How Progressive Are You?

[Berkut]

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.

[derspiess]

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.

[Berkut]

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?

[The Brain]

Ivory tower eggheads have crazy thoughts? Unpossible!

[vinraith]

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".

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.

[garbon]

I like how you slam on the republican party but then get upset when someone slams on you, Vinnie.

[Berkut]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[garbon]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Jacob]

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.

Primarily boredom, I imagine.

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.

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[fhdz]

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

[garbon]

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.