(04-22-2020 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 10:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Have a good one guys!

dodge the question and run away.

Here is lad's statement from post 11364:

"I see a two major policy planks that fall under the anti-science umbrella - either because they run counter to the general consensus established by the scientific community, or they are based more firmly on a religious basis:
1) Climate change and mitigation
2) Abortion access"

Never a word of explanation about #2, despite repeated requests. he keeps saying he has explained it, but he hasn't - all he has done is to list it and refer to a nonexistent post in which he explained it.

I know at least one lefty who would term this a "lie". But I am too nice to go there. I will just assume he is mistaken, that in his own mind he has given an explanation. But in reality, he has not. I would like an explanation in reality.

Yep, dodges your question and runs away.

Throws a snit at me for using 'hates science' instead of his much better 'consistently fights science' (Lolz.... again....), doesnt address a single substantive point in my response.

Quite the brave Sir Lad. Maybe his minstrels will write a song about his brave deeds.

I think this is what yo have in mind, Tanq. From one of my favorite movies, dude.

I though we were having a nice discussion until he ended it. maybe he had to work.

The brave sir lad is currently still opining in another thread. Apparently studiously avoiding any discussion of 'a position on abortion as being science'. Kind of par for the course I have come to expect.

And yes, OO, that is exactly what I was making an oblique reference to.

So I guess what we have in the course of this 'study in lad;' is:

a) he thinks that the right 'fights science' in a general manner (a rather ignorant as hell comment, and farcically funny when he is attempting to demean supposed ignorant people);

b) gets snitty about characterizing his comment about 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';

c) doubles down by noting that a moral stance on abortion is 'anti-science' in nature;

d) triples down on the apparent ignorance by conflating a moral viewpoint as being 'anti-science'--- because one might have a 'religious' viewpoint as the apparent sole rationale for that viewpoint;

e) snittily avoids your direct question on *why* a moral position on abortion is 'anti-science' with the turd-ass answer of 'look at my response';

f) refuses to engage in any substantive points that I brought up -- solely in able to focus on the utterly horrible characterization of his (in the first place rather ignorant) statement about the right 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';

g) then says 'toodles' as he merrily thumbs his nose as he walks out.

I just don’t think any of us are going to get anything positive out of the conversation. I see y’all already disagree with my perspective, so what is there to be gained from this? In this instance this is solely a matter of opinion - there isn’t a right or wrong answer.

I don’t think this is a brave response, I just don’t really care to engage this so deeply.

Sorry that this enraged you so much that spent this long typing out a reply.