« The Scooter libby Trial: The Obstruction Charge | Main | Flu Stories: Bird Flu Heats Up Again »

January 12, 2007


I have a child this age with type 1 as well. I personally am at the point of moral war with the idiots that prevent science from trying to help her. Anyone that tries to prevent things from happening because of their religious beliefs is a moron and my mortal enemy. An absolute detriment to the life on this planet. We have 90% of the people on this planet that are unable to grasp that life is about living, that it has some other fantasy that accompanies it. The ones that need to go are those that put their idiotic religion first and science second.
I appeal to you that don't believe in science. Please, do away with yourselves. If you are religious, test your theory! Enjoy life without telling others how to live theirs, or go. Your beliefs have caused enough people to die needlessly all ready. You support the roadblock to human evolution, for you are it.
sorry, but this post allows me to vent a bit over something that I have had to explain to my child. It is very difficult to explain anything to anyone that denies reason. When someone uses religion to make such an explanation, they are causing harm beyond their knowledge. Their knowledge is clearly lacking to begin with, but why do they deny people that want to help? Why is our government asking people to reproduce without end or reason, but won't allow us to help those alive

no, we are a race that is doomed to fail, for our values are distorted beyond all belief. we hear talk about values, and those values are words not actions. To those of you that have values, use them. For when we can have intelligence and science valued, religion will disappear. It has no place in a world without fear.

I think it's more than the naysayers' stupidity. Cures for diabetes, cancer, and such would cut off the huge flow of money that goes to the people who profit from treating such illnesses.

The anti-corporate ethos on the left often bleeds over into this kind of conspiracy theory. It's wrong.

Lack of decent-quality science education.
Churches that preach that the Bible must be, can only be, taken literally.
And a government run by people who can't or won't think.

Q. What is the difference between a blastocyst being used for stem cell research and a blastocyst being 'disposed of'? A. The one being used for research will improve someone's life, even if indirectly.
Maybe putting it this way will get through a bit faster.

It migth also help if people who are against stem cell research are told, plainly and in public, that their opinions are pretty worthless if they aren't willing to adopt all those 'human beings' they keep talking about, and either keep them frozen (at their own cost) or have them implanted and brought to term (in a member of their own family, and at their own cost).

Yeah, I'm a bit unhappy with them.

'Pockets: The Left has fed into this as well. Think Jeremy Rifkin. (Maybe you did; I just had time to skim.) Many environmental orgs play up threats to get more adherents and money; sometimes their science is dubious as well. OTOH, some scientists took a somewhat arrogant attitude in the past that people with the temerity to ask questions were yokels who didn;t deserve the time of day. And, of course, there were things like the A and H-bomb, crazy experiments in WWII and the Cold War, etc. Plenty to go around here.

I think we, as you say, all need to step back here in light of what we know now about the ignorance of a great swath of the public and the boomerang effect of much of the tactics of the past. Scentists really have to get patient and try to explain their work. Journalists have to stop being sensationalist. people of every stripe have to stop being so self-seeking and self-promoting. The stakes are really high here. Ignorance of all kinds is really dangerous.

Why in the world would anyone in this day and age have an anti-corporate ethos? Look at all the good being done by Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR, the pharmaceutical lobbyists, the energy barons, the financial institutions, etc.

This seems a good spot to mention that I just got a press release saying that

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) will move the minute hand of the "Doomsday Clock" on January 17, 2007, the first such change to the Clock since February 2002. The major new step reflects growing concerns about a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by grave threats,...
Scientists gain credibility when they organize themselves to speak, in the public arena, about the, usually unintended, damaging consequences of basic research. The scientists who made the Bomb (because they believed their society needed it) and then spent much of their lives loosing prestige and position trying to control what science had wrought gave science a very good name.

As dangerous to public support of science as the "mad scientist" frame are the contemporary pictures of scientists as grant-grubbing academic whores for entities like tobacco companies or egotistical pitchmen. On the latter, have you all seen the drug commercial with Dr. Jarvik of artificial heart fame? This stuff undermines scentific credibility. There was a whole generation of lay folks who followed AIDS science because their lives depended on it and became quite knowledgable -- and who were violently turned off by the arrogant, stupid antics of researchers who wanted the title of discoverer of the virus that causes HIV.

Guess I am saying that scientists give their opponents a lot more ammunition than you may realize. And I say this while feeling hugely grateful for the standard of living I enjoy thanks to science.

Waas up!

That is, new and suggestive article up at National Journal. Especially if you don't like Dick Cheney.

The anti-science types would get a lot less of a hearing if neither major political party was dependent on their votes.

Perhaps a piece of strategy in reframing/debunking the 'mad-scientist' swill and the 'killing souls' verbiage would be a heavy dose of history. While pointing out simpleminded conclusions we can also magnify the narrowmindedness of the arguement. All the Greats of the past were in their own time labeled as crazy, treasonous, and atheist. Galilleo, Newton- astronomy, physics, mathematics, all condenmed in their time principlly because the Church was the politics.
And to further the debate let us do a little yellow-submarineing. Imagine infiltrating the Pro-Life lobby and begin pushing for the criminalization of in-vitro based on their very own killing babies mantra. In-vitro as Premeditated murder, worse than the frightened 15 year old going to a clinic, these people who can afford to have the procedure could also afford to bring all the little created embryoes to maturity but refuse on purely Selfish reasons. I would love to hear this rebuttal to the weak 'snowflake baby' baloney that seems to aleviate any further attacks on these people who want designer families. Pushing scientists to find ways to determine the sex and other characteristics of the embryo is not a 'slippery slope'?
The whole idea is to get inside their own arguement and begin shaking it up from the inside, nailing them to a position. One thing that is clear about the Right is their lack of empathy, unless it happens to them personally they cannot/ will not care. So labelling the in-vitro parents essencially as Selfish Abortionists (yes, very distasteful and uncharacteristic for liberals) would hit home and highlight the one very strong weakness in opposition to using embroyonic stem cells otherwise tossed away. Wasted.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad