have always argued against Gitmo) to "combat terrorism", etc. etc.
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2009, 01:41:09 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2009, 01:04:32 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:56:13 PM
Martinus and I are the most left-wing people on Languish. :o
Marty's not nearly as left-wing as that. His hatred of everything evangelical and constant focus on gay issues overshadows his other views.
How do you know what I am for and against? I'm for regulation to protect consumers, the environment and employees; I'm for universal healthcare; I'm against invigilation of citizens and torture (I have always argued against Gitmo) to "combat terrorism", etc. etc.
.... and you're a corporate lawyer which puts you deep in conservitard territory.
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 10:14:32 PM
Ah shit, I'm more conservative than Lettuce. I might need to take that quiz again...
I'm not sure batshit crazy people can really be defined on the liberal-conservative spectrum.
Quote from: Syt on March 13, 2009, 01:46:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2009, 01:41:09 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2009, 01:04:32 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:56:13 PM
Martinus and I are the most left-wing people on Languish. :o
Marty's not nearly as left-wing as that. His hatred of everything evangelical and constant focus on gay issues overshadows his other views.
How do you know what I am for and against? I'm for regulation to protect consumers, the environment and employees; I'm for universal healthcare; I'm against invigilation of citizens and torture (I have always argued against Gitmo) to "combat terrorism", etc. etc.
.... and you're a corporate lawyer which puts you deep in conservitard territory.
I work in regulatory law, the purpose of which is to curb the excesses of unrestrained, free market, though. :p
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2009, 02:07:08 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 13, 2009, 01:46:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2009, 01:41:09 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2009, 01:04:32 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 10:56:13 PM
Martinus and I are the most left-wing people on Languish. :o
Marty's not nearly as left-wing as that. His hatred of everything evangelical and constant focus on gay issues overshadows his other views.
How do you know what I am for and against? I'm for regulation to protect consumers, the environment and employees; I'm for universal healthcare; I'm against invigilation of citizens and torture (I have always argued against Gitmo) to "combat terrorism", etc. etc.
.... and you're a corporate lawyer which puts you deep in conservitard territory.
I work in regulatory law, the purpose of which is to curb the excesses of unrestrained, free market, though. :p
... but for corporations whose interest is to get the most out of those laws. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2009, 10:11:29 PM
If FunkMonk married a girl from Topeka their kids would be FlipTopCans. HAR HAR HAR.
Don't ruin my chances. :-[
Quote from: Marty
How do you know what I am for and against? I'm for regulation to protect consumers, the environment and employees; I'm for universal healthcare; I'm against invigilation of citizens and torture (I have always argued against Gitmo) to "combat terrorism", etc. etc.
Ahhh, yet another example of how a lie repeated often enough can become accepted truth.
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2009, 10:26:40 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 02:19:40 PM
282, a score that would be lower but for the frequent use of "always" and other "loading" terms in some of the pro-conservative statements. Of course, I'm always going to land on the progressive side of things if for no other reason than that modern conservativism holds what I do for a living in contempt.
Uh, I've lost track. What is it you do for a living now? Speaking as a conservative, I'm not sure that there's any profession that I hold in contempt per se.
I got 106, by the way.
Sex industry worker? ;)
292/400: Crypto-commie.
Would have been higher if some questions made more sense. The energy policy one in particular was terrible.
I'm all for phasing out coal, but gas needs to stay as peak or backup supply. Solar is an unmitigated disaster unless you are far, far away from the grid (which should prompt you to move) and wind has severe technical limitations.
So how the Hell am I supposed to respond to that question? And where is nuclear?
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2009, 10:26:40 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 12, 2009, 02:19:40 PM
282, a score that would be lower but for the frequent use of "always" and other "loading" terms in some of the pro-conservative statements. Of course, I'm always going to land on the progressive side of things if for no other reason than that modern conservativism holds what I do for a living in contempt.
Uh, I've lost track. What is it you do for a living now? Speaking as a conservative, I'm not sure that there's any profession that I hold in contempt per se.
I got 106, by the way.
Sex industry worker? ;)
[/quote]
Nah, I don't think that's what Vinnies's doing now. But like I said, I lost track, so maybe.
Quote from: dps on March 13, 2009, 08:50:50 AM
Nah, I don't think that's what Vinnies's doing now. But like I said, I lost track, so maybe.
Probably not. ;D Though it would be one answer to "what profession do conservatives generally hold in contempt".
I'm thinking the real answer is something rather more along the lines of science.
Quote"what profession do conservatives generally hold in contempt"
The press
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2009, 10:26:40 PM
Uh, I've lost track. What is it you do for a living now? Speaking as a conservative, I'm not sure that there's any profession that I hold in contempt per se.
He's in the astrosciences. Cosmology, I think (although that might have been Hamilcar).
Still, it's important not to confuse literalist Protestantism with conservatism. Sure, there's lots of crossover between the two, but there are millions of conservatives who think that radiometric dating is A-OK and that there's no way that Noah's flood was a literal, global event.
Look at me. I take conservative positions like being pro-death penalty, harsh prison sentences and anti-drug. While I believe that a social safety net is useful and important, I also believe that it's important that it be focused on getting people working. I'm fond of balanced budgets under most situations. I support socialized medicine and health insurance supported by a robust network of private clinics and facilities, covered by supplementary, privately-supplied insurance. I think that it is more important for schools to educate than to socialize. I think it's important to protect the environment, but that this protection must also be balanced by economic growth. I believe in crushing our enemies whereever they might hide, without worrying about whether doing so makes us worse than they are. And I believe that science is far and away the best framework we have availible to understand our universe, and that education in the sciences is critical if we plan on having democracies.
I am a conservative atheist, and I'm wise beyond anyone's ability to match me. All should just obey me, and the world would be worth living in.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:26:51 AM
He's in the astrosciences. Cosmology, I think (although that might have been Hamilcar).
Yeah, I seriously doubt most conservatives have strong feelings either way about that stuff.
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2009, 09:30:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:26:51 AM
He's in the astrosciences. Cosmology, I think (although that might have been Hamilcar).
Yeah, I seriously doubt most conservatives have strong feelings either way about that stuff.
Perhaps, but every literalist Christian does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE)
That woman there has problems with the Big Bang theory. Dark-sided, and whatnot.
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2009, 09:30:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:26:51 AM
He's in the astrosciences. Cosmology, I think (although that might have been Hamilcar).
Yeah, I seriously doubt most conservatives have strong feelings either way about that stuff.
Dude, go to the creationist museum. It is hilarious. Worth the 20 buck entry fee.
274/400.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:32:31 AM
Perhaps, but every literalist Christian does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE)
That woman there has problems with the Big Bang theory. Dark-sided, and whatnot.
Even so, I don't think Vinnie has to worry about being pelted with stones if they find out what he does for a living. It's not like he's an abortion doctor, adult bookstore owner, or gay rodeo participant.
He's not any of those, right? :unsure:
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:26:51 AM
Look at me. I take conservative positions like being pro-death penalty, harsh prison sentences and anti-drug. While I believe that a social safety net is useful and important, I also believe that it's important that it be focused on getting people working. I'm fond of balanced budgets under most situations. I support socialized medicine and health insurance supported by a robust network of private clinics and facilities, covered by supplementary, privately-supplied insurance. I think that it is more important for schools to educate than to socialize. I think it's important to protect the environment, but that this protection must also be balanced by economic growth. I believe in crushing our enemies whereever they might hide, without worrying about whether doing so makes us worse than they are. And I believe that science is far and away the best framework we have availible to understand our universe, and that education in the sciences is critical if we plan on having democracies.
Neil, he's a great Canadian. :cheers: 8)
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2009, 11:43:03 AM
Even so, I don't think Vinnie has to worry about being pelted with stones if they find out what he does for a living. It's not like he's an abortion doctor, adult bookstore owner, or gay rodeo participant.
He's not any of those, right? :unsure:
I dunno. They don't want any of those dark-sided things near them. Presumably, any science that doesn't agree with Genesis is dark-sided.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 13, 2009, 08:24:59 AM
Don't ruin my chances. :-[
:(She wasn't right for you.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:26:51 AM
Still, it's important not to confuse literalist Protestantism with conservatism. Sure, there's lots of crossover between the two, but there are millions of conservatives who think that radiometric dating is A-OK and that there's no way that Noah's flood was a literal, global event.
Look at me. I take conservative positions like being pro-death penalty, harsh prison sentences and anti-drug. While I believe that a social safety net is useful and important, I also believe that it's important that it be focused on getting people working. I'm fond of balanced budgets under most situations. I support socialized medicine and health insurance supported by a robust network of private clinics and facilities, covered by supplementary, privately-supplied insurance. I think that it is more important for schools to educate than to socialize. I think it's important to protect the environment, but that this protection must also be balanced by economic growth. I believe in crushing our enemies whereever they might hide, without worrying about whether doing so makes us worse than they are. And I believe that science is far and away the best framework we have availible to understand our universe, and that education in the sciences is critical if we plan on having democracies.
I am a conservative atheist, and I'm wise beyond anyone's ability to match me. All should just obey me, and the world would be worth living in.
Wow, you sound like a Democrat.
Quote from: Fireblade on March 13, 2009, 05:55:13 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:26:51 AM
Still, it's important not to confuse literalist Protestantism with conservatism. Sure, there's lots of crossover between the two, but there are millions of conservatives who think that radiometric dating is A-OK and that there's no way that Noah's flood was a literal, global event.
Look at me. I take conservative positions like being pro-death penalty, harsh prison sentences and anti-drug. While I believe that a social safety net is useful and important, I also believe that it's important that it be focused on getting people working. I'm fond of balanced budgets under most situations. I support socialized medicine and health insurance supported by a robust network of private clinics and facilities, covered by supplementary, privately-supplied insurance. I think that it is more important for schools to educate than to socialize. I think it's important to protect the environment, but that this protection must also be balanced by economic growth. I believe in crushing our enemies whereever they might hide, without worrying about whether doing so makes us worse than they are. And I believe that science is far and away the best framework we have availible to understand our universe, and that education in the sciences is critical if we plan on having democracies.
I am a conservative atheist, and I'm wise beyond anyone's ability to match me. All should just obey me, and the world would be worth living in.
Wow, you sound like a Democrat.
But I'm not. I'm a Conservative.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 06:21:12 PM
But I'm not. I'm a Conservative.
It's just a label you're comfortable with. :)
Quote from: Fireblade on March 13, 2009, 05:55:13 PM
Wow, you sound like a Democrat.
At best, a blue dog. Of course, one could just take it as a reason why American political labels don't apply outside of the US...or even more extreme, rarely even apply to individual Americans.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 02:57:57 PM
I dunno. They don't want any of those dark-sided things near them. Presumably, any science that doesn't agree with Genesis is dark-sided.
Btw, it's
dork-sided :)
Quote from: szmik on March 13, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 06:21:12 PM
But I'm not. I'm a Conservative.
It's just a label you're comfortable with. :)
It's an important part of my political identity.
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2009, 06:36:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 02:57:57 PM
I dunno. They don't want any of those dark-sided things near them. Presumably, any science that doesn't agree with Genesis is dark-sided.
Btw, it's dork-sided :)
I just assumed that she was from one of those parts of the US where they don't speak properly.
For the record, I'm an experimental/observational astrophysicist (not a cosmologist, that was Hami, that shit's out of my league), specifically I study emission nebulae (big clouds of photo-ionized gas, like the Orion Nebula, as distinguished from gas that's only visible because of reflected starlight, like the blue glow around the Pleides). I also have taught (and certainly will again teach) astronomy courses.
I assure you that if the conservative movement had its way, I would have no job. Modern conservativism has no use for pure science (and has no problem spreading that message through technology made possible BY pure science, of course). And yes, a certain subgroup of them would probably go further than that considering that I'm an unrepentant "evolutionist" that teaches the big bang theory and global warming science.
I dunno, Vinnie. That doesn't sound like conservatives would want to put you out of business. He studies nebulae?? Burn the heretic!!!111
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2009, 08:16:14 PM
I dunno, Vinnie. That doesn't sound like conservatives would want to put you out of business. He studies nebulae?? Burn the heretic!!!111
Most science of this sort, you must understand, is funded by NASA and the Air Force. You think conservatives would be comfortable with government money going to something so "frivolous?" Reagan (vaunted hero of the movement) spoke out ardently against government funding for any sort of pure science.
Vinnie, I know this may sound cheesy, but thanks for your efforts in expanding human knowledge, no matter how big or small they may be in the big picture. I haven't taken an Astronomy course since high school, but it is very interesting to learn about. I hold scientists in high regard. :)
Quote from: vinraith on March 13, 2009, 08:10:14 PM
For the record, I'm an experimental/observational astrophysicist (not a cosmologist, that was Hami, that shit's out of my league), specifically I study emission nebulae (big clouds of photo-ionized gas, like the Orion Nebula, as distinguished from gas that's only visible because of reflected starlight, like the blue glow around the Pleides). I also have taught (and certainly will again teach) astronomy courses.
So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?
QuoteI assure you that if the conservative movement had its way, I would have no job. Modern conservativism has no use for pure science (and has no problem spreading that message through technology made possible BY pure science, of course). And yes, a certain subgroup of them would probably go further than that considering that I'm an unrepentant "evolutionist" that teaches the big bang theory and global warming science.
I think you're mixing the vocal Reagan-style Christian movement with the low-key Nixon-style conservatives. Conservatism has a long, proud history of technocracy.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 06:42:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2009, 06:36:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 02:57:57 PM
I dunno. They don't want any of those dark-sided things near them. Presumably, any science that doesn't agree with Genesis is dark-sided.
Btw, it's dork-sided :)
I just assumed that she was from one of those parts of the US where they don't speak properly.
She is (Louisiana). Just looks funnier to type it the way she says it.
242. My fiscal score would put me conservative however.
346. most of the questions were kinda loaded for one extreme or the other imho.
52. I think that almost makes me a commie.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:00:38 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 13, 2009, 08:10:14 PM
For the record, I'm an experimental/observational astrophysicist (not a cosmologist, that was Hami, that shit's out of my league), specifically I study emission nebulae (big clouds of photo-ionized gas, like the Orion Nebula, as distinguished from gas that's only visible because of reflected starlight, like the blue glow around the Pleides). I also have taught (and certainly will again teach) astronomy courses.
So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?
QuoteI assure you that if the conservative movement had its way, I would have no job. Modern conservativism has no use for pure science (and has no problem spreading that message through technology made possible BY pure science, of course). And yes, a certain subgroup of them would probably go further than that considering that I'm an unrepentant "evolutionist" that teaches the big bang theory and global warming science.
I think you're mixing the vocal Reagan-style Christian movement with the low-key Nixon-style conservatives. Conservatism has a long, proud history of technocracy.
Most conservatives that I know, even religious conservatives, don't really have a problem with "hard" sciences like physics or geology, but are suspicious of the social sciences. Personally, space exploration and pure science are among the few things I am actually in favor of the federal government spending money on.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 13, 2009, 10:29:19 PM
52. I think that almost makes me a commie.
You beat my score :(
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2009, 12:22:50 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 13, 2009, 10:29:19 PM
52. I think that almost makes me a commie.
You beat my score :(
:nelson:
P.S. so hans thinks you're a commie!
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 13, 2009, 08:25:15 PM
Vinnie, I know this may sound cheesy, but thanks for your efforts in expanding human knowledge, no matter how big or small they may be in the big picture. I haven't taken an Astronomy course since high school, but it is very interesting to learn about. I hold scientists in high regard. :)
:blush: Thanks Funk, I really appreciate that. For what it's worth, I feel the same way about members of the military. :hug:
We're missing too many smilies. <_<
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:00:38 PM
I think you're mixing the vocal Reagan-style Christian movement with the low-key Nixon-style conservatives. Conservatism has a long, proud history of technocracy.
Which is why I keep saying "modern" conservatives, there doesn't seem to me much of the old guard left. :(
Quote from: dps on March 14, 2009, 12:00:35 AM
Most conservatives that I know, even religious conservatives, don't really have a problem with "hard" sciences like physics or geology, but are suspicious of the social sciences. Personally, space exploration and pure science are among the few things I am actually in favor of the federal government spending money on.
I knew there was a reason I liked you. :D
Quote from: vinraith on March 14, 2009, 01:14:22 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 13, 2009, 08:25:15 PM
Vinnie, I know this may sound cheesy, but thanks for your efforts in expanding human knowledge, no matter how big or small they may be in the big picture. I haven't taken an Astronomy course since high school, but it is very interesting to learn about. I hold scientists in high regard. :)
:blush: Thanks Funk, I really appreciate that. For what it's worth, I feel the same way about members of the military. :hug:
We're missing too many smilies. <_<
Yeah like one to mimic vomiting.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2009, 01:20:32 AM
Yeah like one to mimic vomiting.
You can make do with :P and >:(
195/400, or "conservative".
355/400
Quote from: vinraith on March 14, 2009, 01:15:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:00:38 PM
I think you're mixing the vocal Reagan-style Christian movement with the low-key Nixon-style conservatives. Conservatism has a long, proud history of technocracy.
Which is why I keep saying "modern" conservatives, there doesn't seem to me much of the old guard left. :(
Quite honestly when I go to meetings of the Conservative Party of Canada, I meet maybe a handful of biblical literalists - the overwhelming majority are big science supporters...
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 09:59:06 AM
I'm undoubtably the most progressive member of the board.
Why do you say that?
What has science done for us?
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 15, 2009, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 09:59:06 AM
I'm undoubtably the most progressive member of the board.
Why do you say that?
Because my way is the way forward. I am the way of the future.
Quote from: The Brain on March 15, 2009, 02:59:07 PM
What has science done for us?
Well, you'd have a hard time working in nuclear power if not for atomic theory.
Quote from: The Brain on March 15, 2009, 02:59:07 PM
What has science done for us?
Pornography at our fingertips. Limitless, unadulterated pornography.
Quote from: Neil on March 15, 2009, 03:05:41 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 15, 2009, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 09:59:06 AM
I'm undoubtably the most progressive member of the board.
Why do you say that?
Because my way is the way forward. I am the way of the future.
Moreover, I discussed my opinions above, and they are all universal and correct.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 15, 2009, 03:06:54 PM
Pornography at our fingertips. Limitless, unadulterated pornography.
Ok, but what about something good?
Quote from: Neil on March 15, 2009, 03:05:41 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 15, 2009, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 12, 2009, 09:59:06 AM
I'm undoubtably the most progressive member of the board.
Why do you say that?
Because my way is the way forward. I am the way of the future.
There are many futures, but only one way forward. How will this end? What happens when progressivism reaches its the limits, the point which we cannot go further?
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2009, 03:09:13 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 15, 2009, 03:06:54 PM
Pornography at our fingertips. Limitless, unadulterated pornography.
Ok, but what about something good?
French fries
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 15, 2009, 03:10:00 PM
There are many futures, but only one way forward. How will this end? What happens when progressivism reaches its the limits, the point which we cannot go further?
As with all ideas, it eventually turns inward upon itself and is destroyed.
Quote from: Neil on March 15, 2009, 03:17:42 PM
As with all ideas, it eventually turns inward upon itself and is destroyed.
You're supposed to say it ends in fire, but that is also an acceptable answer.
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2009, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 14, 2009, 01:15:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:00:38 PM
I think you're mixing the vocal Reagan-style Christian movement with the low-key Nixon-style conservatives. Conservatism has a long, proud history of technocracy.
Which is why I keep saying "modern" conservatives, there doesn't seem to me much of the old guard left. :(
Quite honestly when I go to meetings of the Conservative Party of Canada, I meet maybe a handful of biblical literalists - the overwhelming majority are big science supporters...
Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it.
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 06:15:17 PM
Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it.
Democracy as a whole tends to be anti-intellectual.
257
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 06:15:17 PM
Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it.
Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct. In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
Quote from: dps on March 15, 2009, 11:49:46 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 06:15:17 PM
Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it.
Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct. In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
Granted, but one party panders to it much more strongly than the other. One party encourages it much more than the other.
Look back at the way education was regarded during the Cold War, and look at how it's regarded now.
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 11:54:33 PM
Granted, but one party panders to it much more strongly than the other. One party encourages it much more than the other.
That only seems to be the case because so many Democratic politicians are psuedo-intellectuals, and conservatives enjoy deflating their pretentions, but unfortunately often do it in a way that does pander to anti-intellectualism instead of pointing out that a lot of Democratic leaders are simply full of themselves.
QuoteLook back at the way education was regarded during the Cold War, and look at how it's regarded now.
Care to elaborate what you're getting at here?
EDIT: Im logging off now; it's after 1 AM here, but I'd like to continue this later.
QuoteThat only seems to be the case because so many Democratic politicians are psuedo-intellectuals, and conservatives enjoy deflating their pretentions, but unfortunately often do it in a way that does pander to anti-intellectualism instead of pointing out that a lot of Democratic leaders are simply full of themselves.
Speaking as a scientist, it's pretty easy to tell which party is in power just by looking at the budgets for the various national science agencies. It goes beyond deflating some pontificating Democratic Ivy leaguers, there's a distinctly anti-science undercurrent to the modern Republican party (in large part driven by the fundamentalist right, no doubt). It started in earnest with Reagan's anti-pure-science stance and continues through to McCain panning planetariums in the debates and well beyond.
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 12:13:45 AM
Care to elaborate what you're getting at here?
EDIT: Im logging off now; it's after 1 AM here, but I'd like to continue this later.
During the Cold War, science and technology were viewed as key to keeping up with/beating the Communists, and consequently education in general and science and engineering in particular tended to be held in much higher regard. I'm curious, without pointing any fingers, to understand how we've gotten from, say,
October Sky to the kind of anti-science nonsense we see today.
316/400 and extremely progressive apparently...
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 11:54:33 PM
Look back at the way education was regarded during the Cold War, and look at how it's regarded now.
On the other hand, look at how it was regarded in the 20s and 30s, and prior to that. Sputnik (and to a lesser extent, the atom bomb itself) did a magnificent job of shocking the American system. These days, I doubt that there's anything that could do something similar.
355, extremely progressive by American standards.
Neil, wait until a Chinese taikonaut walks on the Moon, or even worse/better, China is the first to stablish a Moon base... you just need competition, otherwise the race isn't funny.
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 12:13:45 AM
That only seems to be the case because so many Democratic politicians are psuedo-intellectuals, and conservatives enjoy deflating their pretentions, but unfortunately often do it in a way that does pander to anti-intellectualism instead of pointing out that a lot of Democratic leaders are simply full of themselves. logging off now; it's after 1 AM here, but I'd like to continue this later.
Well, going after scientists is often useful to large elements of the Republican Party. The fundamentalist Christians hate science in all circumstances, as it relies on a materialism which is religiously unacceptable to them. The business lobby has had environmental scientists after their balls for decades now. Then there were a number of high-profile scientists who were communists or socialists of one stripe or another. And then there's the fact that the Republicans have taken great care over the last 30 years to market themselves as the party of the masses, whereas being a scientist requires years of education.
Quote
During the Cold War, science and technology were viewed as key to keeping up with/beating the Communists, and consequently education in general and science and engineering in particular tended to be held in much higher regard. I'm curious, without pointing any fingers, to understand how we've gotten from, say, October Sky to the kind of anti-science nonsense we see today.
I think you're seeing a lot of anti-science bias on the right that isn't actually there. I here a lot of people complaining about government spending on science, especially space sciences, but that is almost allways followed up with comments about how that money would be better spent on helping poor people pay for medical expences or for low-income housing, things that are certainly not conservative notions.
And I think that the attitude toward science and learning in general that you see in
October Sky was always an exception. My grandfather, who we lived with until I was almost 6, didn't have a lot of formal education, but he was a smart guy, and put a lot of value on learning. We had tons of books around the house, and they weren't there for show--they were there to be read. My stepfather was bascially the same, though he had a bit more formal education. But among our neighbors and family friends, there weren't many other people who read much. And among the kids that I grew up with, there were few other than myself who liked to read and enjoyed learning. I got called an egghead and otherwise picked on a lot because of it--and this isn't in the Reagan 80's I'm talking about, but the late 60's. And very few of those kids were from families that were politically conservative, nor as a group were their families particularly religious.
Quote from: dps on March 15, 2009, 11:49:46 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 06:15:17 PM
Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it.
Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct. In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
This is probably just because of the people you hang out with
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2009, 10:18:07 AM
Quote from: dps on March 15, 2009, 11:49:46 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 06:15:17 PM
Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it.
Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct. In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
This is probably just because of the people you hang out with
How would you know? You don't hang out with anyone.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2009, 10:18:07 AM
Quote from: dps on March 15, 2009, 11:49:46 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 06:15:17 PM
Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it.
Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct. In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
This is probably just because of the people you hang out with
As much as possible, I try to hang out with people who aren't anti-intellectual. It's generally more fun to be around people who share your interests. That's one good thing about being a wargamer--wargamers may be nerds, but given the rules complexities of most wargames, the hobby does select against stupid--though a few get through (and not all people who are anti-intellectual are stupid
per se.
Besides, from what you've posted here in the past, you don't know anything about hanging out with people anyway.
EDIT: Bah, Neil beat me to the punch with the snarky comment about your lack of a life.
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 10:15:08 AM
I think you're seeing a lot of anti-science bias on the right that isn't actually there. I here a lot of people complaining about government spending on science, especially space sciences, but that is almost allways followed up with comments about how that money would be better spent on helping poor people pay for medical expences or for low-income housing, things that are certainly not conservative notions.
Bitching and moaning about money that's not being spent to help them is a universal poor person thing.
That said, the Democrats more elitist than the Republicans, and so it's easier for them to do as they please in that respect. Sure, the Democrats might bang the class warfare drums when it suits them (and some individual Democrats do so constantly), but ultimately it's the limousine liberals that run the party, with Obama being the most prominant example. They'll talk about the great things they want to do, and pass some of them, but ultimately they dig science, and are willing to pay for it. These are the people who Carl Sagan was aiming at, years ago. While some Democrats no doubt gnash their teeth every time a half-billion dollar space probe goes up, the peace holds, because their issues still get money and attention.
Compare this to the Republicans. They also have elite technocrats, the sort of people who ran the party in the Nixon years and earlier. However, Reagan's tapping of the 'Moral Majority' brought large numbers of extreme Christians into the party at the exact same time that modern society was stamping out their morality and modern science was stamping out their god. They were highly motivated, rather wealthy and dangerous to the fragile partnership that had been formed between the government and science during the 50s, 60s and 70s. These people didn't begrudge the dollars being spent on science, they opposed the existance of modern science itself. With their numbers and dollars, they stand tall in the party, to the point that the party elders are obliged to be responsive to some degree. At this point, the Christians have even infiltrated the party leadership. We'll see what happens in the future, but if Sarah Palin gets nominated in 2012, I would say that the Christian tail will have come to wag the entire Republican dog.
Neil's analysis seems closer to what I could see: there are important fault lines in the ways people consider science, one of which seems to be utilitarian vs humanitarian. In which case, many Conservatives want their science to give out concrete results, to fuel technologies, to «do things», to cure people, etc. Vin's «anti-intellectuals» can also be found here when the only science that matters is the one which leads to technology - and their stance is repercuted on the arts, the social science, etc. It can blend quite well with «anti-elitist». Conservatives who agree on a humanitarian view of science (curiosity for curiosity's sake) seem to tend to have the same outlook on the social sciences: the only difference in this case is that they honor the classical models of «a good education» and scoff at what they percieve to be the newish mumbo-jumbo (hence dps «pseudo-intellectuals»).
In this case, it is especially telling, IMHO that astronomy and related science (including the space technologies) have had to rely on the promises of future, unforseen benefits (indirect utilitarianism) to justify their existence, rather than take a more strictly, «curiosity for curiosity's sake» line of argument.
There's really nothing in Neil's analysis I disagree with, except perhaps the degree to which said infiltration has already occurred. There honestly seem to be very few technocrats left among Republican politicians at this point.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:00:38 PM
So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?
I got so preoccupied with the second part of this message that I forgot to respond to this. I'm actually not a "star guy," though I work with a few. My Masters was done in hydrogen plasma spectroscopy, so what I do now is look at the cloud itself to try to understand the dynamics and structure of these things. This ties in to star formation, of course, because these things are where massive stars are born. But it's more about studying the nursery than the baby, if you see what I mean. Most of my instrumentation is designed to look at large swaths of the sky at a limited resolution, rather than the small section/high resolution output of the big telescopes these days. I collect spectroscopic data across the entire object (the one I'm studying now takes up about 3 square degrees of sky) and then use modelling software to root out the underlying physics of the nebula.
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 12:16:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:00:38 PM
So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?
I got so preoccupied with the second part of this message that I forgot to respond to this. I'm actually not a "star guy," though I work with a few. My Masters was done in hydrogen plasma spectroscopy, so what I do now is look at the cloud itself to try to understand the dynamics and structure of these things. This ties in to star formation, of course, because these things are where massive stars are born. But it's more about studying the nursery than the baby, if you see what I mean. Most of my instrumentation is designed to look at large swaths of the sky at a limited resolution, rather than the small section/high resolution output of the big telescopes these days. I collect spectroscopic data across the entire object (the one I'm studying now takes up about 3 square degrees of sky) and then use modelling software to root out the underlying physics of the nebula.
i.e. :nerd:
Though I kinda envy you guys doing that shit for a living (not that I would grasp even the simplest of equations of that).
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 12:16:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:00:38 PM
So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?
I got so preoccupied with the second part of this message that I forgot to respond to this. I'm actually not a "star guy," though I work with a few. My Masters was done in hydrogen plasma spectroscopy, so what I do now is look at the cloud itself to try to understand the dynamics and structure of these things. This ties in to star formation, of course, because these things are where massive stars are born. But it's more about studying the nursery than the baby, if you see what I mean. Most of my instrumentation is designed to look at large swaths of the sky at a limited resolution, rather than the small section/high resolution output of the big telescopes these days. I collect spectroscopic data across the entire object (the one I'm studying now takes up about 3 square degrees of sky) and then use modelling software to root out the underlying physics of the nebula.
So you're studying how they're built and then modelling how they move, collide and collapse? That would be interesting work.
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2009, 12:33:02 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 12:16:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2009, 09:00:38 PM
So do you do a lot of work with star formation and early stellar evolution?
I got so preoccupied with the second part of this message that I forgot to respond to this. I'm actually not a "star guy," though I work with a few. My Masters was done in hydrogen plasma spectroscopy, so what I do now is look at the cloud itself to try to understand the dynamics and structure of these things. This ties in to star formation, of course, because these things are where massive stars are born. But it's more about studying the nursery than the baby, if you see what I mean. Most of my instrumentation is designed to look at large swaths of the sky at a limited resolution, rather than the small section/high resolution output of the big telescopes these days. I collect spectroscopic data across the entire object (the one I'm studying now takes up about 3 square degrees of sky) and then use modelling software to root out the underlying physics of the nebula.
So you're studying how they're built and then modelling how they move, collide and collapse? That would be interesting work.
That's the idea, yeah. The intent (and I'm not that far along in this yet, mind you) is to be able to work backwards from observed physical parameters and break the dynamics of the object down to physical first principles.
And come to think of it, that sentence might easily constitute my research work for the rest of my life. :unsure:
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 12:40:50 PM
That's the idea, yeah. The intent (and I'm not that far along in this yet, mind you) is to be able to work backwards from observed physical parameters and break the dynamics of the object down to physical first principles.
Sounds simple enough, although I would imagine that breaking down something that big and old is ferociously complex.
It also helps justify your sensitivity to the science issue. Your work doesn't jive with a 6,000-year old universe and it's regarding the dynamics and properties of gas and dust in extrasolar space, something with rather limited immediate practical application. The snake handlers would happily shut you down. They're not just after a halt on the increase of human knowledge, they're after your ass.
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2009, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 12:40:50 PM
That's the idea, yeah. The intent (and I'm not that far along in this yet, mind you) is to be able to work backwards from observed physical parameters and break the dynamics of the object down to physical first principles.
Sounds simple enough, although I would imagine that breaking down something that big and old is ferociously complex.
It also helps justify your sensitivity to the science issue. Your work doesn't jive with a 6,000-year old universe and it's regarding the dynamics and properties of gas and dust in extrasolar space, something with rather limited immediate practical application. The snake handlers would happily shut you down. They're not just after a halt on the increase of human knowledge, they're after your ass.
Exactly. And needless to say, it's difficult to explain to them that these far-off gas clouds I'm studying are the origin of (nearly) all non-hydrogen atoms in the universe, so studying them almost certainly
does have some ultimate benefits down the road.
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 11:54:33 PM
Quote from: dps on March 15, 2009, 11:49:46 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 15, 2009, 06:15:17 PM
Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it.
Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct. In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.
Granted, but one party panders to it much more strongly than the other. One party encourages it much more than the other.
Are you talking about the party of Kwame?
I still think you guys are going overboard and jumping to conclusions. I see no reason why even the vast majority of religious zealots would have an axe to grind about Vinnie studying gas clouds in space.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 16, 2009, 01:09:41 PM
I still think you guys are going overboard and jumping to conclusions. I see no reason why even the vast majority of religious zealots would have an axe to grind about Vinnie studying gas clouds in space.
No shit. I would imagine quite a few would not necessarily want to pay for that, but not out of religious zealoutry.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 16, 2009, 01:09:41 PM
I still think you guys are going overboard and jumping to conclusions. I see no reason why even the vast majority of religious zealots would have an axe to grind about Vinnie studying gas clouds in space.
uh, yeah.
Now I don't want to go too far out on a limb here since Vinnie knows his own work and situation a lot better than I do, so maybe he does have young earthers protesting outside his door and constant attempts from Republican lawmakers to turn his lab into a creationist museum.
But it simply doesn't jive with my own knowledge of the political right-wing. If anything the right tends to be a stronger supporter of hard science, and space science (Bush was pushing for a renewed investment in space, including going to Mars).
So I wonder if Vinraith isn't letting his own very negative perception of religious people in general, and the religious right in particular, colour his judgment here. But as I said this branch is getting a bit creaky so I'll just stop.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 01:23:05 PM
uh, yeah.
Now I don't want to go too far out on a limb here since Vinnie knows his own work and situation a lot better than I do, so maybe he does have young earthers protesting outside his door and constant attempts from Republican lawmakers to turn his lab into a creationist museum.
But it simply doesn't jive with my own knowledge of the political right-wing. If anything the right tends to be a stronger supporter of hard science, and space science (Bush was pushing for a renewed investment in space, including going to Mars).
Protesting isn't necessary or relevant, all that's required is funding cuts. Pure science is not a Republican spending priority these days, and Bush's manned space exploration push nearly gutted NASA's other science initiatives.
This entire conversation is just becoming strangely silly. The current Republican party wouldn't fund my work, given the choice. Democrats would. Simple.
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 01:28:12 PM
The current Republican party wouldn't fund my work, given the choice. Democrats would. Simple.
It just doesn't seem that simple to me.
But it is your work, not mine. I don't suppose you could provide a link or other evidence that would prove me wrong?
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 01:28:12 PM
This entire conversation is just becoming strangely silly. The current Republican party wouldn't fund my work, given the choice. Democrats would. Simple.
Now that may be a fair statement, but it's not exactly what you were saying earlier ;)
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 01:23:05 PM
(Bush was pushing for a renewed investment in space, including going to Mars).
The manned spaceflight initiative and space sciences aren't the same thing. A manned mission to Mars would be a prestige mission, not a science mission. And if the science budget gets cut in order to pay for it, scientists like Vinraith would be out the door in favour of engineers and contractors.
Of course, a manned mission to Mars is never going to happen, but it wouldn't be an entirely bad thing. I remember when I was a boy, people were much more interested in space. Skylab, the shuttle, the Voyager probes, men who had walked on the moon less than ten years earlier, these were things that many people were interested in. These days, space has become mundane, and there's no sense of achievement that comes out of shuttle missions that have become routine.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2009, 01:36:14 PM
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 01:28:12 PM
This entire conversation is just becoming strangely silly. The current Republican party wouldn't fund my work, given the choice. Democrats would. Simple.
Now that may be a fair statement, but it's not exactly what you were saying earlier ;)
Yeah, science nerds are a very small percentage of the electorate, so pure science is an easy target when it comes to budget cuts, and the Republican party still pays a bit of lip service to fiscal conservatism. But that doesn't really have anything to do with religious fundamentalism. And speaking as both a Christian fundamentalist and an economic/fiscal conservative, given the chance, I'd gladly abolish Medicaid and Medicare and give a big chunk of that money to Vinnie.
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 01:56:08 PM
Yeah, science nerds are a very small percentage of the electorate, so pure science is an easy target when it comes to budget cuts, and the Republican party still pays a bit of lip service to fiscal conservatism. But that doesn't really have anything to do with religious fundamentalism. And speaking as both a Christian fundamentalist and an economic/fiscal conservative, given the chance, I'd gladly abolish Medicaid and Medicare and give a big chunk of that money to Vinnie.
How do you square that with the knowledge that Vinraith's research flies in the face of the book of Genesis being literal truth?
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2009, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 01:23:05 PM
(Bush was pushing for a renewed investment in space, including going to Mars).
The manned spaceflight initiative and space sciences aren't the same thing. A manned mission to Mars would be a prestige mission, not a science mission. And if the science budget gets cut in order to pay for it, scientists like Vinraith would be out the door in favour of engineers and contractors.
Of course, a manned mission to Mars is never going to happen, but it wouldn't be an entirely bad thing. I remember when I was a boy, people were much more interested in space. Skylab, the shuttle, the Voyager probes, men who had walked on the moon less than ten years earlier, these were things that many people were interested in. These days, space has become mundane, and there's no sense of achievement that comes out of shuttle missions that have become routine.
If we want to fund space science, we need to have a high-profile manned space program as PR to stir up public interest and support for it.
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 01:57:59 PM
If we want to fund space science, we need to have a high-profile manned space program as PR to stir up public interest and support for it.
Which is all well and good, but you can't cut science funding to pay for PR. The manned space program should be over and above the real science.
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2009, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 01:23:05 PM
(Bush was pushing for a renewed investment in space, including going to Mars).
The manned spaceflight initiative and space sciences aren't the same thing. A manned mission to Mars would be a prestige mission, not a science mission. And if the science budget gets cut in order to pay for it, scientists like Vinraith would be out the door in favour of engineers and contractors.
But cutting ground-based space science in favour of manned space travel isn't what Vinraith was talking about when he said that Republicans don't want to fund his research.
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2009, 01:57:55 PM
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 01:56:08 PM
Yeah, science nerds are a very small percentage of the electorate, so pure science is an easy target when it comes to budget cuts, and the Republican party still pays a bit of lip service to fiscal conservatism. But that doesn't really have anything to do with religious fundamentalism. And speaking as both a Christian fundamentalist and an economic/fiscal conservative, given the chance, I'd gladly abolish Medicaid and Medicare and give a big chunk of that money to Vinnie.
How do you square that with the knowledge that Vinraith's research flies in the face of the book of Genesis being literal truth?
It doesn't. The supposed conflict between science and religion was conjured up by demagogues on both sides to boost their own standing, and has gone on so long and become so ingrained that people who aren't themselves demagogues believe it.
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2009, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 01:57:59 PM
If we want to fund space science, we need to have a high-profile manned space program as PR to stir up public interest and support for it.
Which is all well and good, but you can't cut science funding to pay for PR. The manned space program should be over and above the real science.
I agree that that's the way it
should be, but unfortunately nowdays you have to put style over substance to get anything done politically.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 02:00:46 PM
But cutting ground-based space science in favour of manned space travel isn't what Vinraith was talking about when he said that Republicans don't want to fund his research.
I was just replying to the idea that Bush was pro-space science.
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 02:00:51 PM
It doesn't. The supposed conflict between science and religion was conjured up by demagogues on both sides to boost their own standing, and has gone on so long and become so ingrained that people who aren't themselves demagogues believe it.
I can assure you that there is actually a conflict between science and religion. When some people are saying that they've done some math based on how long folks allegedly lived in their holy book, and they've come up with a universe that is 6,000 years old, that's a claim that flies in the face of everything we know about the universe. When they pursue it through the peer review process, that's alright. After all, I'm sure that scientists have made ridiculous claims like that over the years, and that's what peer review is for. However, when they try and do an end run around the process and slip their lunacy into science education in public schools, that's a conflict.
Besides, demagogues are the ones who write the laws these days.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2009, 01:17:41 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 16, 2009, 01:09:41 PM
I still think you guys are going overboard and jumping to conclusions. I see no reason why even the vast majority of religious zealots would have an axe to grind about Vinnie studying gas clouds in space.
No shit. I would imagine quite a few would not necessarily want to pay for that, but not out of religious zealoutry.
I suspect that this is the real reason for Vinnys hysterics.
"What? They don't want to pay me to study gas clouds! DAMN THEM ALL!!!!!"
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2009, 02:21:42 PM
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2009, 02:00:51 PM
It doesn't. The supposed conflict between science and religion was conjured up by demagogues on both sides to boost their own standing, and has gone on so long and become so ingrained that people who aren't themselves demagogues believe it.
I can assure you that there is actually a conflict between science and religion. When some people are saying that they've done some math based on how long folks allegedly lived in their holy book, and they've come up with a universe that is 6,000 years old, that's a claim that flies in the face of everything we know about the universe. When they pursue it through the peer review process, that's alright. After all, I'm sure that scientists have made ridiculous claims like that over the years, and that's what peer review is for. However, when they try and do an end run around the process and slip their lunacy into science education in public schools, that's a conflict.
Besides, demagogues are the ones who write the laws these days.
But it is a conflict that the crazy nutters have consistently lost in almost all cases.
Quote from: Fireblade on March 12, 2009, 09:39:15 AM
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/progressive_quiz.html (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/progressive_quiz.html)
I scored 355/400, which apparently puts me to the left of Karl Marx.
Oh, and the map:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/progressive-map/ (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/progressive-map/)
Arkansas :bleeding:
229/400
satisfying.
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 02:36:11 PM
But it is a conflict that the crazy nutters have consistently lost in almost all cases.
But it won't stop them from trying, nor will it stop them from doing their level best to hijack the Republican party.
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 02:34:11 PM
I suspect that this is the real reason for Vinnys hysterics.
"What? They don't want to pay me to study gas clouds! DAMN THEM ALL!!!!!"
Perhaps, but he's right to feel that way. People who oppose basic research should be damned.
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2009, 02:52:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 02:34:11 PM
I suspect that this is the real reason for Vinnys hysterics.
"What? They don't want to pay me to study gas clouds! DAMN THEM ALL!!!!!"
Perhaps, but he's right to feel that way. People who oppose basic research should be damned.
They certainly don't deserve to be voted for, which is the comment I made that started all this in the first place. I should really start keeping a list of politicians that refer to science spending as "pork" or the like.
Berkut seems to think he's found a new avenue of personal attack, but I said at the beginning of all this that one reason I couldn't vote Republican is because they'd like to kill my funding. :D
Ehm, science spending can be pork, just like any other spending. Just being 'scientific' doesn't make it holy.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2009, 03:09:00 PM
Ehm, science spending can be pork, just like any other spending. Just being 'scientific' doesn't make it holy.
"Pork," as best I can tell, just means "spending I don't approve of" in political-speak. If it ever had a more substantive meaning, it's lost to the ages.
But for the record, I mean those that refer to
good science spending as "pork."
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 03:06:32 PM
but I said at the beginning of all this that one reason I couldn't vote Republican is because they'd like to kill my funding. :D
But it's your base premise that several of us have questioned. :)
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 03:06:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2009, 02:52:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 02:34:11 PM
I suspect that this is the real reason for Vinnys hysterics.
"What? They don't want to pay me to study gas clouds! DAMN THEM ALL!!!!!"
Perhaps, but he's right to feel that way. People who oppose basic research should be damned.
They certainly don't deserve to be voted for, which is the comment I made that started all this in the first place. I should really start keeping a list of politicians that refer to science spending as "pork" or the like.
Berkut seems to think he's found a new avenue of personal attack, but I said at the beginning of all this that one reason I couldn't vote Republican is because they'd like to kill my funding. :D
But that isn't true. We had a Republican in the White House and in control of Congress, and unless I am mistaken, you still had funding...right?
My point is just that you are making much ado about, well, not nothing, but certainly not much. I don't recall any religiously motivated opposition to spending on general science research unless it touches on the taboo, and even then it is pretty ineffectively opposed.
Quite simply, the Republican Party is not nearly as dominated by the religious whackos as you think, or want to think.
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 03:10:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2009, 03:09:00 PM
Ehm, science spending can be pork, just like any other spending. Just being 'scientific' doesn't make it holy.
"Pork," as best I can tell, just means "spending I don't approve of" in political-speak. If it ever had a more substantive meaning, it's lost to the ages.
But for the record, I mean those that refer to good science spending as "pork."
It is pretty simply defined, and well understood:
Quote from: wikiThe term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.
I am a huge fan of science spending, and as a general rule support it almost without exception. The idea that it is somehow special or holy though, and any opposition to it can only possibly be based on religious zealotry AND that this religious zealotry is SO effective that it forces poor Vinny to not vote republican is simply ridiculous. The further idea that somehow the scientists are under siege from "anti-intellectuals" is preposterous. Talk about a desperate desire for victim-hood. We spend vast sums on science research in America, more than any other country in the world, I suspect.
Vinnny, you aren't going to vote republican not matter what - the stance of the religious nuts on science spending is totally irrelevant to your position on voting Republican.
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 03:18:39 PM
I'm curious when it was that I claimed the only reason the Republican party was anti-intellectual and anti-science was because of the religious right. Certainly that's a major component, but it doesn't seem to be the only one.
Your premise is flawed - the republican Party is not anti-intellectual or anti-science to begin with, so WHY it is those things doesn't really matter.
Huh - Vinny had written a post, but then deleted it.
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 03:23:33 PM
Your premise is flawed - the republican Party is not anti-intellectual or anti-science to begin with, so WHY it is those things doesn't really matter.
Well I'm trying to give Vinny the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe there have been motions to take away his kind of abstract science research funding that I'm not aware of. Maybe it's at the state level in (Ohio?).
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 03:24:26 PM
Huh - Vinny had written a post, but then deleted it.
Replying to Berk's willful misrepresentations and trolling is a bad habit I'm trying to break. Come to think of it, so is reading threads he's shat all over. Damn.
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 03:26:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 03:24:26 PM
Huh - Vinny had written a post, but then deleted it.
Replying to Berk's willful misrepresentations and trolling is a bad habit I'm trying to break. Come to think of it, so is reading threads he's shat all over. Damn.
And Vinny, as usual, goes on the personal attack when he cannot respond to the argument.
So predictable when his world view is challenged.
Quote from: BerkutI am a huge fan of science spending, and as a general rule support it almost without exception.
I am such an anti-intellectual troll! ZOMG!
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 03:23:33 PM
Your premise is flawed - the republican Party is not anti-intellectual or anti-science to begin with, so WHY it is those things doesn't really matter.
Well I'm trying to give Vinny the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe there have been motions to take away his kind of abstract science research funding that I'm not aware of. Maybe it's at the state level in (Ohio?).
Seems possible, although to turn around and blame that on some kind of Republican anti-intellectualism is rather bizarre.
I mean, scientists get their funding yanked all the time. It's not like the government is the only source of funding anyway.
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 03:10:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2009, 03:09:00 PM
Ehm, science spending can be pork, just like any other spending. Just being 'scientific' doesn't make it holy.
"Pork," as best I can tell, just means "spending I don't approve of" in political-speak. If it ever had a more substantive meaning, it's lost to the ages.
But for the record, I mean those that refer to good science spending as "pork."
If you're throwing away the term "pork" because it's too subjective, you might as well do the same with "good" science.
It is rather interesting to see someone argue that science spending is somehow uniquely "special" such that any refusal to fund some particular project must clearly be related to some sort of ideological fault, like religious zealotry or "anti-intellectualism".
It seems kind of intellectually lazy to just assume that the only reason someone might not support some particular funding from some particular source as being based on the lowest possible denominator of thought. Isn't it possible that someone made a purely intellectual decision that science project A is a better use of federal dollars than science project B?
Or even that social welfare program A is more important than science project A?
Or perhaps even that science project A is simply not promising enough to warrant additional funding?
Where is the anti-intellectualism here? Is it in the idea that demonization of those with a differing political viewpoint is the rational response?
Ivory tower eggheads have crazy thoughts? Unpossible!
QuoteIt is rather interesting to see someone argue that science spending is somehow uniquely "special" such that any refusal to fund some particular project must clearly be related to some sort of ideological fault, like religious zealotry or "anti-intellectualism".
For the record, and this is going to be my last post in this train wreck of a thread, I would hope it would be clear to anyone making an objective reading of what I've said here that that is NOT what I'm claiming. I don't entirely understand what drives some people on this forum to relentlessly misrepresent, stereotype, and assassinate the character of others. Maybe it's not even that, maybe it's me. Maybe I just don't post clearly, I don't even know. I do know that once a conversation has devolved into "OMG HE"S A HYSTERICAL LOON WHO BELIEVES X Y AND Z!!!" when I believe none of X, Y, or Z that there's no further point in trying to redirect it back to something productive. Have fun slamming me in my absence.
I like how you slam on the republican party but then get upset when someone slams on you, Vinnie.
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 03:49:35 PM
For the record, and this is going to be my last post in this train wreck of a thread, I would hope it would be clear to anyone making an objective reading of what I've said here that that is NOT what I'm claiming. I don't entirely understand what drives some people on this forum to relentlessly misrepresent, stereotype, and assassinate the character of others.
That is an excellent question, one I would love to get an answer out of you on.
It isn't that hard to simply respond to the content of my argument, rather than calling me nasty and unpleasant names, is it? I do not make personal attacks on you, so I am unsure why you find it so hard to resist acting in this manner.
And why is this your last post? Are you taking your ball and going home then? Why make the post, if you refuse to respond to others? I know you are not the petulant type, so that cannot be it.
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2009, 03:52:25 PM
I like how you slam on the republican party but then get upset when someone slams on you, Vinnie.
The only one slamming on anyone personally has been Vinny. I am not really sure why. He seems to go personal almost immediately for some reason.
I suspect that he was actually relieved when I entered the discussion - it seems to have allowed him to throw his tantrum and escape under the cover of his monkey feces flinging at the mean old nasty Berkut.
Classic ad hom response to an opponents argument, really.
I think really what has happened here is that in certain circles it is okay to short hand things like "Repubs are all crazy religious and thus hate all science" as that premise is taken as a given. Here, however, not everyone is coming from that same stance and such a statement can't easily fly.
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2009, 04:01:28 PM
I think really what has happened here is that in certain circles it is okay to short hand things like "Repubs are all crazy religious and thus hate all science" as that premise is taken as a given. Here, however, not everyone is coming from that same stance and such a statement can't easily fly.
I think that is exactly correct.
Vinny is used to his victimization whining of "anti-intellectualism" to be accepted immediately - after all, academia thrives under this perception that they are the besieged elite, under assault from the ignorant masses, so blithe assumptions of the rampant "anti-intellectualism" are simply accepted as a matter of course
especially when it is ascribed to the ogre of "Conservative Republicans". I mean, there is not possible slander one can make about THAT group that isn't completely acceptable.
It is kind of like how all kinds of utterly nutty statements are just taken as a matter of course if you go read a strictly Islamic website or a strictly Christian fundy website, for that matter.
Then someone shows up in the real world and confidently repeats stuff like that, and is STUNNED, SIMPLY STUNNED that other don't accept their premise without comment.
Then they stomp away in a huff, typically after calling those who ahve the temerity to not agree with them all kind of choice words.
The irony of it when it is the self-proclaimed "intellectuals" is largely lost on them, I suspect.
Quote from: vinraith on March 16, 2009, 03:49:35 PMFor the record, and this is going to be my last post in this train wreck of a thread, I would hope it would be clear to anyone making an objective reading of what I've said here that that is NOT what I'm claiming. I don't entirely understand what drives some people on this forum to relentlessly misrepresent, stereotype, and assassinate the character of others.
Primarily boredom, I imagine.
QuoteMaybe it's not even that, maybe it's me. Maybe I just don't post clearly, I don't even know. I do know that once a conversation has devolved into "OMG HE"S A HYSTERICAL LOON WHO BELIEVES X Y AND Z!!!" when I believe none of X, Y, or Z that there's no further point in trying to redirect it back to something productive. Have fun slamming me in my absence.
Your posts are generally quite cogent and reasonable if read in good faith. The "OMG HE'S A HYSTERICAL LOON... etc" thing is simply an effective debating technique used by people who are more interested in "winning" or otherwise parade their ego than in having
The notion that the Republican party has been hostile to research science in terms of their funding priorities during the Bush administration is perfectly reasonable. The notion that the Republican party has a strong wing fundamentally hostile to basic tenets of scientific thought (support of creationism/ intelligent design, banning stem cell research et. al.) is not spurious.
Thus it is perfectly reasonable for someone who cares about research science to consider the Republican party broadly opposed to his interests and values.
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2009, 04:09:08 PM
Your posts are generally quite cogent and reasonable if read in good faith. The "OMG HE'S A HYSTERICAL LOON... etc" thing is simply an effective debating technique used by people who are more interested in "winning" or otherwise parade their ego than in having
I think the strawman technique used by you is an even more effective debating technique used by those more interested in "winning" than they are in discussing.
For example, who has said "OMG HE'S A HYSTERICAL LOON... "?
It is ironic that you and Viny are using the claim of logical fallacy when it is demonstrably true that Vinny is the only one who has engaged in it. Funny that his own personal attacks and nasty little tantrums are accepted without comment from you. Not surprising though.
Vinny came in and made several comments that were perfectly validly challenged in a perfectly fair manner, by several different people.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg14.imageshack.us%2Fimg14%2F5572%2Fresearchspending.gif&hash=1b8f7b430ac8a8c8dff4d5750fe8e3ac17ab3d39)I guess since the republicans are "hostile to research science in terms of funding priorities" then it would be clear in how much research spending in the US has declined while they ran the country.
I found this article, which seems like a fairly interesting treatment of this subject:
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-5/p12.html
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 04:06:26 PM
Then someone shows up in the real world and confidently repeats stuff like that, and is STUNNED, SIMPLY STUNNED that other don't accept their premise without comment.
Well in certain circles, it isn't considered polite to disagree...and so it is stunning to see someone take a completely different view point. After all, conversation stalls or gets hostile if you aren't all working from some basic premises. In person, you typically either avoid those topics in the group (for instance my family rarely talks about religion as we know that there are many opposing view points among us) or you break up the group (i.e. you don't talk to said people anymore). Languish is different as we all seem to keep coming back but don't hem the topics we discuss.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 16, 2009, 04:23:36 PM
I found this article, which seems like a fairly interesting treatment of this subject:
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-5/p12.html
That is interesting.
I am not sure I buy the validity of their metric though - why would we measure spending on physics research on a
per physicist level, as opposed to as a matter of total expenditure, or percentage of GDP, or percentage of the federal budget?
Interesting that it does note that the largest cold war drop came about during the Clinton years. I wonder if Vinny would refuse to vote for the Dems because of that?
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 04:29:32 PM
That is interesting.
I am not sure I buy the validity of their metric though - why would we measure spending on physics research on a per physicist level, as opposed to as a matter of total expenditure, or percentage of GDP, or percentage of the federal budget?
I dunno. I think early in the article it mentions that science funding has essentially stayed flat but that there are now more physicists doing or trying to do research.
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2009, 04:09:08 PM
The notion that the Republican party has been hostile to research science in terms of their funding priorities during the Bush administration is perfectly reasonable.
It may be reasonable as a point of argument or debate. I don't think it's reasonable as a statement of fact, in that it seems quite contrary to my own knowledge and experience.
QuoteThe notion that the Republican party has a strong wing fundamentally hostile to basic tenets of scientific thought (support of creationism/ intelligent design, banning stem cell research et. al.) is not spurious.
I'll give you creationism, but I think it's a cheap shot to say that opposing fetal stem cell research is "fundamentally hostile to basic tenets of scientific thought". There are all kinds of limits placed on research for various ethical concerns. Surely merely because you don't, say, conduct experiements on unknowing subjects doesn't mean you're opposed to the principles of science, or that if you oppose animal testing you are opposed to science.
But that's a side issue, and in any event it's also an unanswered question how much these "wings" have on the entire Republican Party.
QuoteThus it is perfectly reasonable for someone who cares about research science to consider the Republican party broadly opposed to his interests and values.
Vinny is of course free to vote as he choses without any input or permission from us.
But it was his statement of fact that 'the republicans are opposed to science' that underlied his reasoning that many of us wanted to question.
They have enough power to be granted a VP slot in a ticket with a sick and elderly candidate to POTUS.
I don't know enough of US politics to ascertain if Palin is an exception or the rule, but the way the GOP was unwilling or unable to find someone with a biology high school education to advise her on her public addresses was quite telling.
BTW Berkut, wouldn't that increase in funding be mostly about Bush's military drive? While sometimes useful (I still think Teh Shield is stupid), I doubt it makes a whole lot of difference in basic research, which is what we're talking about.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 16, 2009, 06:13:40 PM
They have enough power to be granted a VP slot in a ticket with a sick and elderly candidate to POTUS.
I don't know enough of US politics to ascertain if Palin is an exception or the rule, but the way the GOP was unwilling or unable to find someone with a biology high school education to advise her on her public addresses was quite telling.
BTW Berkut, wouldn't that increase in funding be mostly about Bush's military drive? While sometimes useful (I still think Teh Shield is stupid), I doubt it makes a whole lot of difference in basic research, which is what we're talking about.
Indeed - attacking the Bush administration about the priorities they place on various types of research spending would be a rather relevant in insightful critique.
Going after them because they are "anti-intellectual" and dominated by religious zealots, and THAT is why they are not gung ho over science, however, is simply not honest - which is why Vinny got nailed for it - not because of his conclusion (although that is rather spurious as well, since science funding under Bush did not materially drop, and it dropped plenty under Clinton).
There simply is no good, factual, data driven reason to believe that the Republican party has some kind of vendetta with science research over the last decade or so. You can argue where they spend that research, of course. But then, that doesn't really fulfill the goal of the person going on about "anti-intellectualism".
Quote from: Iormlund on March 16, 2009, 06:13:40 PM
They have enough power to be granted a VP slot in a ticket with a sick and elderly candidate to POTUS.
Sarah Palin has no objection that I have ever heard of in regards to federal spending on science research. Her father, IIRC, was a biology teacher. I ahve never once heard her say anything about cutting spending for scientific research.
Not only is she not an exception to the rule, she isn't an exception at all, and there is no rule.
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 07:14:09 PM
Sarah Palin has no objection that I have ever heard of in regards to federal spending on science research. Her father, IIRC, was a biology teacher. I ahve never once heard her say anything about cutting spending for scientific research.
She had an objection to "...fruit fly research in Paris, France", though I think it was mainly on grounds that it was an "earmark".
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 16, 2009, 07:47:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 07:14:09 PM
Sarah Palin has no objection that I have ever heard of in regards to federal spending on science research. Her father, IIRC, was a biology teacher. I ahve never once heard her say anything about cutting spending for scientific research.
She had an objection to "...fruit fly research in Paris, France", though I think it was mainly on grounds that it was an "earmark".
Yeah, that was a winner, wasn't it?
Christ, and to think Republicans are atually considering her as an "up and comer". Jesus wept.
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 07:56:34 PM
Yeah, that was a winner, wasn't it?
Christ, and to think Republicans are atually considering her as an "up and comer". Jesus wept.
She's also a supporter of teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Not something that engenders much confidence among most scientists, I imagine.
I'm not saying if she were Queen she'd end all public funding of the sciences. Just that the sciences wouldn't be very high on her totem pole of priorities, for good or ill.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 16, 2009, 08:16:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2009, 07:56:34 PM
Yeah, that was a winner, wasn't it?
Christ, and to think Republicans are atually considering her as an "up and comer". Jesus wept.
She's also a supporter of teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Not something that engenders much confidence among most scientists, I imagine.
Actually, she isn't. At least, not really.
She made a comment once about it, then pretty much retracted it and made a campaign pledge not to push creationism in schools, and kept to that promise as governor.
QuoteIn an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
The quote is enough to convict her. She's an enemy of civilization.
A fine display of political backtracking, but I suppose it's better than nothing.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 16, 2009, 10:37:08 PM
A fine display of political backtracking, but I suppose it's better than nothing.
All politicians backtrack at some point or another.
The question is: what is her record? What has she actually done?
On that it is very clear: She has payed lip service to the idea of creationism, but done nothing at all to actually promote the teaching of it in schools.
She is saying just enough to keep the fundies happy. No more.
There are so many better reasons to find the thought of her in the Oval Office horrifying than this one.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2009, 09:59:43 AM
215/400
Some of those things were bizarre. Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?
285 for me, and I answered that question that moving to alternative fuels like solar and wind are not necessary.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 01:23:05 PM
...Bush was pushing for a renewed investment in space, including going to Mars...
Bush was pushing for future budgets, not under his control, to fund such efforts.
I saw it as an echo of Kennedy's bold speech, and thus insincere. Your milage may vary.
I simply cannot see, frankly, any Republican short of McCain (and he is done) annpouncing that they will undertake a Federal program "because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone." That is just how I see it. I weep for the fact, because my natural home should be among Republicans, but they repel me, and mine.
Edit: some more of the Kennedy speech, which I cannot imagine from the Rpublicans:
QuoteTo be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.
I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute.
However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2009, 04:47:41 PM
But it was his statement of fact that 'the republicans are opposed to science' that underlied his reasoning that many of us wanted to question.
My point was to disagree with his statement that Christian fundamentalists are opposed to science in general. Of course, part of the problem there is that Christian fundmentalists are not some monolithic block when it comes to politics. I'm sure that there are some who are against science and scientific thought
per se, but in my experience that is not a common stance.
Quote from: grumbler on March 16, 2009, 11:57:41 PMEdit: some more of the Kennedy speech, which I cannot imagine from the Rpublicans:
QuoteTo be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.
I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute.
However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.
I don't really think that any politician today is going to call for a program to get us the the moon by the end of the sixties. :)
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2009, 12:26:08 AM
My point was to disagree with his statement that Christian fundamentalists are opposed to science in general. Of course, part of the problem there is that Christian fundmentalists are not some monolithic block when it comes to politics. I'm sure that there are some who are against science and scientific thought per se, but in my experience that is not a common stance.
The decline of the metanarrative. :'(
Quote from: fahdiz on March 16, 2009, 04:23:36 PM
I found this article, which seems like a fairly interesting treatment of this subject:
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-5/p12.html
When I was in graduate school I had a professor who worked at Bell Labs in the 1970s when Soviet white papers first became available to the west. He said that in many respects the Soviets were ahead of us in electrical engineering theory. At the same time the Soviet's telephone system was unreliable and had poor quality relative to that of the United States. It's hard to believe we were so concerned about the accomplishments in pure science from a nation which so obviously failed in science's applications that we would spend billions to keep up.
Quote from: dps on March 17, 2009, 12:26:08 AM
My point was to disagree with his statement that Christian fundamentalists are opposed to science in general. Of course, part of the problem there is that Christian fundmentalists are not some monolithic block when it comes to politics. I'm sure that there are some who are against science and scientific thought per se, but in my experience that is not a common stance.
Nobody really cares what individual Christian fundamentalists think. By voting as their Focus on the Family masters order them to, they make themselves part of the mass who opposes science.
For a country in such opposition to science, we sure do spend a lot of money on science.
Just imagine if one of our two major parties was not so diametrically and vehemently opposed to science! We would have probably advanced to being sentient orbs of light.
fun and games!
Quote
Minister won't confirm belief in evolution
Researchers aghast that key figure in funding controversy invokes religion in science discussion
ANNE MCILROY
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
March 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM EDT
Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.
"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.
A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.
Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.
When asked about those rumours, Mr. Goodyear said such conversations are not worth having.
"Obviously, I have a background that supports the fact I have read the science on muscle physiology and neural chemistry," said the minister, who took chemistry and physics courses as an undergraduate at the University of Waterloo.
"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. ... I think we need to recognize that we don't know."
Asked to clarify if he was talking about the role of a creator, Mr. Goodyear said that the interview was getting off topic.
Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was shocked by the minister's comments.
Evolution is a scientific fact, Dr. Alters said, and the foundation of modern biology, genetics and paleontology. It is taught at universities and accepted by many of the world's major religions, he said.
"It is the same as asking the gentleman, 'Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds," said Dr. Alters. "Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun."
Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution.
"The traditions of science and the reliance on testable and provable knowledge has served us well for several hundred years and have been the basis for most of our advancement. It is inconceivable that a government would have a minister of science that rejects the basis of scientific discovery and traditions," he said.
Mr. Goodyear's evasive answers on evolution are unlikely to reassure the scientists who are skeptical about him, and they bolster the notion that there is a divide between the minister and the research community.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home)
:bleeding:
And people vote for them.
Why is he being grilled for his private beliefs if he doesn't make them political, or invoke them in the public realm? There is frankly scant evidence that his Christian beliefs have anything to do with funding cuts. Seems a bit distasteful and intolerant.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 17, 2009, 09:50:05 AM
Why is he being grilled for his private beliefs if he doesn't make them political, or invoke them in the public realm? There is frankly scant evidence that his Christian beliefs have anything to do with funding cuts. Seems a bit distasteful and intolerant.
Indeed - especially when they
should be criticizing him for being a chiropractor. :bleeding:
171/400 >:(
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 17, 2009, 09:50:05 AM
Why is he being grilled for his private beliefs if he doesn't make them political, or invoke them in the public realm? There is frankly scant evidence that his Christian beliefs have anything to do with funding cuts. Seems a bit distasteful and intolerant.
he had a bad answer because it puts him on the defensive. refusing to answer always sucks if you are a public servant -- which, as a member of the government in an important ministry that is under criticism for underfunding important projects, is what he is. fair game.
a better answer is: " that's a dumb question. sure, it's the best scientific theory we have to date. next question?"
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 17, 2009, 09:33:18 AM
:bleeding:
And people vote for them.
Indeed. I'm embarassed for the Tories for having a chiropractor as an MP.
The religious thing is irrelevant.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 17, 2009, 09:50:05 AM
Why is he being grilled for his private beliefs if he doesn't make them political, or invoke them in the public realm? There is frankly scant evidence that his Christian beliefs have anything to do with funding cuts. Seems a bit distasteful and intolerant.
It isn't about his religious conviction but about his position on science, which can hardly be regarded as a purely personal matter for a man in his position. The problem with even a closet creationist isn't that he thinks that the Bible is correct (let people believe what they will!) but that he thinks that the massive scientific evidence for the conventional theory is not.