Compared to other groups, conservatives have least confidence in science

images

YEP
same shit different week
 
Some folks are just too stupid to know when they fail.

"Insanity" - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. I'd call it just plain stupid.
 
man they wont even admitt they hate science while they continue to hate science
 
You don't get a reputation for being "anti science" unless you really ARE "anti science".

Republicans are "anti science". The closest they come to denial is saying, "We don't hate science, just scientists". It's like hating doctors but loving medicine. Or hating soldiers but loving the military. They kinda go "hand in hand".
 
You don't get a reputation for being "anti science" unless you really ARE "anti science".

Republicans are "anti science". The closest they come to denial is saying, "We don't hate science, just scientists". It's like hating doctors but loving medicine. Or hating soldiers but loving the military. They kinda go "hand in hand".
I'm a Republican, thus I must hate science. According to Deanie-do and TM (the racist), that is.

:lol:
 
Conservatives are more likely to want a thorough and thoughful examination of the science. They don't blindly accept the word of scientists paid to come to a particular conclusion because the conclusion is the way they wish it was.
 
"We don't hate science, we hate scientists".

You gotta admit it's pretty damn funny.

Thought it was especially hilarious that on another thread, a right winger tried to convince me a guy who had studied "computer science, television and writing fiction" is a fully qualified "scientist". The argument was "Albert Einstein didn't go to college". Is it any wonder right wingers don't trust science?

First, they don't know what a scientist is and second "it's too hard" and third, without any education (or even with) shimmering a man into being from a pile of dirt sounds just as "real" as say, a "black hole" or "evolution", especially if you refuse to look at the data or don't understand the concept.

Where did I use the word "hate" you fucking idiot.

And last time I checked I was an atheist who doesn't subscribe to creationism.

So you have to start learning to think beyond your two dimensional paradigm and admit you're just as thick skulled and closed minded as those people you so readily criticize.

Government funds a study then the same government funds the study to confirm the results of the first study etc etc. So you don't think government can sway people with money because all scientists are such good people that they'll just say no to millions of dollars in grants and years of employment.

You're either naive or stupid. I'll let you guess which I think it is.
 
Last edited:
Conservatives are more likely to want a thorough and thoughful examination of the science. They don't blindly accept the word of scientists paid to come to a particular conclusion because the conclusion is the way they wish it was.

you dont even know what science is if you say that
 
Conservatives are more likely to want a thorough and thoughful examination of the science. They don't blindly accept the word of scientists paid to come to a particular conclusion because the conclusion is the way they wish it was.

you dont even know what science is if you say that

Exactly, to say you believe in "magical creation" over "evolution" because of a lack of "thorough and thoughtful" examination is crazy and, yes, zany.
 
"We don't hate science, we hate scientists".

You gotta admit it's pretty damn funny.

Thought it was especially hilarious that on another thread, a right winger tried to convince me a guy who had studied "computer science, television and writing fiction" is a fully qualified "scientist". The argument was "Albert Einstein didn't go to college". Is it any wonder right wingers don't trust science?

First, they don't know what a scientist is and second "it's too hard" and third, without any education (or even with) shimmering a man into being from a pile of dirt sounds just as "real" as say, a "black hole" or "evolution", especially if you refuse to look at the data or don't understand the concept.

I posted the actual question on the survey. Tell me something, on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being "they always lie" and 7 being "they are gods" how would you rate your trust of the people who run organizations like the National Science foundation? One example of why I don't score myself a 7 on that scale is this.

nsf.gov - Funding - Law & Social Sciences - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
 
The whole idea of sceince it to have a through and thoughtful examination of the facts at hand.


That distroys most right wing talking points so they pretend its not true.
 
You don't get a reputation for being "anti science" unless you really ARE "anti science".

Republicans are "anti science". The closest they come to denial is saying, "We don't hate science, just scientists". It's like hating doctors but loving medicine. Or hating soldiers but loving the military. They kinda go "hand in hand".

Obama has a reputation for being a socialist and a Muslim. Using your logic, we can now settle the issue, because you have chimed in and said that he wouldn't have that reputation if it wasn't true.
 

Forum List

Back
Top