Previous 21 - 30 Next
"gays qualify as disturbed" Not according to the best science we have on the subject. But why bother with the evidence and opinions of the most learned among us when we can go with off-the-cuff theorizing right?
"their willingness to deny children their unalienable right to both a mother and a father is obscene and is child abuse." This is barking-at-the-moon looney. No one is suggesting any such thing. How you go from letting homosexuals (who can't naturally have children anyway) get married to children being denied their parents defies reason.
"It was Christians who ended slavery in this country and it's because of Christians that laws against inter-racial marriage are done away with. You know not of what you speak." Pot-kettle. It was northern armies who ended slavery in this country, over the objections of many a Christian citing his Bible in defense of slavery. This is a matter of easily available public record. Christians also fought against inter-racial marriage. You are simply ignoring reality. "The only reason more states are recognizing homosexual "marriages" is because it is being forced on them by judges. Most people still have enough sense to know what marriage really is." Again, you are ignoring reality. Most people have sense enough to see there is no reason to freak out over gay marriage the way so many of you have, and more nad more polls and votes are showing it. You are going down, and down hard.
If they are apples and oranges, then why are the exact same arguments made in both cases? One can literally take old anti-interracial marriage arguments and replace "interacial" with "gay".
In response to:

Stormy Weather and Politics

Science Avenger Wrote: Feb 03, 2015 3:36 PM
[yawn] Nonscientist babbles on a kindergarten level about the weather, ostensibly to scientists, as if they would overlook such basics. Newsflash - they are way WAY beyond that. Sowell's arrogance that he has anything worthwhile to add to the science is exceeded only by his ignorance. He simply has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about, not about how scientists fo their work, and certainly not about the science.
In response to:

Ayn Rand At 110

Science Avenger Wrote: Feb 02, 2015 5:58 PM
For a chapter by chapter analysis of Atlas shrugged: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/series/atlas-shrugged/ It's not the book you think it is.
Well, when we toss out the votes for Perry, Santorum and Cruz (who have no chance of winning), the Unsure vote climbs to 28%, so its a pretty wide open race. But there has been no evidence in the last two elections that nominating a hardcore conservative (or a harcore liberal for that matter) would be a winning strategy. They always polled worse in the general than the actual nominees.
"One complication is the on-again-off-again nature of the Romney campaign" Well, one's campaing should reflect one's politics... But seriously, you can't be serious. Romney was one of the worst presidential candidates ever. He was up against a weak incumbant in a bad economy and still got wupped. If the GOP is going to nominate a retread, might as well run McCain again. Without the dead weight of no-brain Palin he might actually have won in 2012. The GOP needs fresh young talent, not loser retreads.
"Sarah Palin spoke well in Des Moines." Well, her mouth moved, and words did in fact come out. By that measure, Howdy Doody should get the nomination. He'd probably win more states too.
"One of the best ways to cause distrust in public health experts is for the government to politicize science. This can be seen in contentious areas like climate change, embryo research, and the beginning of human life. Experts there have infused ideology into data and have even changed or redefined words to fit their agendas. Global warming has become “climate change,” Irony meters the world over explode, as one of the people most responsible for politicizing science complains about politicized science. If you want to change that, you can stop spreading the "global warming became climate change" lie. The terms have been interchangable for decades. What do you suppose the CC in IPCC stands for?
In response to:

Shoveling Science

Science Avenger Wrote: Jan 29, 2015 10:57 AM
"... it's been no warming for the last 17. Time to grow up." Back atcha kiddo. You just committed the cherry picking fallacy, something people learn to avoid in undergrad statistics, whichmeans all your mentions of "statistical variability" are obviously something you are just parroting from something you read and didn't understand. You've no business lecturing anyone on the subject with that level of ignorance.
Previous 21 - 30 Next