|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 03/06/2006 : 21:53:12 [Permalink]
|
| What are the liberal/conservative stances on the mentioned "Tobacco Controversy" and "Pesticide Controversy"? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/06/2006 21:53:24 |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 02:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Did you forget already, Marf? Nicotine is not addicting and there is no real evidence connecting cigarette smoking to lung cancer. Nor is there any real evidence pesticides harm anyone. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2006 : 22:13:22 [Permalink]
|
beskeptical wrote: quote:
Did you forget already, Marf? Nicotine is not addicting and there is no real evidence connecting cigarette smoking to lung cancer. Nor is there any real evidence pesticides harm anyone.
The comic is criticizing current conservatives in power. Have any conservatives in the current administration tried to argue that smoking isn't unhealthy or that pesticides are completely harmless? As far as I can tell, today the controversies over nicotene and pesticides are banning smoking for bogus claims about second hand smoke and bogus claims about organic food being healthier than nonorganic. And it is liberals today who are on the unscientific sides of both of those issues. That is why I find this comic questionable. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2006 : 23:11:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
[ As far as I can tell, today the controversies over nicotene and pesticides are banning smoking for bogus claims about second hand smoke and bogus claims about organic food being healthier than nonorganic. And it is liberals today who are on the unscientific sides of both of those issues. That is why I find this comic questionable.
While there may not be signifcant pesticide residues in produce, runoof is resulting in increasing levels in streams and thereby in birds and fish, especially those at the upper end of the food chain.
As for second hand smoke ther have been numerous studies. My athcma irtually cleared up wehn they banned smoking where I worked. Breathing combustion products especially fomr incomplete combustion is never healthy. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 00:59:00 [Permalink]
|
Ghost Skeptic wrote: quote:
While there may not be signifcant pesticide residues in produce, runoof is resulting in increasing levels in streams and thereby in birds and fish, especially those at the upper end of the food chain.
That's hardly what the pro-organic people are saying, which is that eating organic food is healthier. My point was that the cartoon is making fun of conservatives who use bad science, but then it brings up general issues which liberals also have applied bad (or no) science to.
quote:
As for second hand smoke ther have been numerous studies. My athcma irtually cleared up wehn they banned smoking where I worked. Breathing combustion products especially fomr incomplete combustion is never healthy.
Numerous studies? Name them, because the major ones that keep being used by anti-smoking groups have been debunked. It's too late for me to be looking this stuff up now, but I will later. But anyway, groups that are advocating the banning of smoking in many public places are making particular claims that are not substantiated by scientific studies. I'm personally in favor of many types of smoking bans, but my point was that bad science is used by liberals on these two issues that were brought up in the cartoon. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 04:34:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Numerous studies? Name them, because the major ones that keep being used by anti-smoking groups have been debunked.
Get updated, marfknox!
The Skeptic's Dictionary newsletter 61 Nov 2, 2005 :
Mea Culpa: secondhand smoke and the politics of science
quote:
I owe an apology to readers of this newsletter. In April 2004, I wrote the first of several commentaries on Penn & Teller's claim in a Bullshit! episode that the EPA report was bogus that claims that 3,000 people a year die from lung cancer because of secondhand smoke. My initial research into the subject was inadequate and I agreed with P & T. I was wrong to do so.
...
My error was the same one P & T made: trusting the standards of risk assessment as promoted by the tobacco industry (led by Philip Morris) and their Republican generals like Jim Tozzi.* While reading Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science, I came to realize that many responsible epidemiologists, including Jonathan Samer and Thomas A. Burke from Johns Hopkins medical school, do not believe that an increased risk of 100% or more from a pollutant is required before it should be considered relevant or significant for public health. In short, we've been hoodwinked by politicians, mostly Republican, into calling junk science 'sound science' and describing sound science as "uncertain" or "incomplete."
...
There not only is evidence, there is good evidence for a causal link between secondhand smoke and not only cancer but cardiovascular diseases as well, unless one defines 'evidence' and 'cause' in terms that would be sure to bring a large smile to the faces of tobacco industry executives, lobbyists, and political cronies in high office.
The newsletter includes sources.
|
| Edited by - Starman on 03/16/2006 04:36:41 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 14:14:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
beskeptical wrote: quote:
Did you forget already, Marf? Nicotine is not addicting and there is no real evidence connecting cigarette smoking to lung cancer. Nor is there any real evidence pesticides harm anyone.
The comic is criticizing current conservatives in power. Have any conservatives in the current administration tried to argue that smoking isn't unhealthy or that pesticides are completely harmless? As far as I can tell, today the controversies over nicotene and pesticides are banning smoking for bogus claims about second hand smoke and bogus claims about organic food being healthier than nonorganic. And it is liberals today who are on the unscientific sides of both of those issues. That is why I find this comic questionable.
On the secondhand smoke there is also clear evidence kids in smoking households have more respiratory illness.
There are wackos on both sides, liberal and conservative. I don't condemn all conservatives over the unsupportable beliefs of some of them.
But currently, the conservative wackos are passing laws and bills that affect all of us and they are ignoring science outright in the Bush administration. Thus this comic reflects current events. If you see it as unfairly attacking the conservatives, I believe you are demanding balance on principle while ignoring current events that logically a political satirist would be more interested in. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 11:34:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are wackos on both sides, liberal and conservative. I don't condemn all conservatives over the unsupportable beliefs of some of them.
But currently, the conservative wackos are passing laws and bills that affect all of us and they are ignoring science outright in the Bush administration.
I think that hit the nail on the head.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 23:45:33 [Permalink]
|
beskeptical wrote: quote:
But currently, the conservative wackos are passing laws and bills that affect all of us and they are ignoring science outright in the Bush administration. Thus this comic reflects current events. If you see it as unfairly attacking the conservatives, I believe you are demanding balance on principle while ignoring current events that logically a political satirist would be more interested in.
I think you're right, I'm being too picky. I just wish it had sort of stuck with bullshit science that the Religious Right is behind, because that is the outstanding side of pseudo-science in the Republican party that makes it way worse than Dems. I mean, all people involved in politics have been known to use a little junk science, or at least to fudge the science in a way that puts their side of the issue in a more favorable light. But you are right, because of the Religious Right's influence, the Republicans have taken bad science to a whole new extreme in America. I just thought the comic would have been stronger had it stuck with the RR issues, but again, I am being way too picky here. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 23:55:37 [Permalink]
|
Starman, thanks for the update. I'm signing up for the skepdic newsletter right now.
Yeah, I liked a lot of stuff from Penn and Teller's "Environmental Hysteria" episode, but when they started saying that global warming itself is still up for scientific debate, some of my bells went off. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 12:37:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
.... I just wish it had sort of stuck with bullshit science that the Religious Right is behind, because that is the outstanding side of pseudo-science in the Republican party that makes it way worse than Dems. ...
When the mainstream Republicans start standing up to the Right Wing Evangelicals and when the mainstream Republicans begin speaking out against the Neocon's incompetent anti-terrorism strategies, I might stop lumping everyone together in that Party.
Some of those mainstream Republicans are/will be victims of self preserving denial and have/will have a hard time recognizing they aren't getting what they wished for. A few of them most likely already recognize how badly things are going but are trading off the extreme evangelical and war promoting leaders for financial or other gain. That's certainly true now for the Evangelicals and the war promoters who may not quite like what they see the other doing.
But there are some moderate Republicans who appear to be starting to realize what the consequences are for an unnecessary war and for having a little more Christianity in the government. These are the Republicans who believe in God but realize Genesis is just a collection of stories. You can't have a government passing laws based on the belief that the Rapture is imminent.
And I think just about anyone with half a brain is starting to realize what a mistake it was to go into Iraq.
Eventually all the actions going on today will be looked back on with disdain. I just hope the damage before we get to that point isn't as bad as is possible. Right now I'm not very optimistic. I saw, Good Night and Good Luck last night. The parallels of the sheep people who went along with McCarthy then were gutless to stop him once they realized they'd been scammed were striking. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
