|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Conservatives who reject the science of climate change aren't necessarily reacting to the science, according to a new study from researchers at Duke University. They're reacting to the fact that they don't like proposed solutions more strongly identified with liberals.
The paper looks at the relationship between political ideology and rejection of scientific evidence. The researchers look most closely at climate change and other environmental challenges, an area where those who identify as liberals or Democrats mostly accept scientific conclusions while conservatives or Republicans largely reject them. The researchers conclude that on climate and other important societal issues, this denial is "rooted not in a fear of the general problem, per se, but rather in fear of the specific solutions associated with that problem."
The authors blame this denial of climate science on what they deem "solution aversion," i.e., the proposed solutions are "more aversive and more threatening to individuals who hold an ideology that is incompatible with or even challenged by the solution."
Source
|
I sometimes feel like many gun owning Americans wished there was a zombie apocalypse to prove that they are not simply hoarding a bunch of crap like a boy with his toys.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2014 12:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Conservatives who reject the science of climate change aren't necessarily reacting to the science, according to a new study from researchers at Duke University. They're reacting to the fact that they don't like proposed solutions more strongly identified with liberals.
The paper looks at the relationship between political ideology and rejection of scientific evidence. The researchers look most closely at climate change and other environmental challenges, an area where those who identify as liberals or Democrats mostly accept scientific conclusions while conservatives or Republicans largely reject them. The researchers conclude that on climate and other important societal issues, this denial is "rooted not in a fear of the general problem, per se, but rather in fear of the specific solutions associated with that problem."
The authors blame this denial of climate science on what they deem "solution aversion," i.e., the proposed solutions are "more aversive and more threatening to individuals who hold an ideology that is incompatible with or even challenged by the solution." Source
same goes for le hippies
|
On November 09 2014 12:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 12:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives who reject the science of climate change aren't necessarily reacting to the science, according to a new study from researchers at Duke University. They're reacting to the fact that they don't like proposed solutions more strongly identified with liberals.
The paper looks at the relationship between political ideology and rejection of scientific evidence. The researchers look most closely at climate change and other environmental challenges, an area where those who identify as liberals or Democrats mostly accept scientific conclusions while conservatives or Republicans largely reject them. The researchers conclude that on climate and other important societal issues, this denial is "rooted not in a fear of the general problem, per se, but rather in fear of the specific solutions associated with that problem."
The authors blame this denial of climate science on what they deem "solution aversion," i.e., the proposed solutions are "more aversive and more threatening to individuals who hold an ideology that is incompatible with or even challenged by the solution." Source same goes for le hippies
when we talked about gmos it was already pretty clear that on the left it's more of an economical/anti-globalisation than scientific thing. The occasional anti-vaccination guy isn't really comparable to the 30%(?) of the population that think evolution is wrong or climate change isn't happening.
|
On November 09 2014 12:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 11:43 Sub40APM wrote:On November 09 2014 11:40 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place. ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/eypqbuus6uyuo0csloloeq.png) Gallup originally asked Americans about their views on the implications of having a gun in the home in 1993, and then updated the measure in 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, less than half of Americans believed having a gun at home makes it safer -- but since then, this percentage has significantly increased to a majority. As soon as a black guy gets into the white house, Americans want more guns. That kept happening after pushes for gun controls, nada to do with skin color. The % was on its way up anyway, but for some reason Gallup didn't take the poll for 8 years. Also, in 1993 the number of "safer" answers was 42% vs 52%. So I would normally think you were being silly, but you are Sub40 after all, you never know. Crap, I forgot the golden rule of ignoring posts less than one sentence. Hell.
Please, the central plank of the GOP was to scare angry whites that the negro president was going to take their guns and then their friend. Gun right mobilization began ticking up in 2008 and continued throughout his presidency. You are right, no one is dumb enough to say publicly that color matters, instead its just usual GOP panic mongering. Just like fears over immigration despite Obama being a much more avid deported than Bush was. Whatever gets the angry white horde to show up and vote against their economic interest.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.single.html
You can see this on a broader scale in a 2014 report from the Pew Research Center on political polarization. Among “consistently conservative” voters, 63 percent wanted Republicans to “stick to their positions,” compared with just 14 percent of “consistently liberal” voters who said the same about the Democratic Party. Across the board, conservatives opposed compromise, leading New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait to quip that conservatives “Hate all deals.”
his attitude is how we got the now-infamous scene from the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, where a whole suite of candidates refused to endorse a fiscal deal weighted in their favor, where Democrats offered $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes. And it’s also responsible for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning loss to an obscure challenger in the 2014 congressional Republican primaries. His opponent, libertarian Dave Brat, had a single charge: Cantor was too friendly with Democrats. It worked.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2014 12:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 12:43 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2014 12:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives who reject the science of climate change aren't necessarily reacting to the science, according to a new study from researchers at Duke University. They're reacting to the fact that they don't like proposed solutions more strongly identified with liberals.
The paper looks at the relationship between political ideology and rejection of scientific evidence. The researchers look most closely at climate change and other environmental challenges, an area where those who identify as liberals or Democrats mostly accept scientific conclusions while conservatives or Republicans largely reject them. The researchers conclude that on climate and other important societal issues, this denial is "rooted not in a fear of the general problem, per se, but rather in fear of the specific solutions associated with that problem."
The authors blame this denial of climate science on what they deem "solution aversion," i.e., the proposed solutions are "more aversive and more threatening to individuals who hold an ideology that is incompatible with or even challenged by the solution." Source same goes for le hippies when we talked about gmos it was already pretty clear that on the left it's more of an economical/anti-globalisation than scientific thing. The occasional anti-vaccination guy isn't really comparable to the 30%(?) of the population that think evolution is wrong or climate change isn't happening. point is there is some crossover where the political valence of the solution affects the position on the science. so nominally scientific disagreements are in fact political
|
On November 09 2014 12:47 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 12:01 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2014 11:43 Sub40APM wrote:On November 09 2014 11:40 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place. Gallup originally asked Americans about their views on the implications of having a gun in the home in 1993, and then updated the measure in 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, less than half of Americans believed having a gun at home makes it safer -- but since then, this percentage has significantly increased to a majority. As soon as a black guy gets into the white house, Americans want more guns. That kept happening after pushes for gun controls, nada to do with skin color. The % was on its way up anyway, but for some reason Gallup didn't take the poll for 8 years. Also, in 1993 the number of "safer" answers was 42% vs 52%. So I would normally think you were being silly, but you are Sub40 after all, you never know. Crap, I forgot the golden rule of ignoring posts less than one sentence. Hell. Please, the central plank of the GOP was to scare angry whites that the negro president was going to take their guns and then their friend. Gun right mobilization began ticking up in 2008 and continued throughout his presidency. You are right, no one is dumb enough to say publicly that color matters, instead its just usual GOP panic mongering. Just like fears over immigration despite Obama being a much more avid deported than Bush was. Whatever gets the angry white horde to show up and vote against their economic interest. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.single.htmlShow nested quote +You can see this on a broader scale in a 2014 report from the Pew Research Center on political polarization. Among “consistently conservative” voters, 63 percent wanted Republicans to “stick to their positions,” compared with just 14 percent of “consistently liberal” voters who said the same about the Democratic Party. Across the board, conservatives opposed compromise, leading New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait to quip that conservatives “Hate all deals.”
his attitude is how we got the now-infamous scene from the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, where a whole suite of candidates refused to endorse a fiscal deal weighted in their favor, where Democrats offered $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes. And it’s also responsible for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning loss to an obscure challenger in the 2014 congressional Republican primaries. His opponent, libertarian Dave Brat, had a single charge: Cantor was too friendly with Democrats. It worked.
eh, I've gone over the numbers with other posters when it comes to immigration. Presidential threats + him not actually being tougher on illegal immigration (DREAM act anyone?) displays that Obama quite clearly has amnesty on the brain. "Fear mongering" is part of what helps to keep it under control. If there wasn't so much anger we'd have had it by now.
I'd say the talk of gun control had more to do with gun sales than his color. I could be wrong but I don't recall much effort by Democrats to try and pass GC under Bush. They were too busy whining about other things and knew that it wasn't going to happen. When they controlled both chambers and the executive branch, it could actually happen. Therefore, more of a real reason to be concerned about what you could or could not buy. It's perfectly natural, and has nothing to do with race.
Your comments on compromise are irrelevant, nothing to do with guns or race.
I also find the talk of "fear mongering" amusing when the left has big boogie men in oil, gas, and the Koch brothers. No fear there!
|
On November 09 2014 12:47 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 12:01 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2014 11:43 Sub40APM wrote:On November 09 2014 11:40 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place. Gallup originally asked Americans about their views on the implications of having a gun in the home in 1993, and then updated the measure in 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, less than half of Americans believed having a gun at home makes it safer -- but since then, this percentage has significantly increased to a majority. As soon as a black guy gets into the white house, Americans want more guns. That kept happening after pushes for gun controls, nada to do with skin color. The % was on its way up anyway, but for some reason Gallup didn't take the poll for 8 years. Also, in 1993 the number of "safer" answers was 42% vs 52%. So I would normally think you were being silly, but you are Sub40 after all, you never know. Crap, I forgot the golden rule of ignoring posts less than one sentence. Hell. Please, the central plank of the GOP was to scare angry whites that the negro president was going to take their guns and then their friend. Gun right mobilization began ticking up in 2008 and continued throughout his presidency. You are right, no one is dumb enough to say publicly that color matters, instead its just usual GOP panic mongering. Just like fears over immigration despite Obama being a much more avid deported than Bush was. Whatever gets the angry white horde to show up and vote against their economic interest. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.single.htmlShow nested quote +You can see this on a broader scale in a 2014 report from the Pew Research Center on political polarization. Among “consistently conservative” voters, 63 percent wanted Republicans to “stick to their positions,” compared with just 14 percent of “consistently liberal” voters who said the same about the Democratic Party. Across the board, conservatives opposed compromise, leading New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait to quip that conservatives “Hate all deals.”
his attitude is how we got the now-infamous scene from the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, where a whole suite of candidates refused to endorse a fiscal deal weighted in their favor, where Democrats offered $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes. And it’s also responsible for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning loss to an obscure challenger in the 2014 congressional Republican primaries. His opponent, libertarian Dave Brat, had a single charge: Cantor was too friendly with Democrats. It worked.
You seem to be forgetting the Eric Holder scare. Now that was something 
|
Maybe the Republicans won by forcing their Democrat opponents to live up to their record over the past few years. Maybe they were tired of hearing how only an idiot would think Obamacare wasn't a great step in the right direction, because they're the ones paying more for their health plans. You simply can't forget Obama repeating that it was a vicious lie up until it became the truth.
Democrats and their media allies got what they deserved, which was a swift rebuke. Now they're trying their darnedest to convince the stupid party that the election was about compromise and working with the president etc etc. Considering the state of our luminaries like Boehner and McConnell, it might work.
|
On November 09 2014 12:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 12:43 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2014 12:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives who reject the science of climate change aren't necessarily reacting to the science, according to a new study from researchers at Duke University. They're reacting to the fact that they don't like proposed solutions more strongly identified with liberals.
The paper looks at the relationship between political ideology and rejection of scientific evidence. The researchers look most closely at climate change and other environmental challenges, an area where those who identify as liberals or Democrats mostly accept scientific conclusions while conservatives or Republicans largely reject them. The researchers conclude that on climate and other important societal issues, this denial is "rooted not in a fear of the general problem, per se, but rather in fear of the specific solutions associated with that problem."
The authors blame this denial of climate science on what they deem "solution aversion," i.e., the proposed solutions are "more aversive and more threatening to individuals who hold an ideology that is incompatible with or even challenged by the solution." Source same goes for le hippies when we talked about gmos it was already pretty clear that on the left it's more of an economical/anti-globalisation than scientific thing. The occasional anti-vaccination guy isn't really comparable to the 30%(?) of the population that think evolution is wrong or climate change isn't happening.
No, it's not clear. A lot on the 'left' reject GMO on scientific grounds, not because of economic/anti-globalism stuff. Then there are the anti-vaccine folks...To say the 'left' is any more scientific than the 'right' is a farce. Oh, there is also the technology phobia of the hippies as well...or the technology destroys jobs mantra I've seen on the 'left'. One side ain't any better than the other. Meanwhile the rationalists look on and just laugh.
|
On November 09 2014 12:47 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 12:01 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2014 11:43 Sub40APM wrote:On November 09 2014 11:40 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place. Gallup originally asked Americans about their views on the implications of having a gun in the home in 1993, and then updated the measure in 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, less than half of Americans believed having a gun at home makes it safer -- but since then, this percentage has significantly increased to a majority. As soon as a black guy gets into the white house, Americans want more guns. That kept happening after pushes for gun controls, nada to do with skin color. The % was on its way up anyway, but for some reason Gallup didn't take the poll for 8 years. Also, in 1993 the number of "safer" answers was 42% vs 52%. So I would normally think you were being silly, but you are Sub40 after all, you never know. Crap, I forgot the golden rule of ignoring posts less than one sentence. Hell. Please, the central plank of the GOP was to scare angry whites that the negro president was going to take their guns and then their friend. Gun right mobilization began ticking up in 2008 and continued throughout his presidency. You are right, no one is dumb enough to say publicly that color matters, instead its just usual GOP panic mongering. Just like fears over immigration despite Obama being a much more avid deported than Bush was. Whatever gets the angry white horde to show up and vote against their economic interest. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.single.htmlShow nested quote +You can see this on a broader scale in a 2014 report from the Pew Research Center on political polarization. Among “consistently conservative” voters, 63 percent wanted Republicans to “stick to their positions,” compared with just 14 percent of “consistently liberal” voters who said the same about the Democratic Party. Across the board, conservatives opposed compromise, leading New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait to quip that conservatives “Hate all deals.”
his attitude is how we got the now-infamous scene from the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, where a whole suite of candidates refused to endorse a fiscal deal weighted in their favor, where Democrats offered $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes. And it’s also responsible for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning loss to an obscure challenger in the 2014 congressional Republican primaries. His opponent, libertarian Dave Brat, had a single charge: Cantor was too friendly with Democrats. It worked.
I normally don't like defending GOP politicians or positions outside of the libertarian wing, but 1) They all ready accepted that deal during Reagan and it was a farce. There were no 'spending cuts' - however, you want to define them, so you can't blame folk for being skeptical of this deal once again. 2) It's not about race, it's about the Democrats actually DO wanting to take the guns away - as seen during the Clinton years (or today in CT/NY, etc.)..or are you going to accuse the white folk of being racist against themselves here...? 3) Compromise is only ever brought up when it goes in one direction...actual compromise would be say shuttling a dozen or so useless alphabet agencies / powers / authority / etc. in exchange for say taking 25-50% of that savings and putting it toward internal infrastructure or something...but that won't ever happen. 4) Slate doesn't know much about the GOP and it's a terribly slanted source. You'd be better off actually talking with disaffected GOP'ers on how the GOP actually works.
I'm sure though that 2016 will roll around - the GOP will become the Democrats and spend a shitload of our money, the Democrats will complain and make some BS up about not spending enough, some more alphabet agencies will get created, State-powers expanded like under the Democrats - suddenly the Democrats will remember civil liberties, and the circle will rotate. Americans are dumb as fuck, and vote the Democrats back in. More will get disaffected. The circle will continue until Americans don't have much left to lose because most of the wealth were sucked up by the politically connected parasites (and/or politicians themselves). We'll have finally become a true Banana Republic. Maybe they'll be revolution. Probably not. We'll slide into 2nd world status like good Frogs being boiled. Oh, and eventually they'll get the guns so good luck with any revolution.
|
On November 09 2014 15:47 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 12:46 Nyxisto wrote:On November 09 2014 12:43 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2014 12:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives who reject the science of climate change aren't necessarily reacting to the science, according to a new study from researchers at Duke University. They're reacting to the fact that they don't like proposed solutions more strongly identified with liberals.
The paper looks at the relationship between political ideology and rejection of scientific evidence. The researchers look most closely at climate change and other environmental challenges, an area where those who identify as liberals or Democrats mostly accept scientific conclusions while conservatives or Republicans largely reject them. The researchers conclude that on climate and other important societal issues, this denial is "rooted not in a fear of the general problem, per se, but rather in fear of the specific solutions associated with that problem."
The authors blame this denial of climate science on what they deem "solution aversion," i.e., the proposed solutions are "more aversive and more threatening to individuals who hold an ideology that is incompatible with or even challenged by the solution." Source same goes for le hippies when we talked about gmos it was already pretty clear that on the left it's more of an economical/anti-globalisation than scientific thing. The occasional anti-vaccination guy isn't really comparable to the 30%(?) of the population that think evolution is wrong or climate change isn't happening. No, it's not clear. A lot on the 'left' reject GMO on scientific grounds, not because of economic/anti-globalism stuff. Then there are the anti-vaccine folks...To say the 'left' is any more scientific than the 'right' is a farce. Oh, there is also the technology phobia of the hippies as well...or the technology destroys jobs mantra I've seen on the 'left'. One side ain't any better than the other. Meanwhile the rationalists look on and just laugh.
I don't know a lot of people in office on the left as anti-science as Republican representatives. Being skeptical of GMO's environmental or health impact isn't on the same level as calling evolution a 'lie straight from the pit of hell'.
There are crazies on both sides they just tend to get elected by one party more often than the other IMO.
|
On November 09 2014 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 15:47 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2014 12:46 Nyxisto wrote:On November 09 2014 12:43 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2014 12:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives who reject the science of climate change aren't necessarily reacting to the science, according to a new study from researchers at Duke University. They're reacting to the fact that they don't like proposed solutions more strongly identified with liberals.
The paper looks at the relationship between political ideology and rejection of scientific evidence. The researchers look most closely at climate change and other environmental challenges, an area where those who identify as liberals or Democrats mostly accept scientific conclusions while conservatives or Republicans largely reject them. The researchers conclude that on climate and other important societal issues, this denial is "rooted not in a fear of the general problem, per se, but rather in fear of the specific solutions associated with that problem."
The authors blame this denial of climate science on what they deem "solution aversion," i.e., the proposed solutions are "more aversive and more threatening to individuals who hold an ideology that is incompatible with or even challenged by the solution." Source same goes for le hippies when we talked about gmos it was already pretty clear that on the left it's more of an economical/anti-globalisation than scientific thing. The occasional anti-vaccination guy isn't really comparable to the 30%(?) of the population that think evolution is wrong or climate change isn't happening. No, it's not clear. A lot on the 'left' reject GMO on scientific grounds, not because of economic/anti-globalism stuff. Then there are the anti-vaccine folks...To say the 'left' is any more scientific than the 'right' is a farce. Oh, there is also the technology phobia of the hippies as well...or the technology destroys jobs mantra I've seen on the 'left'. One side ain't any better than the other. Meanwhile the rationalists look on and just laugh. I don't know a lot of people in office on the left as anti-science as Republican representatives. Being skeptical of GMO's environmental or health impact isn't on the same level as calling evolution a 'lie straight from the pit of hell'. There are crazies on both sides they just tend to get elected by one party more often than the other IMO.
How isn't it? GMO's have that oh-so-ever-important scientific consensus that I always hear about with AGW, just like evolution. GMO's are safe, and are responsible for billions of people being alive today. Now, as for representative..., well we were talking about 'left' and 'right', no? Those terms however nebulous and ill-defined, aren't analagous to a party, and your one anecdote isn't much to disprove. I could just as easily say look at Thomas Massie on the GOP side. Let's not get into the wind and solar only-progressives who shun nuclear, hydro, newer technologies, etc. On health matters, there's a ton of anti-medical intervention. A huge natural fatalistic strain on the left - if it's natural it must be good, man-made or 'unnatural' = bad. You can't tell me that isn't anti-scientific. All of this is more partisan ideology than believers in science. Both sides are the same. If it fits your ideology = good, if not = bad. It all gets a tad tiresome.
Yes, crazies on both sides and in both parties - whether to argue on who's the worst of the worse....
|
On November 09 2014 12:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 12:43 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2014 12:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives who reject the science of climate change aren't necessarily reacting to the science, according to a new study from researchers at Duke University. They're reacting to the fact that they don't like proposed solutions more strongly identified with liberals.
The paper looks at the relationship between political ideology and rejection of scientific evidence. The researchers look most closely at climate change and other environmental challenges, an area where those who identify as liberals or Democrats mostly accept scientific conclusions while conservatives or Republicans largely reject them. The researchers conclude that on climate and other important societal issues, this denial is "rooted not in a fear of the general problem, per se, but rather in fear of the specific solutions associated with that problem."
The authors blame this denial of climate science on what they deem "solution aversion," i.e., the proposed solutions are "more aversive and more threatening to individuals who hold an ideology that is incompatible with or even challenged by the solution." Source same goes for le hippies when we talked about gmos it was already pretty clear that on the left it's more of an economical/anti-globalisation than scientific thing. The occasional anti-vaccination guy isn't really comparable to the 30%(?) of the population that think evolution is wrong or climate change isn't happening.
It's something like 48% in the U.S.
|
On November 10 2014 01:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 12:46 Nyxisto wrote:On November 09 2014 12:43 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2014 12:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives who reject the science of climate change aren't necessarily reacting to the science, according to a new study from researchers at Duke University. They're reacting to the fact that they don't like proposed solutions more strongly identified with liberals.
The paper looks at the relationship between political ideology and rejection of scientific evidence. The researchers look most closely at climate change and other environmental challenges, an area where those who identify as liberals or Democrats mostly accept scientific conclusions while conservatives or Republicans largely reject them. The researchers conclude that on climate and other important societal issues, this denial is "rooted not in a fear of the general problem, per se, but rather in fear of the specific solutions associated with that problem."
The authors blame this denial of climate science on what they deem "solution aversion," i.e., the proposed solutions are "more aversive and more threatening to individuals who hold an ideology that is incompatible with or even challenged by the solution." Source same goes for le hippies when we talked about gmos it was already pretty clear that on the left it's more of an economical/anti-globalisation than scientific thing. The occasional anti-vaccination guy isn't really comparable to the 30%(?) of the population that think evolution is wrong or climate change isn't happening. It's something like 48% in the U.S.
And there's the other side of the "freedom" coin. "Choosing" to believe something else. Just because.
|
Republicans might find themselves to the right of the pope on LGBT's this next presidential election if they aren't careful.
The pontiff removed Cardinal Raymond Burke as the leader of the Vatican’s highest court and appointed him to a ceremonial position as chaplain of the Knights of Malta, a charity group,
The outspoken, conservative bishop — who pushed for the Vatican to revise and water-down its recent, tentative step toward greater acceptance of LGBT people — has butted heads with the pope since the Argentine was elected last year. Last month, he compared Pope Francis’ leadership to “a ship without a rudder” during an interview with a Spanish magazine.
Source
|
The catholic church has adopted evolution as a doctrine basically a hundred years ago, in regards to sexual equality they'll probably get their pretty soon. In the life of most Catholics this isn't a big issue anyway. I think it's always really weird when you go to reddit and see how Christians are compared to fundamentalists, although the largest Christian denomination is arguably way more progressive than the Republican party.
|
Reddit grossly mischaracterizes something? Get outta here!
|
Well to be honest these kinds of generalizations and bleak criticism when it comes to religion or Christianity more specifically happen more or less everywhere. Point being is that the stuff the pope is saying isn't actually news in the Catholic church and that the American right obviously is far more extreme than the Pope and at least a handful of Popes before.
|
On November 10 2014 04:22 Nyxisto wrote:
Well to be honest these kinds of generalizations and bleak criticism when it comes to religion or Christianity more specifically happen more or less everywhere. Point being is that the stuff the pope is saying isn't actually news in the Catholic church and that the American right obviously is far more extreme than the Pope and at least a handful of Popes before.
What blows my mind is ~25% of Catholics in America still don't believe in evolution... Talk about cognitive dissonance to the max!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
