/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1447672]

Are scientists generally more liberal or conservative?

[Inurdaes !lolol6yVHg No.1447677]

Left liberitarian predominately it would seem

[Anonymous No.1447679]

Liberal (unless they're engineers, but those don't count as scientists anyway)

[Skunkworks !e1337Hykks No.1447682]

Generally more liberal, but it really does vary.

I'm sure as hell not.

[Skunkworks !e1337Hykks No.1447686]

I'm an engineer and center-libertarian, actually.

[Anonymous No.1447691]

>Libertarian

Ha ha ha. Good one

Liberal, if you insist on using that word. They are left-leaning, as is anyone with 5 neurons.

[Anonymous No.1447699]

liberal
>>1447686
>engineer
>libertarian
Why am I not surprised

[Anonymous No.1447702]

depends on the field

[Anonymous No.1447718]

>>1447672
Biologist here. Libertarian, the "leave me the fuck alone" party.

[Anonymous No.1447724]

Really the only conservative "scientists" are economists, who are, surprise surprise, the most statistically full of shit professionals on the planet.

[Anonymous No.1447727]

Definitely more liberal.

[Anonymous No.1447729]

I'm a scientist and I worship Hitler and Mussolini

[Anonymous No.1447734]

The majority of soft scientists are liberal. Those in more rigorous fields tend to lean to the right.

[Anonymous No.1447739]

>>1447672
>>1447672

Depends who gives them the most funding, unfortunately.

For example, there are a lot of things I like about the republican party, however, the people they associate with would cripple a scientist fiscally: The Religious right.

Who knows, in the next 30 years you may have a republican president say: "You know what, cancer sucks, lets throw shitloads of money at that problem".

As of now, it is a good idea to vote democratic if you are a scientist.

It is a good idea to vote republican if you are a doctor, fiscally speaking.

Engineers may want to vote republican as well, they need shit built, and as far as the civic side of things, democrats tend to sway away from spending money in that respect.

Now, I know a bunch of you fags are going to jump out and say DERP VOTE REPUBLICAN BAD IDEA BECAUSE OF TEABAGS.

Understand that every human being is an individual and one person in /sci/ at this moment may be your doctor 12 years from now (hey who knows). Would you trust someone that posts on 4chan with your life, you may have already done so.

[Anonymous No.1447740]

>>1447734
Nope.

[Anonymous No.1447741]

>>1447718
You should live up to your political beliefs and only work in the private sector and never take any government money, and never work for a company/institute that accepts government money.

[Anonymous No.1447745]

>>1446802
>>144680
0
>"everyone in this thread underage
"> next post a poorly executed your momma joke
>mfw
>

[Anonymous No.1447753]

they are obviously left leaning, why wouldn't they be? it's the only logical and more non religious one out of the two.

[Anonymous No.1447763]

>>1447745
look at the retard who fell for it

[Anonymous No.1447771]

>>1447718
Say that when you have kids and you have to pay for their school, medicare and a bunch of other stuff on your modest salary

[Anonymous No.1447778]

Phd in chem. Definitely far left.

[Anonymous No.1447782]

Focused research is about eliminating the extraneous variables and building a model of understanding, those who peruse it tend to have higher intelligence and are accustomed to a peer culture celebrates and fetishes this intelligence. This socioeconomic subculture also tends to be fairly cloistered and external experiences are depreciated. This leads to the common perception that "if only the world were run by smart people like me, we could run the world smart". This attitude has been a critical part of progressive politics since its inception.
Engineers and entrepreneurs on the other hand have to face the regular feed back of the noisy stochastic nature of reality, and thus are cynical.

[Anonymous No.1447787]

[Anonymous No.1447790]

Msc in Biology. Far right.

[Anonymous No.1447792]

>>1447741
I do. I went to a private university, only do research for companies, and actually make most of my money through my wood-selling business. I spend more time with a chainsaw than I do in a lab coat.

[Anonymous No.1447812]

Hard scientists - Neo cons
Soft scientists - Liberals
/sci/entists - RON PAUL 2012 GUISE

[Inurdaes !lolol6yVHg No.1447814]

>>1447812
ITT: No true scotsman

[Anonymous No.1447818]

>>1447814

>Implying hard science and soft science are rigorous definitions (e.g. physical chemistry and physics versus climatology and psychology)

[Anonymous No.1447820]

>>1447814

>>Implying hard science and soft science don't have rigorous definitions (e.g. physical chemistry and physics versus climatology and psychology)

[Inurdaes !lolol6yVHg No.1447821]

>>1447818

[Anonymous No.1447822]

>>1447763
The spambot copies random posts, not necessarily by those who were tricked by it. This post, for example, will appear in another thread with the virus attached, because it has an image on it. From the original poster to the new thread: sup, bitches. Don't save this image.

[Anonymous No.1447830]

>>1447790
>Biology
>Science

[Anonymous No.1447831]

>>1447830
pick two

[Anonymous No.1447835]

>>1447812

Ron Paul? The Creationist? Yeah, right.

[Anonymous No.1447837]

Reality has a liberal bias.

[Anonymous No.1447852]

>>1447790
>Master's degree

[Anonymous No.1447857]

>>1447790
>Msc

[Anonymous No.1447860]

>>1447790
Msc

[Anonymous No.1447861]

>>1447852

[Anonymous No.1447863]

>>1447790
>Msc­

[Anonymous No.1447869]

I can't see how liberals are the 'leave me the fuck alone party'.

You people have been moving towards equality for all for quite a long time now.

Conservatism lets a government steer a country in the right direction, while still leaving everyone with the cards they were dealt with. This is the better method.

We all work with the tools we have, and for some reason liberals are against that. The homeless are shameless and the poor are lazy.

[Anonymous No.1447882]

>>1447869
How can you claim to be building a better future for humanity if you aren't happy with helping your fellow man?

[Anonymous No.1447886]

I'm biologist. Also conservative/far-right. But not in an American kind of way. Just because I prefer certain type of economy and government doesn't mean I'm a intolerant prick.

[Anonymous No.1447889]

>>1447869
THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE

[Anonymous No.1447892]

>>1447886
Then you aren't far right. Us Vs. Them mentality is the main tenant of far right politics.

[Anonymous No.1447894]

>>1447889

Good observation.

[Anonymous No.1447896]

>>1447882
I'm all for helping out our fellow man

But that kinda gets fucked up when the government forces you to give up your money and then use it to "help" others..

It's just a really retarded way to help people.

[Anonymous No.1447897]

I read somewhere of a study that showed a liberal tendency, but I can't source it. Seemed legit, though.

[Anonymous No.1447898]

>>1447869

liberal != libertarian

[Anonymous No.1447900]

a lot of engineers in my school are white nationalists

[Anonymous No.1447906]

>>1447820
all 4 of those are hard science (eexpect you take the bullshit freudian approach to psychology)
soft science is shit like sociology

[F5 No.1447908]

>>1447869
It's ironic, then, that conservatives seek to decree what people do within the privacy of their own homes, and with their own bodies.

[Anonymous No.1447915]

>>1447900
That doesn't make sense

As many asians go into engineering to.

You'd think that those kind of white men would have a lot in common with their equally nerdy asian comrades.

But oh well

[Anonymous No.1447916]

>>1447869
>while still leaving everyone with the cards they were dealt with.

like leaving poor people in poor conditions, with shitty health care

[Anonymous No.1447925]

>>1447916
My parents worked their way out of a lot of shit.

Coming from 3rd world countries torn by war, etc.

If you live in America and can't get out of poverty then damn. What the hell is throwing money at the problem going to do.

[Anonymous No.1447932]

I'd say most people (including me) in my lab (neuroscience/electrophysiology) would label themselves as a conservative democrats. Most of us are conservative in politics, and as far as I can tell no one has love for either the Republican or Democrat party. However, voting Republican is basically voting for the enemy, so it's a lesser of two evils thing.

This is pretty hard to explain to other Americans though as they're raised on the idea that the Republican party represents a conservative ideology and not some warped Christian-conservative monster that doesn't have any consistency in its policies (the exact opposite of what a conservative platform should be).

[Anonymous No.1447937]

>>1447925
Well, surely every family that has a nice story to tell about it will think like you. Millions of others in USA and in all the world can't say it's so easy.

[Anonymous No.1447939]

yay!
>>>/new/

[Anonymous No.1447943]

I think the majority of good scientists are liberal. The ones that arent are just dumb and cant figure out a better way to play.

[Anonymous No.1447945]

>>1447937
Yeah well fuck 'em if they're too retarded or down right don't wanna work

[Anonymous No.1447946]

>>1447932

That's part of the problem today.

No one party is consistent in their ideas. You don't know what you get until they are in office.

[Anonymous No.1447947]

>>1447925
methinks you are unaware that "catch 22" happens IRL

[Anonymous No.1447949]

Soft sciences --> Liberal

Hard sciences(i.e. ones that do shit) --> Conservative, but more economically and government, not lulhurrdurrimaforcereligion

[Anonymous No.1447950]

>>1447906
SOMEONE has to study sociology, though, and it is a very interesting field. Demeaning other fields is the best way to ensure that the net potential of human intelligence is never reached.

[Anonymous No.1447957]

>>1447945
You have a very poor understanding of how poverty works and why the impoverished stay impoverished.

[Anonymous No.1447961]

>>1447949
This is patently false. Biology and physics are two of the most liberal fields of science you can possibly go into.

[Anonymous No.1447967]

>>1447869
Sodomy laws. Explicit illegalization of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Forceful insertion of nonscientific material into science curriculums. Unabashed sponsorship for faith-based programs and religious events. Expansion of Patriot Act-like security measures and expansion of the military and its operations overseas.

But! They won't give your tax dollars to an overworked single black woman with two kids in the inner city, and they'll let you carry around a six-shooter for shits and giggles.

Freedom!

[Anonymous No.1447968]

>>1447945
>>1447945
Fallacies detected:
non-sequitur
false dichotomy
hasty generalization
dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid

congratulations for your quantum superposition of fallacies

also this
>>1447947

[Anonymous No.1447971]

>>1447957
impoverished stay impoverished because the government will give them everything to remain impoverished but not move up

If the government let the people keep their money and not shift the onus onto government. The community would take it upon themselves to help the struggling. But nah, why help the poor when the governments doing it for you half-assdly

This mentality breeds a dangerous apathy

But I'm sure more government will help

[Anonymous No.1447975]

>>1447971

you are now aware that "pulling yourself up from your bootstraps" is a literally impossible thing to do

[Anonymous No.1447983]

>>1447949
>Hard sciences(i.e. ones that do shit) --> Conservative, but more economically and government, not lulhurrdurrimaforcereligion

This is what you think.

[Anonymous No.1447988]

>>1447975

>Implying you can't create a series of pulleys to do this

[Anonymous No.1447989]

>>1447971
>>1447971
> let the people keep their money
> keep their money
> their money

[Anonymous No.1447990]

>>1447975

Of course it is you just gotta make some tough decisions like:

>Not having children when you can't support them
>Not buying shit you don't need
>Not doing drugs

But that's too hard

[Anonymous No.1447994]

>>1447989
?

[Anonymous No.1447999]

>>1447947

Catch 22 does not happen in real life. Ever. There is no one thing you need where you can only be in one type of situation to get it. There almost an infinite number of ways to put you in a position to acquire what you want.

Most people are lazy.

[Anonymous No.1448000]

>>1447971
A 23-year-old mother in Tucson, Arizona, told Goodman: "I'm totally able, physically and intellectually, to continue working. But I can't work without child care, and I can't afford child care without work."

[Anonymous No.1448002]

>>1447999
>Most people are lazy.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1448003]

>>1448000
She has no family no friends to help her out in this situation?

Must be one hell of a woman

Also shouldn't be having children when she can't deal with them

[Anonymous No.1448006]

Conservatives think it's still 1776, it may be harmful when you are a scientist.

[Anonymous No.1448009]

>>1448000

So? Ask a neighbor.

[Anonymous No.1448010]

>>1447999
Not all the options are possible, nor safe.
You seem to live in a bubble.

[Anonymous No.1448020]

>>1448002

Who needs a fucking citation?

Look around. People come home and watch T.V. or play video games. The majority. That's it.

[Anonymous No.1448021]

>>1448009
>>1448009
you clearly live in a bubble

[Anonymous No.1448029]

>>1448010

And? That still leaves a few options open. I'm not backing down. Nobody said life was easy. Some people just didn't get the memo.

[Anonymous No.1448032]

>>1448021
No you see I'm not an asscock to people

If I'm in trouble I have a good support system to fall back on, other than the government of course.

[Anonymous No.1448037]

>>1448020
again, this >>1448021
You really have no clue how motherfucking hard some poverty situations can be.
You seem to think that just by imagining a theoretical solution, that possibility will be achievable, or will not have any other hard-locked dependency.

[Anonymous No.1448045]

>>1448032
My fault, I am being trolled.
Nobody can be so retarded to argue like this. Oh, well, excepting by some republicans.

[Anonymous No.1448047]

>>1447971
This is why social sciences are important. If you even had the simplest idea of how societies work in reality, you wouldn't be spouting retarded shit like this.

[Anonymous No.1448054]

>>1448037

What is it with you people?
I was taught that if you really, truly want something, you can get it.

If you seek it out with everything in you.

If there's a lock on something, you break it.

[Anonymous No.1448060]

>>1448054

[Anonymous No.1448064]

>>1448054
Life changes quite a bit when you're responsible for another human being. Taking risks becomes a hell of a lot more daunting when the consequences directly affect people other than yourself.

[Anonymous No.1448067]

>>1448045
I accept your defeat.

[Anonymous No.1448079]

As far as I'm concerned, the difficulty between bridging the gap between conservative and liberal ideologies is a lack of willingness to understand the opposite position.

[Anonymous No.1448084]

>>1448064

Is this an issue of reliance?

Decisions are solely based upon you. Always.

Maybe we were both raised differently.

[Anonymous No.1448099]

>>1448037
so you don't like theory? Well then I want to see some empirical evidence that suggest that poor decision making plays no part in poverty.

[Anonymous No.1448114]

poor people ae poor because rich people oppresing them

[Anonymous No.1448122]

>>1448084
No, I was actually talking about having a family. I apologize for not specifying that in my post. In any case, the principle idea I was trying to forward was that, in most cases I've observed, including my own, having a child immediately makes you more wary of risks. When the health of a human being that you've brought into the world is on the line, you almost HAVE to become more cautious with your decisions, and as a result, lose a bit of the wiggle room you used to have when it comes to making important choices. That's basically all I'm trying to say.

[Anonymous No.1448152]

>>1448067
No, I only realized that I waste my time either you're a troll (for obvious reasons) or if you are so uninformed, which is like arguing with a hard-creationist who provides no evidence for their claims, so I call Poe on this.

[Anonymous No.1448176]

>>1448099
You're lumping all of poverty into one category, which is contrary to the reality of human society. There are many differnt types of poverty and many different ways to become impoverished. Some are, as you indicated, are intrinsically related to incompetence on the part of the individual. More often, however, poverty is spawned by circumstance and the unavailability of a qualifying medium. If you can't afford to go to college, how can you possibly hope to receive a decent job? If you can;'t receive a high paying job, how can you hope to alter your quality of life? Many poor people are mired in an economic stasis by the cost of higher education and the unavailability of jobs that pay high enough to pay for both food and college. In many cases, it's an either/or scenario, and most people are understandably forced to spend their savings on present living expenses rather than their future.

[Anonymous No.1448185]

>>1447672
dunno but after reading the comments i agree with the gentleman here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdKY6vE2iz8

[Anonymous No.1448187]

Intellectuals are liberal? RUBBISH! I personally know a guy with a PHD who votes Republican. They're smart and learn a lot about the world and are successful, so they vote for the right party.

Pic related. ANOTHER man with a fuckin' PHD who votes Republican.

[Anonymous No.1448189]

I'm sorry guys is this science or math related?

I mean really politics guys srsly?

This is board for science and math.

Subjects that are supposed to be based on logical reasoning and empirical observation.

How you can somehow conflate someones political affiliation which logically differs little from someones favorite sport team with their occupation is beyond me.

Science is logical and objective. Politics are subjective and and based on moral/emotional axioms that exist only in the human mind.

And to what ends do we want to make these associations? If some how we were to find that the majority of scientists were "liberal" ,conservative", "libertarian" ect does that somehow imply that those view points are more logical or rational?

[Anonymous No.1448213]

>>1448152
>still no counter argument
I know it's embarrassing to get told so badly you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. You lost. Give it some time, it'll sink in.

[Anonymous No.1448228]

The poor don't have money because they're lazy.

[Anonymous No.1448234]

Just grow the pie.

[Anonymous No.1448236]

>>1448176
>More often

Once agian you're making that asseration without evidence.

I'm not denying that poverty has a circumstantial component. My point is simply at what point do we decided that the cost of "helping" those that are impoverished out weigh the benifts? And for what reason do we help the impoverished? For compassion or for social benift? And who does the responsibility fall upon the govermental body, the social body, or the individual.

I'm saying that I want facts. Not asserations without evidence.

[Anonymous No.1448238]

CEO pay is in direct proportion to ability.

[Oil? What Oil? No.1448243]

>>1448176
hmm.
well said

[Anonymous No.1448246]

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549

[Anonymous No.1448248]

>>1448187
PHD means you had the balls to follow through with a university program. nothing special. woohoo he's brainwashed and given up on individuality. Words like liberal and conservative have meanings beyond the US political system. they in fact to not mean obama or mccain. you'll get it eventually, you're just young.

[Anonymous No.1448257]

good scientists-lib
evil scientists-con

[Anonymous No.1448260]

>>1448257
/thread

[Anonymous No.1448261]

[Anonymous No.1448264]

[Anonymous No.1448265]

good scientists are apolitical.

[Anonymous No.1448268]

>>1448264
told ya

[Anonymous No.1448273]

>>1448265
liberal does not mean political you dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.1448278]

[Anonymous No.1448299]

scientists don't go into science for the money

[Anonymous No.1448305]

physicists don't give a fuck about society

[Anonymous No.1448307]

>>1448273
liberal is a politcal ideology
ideology is the anthesis of science

liberal and conservative are emotional/moral
ideologies.

[Anonymous No.1448308]

>>1448299
I seriously pity anyone who can't value their life beyond the sum of their bank account.

[Anonymous No.1448312]

>>1448000

Not to sound like a dick but, why is she having children in the first place.

[Anonymous No.1448316]

>>1448307

Hard sciences: Objective
Politics, art, philosophy: Subjective

Hurp durp

[Anonymous No.1448317]

people don't know shit about science

[Anonymous No.1448323]

>>1448261
>>1448264
>>1448278
>>1448299
>>1448305

Sauce?

[Anonymous No.1448333]

>>1448317

That's better than I would have expected.

[Anonymous No.1448334]

>>1448323

see

>>1448246

for source

[Anonymous No.1448341]

>>1448312
If you have a job that pays well enough to support a child, and then you lose that job due to downsizing, you are pretty much in that mother's position along with millions of other Americans.

If you honestly try to tell her that she should have expected her company to downsize and leave her in the cold before reproducing, you are a monster.

[Anonymous No.1448342]

there are more scientists who are atheists than agnostics

[Anonymous No.1448352]

>>1448312
that's the meat of the matter.

do we support all children regardless of someones choice to have them?

Or do we limit the amount of children one can have lest irresponsible people become a burden on the state.

Or do we value reproductive freedom over state health? If so who should suffer? The social body or the indivdual?

This is way politcal ideology is a reflection of moral axioms and not logic.

[Anonymous No.1448353]

>>1448317
The reason most people don't know shit about science is the fact that the American public education system is completely shit, compared to that of other countries.

[Anonymous No.1448363]

>>1448341
why was she not saving money before the down size? If she wasn't in the position to save money way did she have children?

[Anonymous No.1448366]

>>1448353
No you are.

[Anonymous No.1448367]

>>1448353

I think more of that can be attributed to apathy; those are simple questions.

[Anonymous No.1448370]

>>1448363

Look at this faggot TRY to find a reason to not care.

lol, what a douche nozzle.

[Anonymous No.1448372]

>>1448316
what's your point? How does that negate what I said?

[Anonymous No.1448377]

>>1448363

Not everybody makes an XBOX HUEG salary.

[Anonymous No.1448378]

>>1448370
Well I don't care beyond the point I was making.

[Anonymous No.1448383]

>>1448363
Saved money is only as good as the amount of money you can save. Depending on where you live, housing costs and utility costs can easily chew through your savings.

[Anonymous No.1448388]

>>1448378

Have fun finishing high school or college.

I'm sure you'll find a woman who loves a person like you.

inb4 I HAVE A GURLFRIEDN WE DO IT EVREYDAY

[Anonymous No.1448391]

>>1448377
Then why was she having children without being financially secure?

[Anonymous No.1448393]

>>1448372

A subjective view on subjective parts of life has no effect on the objective parts of your life.

Meaning holding a political ideology is not conflicting with status as a scientist.

[Anonymous No.1448394]

>>1448377
Well then not everybody should have kids.

[Anonymous No.1448401]

The public would tell you scientists love equality, logic tells you they laugh at it. No one with intelligence would consider themselves on equal status with everyone.

[Anonymous No.1448402]

>>1448391

Because that's what people do. Certain biological and cultural drives are stronger than others.

[Anonymous No.1448407]

>>1448388
I'm a gay and have a boy friend.
What's your point?

Also LOL YOU NEVER FIND LOVE

is not a logical argument.

[Anonymous No.1448408]

>>1448394

The population of the developed world is already on the decline, bro.

[Anonymous No.1448412]

ITT: the gov't can't tell you you can't have kids, but the market can.

You've already been indoctrinated.

[Anonymous No.1448422]

>>1448412

Nope. Marxist here. Fuck the market and it's government scapegoat.

[Anonymous No.1448423]

On politics... We should recognize first off that there are different flavors of rightist and leftist politics (speaking in terms of US politics, here).

I'd place myself on the left, but I find a lot of people who would be labeled "radical leftists" have the same strains of anti-intellectualism as you'd expect to find on the far right. With Republicans, the anti-intellectual strain seems to dominate. With liberals, that's more of an extremist position. So the left is generally more science friendly.

But the left additionally has the problem of paradoxically anti-intellectual academia, i.e. people taking a strong postmodernist position, social construction of science, etc.... though that's partly died out. I don't like the tendency of scientists to undermine the value of other disciplines. An intelligent person would seek to learn from those who have a different background and perspective. Well, some of them are asking for it, but that's no reason to write off entire fields. It's evident in this thread as well, an abrasive sort of closed mindedness that seems to stem from lack of exposure to people who aren't in one's "in group". We only regularly interact with a very, very small portion of the population. Harshly judging the rest based on ignorance and stereotypes doesn't strike me as a great idea.

There's also the issue of money. I might be wrong in saying this but I suspect science attracts right-leaning individuals because of the potential for high income. For others the appeal is more intellectual. My experience supports this, but so does my bias.

[Anonymous No.1448425]

If every person waited until they were financially secure to have children, most people would have children around the age of thirty, fucking up the demographic distribution of the country.

lrn2populationgenetics

[Anonymous No.1448426]

>>1448401
Equality itself is flawed. The whole concept is laughable.

[Anonymous No.1448429]

>>1448383
Once agian she choose to have children knowing her financial prospects. Also what stopped her from finding a mate?

[Anonymous No.1448431]

>>1448394
It's not that simple. The drive to reproduce is one of the singularly most important aspects of culture on earth. It's the reason why sex is integrated into almost every facet of our media.

[Anonymous No.1448438]

>>1448317
wtf the electron question was easy but I didnt know the aspirin thing

[Anonymous No.1448442]

>>1448429

She obviously had a mate if she has childeren. Maybe his absence and him by proxy is to blame.

[Anonymous No.1448444]

>>1448425
how would that screw up the demographics of the country? Surely one could hold off having children untill they knew they'd be able to support themselves and their family for two years without a job if need be.

[Anonymous No.1448446]

>>1448423

>There's also the issue of money. I might be wrong in saying this but I suspect science attracts right-leaning individuals

see

>>1448299
>>1448264
>>1448261

[Anonymous No.1448450]

Conservatives are generally anti-intellectual because of their religious and traditionalist tendencies. The Liberals are generally anti-intellectual because they believe in the concept of equality, which to an intelligent man is ridiculously illogical.

Scientists are usually independent from either the Right or the Left.

[Anonymous No.1448453]

>>1448442
Maybe but unless they're rape babies then she is at fault as well.

[Anonymous No.1448457]

>>1448248
>He took my troll post seriously.
Look up 'Kent Hovind' on that there Wikipedia. If you know how to use a computer, anyway, apparently you're old.

[Anonymous No.1448459]

>>1448429
Your entire argument seems to be predicated on the idea that people are capable of seeing the future, and for that reason you are a hilariously incompetent moron.

[Anonymous No.1448466]

>>1448450
>independent from either the Right or the Left

No such thing. Also, fuck your nihilism.

[Anonymous No.1448467]

>>1448444

Do you have any idea of how money you would have to save up to in order to sustain a family of four for two years?

protip: you'd have to save up for a long time on the average salary to go two years without working.

= waiting to have children = fucked demographics.

[Anonymous No.1448475]

>>1448466
Butthurt much? I'm sorry, but people on /sci/ aren't scientists.

[Anonymous No.1448476]

Politics is completely separate from science. The only thing that comes close to bridging the two is economics (my major in college right now). Politics is defined as the study of how humans should organize their society why science tries to understand the phenomena of human existance I find that many theoretical scientist lean towards socialism because of its utopian and organized syetm while engineers and applied scientist lean towards capitalism for its pragmatic and chaotic yet logical nature.

[Anonymous No.1448477]

>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450
>>1448450

[Anonymous No.1448478]

>>1448475

Who said they were?

[Anonymous No.1448482]

>>1448444
The point is that "knowing when you're financially stable enough to have children" is subject to change. If you have a cushy, high-paying job and do your best at it, you probably have reason to start a family. If the economy crashes and your job is forfeit, everything you've built toward crumbles. Sometimes, as hard as it is for conservatives to believe, poverty ISN'T YOUR FAULT.

[Anonymous No.1448483]

>>1448477

Don't draw attention to it, it's wrong. He's applying objective reasoning to subjective matters.

[Anonymous No.1448484]

>>1448393
Your wrong. Your implying that the discovery of objective information cannot effect your subjective world view and therefor effect your ability to objectivly gather knowledge.

[Anonymous No.1448486]

>>1448450

see

>>1448264

most scientists describe themselves as liberal, with 14% saying very liberal.

[Anonymous No.1448487]

ITT: whiny white children of affluent parents pretend they know anything about the makeup of the currant political landscape of the US.

[Anonymous No.1448488]

>>1448450

I think you're overestimating the importance of your strawman "equality" / "political correctness" angle.

Also it's a really basic fallacy to declare yourself apolitical because you view two extremes as necessarily "equivalent".

[Anonymous No.1448495]

>>1448483
It's quite true, scientists rarely care about political spectrums because most of them are anti-intellectual.

[Anonymous No.1448498]

>>1448486
>statistics

[Anonymous No.1448502]

>>1448467
so havew a family of three also define fucked up demographics? And why it would be "fucked up".

[Anonymous No.1448512]

>>1448484

I am implying objective knowledge gained from the hard sciences cannot be applied to humanity, yes.

Maybe you could use sociology and psychology because those actually deal with people, but they are subjective constructs in and of themselves.

[Anonymous No.1448514]

>>1448487
whilst you have demonstrated the complex political concept of butthurt

[Anonymous No.1448515]

>>1448487
Actually, this is one of the most calm, rational debates I've seen on 4chan recently, and your attempt to handwave meaningful discussion only proves your own ignorance. If you are truly so superior to the participants of this debate, prove so by contributing an argument overshadowing that of everyone in this thread. Elsewise, I will call you on your fraud.

[Anonymous No.1448519]

>>1448457
>According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Kent Hovind, BOP Register number 06452-017, is scheduled for release from prison in August 2015.

Oh dear.

[Anonymous No.1448520]

>>1448482
If your job is high paying then if you don't waste your money on unnecessary things then why couldn't save at least enough money to afford daycare when you find a job?

[Anonymous No.1448521]

>>1448502

if humanity waited collectively to have children upon "financial security" the average person, who makes the average salary and would make up most of humanity, would have to save up much longer, putting off having children.

we're not talking "they'll wait til they're 27ish", they will have to wait longer.

which would throw off the demographic distribution.

this isn't rocket surgery; it's simple deduction.

[Anonymous No.1448526]

>>1448476

I don't think science should be viewed as such an autonomous "Ivory Tower" entity. Mathematics may be entitled to it, but science/engineering interact with the rest of the world in a very significant way, and we'd do well to recognize that. Not saying that Lysenkoism should be the new rage, but I think there are certain ethical considerations that can be ignored if we look at things exclusively in the context of "pure science".

Government and corporations drive research to a huge degree.

[Anonymous No.1448528]

>>1448514
While I agree, please don't use the phrase "butthurt", it's been driven into the ground several times over by now.

[Anonymous No.1448535]

>>1448520

all of your posts are "if" "but" or "why".

you're a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.1448539]

>>1448521
once again so what if it does change the demographics? Why not simply let the wealthy have the most children?

[Anonymous No.1448541]

>>1448539

troll harder, nigger.

[Anonymous No.1448547]

>>1448520
You seem to have a very, very poor concept of what it takes to successfully support a family within a reasonable quality of life.

[Anonymous No.1448553]

>>1448539

Because there aren't enough wealthy people to maintain a healthy population when you consider how they are a small minority and tend to have very few offspring.

[Anonymous No.1448554]

>>1448535
no I ask question so as to allow people to reach their own conclusions and maybe learn something in the procces.
you need to look up socratic method teaching.

[Anonymous No.1448556]

>>1448539
The wealthy are mostly intelligent, and intelligent people are quite rare. They don't want to pop out children yearly, like breeding mules.

[Anonymous No.1448560]

>>1448553
they're enough people who can support at least three children each. The population my shrink a little at first but this is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.1448563]

>>1448556
The wealthy used to have no problem having children.

[Anonymous No.1448573]

>>1448554

>implying you teach

lol

[Anonymous No.1448577]

>>1448563

yeah, when they sat on their ass. modern capitalism doesn't allow that anymore.

[Anonymous No.1448579]

>>1448560

The population would plummet, and you wouldn't necessarily gain successful people. In fact, you'd have to raise mostly duds or else society would collapse from a lack of lower class people to do labor.

[Anonymous No.1448582]

>Educated
>conservative

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.1448586]

>>1448547
>reasonable quality of life

Maybe one should lower their expectations before asking me to pay for their offspring.

My father supported a wife and four kids on a coal miner's wage.

[Anonymous No.1448587]

>>1448577

Yes it does. Most fortunes are made through manipulation of money by shrewd buying and selling of stocks and commodities.

[Anonymous No.1448588]

>>1448563
The concept of wealth has changed. Before it was passed down in families which allowed some inbreeding. Now only the innovative and intelligent people become truly wealthy.

Of course most people haven't noticed this and still call all wealthy people evil and such. If you're poor, it's obviously the fault of the people who use their minds to earn their wealth.

[Anonymous No.1448591]

>>1448528
why? you butthurt or something butthurt fella?

[Anonymous No.1448594]

>>1448586
Anecdotal evidence won't get you anywhere, son.

[Anonymous No.1448600]

>>1448588
This.

[Anonymous No.1448602]

>>1448579
Technology has reached the point that much hard labor can be done with machinary and what is to stop the offspring of the wealthy from doing the labor?

[Anonymous No.1448603]

>>1448586

And we can learn from your father's story. That need not happen.

[Anonymous No.1448604]

>>1448591
Not particularly. I just think that "butthurt" has seen its day in the sun as a meme and should be retired.

BTW, just how miffed do you have to be to qualify as "butthurt"?

[Anonymous No.1448610]

>>1448587

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1448616]

>>1448588

Modern wealth is a product of oligarchy and pedigree. There is no hope for true new wealth in a world of corporate behemoths.

[Anonymous No.1448622]

>>1448579

explain this collapse

[Anonymous No.1448623]

>>1448604
You don't even have to be miffed at all. If anything the term is used to make you miffed in the first place.

[Anonymous No.1448625]

>>1448594
this whole argument has been based on anecdotal/hypothetical evidence. No one has yet to introduce ANY empirical data.

[Anonymous No.1448629]

>>1448588

So wealth = merit, then?

People who shift stocks and property are innovative and intelligent and making a positive contribution to society? They're not just shrewd at playing a zero sum game and living like parasites?

[Anonymous No.1448630]

>>1448610

Common sense, and it is implied by the 2008 crash.

[Anonymous No.1448636]

>>1448622

if everybody is play CEO, who is playing assembly line worker, miner, technician, etc.?

[Anonymous No.1448640]

>>1448630

The 2008 crash in banking? Not stocks.

Again [citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1448642]

>>1448603
Why should it not happen?

I'm not having offspring I can not support and I feel I shouldn't be asked to pay for someone else's without proof that their poverty was due to good decision making in poor circumstances.

[Anonymous No.1448645]

>>1448629
Your idealism is amusing, you think if no one did it, there would be an economy at all? Modern labor is being outsourced by machinery. Soon the workforce will be the true parasites.

[Anonymous No.1448647]

>>1448640
>banking
>manipulation of money

[Anonymous No.1448652]

>>1448645

Thanks for the non-sequitur, but that doesn't really approach what I was talking about.

[Anonymous No.1448653]

>>1448645

>this is what capitalist actually believe.

[Anonymous No.1448667]

>>1448653
>I'm poor and it's obviously the fault of the ebilzzz rich people.

[Anonymous No.1448671]

>>1448642

It should not happen because this is the year 2010. We praise America as a land of opportunity, yet in modern times this opportunity seems to pass over the impoverished. Not everybody can be exceptional, because you need a lower class of laborers to turn the wheels.

If you must build a fortune upon their backs, at least give them a minimum standard of life.

[Anonymous No.1448678]

>>1448667

i am from a middle class family. i am currently a doctoral candidate, and will make enough money to live comfortably.

so, no, your conveniently painted (and false) image of me is false.

[Anonymous No.1448683]

>>1448645

Am I really reading what I think I am reading?

With that attitude, you should have no moral objection to the working class forming mobs and plundering your estate. They would be taking initiative, after all.

[Anonymous No.1448695]

>>1448645
Your idealism is amusing, you think if no one traded stocks in large corporations that the economy would crumble?

[Anonymous No.1448704]

>>1448671
mhe, I reject you idealism, appeal to emotion , and implication that social support without social restriction sustainable.

[Anonymous No.1448726]

>>1448704

>implying idealism has no emotion

[Anonymous No.1448735]

>>1448704
Dividing reality into a political duality is the most harmful thing you can do to science. What is, is.

[Anonymous No.1448738]

>>1448187
>PHD
>Implying this isn't the school he attended
>Patriot School....
>Look it up.

[Anonymous No.1448743]

>>1448671
>you need a lower class of laborers to turn the wheels.
>implying lower laborer class in the US doesn't consume more than it produces

[Anonymous No.1448747]

>>1448704

Appeal to emotion? That would be a compromise, not charity.

Do not forget that there are more of them than you. The system that allows you to excel while they fail only exists because they allow it to exist. You can defeat the working class with made up laws and corporate structure, but they can defeat you with raw unaided force.

Power in numbers, power in the people.

[Anonymous No.1448756]

>>1448743
>Implying this consumption does not end up on the books in the long run, which does not then buoy a corporation's turnover and share value

[Anonymous No.1448766]

>>1448743

Fine, then let us extend this to the sweatshops in Asia. We sweep them under the rug, but we take so much from them.

[Anonymous No.1448768]

The apparent single Republican in this thread really sucks at debating anything.

[Anonymous No.1448803]

>>1448768
Silly child, Republics don't know how to use the internet, Everyone here is just trolling.

[Anonymous No.1448971]

>>1448726
no i'm simply saying I reject HIS/HER ideology

[Anonymous No.1448983]

>>1448747
i'm not speaking of the working class. I'm speaking of the parasitic class.

[Anonymous No.1449004]

>>1448747
>because this is the year 2010. We praise America as a land of opportunity

>appeal to emotion

[Anonymous No.1449108]

>>1448747
I think you mean,

Idiocy in numbers, power in masses. Populism is the worst system to date.

[Anonymous No.1449134]

>>1449108
See: the teaparty movement.

[Anonymous No.1449176]

>>1449108
True, but remember, your intellect belong to your lessers.

[Anonymous No.1449192]

According to everyone ITT, education in general is communist.

[Anonymous No.1449214]

>>1449192
I disagree, education should be widespread. However, those who attend and do nothing, or those that don't care, should be simply thrown out. Trying to teach a fool, is naive and pointless.

[Anonymous No.1449219]

neither, im a socioliberal (all for freedom of opportunity)