*Is* there a faction in US politics that isn't in some way anti-science?

[Not2BSubjugated]

It's useful, in how anti-science nutters like Kosh are willing to instantly identify themselves as such. Once you see some cult bedwetter whining about how global warming is a fraud, you know instantly everything they say should be assumed to be a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

Some nice strawmen on the OP's list. I've never encountered any of these people listed below. I suppose since actual anti-science positions held by liberals are in short supply, some had to be manufactured.

fetal life deniers,

"sex has nothing to do with reproduction" people

"evolutionary psychology is sexist" people

Anti-science positions are scarce among liberals because liberals are willing to tear their own whenever a liberal utters such stupidity. We ripped into the anti-vaxxers, we ripped the anti-GMO kooks, so they've been moving to the more conspiracy-friendly conservative side. Conservatives may not criticize fellow conservatives, no matter how crazy the conspiracy theory.

Depends on how you define an anti-scientific position.

Take evolution theory. The majority of people aren't particularly well read on the subject and know only the basic concept, to the degree that is common knowledge. Yet many of these people, including many "liberals" still believe that they -know- evolution theory is factual because they've heard that "science" knows it. Blindly accepting as fact what trusted sources have told you is "scientific concensus" is not only not a scientific mindset, it is actually incurious and thus anti-scientific.

The sad fact of the matter is that mostly everyone is anti-scientific in their mentality, and this incurious nature isn't native to any political affiliation.

 

[mamooth]

There was a time when an educated adult asserting that a living creature only becomes its species at birth* would have amused me. That was a long time ago. I've basically come to expect flat out negation of basic scientific facts from liberals since then.

If you can't address what I actually say, just say so. Making up some crazy fabrication about what I supposedly said is a rather transparent evasion.

I'm used to conservatives acting that way, of course. Their programming only allows them to respond in rote ways to certain scripts. They hear A, they respond B. If I knock them off script, they're helpless, and they start flailing.

*I can at least understand where those liberals who assert that personhood is gained at birth are coming from. At least that's not completely fucktarded. It doesn't totally ignore genetics like the new common argument you're attempting to use does.

A century ago, we knew nothing of genetics, but we still knew what exactly a person was. Tell us, Einstein, a century ago, how was a person defined?

Anyone who says personhood is based on genetics is clearly dishonest, not to mention a scary eugenics cultist, but that's another topic. You can try to assert that a PC definition that the modern pro-life movement recently fabricated has always been the definition, but few are going to buy it.

Seriously? A modern human is a homo sapiens, which is a "a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning".

Not quite as circular there. And not a peep about genetics.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm sorry, did the OP miss my post?