I'm sorry my if my opinion offends you. It's how I feel. Look at the article in the OP. All it does is ridicule liberals. If all the article did was ridicule conservatives I'd say that it had an extreme left wing bias.
One article critical of "liberals" makes the entire enterprise "extreme right-wing"?
What actually offends me is sloppy thinking like that. Chances are, you have very little familiarity with NR at all.
Feel free to prove me wrong and build a cogent case, though.
One article critical of "liberals" makes the entire enterprise "extreme right-wing"?
What actually offends me is sloppy thinking like that. Chances are, you have very little familiarity with NR at all.
Feel free to prove me wrong and build a cogent case, though.
Ok, thanks. Have a great evening.
Any article that starts out Science = Religion, is certain to be stupid RW garbage.
So I'm right, and you have nothing.
Yep, you're right. Hard right.
Apparently "hard right" is simply your term for anyone who says something you disagree with.
Apparently "hard right" is simply your term for anyone who says something you disagree with.
On the contrary, I'd say the main idea is here:
In essence, he's saying that many people on the left say they're all about facts, evidence, empirical data, etc. but only when it supports their political opinions. If the scientific facts don't support their political opinions, they'll go out of their way to ridicule, criticize, manipulate and disregard scientific facts. Therefore, their top priority isn't facts -- it's belief.
Worried about the humanity of an unborn child? Concerned that fetuses have their own blood types and their own DNA? Stop it! You’re quoting science, not Science[emoji769]! Wondering how it is that a genetic male is actually a woman? You’re worrying about science, not Science[emoji769]!
The Nazis were famously pro-science, declaring that science itself mandated the killing of the “unfit” for the strengthening of the race; their racism was supposedly scientific.
1. It's BS and more of your BS.
2. Really?
Hey, I was ready to wish you a nice evening and call it a night. If you want to keep baiting me I'm going to respond in kind.
I really think the line between "hard" or "far" right or left is mythical. It is like Bigfoot, lots of people claim to see it, but in different places, and it looks different to each of them.
Quote me when you're actually interested in discussing the article, k?
Any post by you is not to be taken seriously. Cool story, brah.
Or you could demonstrate that you know a thing about NR, but you don't.
Quote me when you're actually interested in discussing the article, k?
You seem to be missing the point of the article. I'll repeat it again:
He's not equating science to religion -- he's making a very clear distinction between the two. He used the example of a transgender person. The scientific facts are that a man dressed as a woman is still a man and always will be a man. What is the response from people on the left when someone says that? They vehemently disagree with scientific facts. They believe he's a woman - so he's a woman. That's not science.
Wondering how it is that a genetic male is actually a woman? You’re worrying about science, not Science™!
No, that's not what he was saying, spuddy. He's saying that some liberals believe things that aren't backed up by science, but they still claim that it's science. Hence, the cheeky "TM" notation.
Worried about the humanity of an unborn child? Concerned that fetuses have their own blood types and their own DNA? Stop it! You’re quoting science, not Science™! Wondering how it is that a genetic male is actually a woman? You’re worrying about science, not Science™!
Even if you accept the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate that sea levels will rise by two feet over the course of the rest of the century and the temperature will rise about 7 degrees Fahrenheit, there is reason to question, as Oren Cass points out, whether or not massive government intervention is necessary or even justifiable.
Who are you to talk about another poster being taken seriously, Harshaw? How sweet of you to think you are coming to Josie's rescue .
I disagree.
Any article that starts out Science = Religion, is certain to be stupid RW garbage.
Great. Prove it.
I don't recall mentioning Josie.
These are questions of definition, not of science. He's angry liberals use a different definition of humanity and gender to him. He's not questioning the basis of their definition.
He doesn't agree with liberal policy, he specifically states that "even if you accept" the science, he doesn't like big government. That's nothing to do with the science of global warming, it's the liberal response he disagrees with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?