The Political Discussion Thread

[jmoz]

lol, you know what he meant.

[SF_and_Coffee]

lol, you know what he meant.

And I found it ironic. Shall we go around the circle some more?

[Col.Foley]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030602662.html This is absolutely absurd.

Oh so THAT is what that was about. And yeah, that guy does sound like he is a few fries short of a happy meal. Though I do wonder what one would expect from a Big Government Collectovist. Yeah, I am looking at you ding bat Republican.

That;s beyond absurd, but then again, talking about "foolish" behaviour to a bunch of teabaggers? Yeah, okay

you agreeing with yourself?

And as the...unofficial...spokesperson for the Tea Party on GW (sorry but very few people that I have seen on GW bothers to defend the Tea Party if anyone does take offense I suggest you bring it to my wall) I can tell you that as for myself I think that kind of silly rhetoric and big Government growth is hardly in line with at least myself, again, and I do not see the Tea Party, or a lot of the Tea Partiers I know or people who are sympathetic with the Tea Party, Conservatism, or Libertarianism, would not agree with that guy, and would in fact agree with the general consensus that he is in fact....wrong...to do this.

And I suppose the morale of this story is you cannot fight ignorant collectovist points with other ignorant collectovist points, it tends to not work well.

Oh and as a further aside Republicans do not equal Tea party.

check out the Austrian School of Economics, good example of bigotry & fanaticism. there, anyone who doesn't fully support full-blown unfettered (ie. Laissez-Faire) capitalism is considered a communist by the so-called "economics teachers"

....Well it is the Austrian School of Economics what do you expect?

Yes, because all professors just love the Democrats to death and hate Republicans. Half my professors have been so fanatically conservative it made the classes hard to listen to objectively, so let's have a little fairness here.

I do wonder if this has more to do with your bias talking, then with theirs. But yes I am sure there are Conservatives and Republicans in Colleges, and I am also sure that some of them are also...well like the good Senator or Represenative up there...not always the most brilliant.

[Joachim]

....Well it is the Austrian School of Economics what do you expect?

It's not a matter of what he was expecting, it was a matter of what those who scream about (liberal) bias in academia seem to forget - that bias exists on both sides of the field.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

I don't feel ranted to but I am on the right side of the bias (left wing). I think conservitive views are in minority in students and staff, there was massive effots to try and stop the raise in tutition fees and 80% cut in public spending for universities. To be honest the far left think the students union and NUS (National Union of Students) are right wing, I mean the president is a member of the Labour party.

[KEK]

Interesting to note that the two professions that revolve around the quest for truth (science and journalism) always seem to be made up by a disproportionate amount of people with liberal ideals. IQ averages are higher in atheists and liberals too. Something to think about perhaps.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

Interesting to note that the two professions that revolve around the quest for truth (science and journalism) always seem to be made up by a disproportionate amount of people with liberal ideals. IQ averages are higher in atheists and liberals too. Something to think about perhaps.

Because we are the best .

[Galileo_Galilee]

Science is not a quest for the truth.

[jmoz]

Come on Ben, you know science is based on faith as well, granted more well structured and whatnot but still. I go swiss.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

Come on Ben, you know science is based on faith as well, granted more well structured and whatnot but still. I go swiss.

Never said it wasn't.

[Giantevilhead]

Come on Ben, you know science is based on faith as well, granted more well structured and whatnot but still. I go swiss.

How is science based on faith?

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

How is science based on faith?

At some point in science you have to take a leap of fait as no how much evidence you have you got to accept it might change. Like with Evolution it has an overwelming amount of evidence in favour of it but it could wrong.

[Giantevilhead]

At some point in science you have to take a leap of fait as no how much evidence you have you got to accept it might change. Like with Evolution it has an overwelming amount of evidence in favour of it but it could wrong.

How is that a leap of faith? Science is probabilistic, scientists know that they can never actually prove anything. All they can do is show that the probability that a certain phenomenon occurred by chance is extremely low. For example, when doctors test a certain drug and show that the people who were given the drug got better compared to the placebo group, they don't say that the drug definitely made the people better, they say that the probability of the people got better due to some variable other than the drug is extremely low and that the probability that the drug made them better is extremely high.

[Joachim]

Science is not a quest for the truth.

And it is... what, then?




In other news:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/articl...cates-eugenics
uggh.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Come on Ben, you know science is based on faith as well, granted more well structured and whatnot but still. I go swiss.

In what possible sense is science based on faith???