Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mike Huckabee

  • 08-04-2009 6:55pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭


    Mike Huckabee is most likely going to run for President in 2012.

    He's a creationist.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXajXz4DF1w

    He wants to change the constitution to include a reference to god.

    "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do – to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

    I wouldn't be too worried if he wasn't so popular. He probably won't be the next president but I think it's worrying that he even has a fighting chance. He was the second most popular republican candidate after John McCain in the 2008 primaries. The man is the Governor of Arkansas. A whole fcuking state! And he doesn't even realize that religion and state should be kept seperate! Don't even get me started on his other politics.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭MrEko


    He ran in the last election and lost out near the end. In 2012 (hopefully) Obama will be up for re-election and will get it. Huckabee is popular with conservatives, yes, but he wont ever make past Governer level, the majority of Republicans see that they need an Obama type person, not another old man with dusty views.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    MrEko wrote: »
    In 2012 (hopefully) Obama will be up for re-election and will get it.

    It would seem expedient to see what Obama does in his current term before talking about a second term.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    It's a pity about his views because as a person, I thought he came off very well. He appeared on the Colbert Report quite a bit and didn't come across like he felt awkward or was trying too hard like most politicians.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭Borneo Fnctn


    Dinner wrote: »
    It's a pity about his views because as a person, I thought he came off very well. He appeared on the Colbert Report quite a bit and didn't come across like he felt awkward or was trying too hard like most politicians.

    I agree. He's a good speaker and all but that's the problem with politics. The loudest, most charismatic guy will often win votes but he's not always the man for the job.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    We live in Ireland. The man has an odd view of the history of the world. I don't see how it's a peril. Why do atheists blow up creationism as a "bogeyman" issue when in fact it is not that consequential or far reaching?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Húrin wrote: »
    We live in Ireland. The man has an odd view of the history of the world. I don't see how it's a peril. Why do atheists blow up creationism as a "bogeyman" issue when in fact it is not that consequential or far reaching?

    You don't see how a man who believes in a fairy tale over scientific fact being the most powerful man in the entire world as being a big issue?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Galvasean wrote: »
    You don't see how a man who believes in a fairy tale over scientific fact being the most powerful man in the entire world as being a big issue?

    No. I don't like it, but I can't pretend to myself that it's a big issue. There are far more important and pressing issues to think about.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    its jindal we have to look out for, he just as religious but far more mean.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sound level headed guy from what I've seen of his new show on FOX News compared to others that they would have. He said his faith defined him, and I don't see that as being wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Húrin wrote: »
    No. I don't like it, but I can't pretend to myself that it's a big issue. There are far more important and pressing issues to think about.

    Well to me I would think when seeing anyone who believes in something so far fetched, "Gee, if he believes that, what other mad policies must he have?".
    Anyone with such a high disregard for science gets a big no in my book (like Sarah Palin - I really didn't want her in power after hearing some of the anti-science tripe she was coming out with).
    Of course science is high on my priorities.
    Different strokes for different folks I suppose.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    i believe he really meant it when he said mans law should be changed before gods law, doesn't sound very bloody conservative to me.

    --edit

    surely science should be left to scientists and not politicians? what exactly do these ****ers ever get right?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    surely science should be left to scientists and not politicians? what exactly do these ****ers ever get right?

    If a president's policies directly inhibit scientific research (whether it be through lack of funding/backing etc.) or ignores scientific research in important matters of state it can be pretty detrimental to science and the world in general.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    why should the government back research the private sector wont? If there is something to a particular research item there is bound to be a multitude of private sources of funding instead of taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers. Would you feel comfortable having your taxes going to fund a creationism museum? Or how about a few government funded scientology exhibits detailing the crimes and evil of psychiatry.
    Creationist jackasses, and jackasses they tend to be, have every right to get upset when money they've earned is taken from them to fund things they find offensive. It's got nothing to do with the validity of the research, it's just right and wrong. Scientists shouldn't have to pander to political sensibilities to get funding, the more power one president assumes to defend the interest of science the more power the next president has to attack good research.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    why should the government back research the private sector wont? If there is something to a particular research item there is bound to be a multitude of private sources of funding instead of taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers. Would you feel comfortable having your taxes going to fund a creationism museum? Or how about a few government funded scientology exhibits detailing the crimes and evil of psychiatry.
    Creationist jackasses, and jackasses they tend to be, have every right to get upset when money they've earned is taken from them to fund things they find offensive. It's got nothing to do with the validity of the research, it's just right and wrong. Scientists shouldn't have to pander to political sensibilities to get funding, the more power one president assumes to defend the interest of science the more power the next president has to attack good research.

    Much of the most advanced science projects are so expensive they can only be afforded through public finance (think NASA, ESA and CERN) and they don't have any known direct monetary benefit that would appeal to private investors looking for a return.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    look I like the idea of Cern, I think it's great, interesting and all kinds of shiny but it's still an absolute bucketload of money taken out of the pockets of working people to pay for something they couldn't even understand enough to make a decision on whether or not they wanted to fund it. Who gets to make that call? An unelected body of science experts? an elected body of scientifc retards? some horrific melding of both?

    And what if CERN reveals absolutely nothing of any significance, I know scientists and science groupies won't think it was a waste of money because even if nothing of any real significance is discovered everything new that we learn is significant but the vast majority of people don't think like that about this **** and it's not right to force them to pay for it. Maybe that means we wait a couple of decades or centuries for breakthroughs in certain areas, maybe it means we never get to try certain things but at least we'll have conducted ourselves somewhat morally. Bit of hyperbole incoming, but does the sheer awesomeness of the pyramids justify the slave labour that went into their creation? Or the cathedrals built on indulgences?

    I dunno, it's half 2 in the morning and I'm pretty sure i'm in the minority here.. I just think it's not right.

    --edit

    oh, and private space travel is still something of a wet dream.. but we'll get there, and it will be cheaper and (probably) better than it's government run alternatives.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    look I like the idea of Cern, I think it's great, interesting and all kinds of shiny but it's still an absolute bucketload of money taken out of the pockets of working people to pay for something they couldn't even understand enough to make a decision on whether or not they wanted to fund it. Who gets to make that call? An unelected body of science experts? an elected body of scientifc retards? some horrific melding of both?

    And what if CERN reveals absolutely nothing of any significance, I know scientists and science groupies won't think it was a waste of money because even if nothing of any real significance is discovered everything new that we learn is significant but the vast majority of people don't think like that about this **** and it's not right to force them to pay for it. Maybe that means we wait a couple of decades or centuries for breakthroughs in certain areas, maybe it means we never get to try certain things but at least we'll have conducted ourselves somewhat morally. Bit of hyperbole incoming, but does the sheer awesomeness of the pyramids justify the slave labour that went into their creation? Or the cathedrals built on indulgences?

    I dunno, it's half 2 in the morning and I'm pretty sure i'm in the minority here.. I just think it's not right.

    --edit

    oh, and private space travel is still something of a wet dream.. but we'll get there, and it will be cheaper and (probably) better than it's government run alternatives.

    CERN developed the world wide web and is currently leading the way in grid computing which will be of huge economic benefit for the IT sector. The operating costs of CERN are negligible in comparison to the funding spent on the military. Civilisation rise and fall and are judged upon their scientific advancement. I am of the opinion that science is the penultimate purpose of society.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    I'm not that big on military spending either :)

    --edit
    Civilisation rise and fall and are judged upon their scientific advancement. I am of the opinion that science is the penultimate purpose of society.

    umm..

    well thank you for a genuine new feeling, being more frightened of scientists than i am christians.

    The purpose of society ought (imo) be to allow each individual the opportunity to live their life their way, without causing undue harm to others.

    Do you think scientists are better than regular people?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    oh, and private space travel is still something of a wet dream.. but we'll get there, and it will be cheaper and (probably) better than it's government run alternatives.

    But it is those very government run alternatives that have done all the hard work with the development and testing of the technology that private companies will use to get the spacecraft into orbit.


    And on the CERN thing, the end goal of an experiment isn't necessarily the most important thing that could come out of that experiment. The world wide web has already come from CERN and when building the LHC they needed a way to process and analyse that volume of data. So GRID was developed. It could have a big influence on the future of distributed computing and on the Internet.

    It's very easy to say why bother with these pointless physics experiments when all that money could be used to build more hospitals or schools but the day the human race starts to put that into practice, will be the day we start to stagnate as a civilisation. Just because something doesn't return immediate investment is not an excuse to abandon it (Apologies for all the negatives there).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Dinner wrote: »
    The Internet has already come from CERN

    Small correction. The internet was developed by DARPA in the US, CERN developed the web which utilises the internet. Which also brings me to another point, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is funded by the US Military and so it was funds for the military that led to the development of the internet. Much of the technology you use everyday has it's origins in military applications such as satellite communication and GPS satellite navigation.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    But it is those very government run alternatives that have done all the hard work with the development and testing of the technology that private companies will use to get the spacecraft into orbit.

    and how does this affect the millions of people worldwide who will never get to visit outer space but are funding other peoples journey of a life time? I'm not saying space exploration is bad, I'm just saying you don't have to use government force to pay for it.

    And on the CERN thing, the end goal of an experiment isn't necessarily the most important thing that could come out of that experiment. The Internet has already come from CERN and when building the LHC they needed a way to process and analyse that volume of data. So GRID was developed. It could have a big influence on the future of distributed computing and on the Internet.

    Well that's great, and to do it millions of dollars/euro/whatever were taken (on penalty of imprisonment) from people all around the world so that some scientists could have a go at maybe finding a beneficial technology from a particular experiment. I'm not arguing the practical advances from CERN and whatnot, I'm just expressing my distaste for the methods used in funding them. you don't just get to take money from people to spend on your own pet projects, not even government oughta have that right. Whatever way you look at it, you are screwing over an incredible number of people who would otherwise rather have nothing whatsoever to do with whatever it is you're researching/funding. If the christians want to teach creationism, let them do it in the schools that they build and fund, I think it's only fair the same oughta be said for the other side.

    It's very easy to say why bother with these pointless physics experiments when all that money could be used to build more hospitals or schools but the day the human race starts to put that into practice, will be the day we start to stagnate as a civilisation. Just because something doesn't return immediate investment is not an excuse to abandon it (Apologies for all the negatives there).

    I guess I'm lucky I'm not saying that :)


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    sink wrote: »
    Small correction. The internet was developed by DARPA in the US, CERN developed the web which utilises the internet. Which also brings me to another point, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is funded by the US Military and so it was funds for the military that led to the development of the internet. Much of the technology you use everyday has it's origins in military applications such as satellite communication and GPS satellite navigation.

    And what has any of this got to do with the political and moral implications of government funding of scientific research? There are arguments to be made for military research that can't really be made for pure science like CERN, but even then should the military be given free reign to fund whatever crazy project they want at the taxpayers expense? Bomb carrying bats, mine laying dolphins and the Gay bomb. I'm sure that nonsense cost alot of money, that an incredible number of people could have used themselves to better their own lives instead of having it pissed awayon government largesse.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    umm..

    well thank you for a genuine new feeling, being more frightened of scientists than i am christians.

    Simply because I place great importance upon it? Why does that scare you?
    The purpose of society ought (imo) be to allow each individual the opportunity to live their life their way, without causing undue harm to others.

    Fairly low bar to set. "Penultimate" meaning the end result. Civility is required, but it is only a facilitator for science and culture and imo is not the penultimate purpose of society. Bear in mind that as an atheist I don't believe in any objective purpose, the purpose I am talking about is self determined and subjective. For other people it may be culture or religion.
    Do you think scientists are better than regular people?

    No don't be ridiculous, obviously not, science can not exist without the support of many other societal functions. I myself am not directly involved in science but I work in a field that owes it existence to science.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    and how does this affect the millions of people worldwide who will never get to visit outer space but are funding other peoples journey of a life time? I'm not saying space exploration is bad, I'm just saying you don't have to use government force to pay for it.


    As I mentioned scientific research isn't ever about giving immediate results to the tax payers who fund it. It's about the big picture. It's about furthering our civilisation so that in the future people may be able to hop on a spacecraft as we do an aircraft.

    And on the subject of airtravel. When it was first introduced it was used for military purposes and the elite who could afford it. But as time went by and with the introduction of aircraft like the Comet, airtravel slowly became more accessible to the public until we reach the stage we're at today when it has become something completly normal.

    Space travel could be same. But because of the obvious difficulties compared to air travel, it is of course going to be a longer and more expensive process.
    I guess I'm lucky I'm not saying that :)

    You're not too far off the mark though.
    I'm sure that nonsense cost alot of money, that an incredible number of people could have used themselves to better their own lives instead of having it pissed awayon government largesse.

    I hear what your saying though. It is a lot of money that is used, and not all of it will give practical returns. But those that do give good returns can both innovate and save our lives.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    And what has any of this got to do with the political and moral implications of government funding of scientific research? There are arguments to be made for military research that can't really be made for pure science like CERN, but even then should the military be given free reign to fund whatever crazy project they want at the taxpayers expense? Bomb carrying bats, mine laying dolphins and the Gay bomb. I'm sure that nonsense cost alot of money, that an incredible number of people could have used themselves to better their own lives instead of having it pissed awayon government largesse.

    Here's where we seem to differ. You don't care what practical benefits come out of publicly funded science that would not have been accomplished through private means, so long as money is not being taken out of yours or anyone else's pocket. While I can see the logic behind it I think you underestimate the impact that would have upon scientific advancement. We would probably never be able to reach our current level of advancement through solely private endeavours which directly impacts upon our quality of life.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    sink wrote: »
    Simply because I place great importance upon it? Why does that scare you?

    placing great importance on science is just fine and dandy with me, it is the best and possibly only way for us as to get a grip on what is going on, it's the purpose of society bit that I'm worried about.
    Fairly low bar to set. "Penultimate" meaning the end result. Civility is required, but it is only a facilitator for science and culture and imo is not the penultimate purpose of society. Bear in mind that as an atheist I don't believe in any objective purpose, the purpose I am talking about is self determined and subjective. For other people it may be culture or religion.

    Well if what you meant is that people oughtn't have restrictions placed upon the way they want to live their lives (providing there's no harm to others) then that's cool, we're in agreement. I just don't see how that can be squared with taking money from them by force and giving it to something you think is important. If you think it's important then by all means fund it, give 10% of your paycheck towards it but it's just not right to force a bible thumping or koran humping fundamentalist to pay for it. That's all I'm saying, I'm not trying to wage a war on science I'm just trying to outline a political and moral position to try to explain why some people aren't jumping for joy that (for example) embryonic stem cell research will now be federally funded in the USA.
    If you think it's important then by all means, donate.
    No don't be ridiculous, obviously not, science can not exist without the support of many other societal functions. I myself am not directly involved in science but I work in a field that owes it existence to science.

    fair enough, it was that penultimate purpose bit that threw me.

    sink wrote: »
    Here's where we seem to differ. You don't care what practical benefits come out of publicly funded science that would not have been accomplished through private means, so long as money is not being taken out of yours or anyone else's pocket. While I can see the logic behind it I think you underestimate the impact that would have upon scientific advancement. We would probably never be able to reach our current level of advancement through solely private endeavours which directly impacts upon our quality of life.

    No, I do care. I just don't think it's a good enough reason to justify immoral acts and I'm not sure how taking money by force from people who otherwise wouldn't consent to funding such programs is anything other than immoral. I'm sorry if that makes me an anti science crazy, but there it is.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    Dinner wrote: »
    As I mentioned scientific research isn't ever about giving immediate results to the tax payers who fund it. It's about the big picture. It's about furthering our civilisation so that in the future people may be able to hop on a spacecraft as we do an aircraft.

    fair enough but that's your big picture, what about the big picture of the millions of people who disagree with you? Billions worldwide probably, when you consider the lack of education most people suffer through. Are you a member of the priviledged few who get to decide the course of our civilisation? Does your superior understanding of the universe give you more of a say than them? I'm sorry if most of my post is stupid questions that don't really have anwers, but I'm not trying to argue the particulars with you. I'm all for science, I'm just also all for personal freedom and I don't see how I can cheer for something that is at it's core (imo) wrong/immoral even if it leads to all these amazing benefits and technological wonders.

    And on the subject of airtravel. When it was first introduced it was used for military purposes and the elite who could afford it. But as time went by and with the introduction of aircraft like the Comet, airtravel slowly became more accessible to the public until we reach the stage we're at today when it has become something completly normal.

    yes, globalisation has been pretty damned fantastic.

    Space travel could be same. But because of the obvious difficulties compared to air travel, it is of course going to be a longer and more expensive process.

    well, naturally.
    You're not too far off the mark though.

    No, I just don't have much faith in your or my ability to decide for the grand masses of humanity what they should and shouldn't spend their money on.
    I hear what your saying though. It is a lot of money that is used, and not all of it will give practical returns. But those that do give good returns can both innovate and save our lives.

    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. it just doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to basically force people to work hours of their lives away to fund projects they either don't care about or find morally unacceptable.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Húrin wrote: »
    No. I don't like it, but I can't pretend to myself that it's a big issue. There are far more important and pressing issues to think about.
    You must be expecting to find them in the A&A forum, otherwise I can't imagine how you even came across this thread. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭Borneo Fnctn


    Húrin wrote: »
    We live in Ireland. The man has an odd view of the history of the world. I don't see how it's a peril. Why do atheists blow up creationism as a "bogeyman" issue when in fact it is not that consequential or far reaching?

    He supports the teaching of creationism in school as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Teaching lies to students... it's a big deal. I think the fact that he believes in the creation myth is a poor testament to his intelligence to be quite honest. If he's silly enough to believe this, he's liable to have all sorts of crazy beliefs and opinions. And he does. Read up on his other politics. He's not fit to be in politics let alone the white house. He wants to change the constitution to reflect his own religious values. This is selfish and downright reckless.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    This post has been deleted.

    Yes governments do have a vested interest in the science they fund. They fund science to further their nation. If making progress isn't a good enough reason to use taxes for scientific funding then what is? The personal greed of private enterprises?

    The thing is to elect the right government, in particular the right president to lead a country which, need I remind you, this thread is about.

    Edit - He's a very charismatic man. That's the first time Ive heard him speak and he handled that question brilliantly. And as for creationism he doesn't come across as a "6-days-Adam-and-Eve" type creationist. He repeats "I don't know" a lot, which speaks in his favour. He seems more ID focused than pure creationism. He may have even make a good president depending on his policies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    This post has been deleted.
    Sorry I left my conspiracy hat at home.:pac:

    Of course governments fund science that upholds their ideologies. But scientific results will get published if they are right. The governments may fund them but they don't get to say if the results are right or wrong.
    This post has been deleted.
    And if a government developed the same cure? That would be unethical because they took money from the poor unfortunate working man.

    If a private company developed a cure for cancer you can be damn sure they would patent it and sell it at a huge cost to the consumer. People would pay too, because people don't want to die. Is that the way you want science and new technology to work?
    A government on the other hand would subsidize a vaccine and give it out for a under cost price, or free on a medical card.

    This post has been deleted.
    Of course he would. But he is a very good speaker, something America hasn't had for the last 8 years. I'm opposed to some of his policies, sure, but I'm very surprised to find that he thinks more money should go to NASA. I can only go on what wikipedia says atm, but he would certainly have been better than Bush.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    This post has been deleted.

    And what would the world be like if Hitler was never born, what would it be like religion disappears. We can make up all the what ifs that we want. But I would rather trust government backed scientific research than privatley funded. All bias aside, does any private investor(s) have the resources to sufficiently fund this research?

    This post has been deleted.

    You're quick to point out the bias that a government could have towards the scientific results. But what about the expectations of a private investor. How many investors will donate millions or billions without expecting any financial return? Surely it's possible that private donators would fund research that upholds their ideologies, and repress or ignore scientific research that does not. In doing so, they pervert the process of uncovering the truth, and often inhibit the advancement of science in their nations.


    And yes of course it's a good thing if privately funded scientists discover a cure for cancer. But again, where do you find investors that are willing to donate on the possibility of discovering a cure and thereby getting profits from the treatments?

    The fact remains that the resources available to governents is far greater than those available to a group of private investors. So there is little choice but for governments to take the brunt of it. I applaud these individuals willing to give their money to scientific research, and hope it happens more but I simply do not think that they would have enough to get anywhere long term.
    How do you think his religious stances might affect his policies on ethical issues in science? Do you think he would attempt to restrict scientists' ability to carry out stem-cell research, for instance?

    From what I've heard he would take the Bush approach where government would help fund non-embryonic research but the rest would need to be privately funded leading to the (continuation of) ridiculous situation where 2 sets of equipment and power sockets are needed. So yes, it would impact their ability to carry out stem cell research as the already limited amount of privately donated money needs to be wasted to buy equipment that they already have.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    This post has been deleted.

    Edited your post. I promote adult stem cells. I think the Government should respect the moral views of the population on the issue, in a way that they haven't here in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Edited your post. I promote adult stem cells. I think the Government should respect the moral views of the population on the issue, in a way that they haven't here in Ireland.

    Do you think that once majority of any population support any moral view that the government should respect that or just the ones you happen to agree with. For example if you lived in China and 51% of the population found Christianity to be repugnant and wanted it suppressed would you agree and encourage the government's persecution of Christians?

    And as for all the market driven arguments above, science works best when free of all ideology, replacing government funding with private sector funding wouldn't really work, it's difficult to see how things like CERN could ever get funded by a company looking to turn a profit, yet overall the benefits that scientific research have brought to humanity have been immense.

    This is very much tied up in questions raised by various non-zero game theory problems such as "the tragedy of the commons", it's better we all chip in a small amount and let scientists investigate what's interesting and promising to them, rather than hoping that private enterprise can provide it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pH: Would be relevant if it didn't go against the Constitution, which it clearly does. Only by plebiscite should the constitution be altered.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    This post has been deleted.

    If the conclusions don't match what the government funders want then so be it, if they do, they do. As for alternate research thats where private investors come in, or alternative government agencies. There's always more scientists willing to research anything.
    This post has been deleted.

    Women of the world wept, I'm sure.
    This post has been deleted.

    The fact is there are very very few private companies with the sort of money to spare to fund such research. It could potentially be a bottomless pit for them to throw their money in. At the end of the day, a company is judged on its success, its profits, not its willingness to pour billions into uncertain research. Governments on the other hand are expected to help out on such projects. Governments give grants to universities for just such unsure research. I'm in no way saying that only governments should fund scientific research, I'm saying that for big projects they're the only ones who can.
    This post has been deleted.

    As would i but America needs a charismatic leader right now and they have one in Obama. Perhaps that sentence should have been shorter by one word since I was only saying that he is quite charismatic. Diplomacy is as much a part of being a president as anything else.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    pH: Would be relevant if it didn't go against the Constitution, which it clearly does. Only by plebiscite should the constitution be altered.

    So you're saying that you're fine with the Chinese government's persecution of Christians as long as 51%+ of the population supports it and it's in their constitution? I guess you're fine with what happens in Tibet too, as they're such a small percentage of "China" as long as the majority thinks they should be suppressed then that's fine too. You see I'm guessing you wouldn't be happy with smaller subsets of the Irish population (say Kerry) deciding that embryonic stem cells research was right for them, you're only happy with this concept of "the moral views of the population" if the population size is just right (for you) and the moral views are just right (again for you).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pH: If a majority of the Irish population supports it I'd have to accept it even if I disagree. We have no evidence to suggest that most do though.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Well to me I would think when seeing anyone who believes in something so far fetched, "Gee, if he believes that, what other mad policies must he have?".

    I'm sure his other policies are available to read about on his website.

    I have heard this slippery-slope type of argument before, but in practice it doesn't seem to cause a general opposition to science/world destruction.

    I would vote for people based more on their policies than their beliefs. I don't care for religious tests in politics.
    sink wrote: »
    Much of the most advanced science projects are so expensive they can only be afforded through public finance (think NASA, ESA and CERN) and they don't have any known direct monetary benefit that would appeal to private investors looking for a return.

    Actually a lot of technological innovation has come about through experiments done in space. I've even heard that for ever $1 spent by the Americans in space, they're eventually made back $2 through the fruits of the research.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    This post has been deleted.

    The purpose of science is not to uncover the truth, but to serve human survival needs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Húrin wrote: »
    I'm sure his other policies are available to read about on his website.

    I have heard this slippery-slope type of argument before, but in practice it doesn't seem to cause a general opposition to science/world destruction.

    I would vote for people based more on their policies than their beliefs. I don't care for religious tests in politics.

    What if his beliefs (in this case Creationism) are likely to have a direct negative effect on science (a plolicy which I am concerned about)?
    With 6 day Creationism in reagrds to science you can't just assume one won't encroach on the other.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Húrin wrote: »
    The purpose of science is not to uncover the truth, but to serve human survival needs.

    Surely thats the purpose of medical science but not all science?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Surely thats the purpose of medical science but not all science?

    No, all science serves this function. For instance, research that lets us communicate faster, grow more food, or travel faster gives us obvious advantages as a group. Advantages over other animals and other groups of humans. We are not in a position to know the objective truth about the universe.


Advertisement