View Full Version : Weaponizing and Politicizing 'Science'
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-25-17, 11:39
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/04/20/why-scientists-are-marching-on-washington-and-more-than-400-other-cities/?utm_term=.c0dca5815634
At the root of this, what I find the most infuriating, is they are trying to say that all "science" people are on with their agenda. That is similar to the left hijacking 'women' by saying that any women that is conservative/GOP is a traitor to their sex or suffering from beaten-wife-syndrome.
The most press from these events centers around sings that people are walking around with
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/23/science/23MARCH7/23MARCH7-superJumbo.jpg
But it isn't political- socialists against Trump and for science....
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170422110131-08-march-for-science-0422-paris-super-169.jpg
http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170422&t=2&i=1181652803&w=&fh=545px&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPED3L0LI
What I find most interesting about the signs is that if you had done these signs in the 1920-30s there would be all kinds of eugenics references. In the 1960s it would be Malthusian based population disasters, in the 1980-90s peak oil.
The wholly unscientific assertion that we have to submit to their collectivist progressivism because it is science- and can not be questioned, is truly the least scientific thing that you could do.
I can tell you first hand the science has left the building when it comes to the EPA and the FDA and you can get a National Lab to pretty much say anything you want if you bring enough cash. I guess they can't use the 'Leave the laws to the lawyers' anymore.
The scientific community is as boorish and bullying as any out there. It's incredible, the partisanship, politics, and mud-slinging scientists engage in against those who aren't on board.
I thought this thread would be about death rays and the ethics of sexaroids.
This is as bad as the "Who is a Tesla fan?" thread and it was about the cars and not the band
Hippies gonna hippie. Always have, always will
All I got to say is some people gonna go with the dogma of their clan no matter what.
Generally I'm not speaking of science geeks. :)
This appeared while I was editing down a rather lengthy reply:
The scientific community is as boorish and bullying as any out there. It's incredible, the partisanship, politics, and mud-slinging scientists engage in against those who aren't on board.
Why should they be different than anyone else? Look at the way, as a whole, members of this forum band against anyone who hasn't drank the mil-spec, Colt makes war horses not show ponies, mantra.
I once attended a church where the Pastor believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old. When it became an issue I changed churches, couldn't swallow that Kool-Aid.
I have a basic understanding of meteorology and the world's climate system. Up to a point it is pretty self-cleaning. Common sense tells me that man's increased burning of fossil fuels within the last several centuries has to have some impact on the natural rhythm's of the earth's wash and rinse cycles. How much of an impact is up for debate. What I do know is that if we continue to increase the world's population and more folks exit third world economies the impact will increase. You and I are going to be okay, we are gambling with our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren.
Believing oil companies and their investors regarding climate change without independent thought is just as stupid as believing the tobacco executives when they said smoking was safe and the dangers of secondhand smoke was a myth.
Sorry, I filter the kool-aide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/04/20/why-scientists-are-marching-on-washington-and-more-than-400-other-cities/?utm_term=.c0dca5815634
At the root of this, what I find the most infuriating, is they are trying to say that all "science" people are on with their agenda. That is similar to the left hijacking 'women' by saying that any women that is conservative/GOP is a traitor to their sex or suffering from beaten-wife-syndrome.
The most press from these events centers around sings that people are walking around with
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/23/science/23MARCH7/23MARCH7-superJumbo.jpg
But it isn't political- socialists against Trump and for science....
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170422110131-08-march-for-science-0422-paris-super-169.jpg
http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170422&t=2&i=1181652803&w=&fh=545px&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPED3L0LI
What I find most interesting about the signs is that if you had done these signs in the 1920-30s there would be all kinds of eugenics references. In the 1960s it would be Malthusian based population disasters, in the 1980-90s peak oil.
The wholly unscientific assertion that we have to submit to their collectivist progressivism because it is science- and can not be questioned, is truly the least scientific thing that you could do.
I can tell you first hand the science has left the building when it comes to the EPA and the FDA and you can get a National Lab to pretty much say anything you want if you bring enough cash. I guess they can't use the 'Leave the laws to the lawyers' anymore.
So in the picture on the bottom: the person with the pink hair (or whatever that is).. Is that a man or a woman?
So in the picture on the bottom: the person with the pink hair (or whatever that is).. Is that a man or a woman?
Get with 2017, man, it is whatever it chooses to be. And it can change.
My favorite thing is the people who shout "science!" The loudest, don't understand it.
Gmo and gluten are bad, and organic is the saving grace... vegan... despite what science says, but global warming is warming during mild winter, it's global climate change if winter is nasty, and screw you if you don't believe it.
Even though I make a living with science daily... yea, I don't know what I'm talking about, but you are so educated from the article you read once while smoking an organic dubie.
So in the picture on the bottom: the person with the pink hair (or whatever that is).. Is that a man or a woman?
Elton John.
ETA - I think that is supposed to represent a brain.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-25-17, 12:36
https://youtu.be/nMWGXt979yg?t=128s
Science!
On paper, I liked the idea alot. In reality, I knew it would be used mostly to focus on politicized topics with little science discussed. Had I thought those gathering where there to support science and scientists and perhaps a slant on keeping politics out of science, might even have attended myself. Knowing it would just be a bunch of people pushing their particular agenda while pretending to support science is what I expected and what showed up for the most part.
It was a partisan chit show
ramairthree
04-25-17, 13:25
There are two things regarding science I find ironic.
One, true scientists that think religious people are ridiculous,
While clinging to certain belief systems that literally are their religion.
Two "educated" people,
Without even a year of calc, calc based physics, Chem, etc. That do not even have the most basic understanding of science thinking they know science.
Hello, Al Gore called and he wants his 1999 back....... I thought that rational people figured out that all of the "science" about climate change was made up........ Let me guess, these scientists are now saying that MMR causes autism also...... Maybe it was just too long ago. They need to hire some historians to research 15 years ago.
Man. Megademic, if these shots are aimed at me just PM me with your email and I can send you college transcripts and copies of my academic awards. I are educated.
I am also open to the possibility you are right and I am mistaken in my beliefs, but I'm pretty inclined to believe I'm right. If you go back and reread my post you will note I said 'How much of an impact is up for debate.'
Let me give you a belief statement - The Earth goes through cycles, some believe based on changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Right now we are in a warming period (understand period means overall trend over time) in the overall cycle. If we stopped all emissions, the earth would still warm and cool. What is unknown is how, if any, our carbon emissions into the atmosphere impact the swings of the cycles. These cycle are long enough that if we fired up every coal fired plant we could, gave everyone on earth a two-cycle vehicle, you and I would be long gone before we knew if it had an overall impact. As I said, we ain't gambling with ourselves, we are gambling with our future generations. I prefer to error on the side of some caution in our emissions.
I have friends that are homosexual, black, hispanic, Jewish, Mormon, Agnostic and Athiest. I don't get pissed because they don't walk in lockstep with me and believe exactly the way I do.
One, true scientists that think religious people are ridiculous,
I stayed after lecture once and asked one of my Physics Professors if he was religious. He replied yes he was. The course I was taking at the time was universe astronomy and you could believe that tracing the beginning of the universe through the light coming at us would somewhat hinder a belief in God. I asked if anything he taught challenged his faith. He said no and proceeded to tell me why. Surprisingly his beliefs dovetailed with mine.
So not all.
Interesting. Last night Vice had a segment on about activist/politically oriented scientists. Didn't really watch as it was WAAAAY past my bed time, but the intro had the premise that more scientists need to enter politics to insure that policies affecting "science" aren't created by idiots, but rather people with at least some experience. Not a bad premise, but then they babbled on about how only left leaning scientists showed any interest in politics and then had a phd in psychology offer his expertise on climate change.
Man. Megademic, if these shots are aimed at me just PM me with your email and I can send you college transcripts and copies of my academic awards. I are educated.
I am also open to the possibility you are right and I am mistaken in my beliefs, but I'm pretty inclined to believe I'm right. If you go back and reread my post you will note I said 'How much of an impact is up for debate.'
Let me give you a belief statement - The Earth goes through cycles, some believe based on changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Right now we are in a warming period (understand period means overall trend over time) in the overall cycle. If we stopped all emissions, the earth would still warm and cool. What is unknown is how, if any, our carbon emissions into the atmosphere impact the swings of the cycles. These cycle are long enough that if we fired up every coal fired plant we could, gave everyone on earth a two-cycle vehicle, you and I would be long gone before we knew if it had an overall impact. As I said, we ain't gambling with ourselves, we are gambling with our future generations. I prefer to error on the side of some caution in our emissions.
I have friends that are homosexual, black, hispanic, Jewish, Mormon, Agnostic and Athiest. I don't get pissed because they don't walk in lockstep with me and believe exactly the way I do.
Lol, I didn't even read your post when I typed that.
You sound reasonable. I can't say for sure what's happening, but when you look at the scale we are talking about, and the variables involved, I can't buy that we have an impact. My dealings with scientists is that they are great at researching details, not figuring out how that research impacts a system, especially one you cannot control any variables on, and then solve an issue, or even determining if there is an issue for that matter.
Scientists provide data. They dont tell me how to do my job, they sure as hell wont tell me how to live. The entire thing is a theory based upon theories.
No one can tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow, so I don't believe they have a clue if the Arctic is going to melt in 500 years.
The kicker:
With that in mind, I'm sure as heck not going to pursue people to force me to give up rights or dump half my money into their friends business based on the opinions of these scientists.
Averageman
04-25-17, 16:02
It isn't about "Science", it is however about MONEY ! Follow the money ala Carbon Tax Credits and Albert Gore kind of thing? Hmmmm.
Our Federal Government hands out grants to Ivy League Universities, these same Universities are setting on enough combined cash to pay off the deficit.
Some single Mom with three kids who is working ten hour days needs to be sending her tax dollars to the Federal Government so they can send money to Harvard for Science.
So money is good for science, just not using your own money if you are a University.
Yup, yup, yup, it all makes sense to me now. Just how many of our legislators went to these schools? Conflict of interest?
Crickets....
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-25-17, 16:03
I struggle to come up with a socio/political/economic issue where scientists got the projection right? Against a back drop of huge failures.
On the religion "vs" science, I say that God sat down with Adam, Eve and Cain and Able and started out with algebra through calculus and then Chem, o-chem, p-chem and transitioning to particle physics and finally the Grand Unified Thoery. Everyone got an F. So God turned to the white board and stared out. In the beginning there was darkness.... but Adam leaned forward and swiped the apple Eve had brought for the teacher and ZAP, it's been downhill from there.
The Bible is not an ownersmanual for the Frick'n universe. God is not the intellectual equivalent of a welfare program where you get stuff for doing nothing. Dawkins makes it an indictment of religion that particle physics isn't explained in the Bible.
Plus, this science push fits into the Progressive penchant for intellectual elitism.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-25-17, 16:24
http://energy-transitions.org/sites/default/files/BetterEnergy_Executive%20Summary_DIGITAL.PDF
We just need to use 1/3 the energy we use now and spend $600,000,000,0000 a year on clean energy.
Funny, that number is familiar. Oh, sure. The US defense budget...
Inkslinger
04-25-17, 16:45
Science is only as good as available information. Things change.
ramairthree
04-25-17, 17:58
I stayed after lecture once and asked one of my Physics Professors if he was religious. He replied yes he was. The course I was taking at the time was universe astronomy and you could believe that tracing the beginning of the universe through the light coming at us would somewhat hinder a belief in God. I asked if anything he taught challenged his faith. He said no and proceeded to tell me why. Surprisingly his beliefs dovetailed with mine.
So not all.
I was not saying all true scientists think religious people are ridiculous.
I was saying I find it ironic when a true scientist, say a guy with a Ph.D. In Cell Biology,
States "these moths are camouflaged to improve their survivability and make more offspring,
These moths are muliticolored and glow in the dark to improve their mate attraction and make more offspring"
While mocking those with faith in something that makes no sense and blindly follow what he finds ridiculous,
While blindly having faith in something equally ridiculous in some cases.
Everyone puts faith in something, whether it's theories, or or a god. There is some point where the proof stops and the faith begins, there are extremes on both sides.
Back to liberals and science, it's ironic many of the same people yelling "science" about global warming lose their shit when you tell them a "sex change" isn't a real thing and begin to explain why.
On the religion "vs" science, I say that God sat down with Adam, Eve and Cain and Able and started out with algebra through calculus and then Chem, o-chem, p-chem and transitioning to particle physics and finally the Grand Unified Thoery. Everyone got an F. So God turned to the white board and stared out. In the beginning there was darkness.... but Adam leaned forward and swiped the apple Eve had brought for the teacher and ZAP, it's been downhill from there.
Actually, I think that may be pretty close to the truth. I figure God explained the Universe he had created in terms the intellect of man (at the time) could understand. Why he didn't start with man having all the knowledge he would need is beyond me, he didn't tell me, nor did he tell most of the folks that speak for him today.
He did not think of everything, though: 'Adam, where is Eve?' 'Father, she is bathing in the creek.' 'Oh, darn, we'll never get that smell off the fish.'
BoringGuy45
04-25-17, 20:32
Today a lot of "science" isn't an unbiased search for the truth anymore. It's a bunch of propaganda set to "prove" already decided conclusions.
I was not saying all true scientists think religious people are ridiculous.
I was saying I find it ironic when a true scientist, say a guy with a Ph.D. In Cell Biology,
States "these moths are camouflaged to improve their survivability and make more offspring,
These moths are muliticolored and glow in the dark to improve their mate attraction and make more offspring"
While mocking those with faith in something that makes no sense and blindly follow what he finds ridiculous,
While blindly having faith in something equally ridiculous in some cases.
Sorry, I didn't follow.
Scientists provide data. They dont tell me how to do my job, they sure as hell wont tell me how to live. The entire thing is a theory based upon theories.
No one can tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow, so I don't believe they have a clue if the Arctic is going to melt in 500 years.
The problem is the "scientists" have been caught manipulating the data to support an agenda. And when called out on it, attacked peers via academic ostracization and worse.
Fairly recently a respected Ga Tech tenured Prof resign over the way climate change has become an untouchable sacred cow.
I'm an engineer, objectivity matters. You can't cherry pick your data points.
Activist scientists are about as bad as activist judges.
Not worth it. edited.
Scientists are not all the same. We don't all have a grand conspiracy against the right. Climate science has become too big a topic to be faked at this point. Business is going green and nothing is going to stop it. Yes there are bad scientists... just like there are bad everything. But guess what? Science can be read by all (any of you can download papers and read them yourselves) even if it in a private journal. Go read it yourselves.
Moose-Knuckle
04-26-17, 04:40
My favorite sign from the "science march" . . . troll level expert!
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2885/34122220152_e2ca3f32a7.jpg
Science has been hijacked and politicized just like everything else has.
You can put ten scientists in a room and you'd get twelve different answers to the same question.
The Earth's climate changes but the climate change that killed off the dinosaurs, oops I mean large menacing birds didn't come about because of bovine flatulence, R22, or internal combustion engines emitting hydrocarbons.
Geoengineering is far more damaging to our planet and I'm way more concerned with our magnetosphere than I am about our ozone layer.
But hey, it's 2017 and this is what "settled science" is pushing . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wllc5gSc-N8
Today a lot of "science" isn't an unbiased search for the truth anymore. It's a bunch of propaganda set to "prove" already decided conclusions.
^^^^^^This. The LEFT has politicized everything today. Look at TV, and movies. Even humor is now politicized to drive a leftist agenda. Science is now politicized to drive the left's agenda as well, and has been for many years. It is not just man made climate change it is things like firearms being a national health issue to be regulated by the CDC, etc.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-26-17, 08:00
Not worth it. edited.
Scientists are not all the same. We don't all have a grand conspiracy against the right. Climate science has become too big a topic to be faked at this point. Business is going green and nothing is going to stop it.
The main issue I have with the Climate change issue is that the left's argument seems to be that since CO2 absorbs far IR radiation, we need to totally change our economy. Ughh, about 5 levels of interaction and uncertainty between increased carbon dioxide and a carbon tax. But the left tries to make it that if you don't agree with their socio/economic revisionism, you must reject the basic and easy science. BZZZZZZtttt. Thanks for playing domino theory applied to science and economics.
And don't get me started on green and business. Large, multi-nationals LOVE regulations. People in those organizations may not like them, but the organizations LOVE the barriers to entry that regulations provide. Green just wraps a nice patina around the fact that large organizations can hire the lobbyists to tailor the regulations to their best benefit. If you pass a regulation that everyone has to adhere to it doesn't disadvantage the larger players, the regulations just get added as a cost that is passed along. It just makes it harder to smaller players to comply and new entrants to come into the market. A patent lasts for a couple decades, regulations never expire and as you stack more and more of them, the more difficult it becomes to compete in a market.
AKZO cares more about the 'Green' Competition with DSM than the green money competition more direct customers- and that is why PPG is coming knocking. AKZO is bargaining like a crack-whore wanting just one more hit- she'll start to do the right thing, honest this time.
And the new TSCA process is a joke. I didn't think you could cock something up worse then REACH, but that seems reasonable now compared to TSCA. They actually put one of the new "Top Ten Not-Wanted" chemicals on the list because the miss-identified it. Opps. Still might not save it.
The EPA is trying to do OSHAs job, the FDA is trying to do the EPA's job and they are majorly f-ing with my job. I openly laugh at people and mock them when they use the term 'science' and the EPA or FDA.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/health/saturated-fat-arteries-study/index.html
Opps, saturated fats aren't bad for you.
I stayed after lecture once and asked one of my Physics Professors if he was religious. He replied yes he was. The course I was taking at the time was universe astronomy and you could believe that tracing the beginning of the universe through the light coming at us would somewhat hinder a belief in God. I asked if anything he taught challenged his faith. He said no and proceeded to tell me why. Surprisingly his beliefs dovetailed with mine.
So not all.
There was a physicist at Duke, went on to Vanderbilt (not sure where he is now), he is a passionate and unapologetic Christian. He used to give lectures on the marriage of religion and science, showed how they are not mutually exclusive, and explain how science has become politicized over the years.
Not worth it. edited.
Scientists are not all the same. We don't all have a grand conspiracy against the right. Climate science has become too big a topic to be faked at this point. Business is going green and nothing is going to stop it. Yes there are bad scientists... just like there are bad everything. But guess what? Science can be read by all (any of you can download papers and read them yourselves) even if it in a private journal. Go read it yourselves.
I don't imagine it is fake; however, when data has been manipulated, studies changed to prove a predetermined hypothesis, then it illigitimizes and invalidates the profession (or parts of it), and the good and honest scientists become collateral damage. Happens in every field of science...medicine, astronomy, physics....
When a high school student can shoot gaping holes through the predominate theory using basic notes on the fundamentals of the Scientific Method, there's something wrong.
I don't imagine it is fake; however, when data has been manipulated, studies changed to prove a predetermined hypothesis, then it illigitimizes and invalidates the profession (or parts of it), and the good and honest scientists become collateral damage. Happens in every field of science...medicine, astronomy, physics....
Human being are involved, which means..well...you know.
There was a physicist at Duke, went on to Vanderbilt (not sure where he is now), he is a passionate and unapologetic Christian. He used to give lectures on the marriage of religion and science, showed how they are not mutually exclusive, and explain how science has become politicized over the years.
There's never been a time science was not politicized, usually via non scientists taking scientific findings and using them to their own ends. There's also politics within the scientific community of course.
Averageman
04-26-17, 09:06
I don't imagine it is fake; however, when data has been manipulated, studies changed to prove a predetermined hypothesis, then it illigitimizes and invalidates the profession (or parts of it), and the good and honest scientists become collateral damage. Happens in every field of science...medicine, astronomy, physics....
I think this has been exposed many times, the data was manipulated to keep the grant money flowing in.
The irony here to me is that if this is factual and the data was even slightly manipulated to increase funding then greed wins and everyone loses, but "they" refuse to acknowledge their peers have at times been caught red handed. At that point the shaming began so even if they were caught manipulating data, you need to believe them because the situation has such dire consequences and they have a lot of "integrity".
When I found out Al Gore was going to get rich off of carbon tax credits I decided this was the biggest scam since Snake Oil.
It's like those high profile rape allegations, or allegations of misconduct by people of certain political leanings, when narrated my the MSM, the facts don't matter, the severity of the implication is what matters, as long as it fits the narrative, of course.
It's like a rape allegation, the facts don't matter, the severity of the implication is what matters, as long as it fits the narrative, of course.
You are pretty much spray painting without a nozzle using that analogy.
sevenhelmet
04-26-17, 19:58
I check out where the science turns into agenda-pushing. When the data are presented and the logical possibilities are discussed, that's fine by me. But what nobody is doing is coming up with viable solutions. They discuss it like it's already too late, so what... I'm supposed to spend the rest of my life feeling guilty? Or we'll just all go back to living in yurts and trading horse manure and pussy for enough wheat and salt beef to make it through winter? Neither. Nobody seems to have a solution, they just want you to admit they're "right" so that they can dictate what happens next. It's really about control.
The government won't solve anything. I don't get how people can't see that. They bitch about military spending, infrastructure, "racist" police, and bad education, but then think the same government can solve their problems. I actually think climate change is "real" (an overused and inadequate term to describe a clear trend in the data), but we'll learn things 10, 20, 50 years from now that'll make today's data look horrendously incomplete.
Bottom line, there is nothing actionable on climate change. It's a scary trend in some data, but there isn't an obvious solution, so why are we using up so much bandwidth arguing about it? Collect more data, and continue to refine the hypothesis.
A lot of what is presented as "science" is nothing more than "ideas", there's not even enough genuine science to qualify it as a "theory."
If I could change one thing, I'd require strict adherence to the definitions of "scientific fact", "scientific theory" and "scientific idea."
You are pretty much spray painting without a nozzle using that analogy.
I don't understand your analogy about his analogy
I don't understand your analogy about his analogy
Analogically (wow, did not know that was a word but spell check likes it) I was saying that he was painting with a broad brush. Although, the argument could be made that a sprey gun without a nozzle would just shoot a stream, not a pattern with any width.
I replied because it struck me that he was saying that a lot of rape reports are bogus, which, based on my experience, I don't believe to be true.
Analogically (wow, did not know that was a word but spell check likes it) I was saying that he was painting with a broad brush. Although, the argument could be made that a sprey gun without a nozzle would just shoot a stream, not a pattern with any width.
I replied because it struck me that he was saying that a lot of rape reports are bogus, which, based on my experience, I don't believe to be true.
Seemed he may have been more than less referring to the common case of a person's life being completely an irreparably ruined due to a false accusation, because the story is sensationalized.
Which is as I said - common.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-27-17, 00:32
I took it as the line that Dems use for most investigations that are obviously bogus- it isn't the veracity of the evidence, it is the seriousness of the charges.
The night mare scenarios, however based on goofy models and extrapolations, mean that we have to do something.
Warm is wet, cold is dry is the general rule- with variations for geography. These 'desert planet' scenarios are really quite scarily stupid.
Moose-Knuckle
04-27-17, 05:25
There was a physicist at Duke, went on to Vanderbilt (not sure where he is now), he is a passionate and unapologetic Christian. He used to give lectures on the marriage of religion and science, showed how they are not mutually exclusive, and explain how science has become politicized over the years.
You should check out Dr. Jonathan Wells.
He is a molecular biologist who received his education from UC Berkeley, Princeton, Unification Theological Seminary, and Yale.
He has multiple published articles and books where he discusses the hijacking of mainstream science especially when it pertains to academia.
http://iconsofevolution.com/
Seemed he may have been more than less referring to the common case of a person's life being completely an irreparably ruined due to a false accusation, because the story is sensationalized.
Which is as I said - common.
I don't agree about commonality. Sure there was the Duke Lacrosse case.
On the other hand, every publicized rape case, and every case which goes to trial, outs the victim, forever changing their life and perception within the community. Those are far, far, more the majority, and one of the reasons that rape and other crimes such as sexual battery are under reported.
I responded because his statement struck me as slightly misogynistic. I'm not a fem-nazi but we should be beyond that.
If I interpreted incorrectly, that is one of the risks of participating in public internet discourse, and my very humble and public apologies are offered.
Analogically (wow, did not know that was a word but spell check likes it) I was saying that he was painting with a broad brush. Although, the argument could be made that a sprey gun without a nozzle would just shoot a stream, not a pattern with any width.
I replied because it struck me that he was saying that a lot of rape reports are bogus, which, based on my experience, I don't believe to be true.
Oh ok. Yeah, I was thinking it would just shoot a stream which got me confused as to your intent.
I took it as the line that Dems use for most investigations that are obviously bogus- it isn't the veracity of the evidence, it is the seriousness of the charges.
The night mare scenarios, however based on goofy models and extrapolations, mean that we have to do something.
Warm is wet, cold is dry is the general rule- with variations for geography. These 'desert planet' scenarios are really quite scarily stupid.
This is exactly what I meant. First sentence.
I don't agree about commonality. Sure there was the Duke Lacrosse case.
On the other hand, every publicized rape case, and every case which goes to trial, outs the victim, forever changing their life and perception within the community. Those are far, far, more the majority, and one of the reasons that rape and other crimes such as sexual battery are under reported.
I responded because his statement struck me as slightly misogynistic. I'm not a fem-nazi but we should be beyond that.
If I interpreted incorrectly, that is one of the risks of participating in public internet discourse, and my very humble and public apologies are offered.
No problem, I edited it to be more clear. I can see how you interpreted that in my original post.
The Duke case is what immediately came to mind while typing that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.