Rob's House Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=415 Yeah, yeah, I know half you guys will attack the writer rather than the message, but this column nails it. A few excerpts: In 1988, ABC's "20/20" claimed the CDC had discovered a shocking upsurge of heterosexual infections on college campuses. It struck no one as odd that 28 of the 30 infections had occurred in men (with alphabetized spice racks and at least three cats, one named Blanche). Alar is a perfectly safe substance that had been used on apples since 1968 both to ripen and preserve the fruit. It made fresh fruit more accessible by allowing fruit pickers to make one sweep through the apple grove, producing ripe, fresh fruit to be distributed widely and cheaply. But after hearing the blood-chilling testimony of Streep, hysterical soccer moms across America hopped in their Volvos, dashed to their children's schools and ripped the apples from the little ones' lunch boxes. "Delicious, McIntosh and Granny Smith" were added to "Hitler, Stalin and Mao" as names that will live in infamy. The EPA proposed banning alar based on a study that involved pumping tens of thousands times more alar into rats than any human could possibly consume, and observing the results. The rats died -- of poisoning, not tumors – but the EPA banned it anyway. Poor people went back to eating Twinkies instead of healthy fresh fruit. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization advised against an alar ban and Europeans continued to eat fruit with alar in their nice warm houses powered by nuclear energy (halted in the U.S. thanks to the important work of Dr. Jackson Browne and Dr. Bonnie Raitt). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Personal politics and ideology influencing scientific research is not a novel topic on this board. This thread will eventually degenerate to a discussion on "Global Warming" AGAIN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Personal politics and ideology influencing scientific research is not a novel topic on this board. This thread will eventually degenerate to a discussion on "Global Warming" AGAIN! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Well the EPA has considered adding ethylene to the list of carcinogens simply because it ripens fruit. (Fortunately that didn't get very far.) So some of their other decisions haven't been terribly surprising. Though I still haven't seen any legitimate justification from them for regulating CO2 other than Bush misstating in a debate against Gore that CO2 (rather than CO) was a pollutant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 She makes a good point about the politicizing of AIDS, although the phony scare tactics toward the heterosexual community had more to do with funding than being PC. Of course, no one in the 80s believed that crap anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I'm not sure what her point is exactly. Somebody please enlighten me. AIDS in the 80's? Ok. Irradiated apples? Fair enough I guess - but that's pretty random. What's she trying to prove - conservatives are carrying the flag for science? If so, that's a !@#$ing joke! Incidentally, that picture of Ms. Coulter looks like it was probably taken in the 80's, so the AIDS thing fits right in I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Incidentally, that picture of Ms. Coulter looks like it was probably taken in the 80's, so the AIDS thing fits right in I guess. Hey baldy your avatar is from when you still had hair so you shouldn't complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Hey baldy your avatar is from when you still had hair so you shouldn't complain. Or IS it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 I'm not sure what her point is exactly. Somebody please enlighten me. AIDS in the 80's? Ok. Irradiated apples? Fair enough I guess - but that's pretty random. What's she trying to prove - conservatives are carrying the flag for science? If so, that's a !@#$ing joke! Incidentally, that picture of Ms. Coulter looks like it was probably taken in the 80's, so the AIDS thing fits right in I guess. The point is that the very people who tout "science" ad nauseum and berate the right for rejecting "science" don't give a flying !@#$ about science, or empirical data, or following the scientific method. They just get a guy with the title of "scientist" to PARROT their retardation. Then she supports it with amusing anecdotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 The point is that the very people who tout "science" ad nauseum and berate the right for rejecting "science" don't give a flying !@#$ about science, or empirical data, or following the scientific method. They just get a guy with the title of "scientist" to PARROT their retardation. Then she supports it with amusing anecdotes. Amusing anecdotes from 20-30 years ago. It's like talking about how unsafe nuclear energy is because I can think of three accidents in the past 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 The point is that the very people who tout "science" ad nauseum and berate the right for rejecting "science" don't give a flying !@#$ about science, or empirical data, or following the scientific method. They just get a guy with the title of "scientist" to PARROT their retardation. Then she supports it with amusing anecdotes. If the point had been "politics corrupts science"...then that would have been a valid point. Unfortunately, people won't look past the source. Which is only correct, since the source decided to take the above perfectly valid point and make political hay out of it, without even seeing the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 But what about the polar bears and the ice cubes and, and the children's future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 But what about the polar bears and the ice cubes and, and the children's future Well that's a scientific argument if I ever saw one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Well that's a scientific argument if I ever saw one! Sadly, "But think of the children!" passes for science these days. If it didn't, Jenny McCarthy would have disappeared by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Sadly, "But think of the children!" passes for science these days. If it didn't, Jenny McCarthy would have disappeared by now. She's the lowest form of ignorant as far as I'm concerned - her Mommy Instinct even has a body count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 She's the lowest form of ignorant as far as I'm concerned - her Mommy Instinct even has a body count. She's an extremely common form of ignorant - the whole "even if there's only a small chance I'm right, the risk/reward is too great to act as though I'm wrong." That's basically the foundation of every instance of bad science of pseudoscience in modern history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 She's the lowest form of ignorant as far as I'm concerned - her Mommy Instinct even has a body count. I don't really care what you guys say because It's scientifically proven that when I drain my blood I feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 If the point had been "politics corrupts science"...then that would have been a valid point. Unfortunately, people won't look past the source. Which is only correct, since the source decided to take the above perfectly valid point and make political hay out of it, without even seeing the irony. It's a valid point [ir]regardless. I'm not claiming the left has exlusive right to claiming scientific authority where none exists, but they've definitely have the majority share. They not only claim their undying allegiance to Science, but accuse anyone who doubts their dogma as heretics who reject him, with great regularity. If you don't believe me sit through 10 minutes of Bill Maher (if you can stomach it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I don't really care what you guys say because It's scientifically proven that when I drain my blood I feel better. Please drain away. It's a valid point [ir]regardless. I'm not claiming the left has exlusive right to claiming scientific authority where none exists, but they've definitely have the majority share. They not only claim their undying allegiance to Science, but accuse anyone who doubts their dogma as heretics who reject him, with great regularity. If you don't believe me sit through 10 minutes of Bill Maher (if you can stomach it). Then why not bring up some recent examples if the Right is so pro-science and so very interested in the Scientific Method? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Then why not bring up some recent examples if the Right is so pro-science and so very interested in the Scientific Method? That has absolutely nothing to do with what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts