Republicans, or Democrats?
My biggest problem with Democrats is that they’re anti-economics, with devastating results over the past decades.
[Update a few minutes later]
[Update a while later]
Speaking of Republicans being anti-science, I don’t agree with Herman Cain that being gay is “a choice.” Being straight was never a “choice” for me.
The “anti-science” accusation is usually applied to Conservative Republicans with respect to religious beliefs IE Creationism. I would wager that more people have been harmed as a result of Democrat “anti-economics” policies than have been harmed by Republican belief in God creating the universe.
And just exactly is “anti-economics”? Inquiring minds are curious at this new term 🙂
Believing, among other things, that you can spend your way out of debt.
Big science has already been so politicized that it’s been badly crippled. Published “Scientific studies” are the key to funding this or that power block’s graft/agenda – so it’s become necessary to make sure they get the right result.
Al Gore thinks AGW is dangerous to humanity. It’s no where near as dangerous as destroying scientific integrity in the cause of progressive politics.
Rand,
And exactly why is that “anti-economics”?
If you don’t understand that, I don’ t know how to explain it to you.
I see, its just another term you made up.
As contact with anti-matter annihilates matter. Anti-economics is annihilated when it comes into contact with economic truth. Those morons that defend anti-economics are just keeping it from coming into contact with truth (within their own craniums.)
That’s for the laugh!!!
I aim to please.
Science has simply replaced the use of traditional religion in appeals to authority. What is surprising about that?
Who says we’re surprised?
A lot of deplorable things happen in this world that aren’t surprising. Like an unintelligent Matula comment, for example.
Or a senseless McGehee Reply 🙂
Believing, among other things, that you can spend your way out of debt.
Or acting as if they do.
You don’t have that difference in brain structure that supposedly determines that someone will be gay and has no choice in the matter.
The mere fact that the incidence of homosexuality among people who do have that difference, isn’t 100%, strongly suggests that even among people born with a predisposition, choice is still relevant, even if it isn’t for those who don’t have it.
Only a bisexual person would believe that it is a choice, because for them, it is. They’re just projecting their own sexual orientation on the rest of us.
Being is rarely a choice. Doing usually is.
If a man has the ability to sexually perform with women, yet chooses to do it with men, he is making a choice. Research I have perused shows that many, if not most, “homosexual” men can become aroused and penetrate women. Those who do not respect our societal taboos against interacting sexually with other men are exercising choice. That is why the institutional forces tearing down the fabric of our society are actively involved in breaking down that taboo.
So anal sex leads to runaway Federal spending?
You didn’t know?
I’m always the last one to hear these things.
Oh, and so that I may not be accused on contributing only snark (as if it had no value!), I’ll link to this excellent article by WRM defending that evil libertarian slipperly slope of the past few decades.
I’m not sure if it is learned behavior or innate. It’s just the old heredity vs. environment argument in a different package. What one chooses to believe is an article of faith, IMHO.
But, it’s moot. What people choose to do in private is no concern of mine. And, they do make some pretty fabulous designs and all.
I believe that sexual preferences are a combination. I wouldn’t say “choice.” But most of the homosexuals I know had gone through one of two things, They were raised by single lower middle class mothers, with virtually no interaction with their father. Or they were molested in youth. (I’m only talking about gay men, I never gave much thought to lesbians.)
Of course that is just a majority of the ones I personally know. They might have been born with a greater predilection to be attracted to men, but the environment existed in a way that moved them more thoroughly in that direction, rather than having a grounding in traditional values, that would tilt the balance in the other direction.
Regarding sexuality, here’s a link and abstract I found some time ago that I found pretty convincing.
http://tinyurl.com/3omt5os
I can’t post the abstract, as the blog thinks it’s “spammy”. Basically, sexual orientation is set by the hormonal environment during the second half of pregnancy, and can thus be distorted by that environment.
My biggest problem with Democrats is that they’re anti-economics
The unanimous GOP position is that the ARRA stimulus law hurt the economy. Economists have tried to answer this question scientifically. You won’t be surprised to learn that the GOP position is not based on that science.
Made the mistake of reading Jims link. Jim, science involves measurement of real things, not imagined things. Your link is all imagination. We can to a certain degree of accuracy measure how many people are working. To measure ‘created or saved’ is to measure the imaginary. It does not provide the support for your argument that you think it does.
Economics is about the unseen. That you also can’t measure but it’s very real.
Forget the minutiae and step back and just look. The economy is being dragged to the floor and your guys are riding it all the way down. Marxism is not going to work no matter which ‘one’ you put in charge.
What’s somewhat historically ironic in all this is that “gayness is a choice” is somewhat of a response to the earlier schools of psychiatric thought that said gayness was a mental illness, fetish, or pathology. What better way to undo this line of thinking than to package homosexuality as alternative lifestyle and not insanity!
Of course, all the politics flipped, and conservatives simply turned the idea of “alternative lifestyles” against itself, while liberals once again took up science to explain it.
Personally, I think it’s a little of both. But honestly, I don’t care. And that’s the real problem: Politicians caring how people have sex, eat fatty foods, or buy their health insurance.
Conservatives (not “the Right,” whatever that is) are disappointingly unscientific…and to the extent that they hold that faith is superior to reason, they are also antiscientific.
The Left, on the other hand, has an explicit philosophical movement in science that holds that truth is what ever will further their ends. It is in consonance with Marxian polylogism, which holds that the laws of logic are different for different classes (the laws of logic themselves, not the premises used in “logical” arguments). They are truly anti-mind, not just anti-science or anti-reason.
If you want to get technical, look at energy. The Left ignores the staggering evidence in favor of the safety and extremely low environmental impact of nuclear power, and instead favors wind (highest cost, worst environmental impact, lowest safety with more fatalities than all of nuclear including the outlier Chernobyl), solar (highest environmental impact of any energy source, second highest cost), and biofuels (easily demonstrable as capable of handling no more than a few percent of our needs no matter how implemented), and electric cars (many of the people on this thread think it is actually possible to have a battery with as high an energy density as gasoline). The science on all of these matters is really “settled” in the sense that it is easy for anyone to look at the available evidence and see what the right answers are. But general prosperity requires abundant, cheap sources of energy. Since it is impossible to rule prosperous people (the Left’s obsession), it therefore serves the political ends of the Left to push toward energy sources that can never support prosperity. That’s use of “science” for political purposes, and like Lysenkoism, is antiscientific in the extreme.
Economics is anti-science and one’s sexual preference is IRRELEVANT. That religion has SO MUCH to say on the topic of sex is simply disturbing.
Didn’t mom tell you where babies come from?