NationStates Jolt Archive

I hate to do partisan crap

but i present to you...


(now is where you refer to the title of the thread for clarification)

You present? IO dont get it. I was expecting A link. or some clarification or something. Not simply A looped statement.

You present? IO dont get it. I was expecting A link. or some clarification or something. Not simply A looped statement.

CONFUSION!!!!

I concur.

lol, isnt it beautful

the fun you can have with words

Words weird me out....

Well, you certainly convinced ME! I'm going to rush right out this coming November 2nd and vote for Kerry! AS IF!!

You present? IO dont get it. I was expecting A link. or some clarification or something. Not simply A looped statement.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320

There you go.

Signed by 5000 people total, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

This is the earlier report but there is also a more recent one demonstrating that nothing changed after the first one was put out.

What if the science involved creating A horrible virus meant to destroy mankind. Should science be poiticised then?

What if the science involved creating A horrible virus meant to destroy mankind. Should science be poiticised then?
But they aren't.

Science is a good thing, but we can't let it get out of hand. There were some complaints when the President presented a plan to help fund a mission to Mars. That's science and I think it's a good thing to explore.

Too bad that thing is kinda stagnating. Lol. I wonder if any mainstream voters actually even remember that.

What if the science involved creating A horrible virus meant to destroy mankind. Should science be poiticised then?

Regulation and politicization are not the same thing.

Something like that should be regulated, as it would endanger others. However, science itself should never be politicized. A scientist should not have to lie about data just because he will lose his job if he doesn't tell the president what the president wants to hear. This destroys the objectivity of science - and thus destroys science.

To be honest. I cant see the line there.

ELABORATION, MEIN HIER!!!

To be honest. I cant see the line there.

ELABORATION, MEIN HIER!!!

You are kidding, right?

Regulation: Scientists are not allowed to make nasty viruses that might kill people unless it is done within the confines of the CDC on the bottom level where all the dangerous stuff is kept and is done purely for research into curing viruses.....etc.

Scientists are allowed to research therapeutic cloning, but not reproductive cloning, as there is a compelling state interest in preventing reproductive cloning.

Politicization: Bush doesn't think that pollution is a bad thing so he fires all science advisors who disagree with him (never mind that they are top in their field) and hires new advisors (with little to no standing in their field) willing to ignore data and simply tell him what he wants to hear.

Bush wants to be able to say that he got animals off the endangered list, so he tries to change the definition so that domestically bred animals can be called wild.

Bush doesn't want people to find out what nuclear cell transfer really is, so the USDA is banned from publishing anything on that subject without express permission.



Do you see the line now?

yea ok...what the hells your point? A vote for kerry is a vote against our right to bear arms.I thought we were trying to create democracy? not frigan have more and more of our rights taken away.

Well, you certainly convinced ME! I'm going to rush right out this coming November 2nd and vote for Kerry! AS IF!!
Same here

My vote goes to Badnarik (if I could vote)

yea ok...what the hells your point? A vote for kerry is a vote against our right to bear arms.I thought we were trying to create democracy? not frigan have more and more of our rights taken away.

Yes, because Kerry is trying to take every single gun away from every single US citizen. Oh, wait....he's not.

Not really. But I also think I've taken some bad medication. My hearts all A flutter.

yea ok...what the hells your point? A vote for kerry is a vote against our right to bear arms.I thought we were trying to create democracy? not frigan have more and more of our rights taken away.
um, Kerry isn't trying to take away the right to bear arms. he's a gun owner himself, i believe, so i don't see why you think he is trying to keep people from ever owning guns.

Bush, on the other hand, is actively anti-science. if i were a psychologist i might suggest that he feels uncomfortable and embarassed about his inability to grasp even the most fundamental of scientific concepts, and therefore tries to distance himself from those concepts in every way possible. but i am not a psychologist, so i won't suggest that :).

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320

There you go.

Signed by 5000 people total, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

This is the earlier report but there is also a more recent one demonstrating that nothing changed after the first one was put out.


lol, ya, I was looking for this before I posted. Couldn't find it, so I decided to be ambiguous(sp).

Seriously, the Kyoto protocol alone. They were unwilling to even consider it. That is anti-science, as EVERY credible environmentalist will tell you that at least something need be done to sustain continuous human life.

Well, you certainly convinced ME! I'm going to rush right out this coming November 2nd and vote for Kerry! AS IF!!

btw, if you think i am telling you to vote for kerry you are an idiot

im not american, i dont care for either of their potential leaders, so im not trying to sway any votes kerry's way

however, as a citizen of the planet i believe i have a vested interest in the intellectual advancement of our species and a stable and sustainable civilization. Hurray for Science, Woot!

lol, ya, I was looking for this before I posted. Couldn't find it, so I decided to be ambiguous(sp).

Seriously, the Kyoto protocol alone. They were unwilling to even consider it. That is anti-science, as EVERY credible environmentalist will tell you that at least something need be done to sustain continuous human life.
what absolutely nauseates me is that Bush refers to himself as "pro-life," despite spending millions of dollars to advance programs that put children's lives at risk; his blind advancement of abstinance-only sex education has cost countless young lives already, and continues to kill children every day. the scientific proof showing abstinance-only education to be inneffective is extensive, and studies have repeatedly confirmed that students who don't receive comprehensive sex ed are more likely to contract STDs and have unwanted pregnancies.

Bush cares so very much about bringing babies into the world, but once they are here he thinks nothing of letting them die to suit his religious agenda. every time he is identified as "pro-life" it makes me want to vomit.

what absolutely nauseates me is that Bush refers to himself as "pro-life," despite spending millions of dollars to advance programs that put children's lives at risk; his blind advancement of abstinance-only sex education has cost countless young lives already, and continues to kill children every day. the scientific proof showing abstinance-only education to be inneffective is extensive, and studies have repeatedly confirmed that students who don't receive comprehensive sex ed are more likely to contract STDs and have unwanted pregnancies.

Bush cares so very much about bringing babies into the world, but once they are here he thinks nothing of letting them die to suit his religious agenda. every time he is identified as "pro-life" it makes me want to vomit.


There comes a point where he isnt just anti-science

its like he is anti-empirical data....

i know this isnt bush's issue, but still

it infuriates me (and im not american) that there are states that have BANNED the teaching of evolution...

makes me so mad

There comes a point where he isnt just anti-science

its like he is anti-empirical data....
Bush only likes data that agree with his theories, and that is the complete and polar opposite of scientific reasoning. he tries to manipulate fact to support his conclusion, rather than modifying his conclusions based on the facts. as a scientist myself, i can't stand Bush, and i think there is ample evidence that allowing him to remain in a place of power will do irreperable harm to the education of an entire generation of American children.

i know this isnt bush's issue, but still

it infuriates me (and im not american) that there are states that have BANNED the teaching of evolution...

makes me so mad
there are no American states that have currently banned the teaching of evolution, so you don't have to be mad any more.

what absolutely nauseates me is that Bush refers to himself as "pro-life," despite spending millions of dollars to advance programs that put children's lives at risk; his blind advancement of abstinance-only sex education has cost countless young lives already, and continues to kill children every day. the scientific proof showing abstinance-only education to be inneffective is extensive, and studies have repeatedly confirmed that students who don't receive comprehensive sex ed are more likely to contract STDs and have unwanted pregnancies.

Bush cares so very much about bringing babies into the world, but once they are here he thinks nothing of letting them die to suit his religious agenda. every time he is identified as "pro-life" it makes me want to vomit.
Abstinence is the only absolutely certain way to prevent the spread of STDs. It is not Bush's fault that underage kids go around having sex.
And I still do not see where Bush is anti-science. His policies do not emphasize the preservation of the environment, but he is not gutting it either. It is also not Bush's fault that people go around driving dirty cars. If they cared about the environment, they would drive cleaner cars.
Environmental concerns should not be the basis for saying Bush is anti-science.

Bush only likes data that agree with his theories, and that is the complete and polar opposite of scientific reasoning. he tries to manipulate fact to support his conclusion, rather than modifying his conclusions based on the facts. as a scientist myself, i can't stand Bush, and i think there is ample evidence that allowing him to remain in a place of power will do irreperable harm to the education of an entire generation of American children.

absolutly. it could, and probably already has caused irreprable damage to the education system. What I dont understand though is people's desire to believe his obvious lies. Like saying that he doesnt believe there is any suficent proof of global warming.

He is manipulating a large (50%) portion of society to compleatly disregard what we have discovered over the past 4000 years.

there are no American states that have currently banned the teaching of evolution, so you don't have to be mad any more.

when did this happen. its the happiest news ive had all day

haha American environment policy has always been awful. Under Bush, under Clinton, it did matter. Before that, it was probably rubbish, but I was too young to understand at that point.

Anyway, his scientists only tell him what he wants to hear because their job description includes them not being allowed to be certain. Its a fact. I did a geography project on glabal warming years ago and realised that the USA has two Organisations that study such things. One funds the other, who can fund the first organisation and can also do research. However they are forbidden from being certain, so they can only say "trees are good, well probably" and that " global warming would be disastrous, we have evidence its happening, but we cant be certain that it is because we arent allowed to". Or blurb to that effect. It scared me then and I know that Bush has taken things even further...

Abstinence is the only absolutely certain way to prevent the spread of STDs. It is not Bush's fault that underage kids go around having sex.

However, a pragmatist knows that kids are going to have sex, and provides them with information on how to do so safely, while also discouraging them from doing it until they are truly ready. Bush advocates nothing but abstinence education, which any intelligent person knows will increase the number of abortions, STD cases, etc.

And I still do not see where Bush is anti-science. His policies do not emphasize the preservation of the environment, but he is not gutting it either. It is also not Bush's fault that people go around driving dirty cars. If they cared about the environment, they would drive cleaner cars.
Environmental concerns should not be the basis for saying Bush is anti-science.

The environment, while part of it, is not really the issue here. The issue is that Bush is personally politicizing and censoring science to a degree unprecedented by any president. Politicization of science destroys its objectivity, thus destroying science. Bush purposely destroys objectivity, instead saying "Tell me what I want to hear and forget all that other nonsense data that I don't like". Thus, Bush is directly attacking the fundamentals of science.

Abstinence is the only absolutely certain way to prevent the spread of STDs. It is not Bush's fault that underage kids go around having sex.
And I still do not see where Bush is anti-science. His policies do not emphasize the preservation of the environment, but he is not gutting it either. It is also not Bush's fault that people go around driving dirty cars. If they cared about the environment, they would drive cleaner cars.
Environmental concerns should not be the basis for saying Bush is anti-science.


bush is in favor of removing much of its protected forests from said protection for its lumber industry

bush is in favor of drilling for oil in Alaska's environmentally protected areas

both of these were advised against by the team of scientists that bush fired

My Physics teacher was just explaining the nothing in science is proven nor can be, so its infact very similar to religion. In order to scientifically prove something it needs to be proved to fit its results in an infinite number of circumstances an infinite number of times........so really, who cares? Thats besides the fact that the whole argument this thread contains is purely partisan........oooh......Nobel.......just the kind of people i trust, Yassir Arafat, Kofi Annon, that recent racists woman who hates the West and says we intentionally created AIDS to kill the black and gay man, and Jimmy Freakin Carter have Peace Prizes there, i'll pass on them. Scientists are traditionally athiests, or atleast agnostic, which also makes me seem to think they're not nearly as smart as they like to think they are.

Abstinence is the only absolutely certain way to prevent the spread of STDs. It is not Bush's fault that underage kids go around having sex.

i don't believe i ever claimed that Bush was responsible for the sex lives of those kids. what i said, and what every reputable scientific study confirms, is that teaching children abstinance-ONLY sex ed will INCREASE their likelihood of having unsafe sex, contracting disease, and having babies while they are still babies themselves. comprehensive sex ed teaches that abstinance is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and most STDs, so if you want kids to learn abstinance then you can support comprehensive sex ed without any conflict. however, comprehensive sex ed also teaches kids about what sex is, how to protect themselves and their partners, and how to recognize when something isn't right with their bodies...without this information, children are in danger. science proves that. Bush ignores that.


And I still do not see where Bush is anti-science. His policies do not emphasize the preservation of the environment, but he is not gutting it either. It is also not Bush's fault that people go around driving dirty cars. If they cared about the environment, they would drive cleaner cars.
Environmental concerns should not be the basis for saying Bush is anti-science.
read the link that has been provided. the Bush administration has fired people who present accurate information. they have altered or twisted existing data. they have used non-scientific study methods to create "data" that support their positions, rather than applying actual science to test the validity of those positions. Bush is as anti-science as any person can be, short of ordering that scientists be burned at the stake.

My Physics teacher was just explaining the nothing in science is proven nor can be, so its infact very similar to religion. In order to scientifically prove something it needs to be proved to fit its results in an infinite number of circumstances an infinite number of times........so really, who cares? Thats besides the fact that the whole argument this thread contains is purely partisan........oooh......Nobel.......just the kind of people i trust, Yassir Arafat, Kofi Annon, that recent racists woman who hates the West and says we intentionally created AIDS to kill the black and gay man, and Jimmy Freakin Carter have Peace Prizes there, i'll pass on them. Scientists are traditionally athiests, or atleast agnostic, which also makes me seem to think they're not nearly as smart as they like to think they are.

you are an idiot

your teacher is speaking of superstring chaos and quantum flux

this is stem cells and global warming

we HAVE empirical data that PROVES these things

My Physics teacher was just explaining the nothing in science is proven nor can be, so its infact very similar to religion.

If you mean the religion of most people, there are very few similarities, as most people refuse to question their religion. Science is constantly questioning things and changing the theory to explain new data, organized religion tries its damnedest not to change at all.

Thats besides the fact that the whole argument this thread contains is purely partisan

Ah yes, the fact that it is signed by Republicans and Democrats alike makes it partisan. The fact that many of the signers worked for Reagan and Bush Sr. and never had a problem with them makes it partisan.

Scientists are traditionally athiests, or atleast agnostic, which also makes me seem to think they're not nearly as smart as they like to think they are.

This is completely unsubstantiated. Very few of the scientists I know are actually atheists. I also know many very religious scientists.

Abstinence is the only absolutely certain way to prevent the spread of STDs. It is not Bush's fault that underage kids go around having sex.
And I still do not see where Bush is anti-science. His policies do not emphasize the preservation of the environment, but he is not gutting it either. It is also not Bush's fault that people go around driving dirty cars. If they cared about the environment, they would drive cleaner cars.
Environmental concerns should not be the basis for saying Bush is anti-science.

A while abstinance is the only 100% sure way for a given individual to avoid pregnancy and STD's. Abstinence-only education however is only about 20% effective on a population. And the evidence is that while teenagers who recieve abstinence-only education have sex later when they start they are still teenagers and engage in much riskier behavior.

As Bill Maher puts it "Bush thinks the jury is still out on evolution and global warming." It is partly Bush's fault that the cars are as dirty as they are, he is in a position to enforce emmision standards, which he doesn't. The Clinton administration was in the process of suing some of the biggest industrial polluters in the country when Bush came into office, and as soon as he did he dropped the cases and let them go right back to polluting. He may not actually hate the environment, but he wouldn't save it if it would cost him a nickel.

As Bill Maher puts it "Bush thinks the jury is still out on evolution and global warming." It is partly Bush's fault that the cars are as dirty as they are, he is in a position to enforce emmision standards, which he doesn't. The Clinton administration was in the process of suing some of the biggest industrial polluters in the country when Bush came into office, and as soon as he did he dropped the cases and let them go right back to polluting. He may not actually hate the environment, but he wouldn't save it if it would cost him a nickel.

lol

i used to have that mahr routine on my cpu, it was funny.

It is kind of our fault for not demanding higher environmental standards from government.

Unfortunatly since the education system has been shafted, and the president misleads the people delibretly and censors the opposition the people arent informed enough/are too appathetic to even voice an intelligent argument against it so they just go with it.

My Physics teacher was just explaining the nothing in science is proven nor can be, so its infact very similar to religion. In order to scientifically prove something it needs to be proved to fit its results in an infinite number of circumstances an infinite number of times........so really, who cares? Thats besides the fact that the whole argument this thread contains is purely partisan........oooh......Nobel.......just the kind of people i trust, Yassir Arafat, Kofi Annon, that recent racists woman who hates the West and says we intentionally created AIDS to kill the black and gay man, and Jimmy Freakin Carter have Peace Prizes there, i'll pass on them. Scientists are traditionally athiests, or atleast agnostic, which also makes me seem to think they're not nearly as smart as they like to think they are.

Thats political prizes. Science prizes carry slightly more weight. If this is your only argument for dismissing their testimony then its easy to see your grasping for straws.

My Physics teacher was just explaining the nothing in science is proven nor can be, so its infact very similar to religion.

then your physics teacher should lose their job. many things in science can be proven.


In order to scientifically prove something it needs to be proved to fit its results in an infinite number of circumstances an infinite number of times........so really, who cares?

the sun has not risen an infinite number of times, yet i am willing to bet that you are sure it's going to rise today, tomorrow, and all other days of your life. because the law of cause and effect may not be true, there is a philosophical gap in what science can and cannot prove, but without cause and effect there is no basis for human consciousness or perception...so you can either resign yourself to insanity, or accept the assumption of cause and effect. if you accept the assumption of cause and effect, then science can prove a lot.


Thats besides the fact that the whole argument this thread contains is purely partisan........oooh......Nobel.......just the kind of people i trust, Yassir Arafat, Kofi Annon, that recent racists woman who hates the West and says we intentionally created AIDS to kill the black and gay man, and Jimmy Freakin Carter have Peace Prizes there, i'll pass on them.

none of those people received Nobel Prizes in science. your decision to discard science because of the actions of non-scientists is nonsensical.


Scientists are traditionally athiests, or atleast agnostic, which also makes me seem to think they're not nearly as smart as they like to think they are.
incorrect. while there is a far greater percentage of atheists and agnostics in the scientific community, over half of scientists profess a belief in a higher power. produce statistics or go away...you are simply telling untruths, and that is boring.