• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientific American has never endorsed in a political election in 175 years. Correction: had never

I do apologize but I simply do not agree with you on anything you stated.
And so be it. My sincere thanks for your consideration and your civility. :)

I do have another point to raise. You might find it more compelling.

One of my grievances about the rise of editorializing in newspapers, news magazines, and now (apparently) science magazines is that the publishers are insulting the intelligence of the readership, possibly without realizing it. They're no longer willing to simply present a set of facts (e.g. "global warming model predicts X", "development timelines on 6 COVID vaccines", "quantum computer breaks record", "EPA study shut down due to lack of funding", etc.) and let the readers, with their unique experiences and backgrounds, reach their own reasonable conclusions on the moral, political, and personal implications of these facts.

Frankly, even a publication's choice of what stories to run and not run, what facts to include and not include, what authority to cite and not cite, grants the editors enormous editorial license to manipulate the thinking of the readership without any overt editorializing.

But this wasn't enough for hack newspapers, and then mainstream newspapers and news magazines, and now even 175-year-old institutions like SA. No, too many of their readers were too stupid to reach the conclusions they ought to be reaching. They needed to be helped along, rules be damned. So publishers started putting in more editorial pieces, more op eds, and more guest columns. When that didn't produce the desired result, they started injecting innuendo into their fact pieces. "A study released by the IPCC concludes that AGW was a likely contributor to California 2019 wildfires" became "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. Many experts suggest that the worst effects of AGW could be mitigated through carbon taxes. Just sayin'."

When that wasn't enough, they gave up the subtlety of innuendo, "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. America desperately needs carbon taxes. Carbon taxes and green energy subsidies will save America." And now that this too has (surprise, surprise) failed to persuade everybody, and public trust in the media is in the toilet, it appears that some of America's once most treasured, respected pillars of the Fourth Estate--including the NYT, CNN, Time, et al., and possibly also SA--have abandoned their mandate of journalistic objectivity entirely and are openly instructing readers how to cast their ballots. "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. So vote for Joe Biden. Joe Biden loves science. Text VOTEJOE to #55555 and get $5 off your next Scientific American subscription."

Every step of the way, they've been silently screaming at the people who bother to digest their publications: "You're too stupid to know what to think, what to conclude, or how to vote, hence we're going to tell you. Here you go, bozo."

And after taking a torch to their objectivity, their professional ethics, their reputations as neutral conveyors of information, they wonder why the public (a.k.a. their stupid readers) don't value their input any more than 10,000 other blogs, politicians, experts, and celebrities, all of who have equally strong opinions about public policy.

So unless SA repents of this wrong-headed suspension of their 175-year-old standards and ethics, I say to their editors: watch your credibility and people's trust in your objectivity go right down the crapper along with the rest of the MSM. I hope it was worth the 30 pieces of silver.
 
Last edited:
But they didn't have themselves as an example. At least we have the benifit of seeing the parallels to Hitlers rise to power and the devastating results it brought to the world; what a frightening turn of events. I never thought These Untied States could ever be this threatened and by our own president would have been unimaginable. IF/when Biden is elected it will take his whole first term just to put U.S. back on the rails. Hopefully he can get us going enough to keep up with the rest of the world so that we can eventually reassume our place as World Leader. :shock:

do not kid yourself, post Trump, even if he losses, things cannot be put back as they were

our role on the world stage is forever diminished
 
trump has a first: he led Scientific American to 'unanimously and immediately' choose to make an endorsement in a political election for the first time in 175 years. They have endorsed Joe Biden. That's how bad for science trump is.

Scientific American backs Biden with its first presidential endorsement in history [Video]

I think SA realized that a psychotic misanthrope like Trump comes along and achieves the Presidency once every....what, quarter-millennium? They figured it was probably time they acted before he set the entire world on fire. And Trump may do it yet.
 
Perhaps you see a difference between hating science and "declaring war on science." Seems like a difference without a distinction. Who is telling you that the President is trying to get an "untested" vaccine released? Do you follow science at all? All of these Pharma companies have been doing nothing but testing for several months now.

In regard to Ms. Helmuth, the 175 year history of the magazine says a different story. It's not a personal attack, it just a simple fact. She has a left wing political bias as noted with her history at Slate and the WaPo. IMHO, she has significantly devalued the magazine by making it explicitly political. Reasonable people will now question the material they publish. Is it being published because it furthers their political agenda or because it had scientific merit? It's a sad day

Done wasting time on you.

Go look up what a phase three trial is, go learn what Dr. Fauci says, go read actual media (including the WaPo), and put your personal attacks on her somewhere they belong. You don't need to reply if you think I'll read it.
 
And so be it. My sincere thanks for your consideration and your civility. :)

I do have another point to raise. You might find it more compelling.

One of my grievances about the rise of editorializing in newspapers, news magazines, and now (apparently) science magazines is that the publishers are insulting the intelligence of the readership, possibly without realizing it. They're no longer willing to simply present a set of facts (e.g. "global warming model predicts X", "development timelines on 6 COVID vaccines", "quantum computer breaks record", "EPA study shut down due to lack of funding", etc.) and let the readers, with their unique experiences and backgrounds, reach their own reasonable conclusions on the moral, political, and personal implications of these facts.

Frankly, even a publication's choice of what stories to run and not run, what facts to include and not include, what authority to cite and not cite, grants the editors enormous editorial license to manipulate the thinking of the readership without any overt editorializing.

But this wasn't enough for hack newspapers, and then mainstream newspapers and news magazines, and now even 175-year-old institutions like SA. No, too many of their readers were too stupid to reach the conclusions they ought to be reaching. They needed to be helped along, rules be damned. So publishers started putting in more editorial pieces, more op eds, and more guest columns. When that didn't produce the desired result, they started injecting innuendo into their fact pieces. "A study released by the IPCC concludes that AGW was a likely contributor to California 2019 wildfires" became "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. Many experts suggest that the worst effects of AGW could be mitigated through carbon taxes. Just sayin'."

When that wasn't enough, they gave up the subtlety of innuendo, "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. America desperately needs carbon taxes. Carbon taxes and green energy subsidies will save America." And now that this too has (surprise, surprise) failed to persuade everybody, and public trust in the media is in the toilet, it appears that some of America's once most treasured, respected pillars of the Fourth Estate--including the NYT, CNN, Time, et al., and possibly also SA--have abandoned their mandate of journalistic objectivity entirely and are openly instructing readers how to cast their ballots. "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. So vote for Joe Biden. Joe Biden loves science. Text VOTEJOE to #55555 and get $5 off your next Scientific American subscription."

Every step of the way, they've been silently screaming at the people who bother to digest their publications: "You're too stupid to know what to think, what to conclude, or how to vote, hence we're going to tell you. Here you go, bozo."

And after taking a torch to their objectivity, their professional ethics, their reputations as neutral conveyors of information, they wonder why the public (a.k.a. their stupid readers) don't value their input any more than 10,000 other blogs, politicians, experts, and celebrities, all of who have equally strong opinions about public policy.

So unless SA repents of this wrong-headed suspension of their 175-year-old standards and ethics, I say to their editors: watch your credibility and people's trust in your objectivity go right down the crapper along with the rest of the MSM. I hope it was worth the 30 pieces of silver.

Man, I've had it with the cult.

Here is their logic.

trump has a Democrat's baby taken, where he rapes and eats it publicly. He then announces he's formed an army who will go across the country rapinig and eating Democrats' babies.

A publication says, 'we normally don't endorse candidates, but this is too utterly harmful, extreme, evil, dangerous, we are compelled to endorse voting him out.'

The cult comes along and has NOT ONE WORD TO SAY AGAINST trump, but says "this fake news is politicizing the tragedy of innocent babies' suffering, they are disgusting."
 
And so be it. My sincere thanks for your consideration and your civility. :)

I do have another point to raise. You might find it more compelling.

One of my grievances about the rise of editorializing in newspapers, news magazines, and now (apparently) science magazines is that the publishers are insulting the intelligence of the readership, possibly without realizing it. They're no longer willing to simply present a set of facts (e.g. "global warming model predicts X", "development timelines on 6 COVID vaccines", "quantum computer breaks record", "EPA study shut down due to lack of funding", etc.) and let the readers, with their unique experiences and backgrounds, reach their own reasonable conclusions on the moral, political, and personal implications of these facts.

Frankly, even a publication's choice of what stories to run and not run, what facts to include and not include, what authority to cite and not cite, grants the editors enormous editorial license to manipulate the thinking of the readership without any overt editorializing.

But this wasn't enough for hack newspapers, and then mainstream newspapers and news magazines, and now even 175-year-old institutions like SA. No, too many of their readers were too stupid to reach the conclusions they ought to be reaching. They needed to be helped along, rules be damned. So publishers started putting in more editorial pieces, more op eds, and more guest columns. When that didn't produce the desired result, they started injecting innuendo into their fact pieces. "A study released by the IPCC concludes that AGW was a likely contributor to California 2019 wildfires" became "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. Many experts suggest that the worst effects of AGW could be mitigated through carbon taxes. Just sayin'."

When that wasn't enough, they gave up the subtlety of innuendo, "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. America desperately needs carbon taxes. Carbon taxes and green energy subsidies will save America." And now that this too has (surprise, surprise) failed to persuade everybody, and public trust in the media is in the toilet, it appears that some of America's once most treasured, respected pillars of the Fourth Estate--including the NYT, CNN, Time, et al., and possibly also SA--have abandoned their mandate of journalistic objectivity entirely and are openly instructing readers how to cast their ballots. "A study ... contributor to California wildfires. So vote for Joe Biden. Joe Biden loves science. Text VOTEJOE to #55555 and get $5 off your next Scientific American subscription."

Every step of the way, they've been silently screaming at the people who bother to digest their publications: "You're too stupid to know what to think, what to conclude, or how to vote, hence we're going to tell you. Here you go, bozo."

And after taking a torch to their objectivity, their professional ethics, their reputations as neutral conveyors of information, they wonder why the public (a.k.a. their stupid readers) don't value their input any more than 10,000 other blogs, politicians, experts, and celebrities, all of who have equally strong opinions about public policy.

So unless SA repents of this wrong-headed suspension of their 175-year-old standards and ethics, I say to their editors: watch your credibility and people's trust in your objectivity go right down the crapper along with the rest of the MSM. I hope it was worth the 30 pieces of silver.

Man, I've had it with the cult.

Here is their logic.

trump has a Democrat's baby taken, where he rapes and eats it publicly. He then announces he's formed an army who will go across the country rapinig and eating Democrats' babies.

A publication says, 'we normally don't endorse candidates, but this is too utterly harmful, extreme, evil, dangerous, we are compelled to endorse voting him out.'

The cult comes along and has NOT ONE WORD TO SAY AGAINST trump, but says "this fake news is politicizing the tragedy of innocent babies' suffering, they are disgusting."
 
And so be it. My sincere thanks for your consideration and your civility. :)

I do have another point to raise. You might find it more compelling.

One of my grievances about the rise of editorializing in newspapers, news magazines, and now (apparently) science magazines is that the publishers are insulting the intelligence of the readership, possibly without realizing it. They're no longer willing to simply present a set of facts (e.g. "global warming model predicts X", "development timelines on 6 COVID vaccines", "quantum computer breaks record", "EPA study shut down due to lack of funding", etc.) and let the readers, with their unique experiences and backgrounds, reach their own reasonable conclusions on the moral, political, and personal implications of these facts.



So unless SA repents of this wrong-headed suspension of their 175-year-old standards and ethics, I say to their editors: watch your credibility and people's trust in your objectivity go right down the crapper along with the rest of the MSM. I hope it was worth the 30 pieces of silver.

The way I see it (regarding this post) is that some of that is your own perception of what is happening. Trump has been accusing the media and the Democrats of being biased and that colors the thinking of many people that in effect that is what is happening. I think a lot of it is perception by the reader and not what the publications are actually doing.

Then again, the reality is that Trump has been (in my personal opinion) such a huge and negative catalyst for the nation that it is almost impossible for anyone to remain totally without any partisanship. This is the Trump's field and his guidelines and it is difficult for people to be totally impartial given that he has involved everyone in the play and given them roles to play. This is one of the reasons why I believe Trump is a huge negative to our nation. He is changing the rules of the game. As such, neither you nor him can complain given that Trump set the rules himself.

You may not have read my saying this in the past, so I will mention it to you. I am 75 years old and have never voted in my entire life. No candidate in the past was good enough or "bad" enough for me to get up and vote. I always believed that even if a candidate that won was a bad candidate that ultimately 4 or 8 years later anything that person did would be negated. Life is full of ups and downs so I accepted there would be ups and downs. Nonetheless, in Trump's case, I believe he is such a negative catalyst that if allowed to win another 4 years and institute his thinking and way of doing things that this country will forever be changed to the negative. That the next president would not be able to change it and that only a major catastrophe to the nation would change things back to where they normally are. As such, I have already registered and will vote for the first time in my life.

I think Trump is that bad.

Anyhow, and back to your post. I don't think things are as bad as you paint them but I do agree they have changed a bit to the negative. It is human nature and you can't take that away from anyone. This situation is above ethics, morals, principles and humanity because Trump has none of those and only by fighting him with the same guidelines he is using, can he be beat. This presidency is not about brains, intelligence, and rationality. We are fighting a cult ideology and rationale is not good ammunition against that.
 
But they didn't have themselves as an example. At least we have the benifit of seeing the parallels to Hitlers rise to power and the devastating results it brought to the world; what a frightening turn of events. I never thought These Untied States could ever be this threatened and by our own president would have been unimaginable.

I've always felt it was possible, but hoped we would avoid it. Unfortunately, my point has been proven.

IF/when Biden is elected it will take his whole first term just to put U.S. back on the rails. Hopefully he can get us going enough to keep up with the rest of the world so that we can eventually reassume our place as World Leader. :shock:

I don't think the US will ever resume that level of leadership. We had already really betrayed it all along - see our history of overthrowing democracies and installing dictators - but our power always relied on our economic and military strength, and I think that has permanently changed where we are on the decline as China especially is on the rise. Look at our debt and shrinking power in the world. And broken trust lasts a long time.
 
Not by violating your ethics and the editorial standards of your publication. I've otherwise addressed this point in #11 and #19.

Again, the distinction between party and party nominee is irrelevant to this debate. Political commentary has no business in a science magazine period.

An endorsement of a political candidate is ipso facto a political stand. The specific reasons given for it are irrelevant.

Science is simply knowledge--a tool to be applied, nothing more or less. It has no will, no consciousness, no moral governance. The application of knowledge (science) is dictated by codes of laws, ethics, and principles. Without these things, science is useless or, just as often, phenomenally destructive.

To argue that transgressing good laws, ethics, and principles is justifiable for sake of technological advancement is like arguing that throwing away the steering wheel, brakes, and windshield on a car to make the engine 25% larger is a good idea. It betrays a profound ignorance of how the car (science) works and why the wheel, brakes, and windshield (editorial standards of scientific publications) are indispensable.

I wish I could convince you of how important these standards are. I wish the SA editors understood it. Ah well, if wishes were horses...

That is so incredibly clueless. Things are the opposite of what you say. You have no idea of the morals, the principles, the values, the ethics of scientists. You are clueless that the enemy of principles, values, and ethics is trump. You are clueless that making this endorsement is DEFENDING principles, values, and ethics. Did you even watch the interview linked in the OP?

The mission of the magazine to spread scientific truth is UNDER ATTACK by trump spreading lies. And so they need to stand for truth, that is the mission of the magazine. You don't have ONE WORD to say about trump's lies and war on science, not one. You are clueless.
 
Done wasting time on you.

Go look up what a phase three trial is, go learn what Dr. Fauci says, go read actual media (including the WaPo), and put your personal attacks on her somewhere they belong. You don't need to reply if you think I'll read it.

Backacha
 
Science magazines have no business endorsing political candidates. I'm sorry.

Seems like they can do whatever they like.
 
Science magazines have no business endorsing political candidates. I'm sorry.

It's partisan, unethical, and wholly inconsistent with the principle of rigorous scientific objectivity. The highest calling of a science magazine is to provide the readership with facts and knowledge, while diligently avoiding telling readers what to think.

If the editors of Scientific American feel so strongly about the election, they ought to have voiced their opinions as private citizens, not by using the publication as a platform. They've cheapened and disgraced the magazine by crossing that line.

Shame on them. And shame on anyone who lauds their selling out their principles, for a meager soapbox no less.

In normal situations I agree with you but trump is so bad for science that they had to. Not only does trump not believe in science, he is getting his cultists to agree with him. Suggesting nuking a hurricane or injecting Clorox will get even the most non partisan sources to act.
 
None of these positions has any bearing on the appropriateness of a political endorsement.

If you can't understand this--if you can't understand why peer-reviewed journals eschew political commentary and why the editorship of Scientific American, for 175 years, rightly did the same--because denouncing Pres. Trump is "what is right" (as @Luckyone opines), you just don't get it.

The suicide bomber blowing up a bus for Allah is willing to sacrifice himself for "what is right". The man who burns down a research center doing animal testing is dedicated to doing "what is right".

What is truly right is to uphold the good principles and ethics that the bomber, the arsonist, and the foolish magazine editor transgress in their zeal and desperation. Our respect for the rules is the only thing that distinguishes us from these lawless, short-sighted fools.

You think this endorsement is going to make a lick of difference in the upcoming US election? All it does is sully the established reputation of the magazine and mark the editors as zealots who care more about prostituting their opinions than maintaining the editorial standards of their publication. They're short-sighted, unprincipled fools. Shame on them and anyone who condones their folly as "what is right". Pres. Trump has driven you all half mad, and that's as much your fault as it is his.

Did you just say endorsing biden is analogous to the jihad?
 
I've always felt it was possible, but hoped we would avoid it. Unfortunately, my point has been proven.

I don't think the US will ever resume that level of leadership. We had already really betrayed it all along - see our history of overthrowing democracies and installing dictators - but our power always relied on our economic and military strength, and I think that has permanently changed where we are on the decline as China especially is on the rise. Look at our debt and shrinking power in the world. And broken trust lasts a long time.

do not kid yourself, post Trump, even if he losses, things cannot be put back as they were our role on the world stage is forever diminished

Which could be a good thing for U.S. and the World. "Our ~ International" Corporations need to grow up and quit looking to U.S. to bail them out or enforce politcal and economic favors for them. Our allies need to step up and do their share, America cannot be the Worlds COP forever. BUT, we can regain our dignity as a Nation amoung Nations.

If Biden and future administrations can level the playing field (even somewhat) and make this a Government FOR, OF and BY the people again the U.S. WILL become the greatest economic engine in the world ... again. And with that, without all the international obligations we've been trying to uphold, we could dominate AGAIN on the world stage.
 
Sad, but not surprising that Ms. Helmuth chose to politicize this magazine given her history at Slate and the WaPo.

So you think it's sad. I don't care what you think. The scientists are tired of Trump and his allies disagreeing with every thing they try to do. I agree with them 100%.
 
So you think it's sad. I don't care what you think.

I'm crushed.

The scientists are tired of Trump and his allies disagreeing with every thing they try to do. I agree with them 100%.

Well, the scientists I work with don't give a **** what politicians think.
 
Man, I've had it with the cult.

Here is their logic.

trump has a Democrat's baby taken, where he rapes and eats it publicly. He then announces he's formed an army who will go across the country rapinig and eating Democrats' babies.

A publication says, 'we normally don't endorse candidates, but this is too utterly harmful, extreme, evil, dangerous, we are compelled to endorse voting him out.'

The cult comes along and has NOT ONE WORD TO SAY AGAINST trump, but says "this fake news is politicizing the tragedy of innocent babies' suffering, they are disgusting."
Don't call me a "cultist" because I assert SA should have higher editorial standards.

The following I will grant you: If the issue being addressed in the editorial was the literal kidnapping, rape, and eating of Democrats' babies--which you'll note differs somewhat from "impedance to three avenues of scientific progress during a four-year extension of Pres. Trump's tenure"--I could forgive the SA editors for throwing away 175 years of principles and tradition to instruct their readership on how to vote.
 
Don't call me a "cultist" because I assert SA should have higher editorial standards.

You demand they have lower editorial standards, and not defend science from a major war on it, and abandon their mission.

The following I will grant you: If the issue being addressed in the editorial was the literal kidnapping, rape, and eating of Democrats' babies--which you'll note differs somewhat from "impedance to three avenues of scientific progress during a four-year extension of Pres. Trump's tenure"--I could forgive the SA editors for throwing away 175 years of principles and tradition to instruct their readership on how to vote.

Well, I'm glad that you have some limit, somewhere between 'raping and eating killing babies' and 'destroying earth's climate, fighting science on Coronavirus resulting in six million Americans infected and over 200,000 killed with hundreds of thousands more to come, and going to war against science in many, many other corrupt areas.'
 
Science chooses Biden. Reality sides with him too.

Donald Trump, the human parasite, is finished.

When he is gone, no one will care.
 
The way I see it (regarding this post) is that some of that is your own perception of what is happening. Trump has been accusing the media and the Democrats of being biased and that colors the thinking of many people that in effect that is what is happening. I think a lot of it is perception by the reader and not what the publications are actually doing.

...

Anyhow, and back to your post. I don't think things are as bad as you paint them but I do agree they have changed a bit to the negative. It is human nature and you can't take that away from anyone. This situation is above ethics, morals, principles and humanity because Trump has none of those and only by fighting him with the same guidelines he is using, can he be beat. This presidency is not about brains, intelligence, and rationality. We are fighting a cult ideology and rationale is not good ammunition against that.
Please understand my position: I'm not arguing in this thread that I approve of Pres. Trump's leadership style, I condone his constant feuding with the media, or I hold him guiltless as to the increasingly polarized state of American politics.

I'm not a fan of the man or many of his key policies. I respect his office and do my best to limit the evil I speak about him. This is the most positive thing that can be said about my position re US President Donald J. Trump.

However, Pres. Trump isn't here. @Luckyone, @Craig234, @Rawley, @Luce, @COTO, et al. are here--ordinary and presumably reasonable people. The issue at hand is the conduct of the editors at Scientific American vis a vis endorsement of a political candidate.

It would satisfy me if we ordinary people could just agree that Pres. Trump's brash, unprincipled, often inflammatory conduct is by no means justification for our own similar misconduct. Nor is it justification for defending the misconduct of his many opponents in politics, in the media, or in any other arena normally bound by morals, ethics, and standards of conduct.

One's morals and ethics must not bend in response to the morals and ethics of one's elected political leader--or anyone else. Conditionally suspending these strictures not only renders them useless and vain, it always causes more harm in the long run than it saves in the short run. This is precisely why the strictures exist. It's why you'll never find me arguing for the "moral necessity" of torture or the virtues of deceiving the public "for their own good".

The SA editors' decision to throw away a wise 175-year-old policy to abstain from political endorsements is folly: brash, reactionary, and unprincipled. It disregards the perceptions of anyone who doesn't already agree with the message, it ignores precedent, and it arrogantly fails to consider its broader implications, much like a certain world leader. It smells of zealotry and desperation. Nothing justifies it, and nothing short of Craig's hypothetical scenario of a baby-raping army excuses it.

The editors' intentions and Pres. Trump's own role in bringing it about are irrelevant. We should condemn it.
 
Please understand my position: I'm not arguing in this thread that I approve of Pres. Trump's leadership style, I condone his constant feuding with the media, or I hold him guiltless as to the increasingly polarized state of American politics.

I'm not a fan of the man or many of his key policies. I respect his office and do my best to limit the evil I speak about him. This is the most positive thing that can be said about my position re US President Donald J. Trump.

However, Pres. Trump isn't here. @Luckyone, @Craig234, @Rawley, @Luce, @COTO, et al. are here--ordinary and presumably reasonable people. The issue at hand is the conduct of the editors at Scientific American vis a vis endorsement of a political candidate.

It would satisfy me if we ordinary people could just agree that Pres. Trump's brash, unprincipled, often inflammatory conduct is by no means justification for our own similar misconduct. Nor is it justification for defending the misconduct of his many opponents in politics, in the media, or in any other arena normally bound by morals, ethics, and standards of conduct.

One's morals and ethics must not bend in response to the morals and ethics of one's elected political leader--or anyone else. Conditionally suspending these strictures not only renders them useless and vain, it always causes more harm in the long run than it saves in the short run. This is precisely why the strictures exist. It's why you'll never find me arguing for the "moral necessity" of torture or the virtues of deceiving the public "for their own good".

The SA editors' decision to throw away a wise 175-year-old policy to abstain from political endorsements is folly: brash, reactionary, and unprincipled. It disregards the perceptions of anyone who doesn't already agree with the message, it ignores precedent, and it arrogantly fails to consider its broader implications, much like a certain world leader. It smells of zealotry and desperation. Nothing justifies it, and nothing short of Craig's hypothetical scenario of a baby-raping army excuses it.

The editors' intentions and Pres. Trump's own role in bringing it about are irrelevant. We should condemn it.
There is a time for polite disagreement. This isn’t it. I applaud SA’s decision to speak out against Trump.
 
You demand they have lower editorial standards, and not defend science from a major war on it, and abandon their mission.
This would be their mission if they were "Skeptic", "Four Winds", or some other rag prostituting itself as a pop science magazine.

If they're a legitimate science publication, their mission is to present scientific knowledge to the public without the corruption of editorializing or political activism.

Well, I'm glad that you have some limit, somewhere between 'raping and eating killing babies' and 'destroying earth's climate, fighting science on Coronavirus resulting in six million Americans infected and over 200,000 killed with hundreds of thousands more to come, and going to war against science in many, many other corrupt areas.'
Your argument ignores the unpalatable yet undeniable fact that the warm body who occupies the White House for the next four years will have (at most) a marginal impact on the number of people who die of the coronavirus and the progress/regress of climate change.

The idea that this one election in one industrialized nation is the pivot between life and death, prosperity and ruin, unity and disunity is a grand delusion 45 months in the making.

Yes, there is some importance to it. But you Americans go so far down your two-party rabbit hole, with your delusions of the whole world revolving around your elections and the pathetic drama that precedes them, I wonder if some of you don't actually believe that the fate of humanity sits on whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden wins in November. :roll:
 
Please understand my position: I'm not arguing in this thread that I approve of Pres. Trump's leadership style, I condone his constant feuding with the media, or I hold him guiltless as to the increasingly polarized state of American politics.

I'm not a fan of the man or many of his key policies. I respect his office and do my best to limit the evil I speak about him. This is the most positive thing that can be said about my position re US President Donald J. Trump.

However, Pres. Trump isn't here. @Luckyone, @Craig234, @Rawley, @Luce, @COTO, et al. are here--ordinary and presumably reasonable people. The issue at hand is the conduct of the editors at Scientific American vis a vis endorsement of a political candidate.

It would satisfy me if we ordinary people could just agree that Pres. Trump's brash, unprincipled, often inflammatory conduct is by no means justification for our own similar misconduct. Nor is it justification for defending the misconduct of his many opponents in politics, in the media, or in any other arena normally bound by morals, ethics, and standards of conduct.

One's morals and ethics must not bend in response to the morals and ethics of one's elected political leader--or anyone else. Conditionally suspending these strictures not only renders them useless and vain, it always causes more harm in the long run than it saves in the short run. This is precisely why the strictures exist. It's why you'll never find me arguing for the "moral necessity" of torture or the virtues of deceiving the public "for their own good".

The SA editors' decision to throw away a wise 175-year-old policy to abstain from political endorsements is folly: brash, reactionary, and unprincipled. It disregards the perceptions of anyone who doesn't already agree with the message, it ignores precedent, and it arrogantly fails to consider its broader implications, much like a certain world leader. It smells of zealotry and desperation. Nothing justifies it, and nothing short of Craig's hypothetical scenario of a baby-raping army excuses it.

The editors' intentions and Pres. Trump's own role in bringing it about are irrelevant. We should condemn it.

When established and respected institutions like the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department are turned into garbage in spite of good people doing the jobs they are supposed to do and have done well all of their lives because the leader has changed the rules, such injustice cannot be fought by established ways, simple because the bad people are "in charge of the very institutions that in the past have been the ones that protected us. Simply stated, you cannot get justice in court if the judge has been paid off not matter if you are 100% right in what you have done. You will go to jail or be executed and in jail or dead, there is nothing you can do. Simply stated, you cannot depend on justice when justice is corrupt.

What this company did is fight injustice in the only way they can do it. Maintaining non partisanship would mean giving up and not fighting. They did everything they could to prevent politics being involved as they stood to one man and not a party. There was nothing in their statement where they said anything about the politics involved. This was just a decision between defending science or not defending it.

I will not respond to you again on this. I already stated that I don't agree and my non agreement is not 90%, not 95% and not even 99%. I disagree with you 100% and there is nothing you can say or do that will make me change my mind.
 
Your argument ignores the unpalatable yet undeniable fact that the warm body who occupies the White House for the next four years will have (at most) a marginal impact on the number of people who die of the coronavirus and the progress/regress of climate change.

The only corruption is yours. Go watch the interview and she will tell you their mission.
 
When established and respected institutions like the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department are turned into garbage in spite of good people doing the jobs they are supposed to do and have done well all of their lives because the leader has changed the rules, such injustice cannot be fought by established ways, simple because the bad people are "in charge of the very institutions that in the past have been the ones that protected us. Simply stated, you cannot get justice in court if the judge has been paid off not matter if you are 100% right in what you have done. You will go to jail or be executed and in jail or dead, there is nothing you can do. Simply stated, you cannot depend on justice when justice is corrupt.
O.... kay. What any of this has to do with our discussion?

What this company did is fight injustice in the only way they can do it. Maintaining non partisanship would mean giving up and not fighting. They did everything they could to prevent politics being involved as they stood to one man and not a party. There was nothing in their statement where they said anything about the politics involved. This was just a decision between defending science or not defending it.
You make it sound as though their mandate is the technocratic equivalent of Salafism: waging holy war on global warming unbelievers, spreading the word of COVISlam and slaying the heathen until all the world is brought into subjection under a glorious new caliphate.

I guess I can't change your mind, but at least this explains why our conclusions are so different. :coffeepap

I will not respond to you again on this. I already stated that I don't agree and my non agreement is not 90%, not 95% and not even 99%. I disagree with you 100% and there is nothing you can say or do that will make me change my mind.
Which is precisely how 100% of Scientific American readers not intending to vote for Joe Biden will respond to SA's selling out for a techno-holy-war opinion dump.

Ah well, another glorious martyr for the war. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom