talking points that piss you off

[TJ in Oregon]

"All conservatives are stupid"

[TJ in Oregon]

Or if one believes the teleology of sex acts is for procreation. I wouldn't be so sex-centered as to claim there is no more to teleology than just sex.

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a simple fact. You can die of an overdosis of alcohol, but not from smoking pot.
Why does that irritate you?

It's not that it's factually inaccurate; it's just a very poor argument. In fact, to me, it's a perfectly good argument for banning alcohol.

Because that was such a success.

Irrelevant.

The effects a policy will have is irrelevant to you?

This argument is basically the same problem as the scenario where two students turn in work with the same answer, get different grades, and then the one who got a lower grade complains to the teacher. The teacher could then give that student a better grade. Or the teacher could lower the other student's grade to match.

If we say

You must be logged in to read this quote.

then logically either alcohol should be outlawed or pot should be legalized but you cannot determine which should be done from the statement.

Of course in American politics ideological purity is the stuff of internet forums and advocacy groups not the government in practice. Our laws are not logically consistent, they never have been, and I doubt they ever will be. That's because they are constructed from a patchwork of different people and groups with different motives at different times throughout history. Pragmatism rules the day. In my scenario above, the teacher would simply ignore the student, which makes for a bad teacher but a functional government.

[TJ in Oregon]

"The Democrats are the party of Science"

especially when said by liberal arts majors

[TJ in Oregon]

"The Democrats are the party of Science"

especially when said by liberal arts majors

It pisses you off because it's true.

Only if all of the scientific world consisted of evolution, embryonic stem cell research, and global warming. All of that together isn't worth terribly much when the left is constantly trying to divert educational resources toward arts and humanities fields and encouraging people to major in something other than hard science since whether a field is practical or useful should apparently not be a consideration (at least according to most of the people on this board). Most of the liberals who are complaining about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research don't even understand why we would want to fund it instead of using adult stem cells.

[TJ in Oregon]

"The Democrats are the party of Science"

especially when said by liberal arts majors

It pisses you off because it's true.

Only if all of the scientific world consisted of evolution, embryonic stem cell research, and global warming. All of that together isn't worth terribly much when the left is constantly trying to divert educational resources toward arts and humanities fields and encouraging people to major in something other than hard science since whether a field is practical or useful should apparently not be a consideration (at least according to most of the people on this board). Most of the liberals who are complaining about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research don't even understand why we would want to fund it instead of using adult stem cells.

The point is going over your head, I see. Democrats are the party of science because it's  overwhelmingly supported by scientists in a way that few parties around the world are.

If you look at college faculty by field of study, the hard science fields are significantly less favorable to Democrats than social sciences. The Democrats are really more of the party of English Literature.

[TJ in Oregon]

"The Democrats are the party of Science"

especially when said by liberal arts majors

It pisses you off because it's true.

Only if all of the scientific world consisted of evolution, embryonic stem cell research, and global warming. All of that together isn't worth terribly much when the left is constantly trying to divert educational resources toward arts and humanities fields and encouraging people to major in something other than hard science since whether a field is practical or useful should apparently not be a consideration (at least according to most of the people on this board). Most of the liberals who are complaining about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research don't even understand why we would want to fund it instead of using adult stem cells.

Are you saying that everyone should major in "hard science"?

No, only that it should be encouraged and considered when awarding federal money to students. The government should be more interested in a return on its investment than it is.

[TJ in Oregon]

"The Democrats are the party of Science"

especially when said by liberal arts majors

It pisses you off because it's true.

Only if all of the scientific world consisted of evolution, embryonic stem cell research, and global warming. All of that together isn't worth terribly much when the left is constantly trying to divert educational resources toward arts and humanities fields and encouraging people to major in something other than hard science since whether a field is practical or useful should apparently not be a consideration (at least according to most of the people on this board). Most of the liberals who are complaining about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research don't even understand why we would want to fund it instead of using adult stem cells.

The point is going over your head, I see. Democrats are the party of science because it's  overwhelmingly supported by scientists in a way that few parties around the world are.

If you look at college faculty by field of study, the hard science fields are significantly less favorable to Democrats than social sciences. The Democrats are really more of the party of English Literature.

I've seen that study and it doesn't surprise me but it doesn't discount my point. Democrats are supported by the scientific establishment almost exclusively and basically serve their interests in the same way that Republicans serve oil, logging, mining and the like. In this sense they are the party of science.

I'm assuming by "serve their interests" you mean appropriate more funding (please correct me if I'm wrong in that interpretation). It is true in many cases that the Democrats have appropriated more funding to scientific research, this is not universally true. In fact, science spending increased as a percentage of GDP under Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush and decreased under Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. Overall funding increased under every President since Eisenhower except Nixon, Ford, and Clinton. So that part is complicated at best. I will agree that academics in general do support Democrats, scientists less so than other fields, but the Democrats still do have an edge there.

But, to then extrapolate this to the Democrats being the part of Science (as an institution not the magazine ) is a bit much. Democrats' interests do not align with the science the way the Republicans' do with oil and gas because the Democrats also have other constituencies that take precedence over Science insomuchas science is a Democratic constituency, such as environmental regulations which are not always in line with science, such as The Precautionary Principle which establishes a burden of proof in a way that doesn't understand the scientific process. Or take nuclear energy or vaccination or GMOs or a wide array of other topics.

In addition, consider the "discussion" on the previous page about the importance of different fields and note the general Democratic response (okay, I'll admit I was trolling a little there; sorry for pissing everyone off in the pissing people off thread) but it shows a little insight into how other constituencies affect the Democrats' relationship with Science. Also notice the most of the people who took a more sympathetic view are libertarians; there are a ton of libertarians in science even though libertarians often want to slice funding apart more than anyone else! The reason is that science fosters some degree of objective impartiality toward outcomes; ie. I should not really be hoping for a test to turn out one way or the other when I conduct it, much the same way a libertarian is somewhat indifferent to what other people do.

Basically, the talking point that the "Democrats are the party of Science" is irritating because its used to make Republicans look like moronic country bumpkins while ignoring the complexities of the matter. The reality is that neither party is the party of Science and neither likely ever will be.