Why right wing beliefs are so crazy

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you’re a liberal or a progressive these days, you could be forgiven for being baffled and frustrated by conservatives. Their views and actions seem completely alien to us—or worse. From cheering at executions, to wanting to “throw up” over church-state separation, to seeking to “drown” government “in the bathtub” (except when it is cracking down on porn, apparently) conservatives not only seem very different, but also very inconsistent.

Even the most well-read liberals and progressives can be forgiven for being confused, because the experts themselves—George Lakoff, Jonathan Haidt and others--have different ways of explaining what they call conservatives’ “morality” or “moral systems.” Are we dealing with a bunch of die-hard anti-government types in their bunkers, or the strict father family? Are our intellectual adversaries free-market libertarians, or right-wing authoritarians—and do they even know the difference?

True.

Most of the more problematic rightists are the ‘strict-father/ authoritarians.’

 

[Oddball]

then why is the right wing against global warming and evolution? oh thats right, when they think a science that is accepted by the rest world is wrong, its labeled a hoax and inconclusive. we could just go back to the days when the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth

Or you could just create and invoke strawman arguments, to marginalize anyone who differs from your socialistic mores.

can you even define socialism without using a dictionary?

didnt think so....

OK...So your strawman arguments failed, now you have to try and change the subject and parse on semantics.

FAIL AGAIN!....

 

[Syphon]

Or you could just create and invoke strawman arguments, to marginalize anyone who differs from your socialistic mores.

can you even define socialism without using a dictionary?

didnt think so....

OK...So your strawman arguments failed, now you have to try and change the subject and parse on semantics.

FAIL AGAIN!....

come back to the table when youve actually reached puberty and can have an adult conversation.

until then keep playing in the sand box and eating paste with the kids, maybe itll help you improve that lack of intelligence youve shown.

 

[Oddball]

You wouldn't know an adult conversation if it slapped you like the little bitch you are, s0n.

Get the fuck over yourself.

 

[Syphon]

You wouldn't know an adult conversation if it slapped you like the little bitch you are, s0n.

Get the fuck over yourself.

coming from the guy who hasnt added anything to conversation yet..

bawahahahahah

your problem is obvious

 

[Unkotare]

The troll started another troll thread. What a shock.

 

[Oddball]

You wouldn't know an adult conversation if it slapped you like the little bitch you are, s0n.

Get the fuck over yourself.

coming from the guy who hasnt added anything to conversation yet..

bawahahahahah

Like grossly distorted strawman arguments add anything of substance to anything.

Aren't you up a little late for a school night, s0n?

 

[oreo]

How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives | | AlterNet

Essay from Mooney's new book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality

Yes, its from a liberal source and yes, its a science-based book but I hope rw's don't dismiss it out of hand. There really are some excellent points - even for the crazy right wing.

You might even see your own reflection ...

Science told us two years ago--that Tomatoes were causing Salmonella. It killed the tomato industry for several weeks until they found out it was coming from somewhere else.

Science told us in the 1980's to NEVER eat read meat--as it gave us heart attacks--and everyone starting loading up on the so-called low fat harmless carbohydrates. Our nation is now obese--and type 2 diabetes is the now the number health concern in this nation--and btw--it's now O.K to eat red meat.

I could go on with statements coming from the science community all night long--where they have blown it time and time again--but why bother?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives | | AlterNet

Essay from Mooney's new book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality

Yes, its from a liberal source and yes, its a science-based book but I hope rw's don't dismiss it out of hand. There really are some excellent points - even for the crazy right wing.

You might even see your own reflection ...

Science told us two years ago--that Tomatoes were causing Salmonella. It killed the tomato industry for several weeks until they found out it was coming from somewhere else.

Science told us in the 1980's to NEVER eat read meat--as it gave us heart attacks--and everyone starting loading up on the so-called low fat harmless carbohydrates. Our nation is now obese--and type 2 diabetes is the now the number health concern in this nation--and btw--it's now O.K to eat red meat.

I could go on with statements coming from the science community all night long--where they have blown it time and time again--but why bother?

Oddly, the self proclaimed "pro-science" bunch is never right....

 

[Syphon]

You wouldn't know an adult conversation if it slapped you like the little bitch you are, s0n.

Get the fuck over yourself.

coming from the guy who hasnt added anything to conversation yet..

bawahahahahah

Like grossly distorted strawman arguments add anything of substance to anything.

Aren't you up a little late for a school night, s0n?

ohhhh so now youve gone from adding nothing to argument to constant insults. guess you really cant have an adult conversation.

just keep insulting me, maybe one day, if you do it enough, they will make you a real man.

 

[Oddball]

You never added anything to the argument, boy.....What the fuck do you expect in return?

 

[Syphon]

How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives | | AlterNet

Essay from Mooney's new book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality

Yes, its from a liberal source and yes, its a science-based book but I hope rw's don't dismiss it out of hand. There really are some excellent points - even for the crazy right wing.

You might even see your own reflection ...

Science told us two years ago--that Tomatoes were causing Salmonella. It killed the tomato industry for several weeks until they found out it was coming from somewhere else.

Science told us in the 1980's to NEVER eat read meat--as it gave us heart attacks--and everyone starting loading up on the so-called low fat harmless carbohydrates. Our nation is now obese--and type 2 diabetes is the now the number health concern in this nation--and btw--it's now O.K to eat red meat.

I could go on with statements coming from the science community all night long--where they have blown it time and time again--but why bother?

tomatos dont "cause" salmonella, they can carry salmonella.
How can salmonella, a bacterium that normally lives inside animal intestines, get on your tomatoes?
Manure, runoff, and wild animals. Livestock animals, especially when kept in large numbers in confined spaces, can contract salmonella and carry the bug without showing any symptoms at all. Infected cows, pigs, and chickens shed the bacteria in their waste, which is sometimes used to fertilize nearby fields. The heat generated when manure is composted kills off most, but not all, disease-causing bacteria.
How do tomatoes get salmonella? - Slate Magazine

and yes, large amounts of red meat can lead to heart disease and heart attacks.
The study of more than 120,000 people suggested red meat increased the risk of death from cancer and heart problems.

Substituting red meat with fish, chicken or nuts lowered the risks, the authors said.

The British Heart Foundation said red meat could still be eaten as part of a balanced diet.

The researchers analysed data from 37,698 men between 1986 and 2008 and 83,644 women between 1980 and 2008.
They said that during the study period, adding an extra portion of unprocessed red meat to someone's daily diet would increase the risk of death by 13%, of fatal cardiovascular disease by 18% and of cancer mortality by 10%. The figures for processed meat were higher, 20% for overall mortality, 21% for death from heart problems and 16% for cancer mortality.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-linked-to-cancer-and-heart-disease.html
Eating red meat raises 'substantially' risk of cancer or heart disease death | Science | The Guardian
BBC News - Red meat increases death, cancer and heart risk, says study


but then again its already been proven that the right doesnt believe in science.

 

[tinydancer]

How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives | | AlterNet

Essay from Mooney's new book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality

Yes, its from a liberal source and yes, its a science-based book but I hope rw's don't dismiss it out of hand. There really are some excellent points - even for the crazy right wing.

You might even see your own reflection ...

Men of faith who believed in God were some of the most renowned scientists. From Copernicus to Planck.

Many had deep Christian commitments like physicists Stokes and Maxwell.

To have faith, to be socially conservative is not to be against science.

then why is the right wing against global warming and evolution? oh thats right, when they think a science that is accepted by the rest world is wrong, its labeled a hoax and inconclusive. we could just go back to the days when the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth

This is just the living. By all means just slag them as unintelligent, bitter clingers. We're all knuckle draggers obviously as compared to liberal community organizers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Living

This section concerns significant Christian thinkers in science who are alive today. Those who lead organizations of Christians in science or who write works concerning how Christians of today respond to science.

Charles Hard Townes
(born 1915)

In 1964 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1966 he wrote The Convergence of Science and Religion.


Ian Barbour
(born 1923)

Physicist who wrote Christianity and the Scientists in 1960, and When Science Meets Religion ISBN 0-06-060381-X in 2000.


Freeman Dyson
(born 1923)

He has won the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, and the Lewis Thomas Prize. He also ranked 25th in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll. He has won the Templeton Prize and delivered one of the Gifford Lectures. Although Dyson says "I am myself a Christian", he also adds "I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension."


Antonino Zichichi
(born 1929)

Italian nuclear physicist and former President of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare. He has worked with the Vatican on relations between the Church and Science.


John Polkinghorne
(born 1930)

British particle physicist and Anglican priest who wrote Science and the Trinity (2004) ISBN 0-300-10445-6. Winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize.


Read the rest of the list by linking to the source

Thanks mod. Had to run the dog before I could get back in and ETA the list from wiki

It's awesome.

 

[oreo]

How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives | | AlterNet

Essay from Mooney's new book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality

Yes, its from a liberal source and yes, its a science-based book but I hope rw's don't dismiss it out of hand. There really are some excellent points - even for the crazy right wing.

You might even see your own reflection ...

Men of faith who believed in God were some of the most renowned scientists. From Copernicus to Planck.

Many had deep Christian commitments like physicists Stokes and Maxwell.

To have faith, to be socially conservative is not to be against science.

then why is the right wing against global warming and evolution? oh thats right, when they think a science that is accepted by the rest world is wrong, its labeled a hoax and inconclusive. we could just go back to the days when the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth

I am a fiscal conservative and have no problems with evolution--wtf are you talking about? Most conservatives believe in evolution--as we have PROOF of it. Now just because some scientist tells us what he wants to believe doesn't mean we're
going to swallow it hook line and sinker either.

We conservatives have PROOF that we can out of an ice age--10K or more years ago--when there were very few men on earth. We have PROOF that CO2 factors were higher than they are today when dinosaur's walked the earth. No scientist wants to talk about that.

By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.---15 million years ago is what they're talking about

Why were CO2 factors that high 15 million years ago?
Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom

So--we see in all this--that there is controversy. Which may have a lot to do with MONEY. There nothing more that the Federal Government would like to do than to TAX electric energy companies for more revenue--which of course would be paid for by us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Republicans become more factually wrong with higher levels of education. Facts clearly don’t change their minds—if anything, they make matters worse! Lakoff, too, emphasizes how refuting a false conservative claim can actually reinforce it.

Ain’t that the truth.

We see it every day here on USMB, where conservatives are confronted with cold, hard, documented facts that clearly demonstrate conservative dogma wrong – and the right ignores the facts altogether.

 

[tinydancer]

If every conservative would study the list that is available at wiki, you would learn so much about our proud heritage as being able to combine faith, conservatism and science.

We are not at odds with science.

The left mocks us as knuckle dragging flat earthers. NOTHING could be farther from the truth.

ETA: apologies dog issues meant to add this earlier.

Just because one disagrees with a scientific opinion does not make one anti science.

This is the lunacy of the left. One must be lock step with a "consensus" now to be pro science. But nothing could be farther from science than
"consensus".

Skepticism is at the core of science. It is the heartbeat and challenge of science.


"Most institutions demand unqualified faith;
but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue."
(Merton, 1962)

 

[tinydancer]

How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives | | AlterNet

Essay from Mooney's new book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality

Yes, its from a liberal source and yes, its a science-based book but I hope rw's don't dismiss it out of hand. There really are some excellent points - even for the crazy right wing.

You might even see your own reflection ...

Science told us two years ago--that Tomatoes were causing Salmonella. It killed the tomato industry for several weeks until they found out it was coming from somewhere else.

Science told us in the 1980's to NEVER eat read meat--as it gave us heart attacks--and everyone starting loading up on the so-called low fat harmless carbohydrates. Our nation is now obese--and type 2 diabetes is the now the number health concern in this nation--and btw--it's now O.K to eat red meat.

I could go on with statements coming from the science community all night long--where they have blown it time and time again--but why bother?

tomatos dont "cause" salmonella, they can carry salmonella.
How can salmonella, a bacterium that normally lives inside animal intestines, get on your tomatoes?
Manure, runoff, and wild animals. Livestock animals, especially when kept in large numbers in confined spaces, can contract salmonella and carry the bug without showing any symptoms at all. Infected cows, pigs, and chickens shed the bacteria in their waste, which is sometimes used to fertilize nearby fields. The heat generated when manure is composted kills off most, but not all, disease-causing bacteria.
How do tomatoes get salmonella? - Slate Magazine

and yes, large amounts of red meat can lead to heart disease and heart attacks.
The study of more than 120,000 people suggested red meat increased the risk of death from cancer and heart problems.

Substituting red meat with fish, chicken or nuts lowered the risks, the authors said.

The British Heart Foundation said red meat could still be eaten as part of a balanced diet.

The researchers analysed data from 37,698 men between 1986 and 2008 and 83,644 women between 1980 and 2008.
They said that during the study period, adding an extra portion of unprocessed red meat to someone's daily diet would increase the risk of death by 13%, of fatal cardiovascular disease by 18% and of cancer mortality by 10%. The figures for processed meat were higher, 20% for overall mortality, 21% for death from heart problems and 16% for cancer mortality.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-linked-to-cancer-and-heart-disease.html
Eating red meat raises 'substantially' risk of cancer or heart disease death | Science | The Guardian
BBC News - Red meat increases death, cancer and heart risk, says study


but then again its already been proven that the right doesnt believe in science.

Prove how the right doesn't believe in science. By all means prove your point.

And define "right".

To be skeptical is the very basis of science.

"For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that "A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory.

A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory" (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982).

Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology."

Excellent article.

In Support of Skepticism

 

[The Infidel]

 

[Oddball]

Republicans become more factually wrong with higher levels of education. Facts clearly don’t change their minds—if anything, they make matters worse! Lakoff, too, emphasizes how refuting a false conservative claim can actually reinforce it.

Ain’t that the truth.

We see it every day here on USMB, where conservatives are confronted with cold, hard, documented facts that clearly demonstrate conservative dogma wrong – and the right ignores the facts altogether.

Project much, numbnutz?

 

[Syphon]