The left's rejection of science

[Kosh]

Help me understand a little more how your ideas are going to help the poor. The black child growing up with a single mother who doesn't have the time or the will to nurture and raise her children like many other families do.

Well this goes back to my original statement about discipline, personal responsibility, accountability. The onus is on that mom and dad to raise that child properly. If they don't "have the will" to "nurture and raise their children" properly then they are legitimate pieces of shit - and the worst thing you can do is make excuses for them.

In addition, taking the "throw more money at it" left-wing ideology which you support and advocate, won't make a difference anyway. You think paying a teacher $200,000 per year is somehow going to change this child's home life? Nope.

The kid who is being pressured to join a gang outside of school.

Again...what does this have to do with education? You think paying a teacher $200,000 per year is somehow going to stop this child from joining a gang? Nope.

I don't think School Choice is going to help him much. So how does this all play out in your world?

Well a student will be exponentially less likely to join a gang if they are attending school in Beverly Hills. Surely even you won't attempt to deny that.

Why are you bringing up $200K pay for teachers? I never said a thing about that nor do I think thats what they should be paid. You think calling bad parents pieces of shit and letting the dice roll for their children is the best way to handle the situation then thats fine. I don't agree. I think providing nutritious meals at school is a good thing cause many students don't get 3 meals a day or a home made dinner when they get home from school. I think having after school programs for the children to get involved in is a good thing. I think providing better training for teachers is a good thing. I think having counselors available to the students to help with social issues, emotional issues, learning issues, coping mechanisms are all good things...

They aren't necessarily bad things. But none of them will get the child an education or keep them out of gangs. That sounds what you brought up. So what is you right solution for that?

Kids need role models and productive things to keep them occupied. My girl is a school counselor and she spent many years working in low income districts. You wouldnt believe how many children literally think that money comes from the government. They had no concept of earning money, no aspirations to go to college, and no support from home. For many kids having that teacher or that coach or that friend who believes in them and can set a positive example makes all the difference in the world. That's why training, sports, after school programs, and creating a safe productive environment at school is so important, cause they aren't learning anything good at home

Stop voting far left and this will disappear. The far left is never the answer!

You should renounce your far left religion immediately..

 

[bripat9643]

Help me understand a little more how your ideas are going to help the poor. The black child growing up with a single mother who doesn't have the time or the will to nurture and raise her children like many other families do.

Well this goes back to my original statement about discipline, personal responsibility, accountability. The onus is on that mom and dad to raise that child properly. If they don't "have the will" to "nurture and raise their children" properly then they are legitimate pieces of shit - and the worst thing you can do is make excuses for them.

In addition, taking the "throw more money at it" left-wing ideology which you support and advocate, won't make a difference anyway. You think paying a teacher $200,000 per year is somehow going to change this child's home life? Nope.

The kid who is being pressured to join a gang outside of school.

Again...what does this have to do with education? You think paying a teacher $200,000 per year is somehow going to stop this child from joining a gang? Nope.

I don't think School Choice is going to help him much. So how does this all play out in your world?

Well a student will be exponentially less likely to join a gang if they are attending school in Beverly Hills. Surely even you won't attempt to deny that.

Why are you bringing up $200K pay for teachers? I never said a thing about that nor do I think thats what they should be paid. You think calling bad parents pieces of shit and letting the dice roll for their children is the best way to handle the situation then thats fine. I don't agree. I think providing nutritious meals at school is a good thing cause many students don't get 3 meals a day or a home made dinner when they get home from school. I think having after school programs for the children to get involved in is a good thing. I think providing better training for teachers is a good thing. I think having counselors available to the students to help with social issues, emotional issues, learning issues, coping mechanisms are all good things...

They aren't necessarily bad things. But none of them will get the child an education or keep them out of gangs. That sounds what you brought up. So what is you right solution for that?

Kids need role models and productive things to keep them occupied. My girl is a school counselor and she spent many years working in low income districts. You wouldnt believe how many children literally think that money comes from the government. They had no concept of earning money, no aspirations to go to college, and no support from home. For many kids having that teacher or that coach or that friend who believes in them and can set a positive example makes all the difference in the world. That's why training, sports, after school programs, and creating a safe productive environment at school is so important, cause they aren't learning anything good at home

What are they going to learn when their mom is collecting welfare? Government caused this problem. More government isn't the solution. Less government is the solution. Most social pathologies in this country are the result of government social programs.

 

[Correll]

The right believes in small, limited government.

Not when it comes to a woman's uterus or gay marriage.

Are you aware that you just did the Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question, twice?

Or are you too stupid.

 

[Correll]

Do you support the 230 sat point bonus blacks get for being black in Ivy League College admissions.

I don't know much about it but on the surface it doesn't seem like something i'd support. i'm fine with scholarships for the black community and programs that help get minorities better education and into better schools. Diversity is important and education is the best way to help any group ascend out of poverty, but giving a SAT bump doesn't make sense to me. I haven't read much on the issue though.

If you support the idea that "diversity" is important, and that programs to help minorities bet better education an into better schools, then you support the 230 point bump.

Because that's how they get the bump.


YOu can't discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others.

haha, nice try. I can support efforts to help minority groups and also disapprove of methods. For instance I support providing government assistance to our elderly, disabled, vets, and our poor, but I think there is tremendous waste in our welfare programs and a need for reform. Just because I support these efforts doesn't mean I support the current methods. So while I do support helping minority groups get better education, I can disagree with the method of simply bumping their SAT scores because they are a minority. I don't see the effectiveness in doing that, it actually seems counter productive IMO.

They don't simply bump the SAT scores.

They have "efforts to help minority students". They work to get a more "diverse student body". They "target" minorities. ect ect ect.

The EFFECT is a 230 point sat point bump, revealed though statistical analysis of Ivy League Admission records.

You CAN'T discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against another, in a system of limited resources.

THe difference between "racism" and anti-white racism in our society, is that one is illegal and taboo, and the other is National Policy and celebrated.

Do you happen to play golf? Do you think the handicap system that they use in that sport is unfair and unjust?

Would you like to compete against Tiger Woods? IF you were competing against Tiger Woods how would you like to find out that YOU were the one being giving handicap points because of YOUR skin color?

That is the reality for poor and working class whites in this country.

Also, do you have an alternative solution on how to help minority groups that are struggling with poverty and violence in a systemic and cultural way?

Change their culture and suppress the violence. Also, jobs.

 

[Correll]

Do you support the 230 sat point bonus blacks get for being black in Ivy League College admissions.

I don't know much about it but on the surface it doesn't seem like something i'd support. i'm fine with scholarships for the black community and programs that help get minorities better education and into better schools. Diversity is important and education is the best way to help any group ascend out of poverty, but giving a SAT bump doesn't make sense to me. I haven't read much on the issue though.

If you support the idea that "diversity" is important, and that programs to help minorities bet better education an into better schools, then you support the 230 point bump.

Because that's how they get the bump.


YOu can't discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others.

haha, nice try. I can support efforts to help minority groups and also disapprove of methods. For instance I support providing government assistance to our elderly, disabled, vets, and our poor, but I think there is tremendous waste in our welfare programs and a need for reform. Just because I support these efforts doesn't mean I support the current methods. So while I do support helping minority groups get better education, I can disagree with the method of simply bumping their SAT scores because they are a minority. I don't see the effectiveness in doing that, it actually seems counter productive IMO.

They don't simply bump the SAT scores.

They have "efforts to help minority students". They work to get a more "diverse student body". They "target" minorities. ect ect ect.

The EFFECT is a 230 point sat point bump, revealed though statistical analysis of Ivy League Admission records.

You CAN'T discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against another, in a system of limited resources.


THe difference between "racism" and anti-white racism in our society, is that one is illegal and taboo, and the other is National Policy and celebrated.

I also believe you are misusing the term racism in relation to this issue. Racism involves discrimination on the belief that one race is superior to another. This situation is providing opportunity to people based on race because of systemic and cultural disadvantages that their racial group is in. It is not imposing discrimination against whites based on the belief that blacks are superior

Slavery and past injustices are often mentioned in this debate.

As is the idea that blacks opinion on such issues should be given more weight because of their history.


The idea, though rarely coherently expressed, is that whites carry a Karmic Debt due to past injustices.

And that even if current whites, who were born long after the injustices, still owe this debt.


That is a form of saying that whites are morally inferior and thus racism.

 

[Slade3200]

Help me understand a little more how your ideas are going to help the poor. The black child growing up with a single mother who doesn't have the time or the will to nurture and raise her children like many other families do.

Well this goes back to my original statement about discipline, personal responsibility, accountability. The onus is on that mom and dad to raise that child properly. If they don't "have the will" to "nurture and raise their children" properly then they are legitimate pieces of shit - and the worst thing you can do is make excuses for them.

In addition, taking the "throw more money at it" left-wing ideology which you support and advocate, won't make a difference anyway. You think paying a teacher $200,000 per year is somehow going to change this child's home life? Nope.

The kid who is being pressured to join a gang outside of school.

Again...what does this have to do with education? You think paying a teacher $200,000 per year is somehow going to stop this child from joining a gang? Nope.

I don't think School Choice is going to help him much. So how does this all play out in your world?

Well a student will be exponentially less likely to join a gang if they are attending school in Beverly Hills. Surely even you won't attempt to deny that.

Why are you bringing up $200K pay for teachers? I never said a thing about that nor do I think thats what they should be paid. You think calling bad parents pieces of shit and letting the dice roll for their children is the best way to handle the situation then thats fine. I don't agree. I think providing nutritious meals at school is a good thing cause many students don't get 3 meals a day or a home made dinner when they get home from school. I think having after school programs for the children to get involved in is a good thing. I think providing better training for teachers is a good thing. I think having counselors available to the students to help with social issues, emotional issues, learning issues, coping mechanisms are all good things...

They aren't necessarily bad things. But none of them will get the child an education or keep them out of gangs. That sounds what you brought up. So what is you right solution for that?

Kids need role models and productive things to keep them occupied. My girl is a school counselor and she spent many years working in low income districts. You wouldnt believe how many children literally think that money comes from the government. They had no concept of earning money, no aspirations to go to college, and no support from home. For many kids having that teacher or that coach or that friend who believes in them and can set a positive example makes all the difference in the world. That's why training, sports, after school programs, and creating a safe productive environment at school is so important, cause they aren't learning anything good at home

Stop voting far left and this will disappear. The far left is never the answer!

You should renounce your far left religion immediately..

Stop making assumptions about people. I didn't vote for Clinton. The Left and Right both bring essential elements to our democracy. I don't think anybody should be a hardliner On either side. We need more independent objective thinkers. Not partisan puppets

 

[Slade3200]

Help me understand a little more how your ideas are going to help the poor. The black child growing up with a single mother who doesn't have the time or the will to nurture and raise her children like many other families do.

Well this goes back to my original statement about discipline, personal responsibility, accountability. The onus is on that mom and dad to raise that child properly. If they don't "have the will" to "nurture and raise their children" properly then they are legitimate pieces of shit - and the worst thing you can do is make excuses for them.

In addition, taking the "throw more money at it" left-wing ideology which you support and advocate, won't make a difference anyway. You think paying a teacher $200,000 per year is somehow going to change this child's home life? Nope.

The kid who is being pressured to join a gang outside of school.

Again...what does this have to do with education? You think paying a teacher $200,000 per year is somehow going to stop this child from joining a gang? Nope.

I don't think School Choice is going to help him much. So how does this all play out in your world?

Well a student will be exponentially less likely to join a gang if they are attending school in Beverly Hills. Surely even you won't attempt to deny that.

Why are you bringing up $200K pay for teachers? I never said a thing about that nor do I think thats what they should be paid. You think calling bad parents pieces of shit and letting the dice roll for their children is the best way to handle the situation then thats fine. I don't agree. I think providing nutritious meals at school is a good thing cause many students don't get 3 meals a day or a home made dinner when they get home from school. I think having after school programs for the children to get involved in is a good thing. I think providing better training for teachers is a good thing. I think having counselors available to the students to help with social issues, emotional issues, learning issues, coping mechanisms are all good things...

They aren't necessarily bad things. But none of them will get the child an education or keep them out of gangs. That sounds what you brought up. So what is you right solution for that?

Kids need role models and productive things to keep them occupied. My girl is a school counselor and she spent many years working in low income districts. You wouldnt believe how many children literally think that money comes from the government. They had no concept of earning money, no aspirations to go to college, and no support from home. For many kids having that teacher or that coach or that friend who believes in them and can set a positive example makes all the difference in the world. That's why training, sports, after school programs, and creating a safe productive environment at school is so important, cause they aren't learning anything good at home

What are they going to learn when their mom is collecting welfare? Government caused this problem. More government isn't the solution. Less government is the solution. Most social pathologies in this country are the result of government social programs.

You don't just cut off everybody on welfare, you need a plan. THAT would mean you would have to turn on your brain and actually think through intelligent ideas. Yelling talking points from a soapbox isn't going to get anything productive done.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't know much about it but on the surface it doesn't seem like something i'd support. i'm fine with scholarships for the black community and programs that help get minorities better education and into better schools. Diversity is important and education is the best way to help any group ascend out of poverty, but giving a SAT bump doesn't make sense to me. I haven't read much on the issue though.

If you support the idea that "diversity" is important, and that programs to help minorities bet better education an into better schools, then you support the 230 point bump.

Because that's how they get the bump.


YOu can't discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others.

haha, nice try. I can support efforts to help minority groups and also disapprove of methods. For instance I support providing government assistance to our elderly, disabled, vets, and our poor, but I think there is tremendous waste in our welfare programs and a need for reform. Just because I support these efforts doesn't mean I support the current methods. So while I do support helping minority groups get better education, I can disagree with the method of simply bumping their SAT scores because they are a minority. I don't see the effectiveness in doing that, it actually seems counter productive IMO.

They don't simply bump the SAT scores.

They have "efforts to help minority students". They work to get a more "diverse student body". They "target" minorities. ect ect ect.

The EFFECT is a 230 point sat point bump, revealed though statistical analysis of Ivy League Admission records.

You CAN'T discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against another, in a system of limited resources.


THe difference between "racism" and anti-white racism in our society, is that one is illegal and taboo, and the other is National Policy and celebrated.

I also believe you are misusing the term racism in relation to this issue. Racism involves discrimination on the belief that one race is superior to another. This situation is providing opportunity to people based on race because of systemic and cultural disadvantages that their racial group is in. It is not imposing discrimination against whites based on the belief that blacks are superior

Slavery and past injustices are often mentioned in this debate.

As is the idea that blacks opinion on such issues should be given more weight because of their history.


The idea, though rarely coherently expressed, is that whites carry a Karmic Debt due to past injustices.

And that even if current whites, who were born long after the injustices, still owe this debt.


That is a form of saying that whites are morally inferior and thus racism.

Wow, you don't honestly believe that do you? Can you really say with a straight face that a poor white guy has a harder time finding work than a poor black guy? Even with all these advantages that you oppose

 

[mamooth]

So, P@triot continues to confirm that he lied about climate scientists supposedly making failed predictions, by listing more factoids that either:
A. Aren't from climate scientists
or B. Aren't a prediction anyone made

In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald,

Not a climate scientist. Why are you lying and claiming he is?

Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich,

Not a climate scientist. Why are you lying and claiming he is?

Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist

Repeating his name won't make him a climate scientist.

On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned,

Repeating his name yet another time still won't make him a climate scientist.

In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,”

No, you're lying. Viner never said "in a few years". The reporter tacked that on. Viner's prediction was for a more distant time frame.

snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Those things he did say, but not for the time frame you're claiming.

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

Fraud on your part, as Viner never said that. You've stooped to faking quotes outright now. Proud of yourself? I suppose you are, being how your cult gives accolades to whoever lies the most brazenly.

It just keeps getting better. Now come on - give us all your usual, lame excuses (ie this wasn't a real "prediction", he's not a real "scientist", blah-blah-blah).

So, are you going to own up to your fraud here and apologize for it, or will you double down on your crazy lies, and thus ensure that you go to the Special Hell?

Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley,

And neither one is a climate scientist.

Your perfect record of total failure remains unbroken. You haven't shown a single bad prediction from a climate scientist, but you keep lying and pretending otherwise.

At this stage, even a babbling 'tard like you has to have figured out that he's been played. Why not admit it? It's not like it's not obvious to everyone, and the longer you put off the day of reckoning, the more dishonest you look.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Anyone that wants to CUT the majority of science funding in this country isn't pro science. I don't see the left doing that.

 

[P@triot]

In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,”

No, you're lying. Viner never said "in a few years". The reporter tacked that on. Viner's prediction was for a more distant time frame.

Oh snowflake...it is in the article that I attached. That's the difference between people like me (educated and informed) and people like you (a pathological liar). I always have sources for my information. You literally might add one link for every several hundred posts you make.

Here's How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been

snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Those things he did say, but not for the time frame you're claiming.

Oh snowflake...it is in the article that I attached. That's the difference between people like me (educated and informed) and people like you (a pathological liar). I always have sources for my information. You literally might add one link for every several hundred posts you make.

Here's How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

Fraud on your part, as Viner never said that. You've stooped to faking quotes outright now. Proud of yourself? I suppose you are, being how your cult gives accolades to whoever lies the most brazenly.

Oh snowflake...it is in the article that I attached. That's the difference between people like me (educated and informed) and people like you (a pathological liar). I always have sources for my information. You literally might add one link for every several hundred posts you make.

Here's How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been

I've caught you lying over and over now snowflake. Game Over.

 

[Interested Outsider]

Given the number of people on here who base their abortion policy on a Jewish fairy tale as re-told by the followers of a supposedly zombie Rabbi I find this thread perplexing.

 

[P@triot]

So, P@triot continues to confirm that he lied about climate scientists supposedly making failed predictions, by listing more factoids that either:
A. Aren't from climate scientists
or B. Aren't a prediction anyone made

Bwahahahahaha! Exactly as I predicted in post #499.

Now come on - give us all your usual, lame excuses (ie this wasn't a real "prediction", he's not a real "scientist", blah-blah-blah).

That's the thing about pathological liars - you can't walk them right into the corner that they will paint themselves into.

 

[P@triot]

Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist

Not a climate scientist. Why are you lying and claiming he is?

1. Who says he's "not" a climate scientist? You?

2. Why are all of these left-wing assholes speaking out about the climate if they are not qualified according to you? So you admit that the left is spreading disinformation? Thank you!!!

It's a appropriate that you made your screen name mammaries because I've definitely made you my bitch on USMB!

 

[mamooth]

Oh snowflake...it is in the article that I attached.

No it's not. You're lying about that. Your source doesn't show any failed predictions by climate scientists. You _always_ lie that way, pretending your links show things that they don't show. That gives you an excuse to squeal "It's in the link!", and run away like the big ol' pussy that you are.

If you can locate your balls (check your groin area, and use magnification), try addressing my points. You know, those points that made you cry and run, leaving a trail of piddle behind you

Why did you fake quotes from Dr. Viner? Here's the original article:

https://archive.is/tR0Ae#selection-1683.0-1683.189

Dr. Viner did not say "In a few years" or "Snowfall is a thing of the past", yet you directly attributed those quotes to him.

You faked quotes from Dr. Viner. That point isn't up for debate. So why did you do it?

And given you haven't been able to come up with a single failed prediction by a climate scientist, why do you keep pretending you have?

 

[mamooth]

1. Who says he's "not" a climate scientist? You?

To non-retards, the word "biologist" kind of gives it away.

Why are such a raging 'tard that you think "biologist" means "climate scientist"?

 

[P@triot]

In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University

Not a climate scientist. Why are you lying and claiming he is?

1. Who says he's "not" a climate scientist? You?

2. Why are all of these left-wing assholes speaking out about the climate if they are not qualified according to you? So you admit that the left is spreading disinformation? Thank you!!!

Note how mammy intentional omitted that George Wald was a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University even though that was in my post that he was responding to. That means this little pathological liar had to intentionally delete the man's Ivy League credentials for fear it would prove that mammy is lying. It's a appropriate that you made your screen name mammaries because I've definitely made you my bitch on USMB!

 

[toobfreak]

Science to the Left is whatever practice leads to the results which will support and justify their agenda. Anything outside that is troglodytic, voodoo religion.

 

[P@triot]

1. Who says he's "not" a climate scientist? You?

To non-retards, the word "biologist" kind of gives it away.

Why are such a raging 'tard that you think "biologist" means "climate scientist"?

Just because he's a "biologist" means he can't study the climate?

 

[mamooth]

Just because he's a "biologist" means he can't study the climate?

By that standard, everyone who reads a blog post is a "climate scientist". Hence, it's a dopey standard.

"Climate Scientist" normally refers to atmospheric physicists who specialize in studying the climate.