/sci/ - Science & Math

Because it is filled with idiots.

Because during the '80s the Republicans decided to ally with evangelical christians, convincing them that rather than seperate themselves from the world of politics they should become politically involved to defend Christian values and interests (through supporting the Republican party). Since evangelical christians strongly believe in many things that are not true (such as creationism and faith healing), the "conservative" viewpoint moved away from reality, leaving the "liberal" viewpoint relatively closer to the truth.

Also, there's probably something to be said for the whole Straussian ideology beloved of the neoconservatives that The People are stupid so they need to be lied to so that they'll do what's really in their best interests. I long for the days of William F. Buckly type conservatives...

This explains it perfectly:

http://conservapedia.com/Liberal_bias

>>1665799
>photo bias
>Examples include hoto of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983 while Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East.
Damn biased photograph, portraying an event that happened but makes conservatives look bad.

>>1665783
This.

Republicans decided to ignore reality in order to earn votes.

>liberal bias
Uh... well in the "natural world"
it's called truth.
But yeah sure, liberal bias works too.

First of all, the world generally cares for itself (you know, it doesn't like white rich faggots ordering people to slowly destroy it for "modern day life" when there are clearly other safer ways)

Second of all, most people in the world tend to be liberal because they're not all that stupid. Sure, most people in the world have low intelligence and are religious morons, but at least they have morals and understand basic concepts of why it's not good to destroy the world we live in and/or kill people for no good reason other than resources.

Most people in the Western World don't quite understand this, because they aren't in areas of great conflict, or even any hazard at all.

Send a conservative in south-western Sudan and watch him beg for mercy to stop the genocides and end all wars.

>>1665842
You're anthropomorphising the fucking world as something that live and do shit. What kind of fucking envirofascist are you really?

The universe is mechanical, it doesn't care about anything and everything happens only because of causality.

Also, this is a false statement:
>at least they have morals and understand basic concepts of why it's not good to destroy the world we live in and/or kill people for no good reason other than resources.

The majority of people are retards and will disrupt the local ecology or pollute the enviroment if it benefits them or their family, particularly so in poor countries.

Because your view of liberals and conservatives is heavily skewed.

Liberlism is superior as a survival mechanic, it tends to let things live. Conservatism only works if changing is bad, but thats almost never the case because we live in an evolving environment and if you don't evolve with it, well look at the natives and the Asians during colonial era.

>>1665842
>Send a conservative in south-western Sudan and watch him beg for all niggers to wiped off the face of the earth

fix'd

>>1665933
Ok then, send him in late 20th century Armenia and watch him..

beg for whites to be whiped off of the face of the Earth?


..yea, no.

Race is irrelevent

>>1665921
I'm just saying, if the Earth was aware of itself i don't think it would like the shit people in general do to it. And a lot of that shit is caused by rich conservative fucks who make off-shore oil rigs and pollution who don't give a fuck and just want to make some cash even though they're already rich.

I mean i can't say i don't use fuel myself, but it's the liberals who are complaining about it more than the right wing. It's the liberals who want to invest tax payer money into that kind of research.

>>1665954
>I'm just saying, if the Earth was aware of itself i don't think it would like the shit people in general do to it

>>1665954
>beg for whites to be whiped off of the face of the Earth?

No, he'll beg for armenians to be wiped off the face of the Earth, not all white people.

>>1665746
OP isn't aware how pervasive the vaccines => autism is among liberals.

If you really wish to understand the truth of the world, you must rid yourself of bias and other preconceived notions of the world. You believe the world has a liberal bias, this is because you wish to have validation of your liberal views.

>>1665931
There's nothing wrong with being operationally conservative; saying for example that change should not be for change's sake, and that to change a policy requires an argument for its sake, and that by default, how we do things should be maintained in absence of an argument is just sound practice. But also, conservatism.

I think this perception of science as 'elitist' and 'liberal' is a uniquely American point of view. Its the most conspicuously religious country in the developed world; even countries with similar quantities of religious people are much less religious as a state, and are more comfortable allowing the operation of the country and its institutions to be secular. I cannot think of a similar conflict elsewhere.

>>1666169
>'elitist' and 'liberal'

Hell, I've never even understood why these terms go hand-in-hand.

Aren't Conservatives more elite than Liberals? After all, they're AGAINST social welfare programs and such. Doesn't that reinforce elitism and the continuation of the status quo?

It's the smart choice, obviously.

But more seriously, liberalism is progress and conservatism is holding onto the past. Republicans are actually detrimental to the progress of society as a whole.

>>1666310
Because the idea of a command economy or social engineering requires that there is some elite that is doing the engineering of society, and making decisions about the rules that are going to govern everyone.

As opposed the conservative ideology that says to let everyone be the masters of their own domain.

>>1665783
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

Buckley you say?

>>1666319
>herp derp
fuck you.

>>1666310
Not if the belief is that the welfare state is what is perpetuating the status-quo. I don't think its ever reasonable to attach a specific description or trait to umbrellas as broad as 'conservative' or 'liberal', 'republican' or 'democrat'. They're both essentially populist camps, associations of least-evil, to garner votes and power. The individuals who associate with each are so broad that to consider either a coherent, identifiable group with consistent views and beliefs is absurd.

>>1666346

>>1666336
Such a cliche political move, isn't it? Nobody wants to see you debate a caricature. It's neither amusing, nor informative, and it doesn't fool anybody.

>>1666351

>>1666336
>implying everyone is responsible enough to care for themselves.

>>1666376
>Implying those people won't end up in government creating a huge clusterfuck.
>Implying you need the government to help people
>Implying natural selection isn't great

>>1666364