The left's rejection of science

[Wyatt earp]

This is funny

 

[Correll]

IF the discrimination is based on race, it is reasonable to call it racist. And it is.

It is absolutely NOT reasonable to call it racist. It doesn't fit the definition nor does it align with the spirit of the term.

Preferential treatment is another way of saying "favors". Don't play semantic games.

The documented reality of the 230 point bonus blacks get, is proof that whatever ever few whites might try to give "preferential treatment" to whites, they are VASTLY OUT WEIGHTED by a system, and laws, and a culture that celebrates diversity, that fears lawsuits, that tries to make up for past injustice, BY MASSIVE DISCRIMINATION in favor of blacks/against whites.

I already responded with my feelings about the SAT bump, i don't think that is a good method to use to help enrollment. We were discussing general policies that support blacks and minorities. I hope that we evolve to a future where we ween off all these policies and we live in a more free, fair, accepting and diverse society, but we are in a transition and where imbalances are found then it is appropriate to institute some temporary policies to try and help the problems.

And I responded to you that, they don't actually hand out a 230 point stat bonus, but instead do all the stuff you support, and that that the result is an effective 230 point bonus, based on race.

AND that proves that your belief system that the system and/or white favor whites, is the complete opposite of reality.


You support a system of programs that is purposefully harmfully to whites, to benefit blacks, all based on race.

 

[Correll]

I am by far the most pro-science person on this board and would triple the funding if I had my way....I am a leftist. The right seems to be very blind to the reality that they'll kill most science in this nation and replace it with fucking religion.

Your words are delusional.

 

[RealDave]

Nowhere is the radicalization of the left more prevalent than in their rejection of science (whether it is biology, climate, etc,). There is a new story almost daily about the left completely rejecting scientific fact in favor of embracing their feelings about a subject.

Wendy Davis continued that left-wing trend recently when she called life as beginning at the moment of conception, “absurd”. It's nice to see the Twitter responses reflect that fact that Americans still do understand and accept science.

View attachment 124027

Wendy Davis claims life doesn’t start at conception — then Ben Shapiro gives her quick history lesson

A lot of people believe that life does not begin at conception. Exactly when does a fetus become a person? Is it the "breathe of life" like in the Bible? Is it at conception? Is it when the hearty starts beating? Is it when there is brain function?

This has nothing to do with science. Science describes the stages of development. Science can say when the fetus can sustain itself outside the womb. Science does not say a fertilized egg is person.

After conception, the fertilized egg must travel down the tubs & attach to the womb wall. This fails to happen near half the time naturally. Should we arrest those women for failing that human life?

 

[P@triot]

This has nothing to do with science.

And with that one sentence, the premise of this thread is proven. Thank you.

 

[guno]

Bible literalists have good reason to feel threatened by modern science.

Former Christian Fundamentalist: How Science Made Me Lose My Religion

 

[Slade3200]

IF the discrimination is based on race, it is reasonable to call it racist. And it is.

It is absolutely NOT reasonable to call it racist. It doesn't fit the definition nor does it align with the spirit of the term.

Preferential treatment is another way of saying "favors". Don't play semantic games.

The documented reality of the 230 point bonus blacks get, is proof that whatever ever few whites might try to give "preferential treatment" to whites, they are VASTLY OUT WEIGHTED by a system, and laws, and a culture that celebrates diversity, that fears lawsuits, that tries to make up for past injustice, BY MASSIVE DISCRIMINATION in favor of blacks/against whites.

I already responded with my feelings about the SAT bump, i don't think that is a good method to use to help enrollment. We were discussing general policies that support blacks and minorities. I hope that we evolve to a future where we ween off all these policies and we live in a more free, fair, accepting and diverse society, but we are in a transition and where imbalances are found then it is appropriate to institute some temporary policies to try and help the problems.

And I responded to you that, they don't actually hand out a 230 point stat bonus, but instead do all the stuff you support, and that that the result is an effective 230 point bonus, based on race.

AND that proves that your belief system that the system and/or white favor whites, is the complete opposite of reality.


You support a system of programs that is purposefully harmfully to whites, to benefit blacks, all based on race.

As long as cultural and systemic disparagies exist then of course I support temporary measures to help bring up those who need it.

 

[Correll]

IF the discrimination is based on race, it is reasonable to call it racist. And it is.

It is absolutely NOT reasonable to call it racist. It doesn't fit the definition nor does it align with the spirit of the term.

Preferential treatment is another way of saying "favors". Don't play semantic games.

The documented reality of the 230 point bonus blacks get, is proof that whatever ever few whites might try to give "preferential treatment" to whites, they are VASTLY OUT WEIGHTED by a system, and laws, and a culture that celebrates diversity, that fears lawsuits, that tries to make up for past injustice, BY MASSIVE DISCRIMINATION in favor of blacks/against whites.

I already responded with my feelings about the SAT bump, i don't think that is a good method to use to help enrollment. We were discussing general policies that support blacks and minorities. I hope that we evolve to a future where we ween off all these policies and we live in a more free, fair, accepting and diverse society, but we are in a transition and where imbalances are found then it is appropriate to institute some temporary policies to try and help the problems.

And I responded to you that, they don't actually hand out a 230 point stat bonus, but instead do all the stuff you support, and that that the result is an effective 230 point bonus, based on race.

AND that proves that your belief system that the system and/or white favor whites, is the complete opposite of reality.


You support a system of programs that is purposefully harmfully to whites, to benefit blacks, all based on race.

As long as cultural and systemic disparagies exist then of course I support temporary measures to help bring up those who need it.

1. Even though it is racial discrimination against whites. Got it.

2. WHat makes you think that this is temporary?

 

[RealDave]

This has nothing to do with science.

And with that one sentence, the premise of this thread is proven. Thank you.

This has nothing to do with science.

And with that one sentence, the premise of this thread is proven. Thank you.

Science does not determine what one believes. Science does show the various stages of growth & development of a fetus.

Since you believe science has made that determination, what is it?

 

[P@triot]

This has nothing to do with science.

And with that one sentence, the premise of this thread is proven. Thank you.

Science does not determine what one believes.

And with that sentence, the premise of this thread is further strengthened. Science is not up for "beliefs". Unless of course...that one rejects it.

 

[P@triot]

Since you believe science has made that determination, what is it?

It's called "conception". A fetus even has its own unique DNA (proven - once again - by science).

 

[Slade3200]

IF the discrimination is based on race, it is reasonable to call it racist. And it is.

It is absolutely NOT reasonable to call it racist. It doesn't fit the definition nor does it align with the spirit of the term.

Preferential treatment is another way of saying "favors". Don't play semantic games.

The documented reality of the 230 point bonus blacks get, is proof that whatever ever few whites might try to give "preferential treatment" to whites, they are VASTLY OUT WEIGHTED by a system, and laws, and a culture that celebrates diversity, that fears lawsuits, that tries to make up for past injustice, BY MASSIVE DISCRIMINATION in favor of blacks/against whites.

I already responded with my feelings about the SAT bump, i don't think that is a good method to use to help enrollment. We were discussing general policies that support blacks and minorities. I hope that we evolve to a future where we ween off all these policies and we live in a more free, fair, accepting and diverse society, but we are in a transition and where imbalances are found then it is appropriate to institute some temporary policies to try and help the problems.

And I responded to you that, they don't actually hand out a 230 point stat bonus, but instead do all the stuff you support, and that that the result is an effective 230 point bonus, based on race.

AND that proves that your belief system that the system and/or white favor whites, is the complete opposite of reality.


You support a system of programs that is purposefully harmfully to whites, to benefit blacks, all based on race.

As long as cultural and systemic disparagies exist then of course I support temporary measures to help bring up those who need it.

1. Even though it is racial discrimination against whites. Got it.

2. WHat makes you think that this is temporary?

1. Glad you finally get it
2. I don't see a need for permimant laws to fix what will hopefully be a temporary problem

 

[RealDave]

This has nothing to do with science.

And with that one sentence, the premise of this thread is proven. Thank you.

Science does not determine what one believes.

And with that sentence, the premise of this thread is further strengthened. Science is not up for "beliefs". Unless of course...that one rejects it.

You're a dick. A belief, like the existence of God, is NOT science.

The only thing you have proved is your stupidity.

So, tell me, when does science say a fetus become a human being. I asked before & you ran away.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Life existed before conception, hence life can't start at conception.

Correct, sir. Additionally, Life is an unalienable right. And our Constitution passes our rights (including the right to Life) to our posterity. Our unborn.

An example of this concept is this. Consider a husband and wife are driving on the road. The woman is pregnant. The car crashes and the husband dies. The law there is that the unborn child is the legal heir to the father's estate. The unborn child is recognized as a person with rights. The reason for this, again, is that our Constitution passes our rights to our posterity. Again, our unborn children.

That said, there are times when the unfortunate medical decision to abort a child must be made.

 

[RodISHI]

This is a great article guno as it describes your religion of hating baby step christians to a tee. You and some of the christians plus many others who do not believe by the spirit of God appear to be in the same boat. How'd that happen? Study Finds Link Between Brain Damage and Religious Fundamentalism

 

[mamooth]

An example of this concept is this. Consider a husband and wife are driving on the road. The woman is pregnant. The car crashes and the husband dies. The law there is that the unborn child is the legal heir to the father's estate.

A fetus can't inherit anything, as the law does not recognize a fetus as a person. Sich inheritance can only happen after birth.

 

[Natural Citizen]

An example of this concept is this. Consider a husband and wife are driving on the road. The woman is pregnant. The car crashes and the husband dies. The law there is that the unborn child is the legal heir to the father's estate.

A fetus can't inherit anything, as the law does not recognize a fetus as a person. Sich inheritance can only happen after birth.

Unfortunately, you're incorrect. Such rulings have been made, my friend.

 

[mamooth]

Unfortunately, you're incorrect. Such rulings have been made, my friend.

Please point to them for us.

 

[LaDexter]

A fetus can't inherit anything, as the law does not recognize a fetus as a person. Sich inheritance can only happen after birth

Takes one to know one...

LOL!!!


Mammooooo's personal wealth comes from three sources....


1. inheritance
2. deliberately false sex harass lawsuits settled primarily out of court
3. multiple government checks for absolutely nothing except posting BS online

 

[regent]

Is it true that only 6% of scientists are Republicans?