-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Candidates on science
- Thread starter zzzz
- Start date
CycloWizard
Lifer
You can't say anything without being condescending, can you? Sad that you'd rate me as a Bush zealot, yet I'd wager I understand more on this issue than you do.
Several of those questions could have been answered with a simple yes or no. 🙂
I loved Bush's response to the creation "science" question. My, my he toned down his rhetoric. Kerry should have stopped after the first sentence.
All in all, I'd say Kerry is more environmentally friendly, but not by a large margin.
Bush and Kerry both goofed up the obesity question, though Bush dropped the ball and Kerry did an end run.
Their answers to the space program question weren't very enlightening, IMHO.
-Robert
I loved Bush's response to the creation "science" question. My, my he toned down his rhetoric. Kerry should have stopped after the first sentence.
All in all, I'd say Kerry is more environmentally friendly, but not by a large margin.
Bush and Kerry both goofed up the obesity question, though Bush dropped the ball and Kerry did an end run.
Their answers to the space program question weren't very enlightening, IMHO.
-Robert
From CycloWizard-
"You can't say anything without being condescending, can you? Sad that you'd rate me as a Bush zealot, yet I'd wager I understand more on this issue than you do."
So explain the scientific foundation of abstinence only sex-ed for American teens, or that same abstinence only requirement for funding of African Anti-AIDS programs... Explain how the follow up methodology of the CDC "programs that work" was somehow inferior to the exit poll now employed with abstinence only programs...
"You can't say anything without being condescending, can you? Sad that you'd rate me as a Bush zealot, yet I'd wager I understand more on this issue than you do."
So explain the scientific foundation of abstinence only sex-ed for American teens, or that same abstinence only requirement for funding of African Anti-AIDS programs... Explain how the follow up methodology of the CDC "programs that work" was somehow inferior to the exit poll now employed with abstinence only programs...
LordMagnusKain
Banned
yes, he did have trouble with people attributing his views, that disagreed with those who presumed to know all at his time, saying that Galileo's views where ideologically shaped.
you are spouting ethically ignorant political drivel
you are aware that many don?t want to help fund the murder of human children, right? You are aware that federal research is done on stem-cells from dead children already, right?
Any idea what it is to have a reasonable difference of opinion and respect for the opposing side?
No?
I didn?t think so.
CycloWizard
Lifer
The science behind teaching abstinence is simple. If you don't have sex, you can't get knocked up or contract STDs. It's disingenuous at best to teach people that using condoms will make them 100% safe, as this is utterly false.
Too bad this isn't even mentioned in the link - feel free to provide sources for what you're saying, or to stay on topic rather than try to find an area that I can't debate with you (hint: this isn't it).
I'm not arguing with teaching abstinence, Cyclowizard, I'm arguing with the effectiveness and scientific basis for abstinence-only programs.
http://democrats.reform.house....example_abstinence.htm
Much the same obviously applies to AIDS prevention, as well.
I haven't noticed any scientific sorts claiming that condoms provide 100% protection, either, even though the abstinence only crowd usually implies that folks do.
" It's disingenuous at best to teach people that using condoms will make them 100% safe, as this is utterly false."
That would be true, if it were actually happening...
http://democrats.reform.house....example_abstinence.htm
Much the same obviously applies to AIDS prevention, as well.
I haven't noticed any scientific sorts claiming that condoms provide 100% protection, either, even though the abstinence only crowd usually implies that folks do.
" It's disingenuous at best to teach people that using condoms will make them 100% safe, as this is utterly false."
That would be true, if it were actually happening...
CycloWizard
Lifer
As I said, this really isn't on-topic, as it wasn't mentioned in the article. If you want to have a discussion on the subject, feel free to start another topic. I can tell you how misinformation from a 'scientist' led to the sexual revolution and why people now feel that they shouldn't feel bound to practice abstinence based on their 'animal' nature.