NSFW Democrats are anti-science

Nov 2010
23,156
14,835
The right takes many deserved hits for ignoring science in favor of politics, but as this article proves, so does the left. Both extremes have different agendas, so they tend to pick and choose which science to believe and which to ignore in order to push their political agendas.

Column: GOP might be anti-science, but so are Democrats
This is true, and equally appalling. Ive been in many arguments correcting all the ignorance and misconceptions,even with friends, who most of them are liberal themselves. But I do see a clear difference, unless I'm mistaken. But the democrats don't campaign on these anti-science issues, they don't get elected on it,and frankly I don't really hear the democratic politicians ever mentioning it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HenryPorter

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
52,468
39,589
Pennsylvania, USA
Well, though it's not a representative statement, I can proudly say that I'm a democrat who is pro-vaccination, pro-nuclear technology*, and strongly anti-PETA.



* Until something safer and equally productive is discovered. I don't like nuclear power, but it's the best option available for now.
 
Aug 2010
29,683
2,134
See you in a new existence!
This is true, and equally appalling. Ive been in many arguments correcting all the ignorance and misconceptions,even with friends, who most of them are liberal themselves. But I do see a clear difference, unless I'm mistaken. But the democrats don't campaign on these anti-science issues, they don't get elected on it,and frankly I don't really hear the democratic politicians ever mentioning it.
Thanks for helping to educate your fellow Liberals, but disagree that Democratic politicians don't campaign on it. They are happy to campaign using the blame-game on anti-science Republicans. Clearly the vast majority of nuclear power plant protestors are Democratic. Does anyone really think this doesn't influence their elected representatives when it comes to election time?

The same goes for other issues mentioned such as genetic engineering, PETA and the excesses in global warming predictions. Yes, I know the globe is warming up and I know it's a problem, but those running around like Chicken Little after seeing the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" aren't anymore scientific than those who deny it.
 

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
52,468
39,589
Pennsylvania, USA
How often do Democratic politicians speak out against vaccines or nuclear power? Or endorse PETA ideology?
 
Jun 2011
10,624
3,247
In a better place than u
Why would divine post a biased hit-piece against "libruls"?
The ...ahem....USA today journalist didn't make a case that vaccine skeptics are progressives.
If some are, blame the conservatives...they're the ones that consistently lie to the public and cover up public health hazards and fight against oversight and regulation. They created the atmosphere of mistrust. Whether it's food, medicine or products like cars. There are still conservatives who say that rear-mounted gas tanks and cigarettes aren't dangerous.
Genetically modified foods? I don't trust it, and there's alot of scientists that don't either. That's why govt's have laws that forbid GM crops from being planted and grown close to non-GM ones...tho' thanks to the big ag folks (conservatives) that's been a failure.
We don't know the eventual effects of GM foods.
PETA? They aren't mainstream liberals...and additionally they don't oppose ALL animal safety trials...just the ones that result in pain, misery and death for animals. I support their argument for better treatment of chickens, cuz I know how chickens are raised on the big farms. Ignored by the right is the good that PETA has done. We've benefited in many ways because of them.
The author of the article is just a conservative hack taking transparent potshots at "those tree-hugging, latte-drinking libruls"...he's not making any valid points about how libruls are just as anti-science as conservatives...that's turnspeak...false equivalency.
Conservatives OWN the anti-science, anti-education, anti-art territory.
This is something you'll never see a liberal do....

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HenryPorter
Aug 2010
29,683
2,134
See you in a new existence!
How often do Democratic politicians speak out against vaccines or nuclear power? Or endorse PETA ideology?
I give up. How often? Better yet, how often do Democratic politicians support more nuclear power plants to reduce global warming and animal testing to create new and cheaper cures for our ill and infirm?
 

Rasselas

Moderator
Feb 2010
72,645
50,371
USA
The biggest flaw in the comparison from the article (other than the thin evidence) is that Democrats don't actually try to promote legislation that is anti-vaccine, anti-GM foods, or anti-science. The article recounts the actions of some extremists, who happen to be on the left, but their extremism doesn't end up as law, mostly. With Republicans, it does.
 

Rasselas

Moderator
Feb 2010
72,645
50,371
USA
The biggest flaw in the comparison from the article (other than the thin evidence) is that Democrats don't actually try to promote legislation that is anti-vaccine, anti-GM foods, or anti-science. The article recounts the actions of some extremists, who happen to be on the left, but their extremism doesn't end up as law, mostly. With Republicans, it does.
Here's a bit from an article in the New England Journal of Medicine on this subject:
Between 1991 and 2004, the mean state-level rate of nonmedical exemptions increased from 0.98 to 1.48%. The increase in exemption rates was not uniform. Exemption rates for states that allowed only religious exemptions remained at approximately 1% between 1991 and 2004; however, in states that allowed exemptions for philosophical or personal beliefs, the mean exemption rate increased from 0.99 to 2.54%.

Like any average, the mean exemption rate presents only part of the picture, since geographic clustering of nonmedical exemptions can result in local accumulation of a critical mass of susceptible children that increases the risk of outbreaks. There is evidence of substantial geographic heterogeneity in nonmedical-exemption rates between and within states. For example, in the period from 2006 through 2007, the state-level nonmedical-exemption rate in Washington was 6%; however, the county-level rate ranged from 1.2 to 26.9%

In a spatial analysis of Michigan's exemption data according to census tracts, statistically significant clusters of increased exemptions were identified. Similar heterogeneity in exemption rates has been identified in Oregon and California.
So while the rate of vaccine refusal varies widely even within one of the identified 'liberal' states, the recent problem of vaccine refusal has affected just 0.5% of the population. Strangely, the NEJM doesn't make politics part of its hypothesis over these geographic variations:

The reasons for the geographic clustering of exemptions from school vaccination requirements are not fully understood, but they may include characteristics of the local population (e.g., cultural issues, socioeconomic status, or educational level), the beliefs of local health care providers and opinion leaders (e.g., clergy and politicians), and local media coverage. The factors known to be associated with exemption rates are heterogeneity in school policies and the beliefs of school personnel who are responsible for compliance with the immunization requirements.
Now, compare that 1.48% rate of 'anti-science' behavior vs. the number of Americans who believe in young earth creationism (44%), and we can see that there are a lot fewer Democrat anti-science wackos than there are Republicans anti-science wackos.