We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now

[Sanoy]

They've been "linking" to science for quite a long time. They decided to speak up about it when certain a certain political party that has been highjacked by a scientific illiterate decided that political polices would be enacted that would exacerbate the damage being done to the planet.

Older conservatives might not care if they destroy the planet if it puts a little more gold in their pockets, but the young and those studying the planet, you know, scientists, might.

Yes those greedy old conservative overlords, smoking in the shadows and cackling and what not.

 

[usexpat97]

If you think they're basing anything on science then I have some nice oceanfront property in Arizona which may interest you

Okay. If you can verify it and you'll let me look at it, I'll pay in cash.

 

[Tom 1]

I was expecting a scientific analysis of why his actions were wrong, rather than a political announcement.

Can you explain what that would entail? What would be a scientific analysis of the wrongness of any of Trump's actions involve?

 

[Sanoy]

Can you explain what that would entail? What would be a scientific analysis of the wrongness of any of Trump's actions involve?

For Scientific American article it would be a list of Trumps actions, and why they were scientifically wrong.

 

[pdudgeon]

Do you mean self preservation is a reason for believing in conspiracy theories etc? I’m not sure if I get your meaning.

Are Christians really persecuted in the US? I’ve heard that from other people, but it doesn’t look like that from the outside.

Case in point: the closing of churches due to the virus.

The right of Freedom to Worship is in our national Constitution.
So is the Freedom of lawful assembly.

But our churches were closed and locked down this year, by order of the state Governors, in direct violation of those laws, and they are only open now to half of their capacity, again by order of the state governors.
Effectively that still means that the churches are still shut against half of their membership.

These actions were taken specifically against ALL Christians in direct disobedience to the established laws of the land. That is persecution.

Because of that action, our Bishop granted all Catholics under his jurisdiction, blanket pardon from attending mass. He had to do this, or he risked putting millions of Catholics in direct and willful violation of the accepted beliefs of our Church.

Receiving The Eucharist has also been changed. Now we are only offered the bread (no wine) and reception is only in the hand, and not on the tongue.

So yes, to this very day Christians ARE STILL PERSECUTED in the U.S.A, in direct disobedience of the Constitution that governs our land.

 

[usexpat97]

Case in point: the closing of churches due to the virus.

The right of Freedom to Worship is in our national Constitution.
So is the Freedom of lawful assembly.

But our churches were closed and locked down this year, by order of the state Governors, in direct violation of those laws, and they are only open now to half of their capacity, again by order of the state governors.
Effectively that still means that the churches are still shut against half of their membership.

These actions were taken specifically against ALL Christians in direct disobedience to the established laws of the land. That is persecution.

Because of that action, our Bishop granted all Catholics under his jurisdiction, blanket pardon from attending mass. He had to do this, or he risked putting millions of Catholics in direct and willful violation of the accepted beliefs of our Church.

Receiving The Eucharist has also been changed. Now we are only offered the bread (no wine) and reception is only in the hand, and not on the tongue.

So yes, to this very day Christians ARE STILL PERSECUTED in the U.S.A, in direct disobedience of the Constitution that governs our land.

I think this OT is beginning to get a bit far removed from Scientific American. While I do not directly contest what you said, in this context it is the SCIENTIFIC community who believes the SCIENCE favors social distancing. They are not trying to persecute anybody--they are merely following wherever the scientific trail may lead them.

Also, in my personal experience, I have not seen the 50% church capacity as limiting at all. I'm a regular at multiple churches (long story...), and I've got one church, they are still not open for live church services even though the city will allow them to. And the other church, they are at below 50% live attendance, because they livestream their services, and 3/4ths of the membership opts to remain virtual at home.

 

[Tom 1]

For Scientific American article it would be a list of Trumps actions, and why they were scientifically wrong.

I don't get what you mean. Do you mean an explanation of why his comments about science related matters are incorrect? People have tried to correct Trump, but he just doubles down, claiming he knows more than anyone and that 'science' doesn't know, and other inane stuff like that. How can you argue with someone whose understanding of the world is fundamentally delusional? There are any number of experts Trump could consult but he prefers to go with his own random and poorly informed intuitions, which tend to conveniently coincide with the kind of empty rhetoric that gets him votes.

 

[MIDutch]

Case in point: the closing of churches due to the virus.

The right of Freedom to Worship is in our national Constitution.
So is the Freedom of lawful assembly.

Yes. There are quite a few of us who support churches being filled to overflowing with devout believers.

 

[Tom 1]

Case in point: the closing of churches due to the virus.

The right of Freedom to Worship is in our national Constitution.
So is the Freedom of lawful assembly.

But our churches were closed and locked down this year, by order of the state Governors, in direct violation of those laws, and they are only open now to half of their capacity, again by order of the state governors.
Effectively that still means that the churches are still shut against half of their membership.

These actions were taken specifically against ALL Christians in direct disobedience to the established laws of the land. That is persecution.

Because of that action, our Bishop granted all Catholics under his jurisdiction, blanket pardon from attending mass. He had to do this, or he risked putting millions of Catholics in direct and willful violation of the accepted beliefs of our Church.

Receiving The Eucharist has also been changed. Now we are only offered the bread (no wine) and reception is only in the hand, and not on the tongue.

So yes, to this very day Christians ARE STILL PERSECUTED in the U.S.A, in direct disobedience of the Constitution that governs our land.

That seems a rather convoluted interpretation of events. If your idea is valid, that would mean the whole nation (and pretty much the whole world) is being 'persecuted' through measures taken to control the spread of the virus.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you explain what that would entail? What would be a scientific analysis of the wrongness of any of Trump's actions involve?

Something like this - Yes, Donald Trump really did look into the sky during the solar eclipse - CNNPolitics

 

[Sanoy]

I don't get what you mean. Do you mean an explanation of why his comments about science related matters are incorrect? People have tried to correct Trump, but he just doubles down, claiming he knows more than anyone and that 'science' doesn't know, and other inane stuff like that. How can you argue with someone whose understanding of the world is fundamentally delusional? There are any number of experts Trump could consult but he prefers to go with his own random and poorly informed intuitions, which tend to conveniently coincide with the kind of empty rhetoric that gets him votes.

This isn't about what Trump does. It's what I would want out of a scientific mag, which I used to subscribe too. I would want a list of actions Trump took, and why those were scientifically wrong actions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I would want a list of actions Trump took, and why those were scientifically wrong actions.

What, like defying gravity or something?

Science doesn't deal with 'scientifically wrong actions'.

Science can demonstrate that if you drink bleach, you'll injure yourself. If you don't wear a mask, you're at a higher risk of infection. But there is no scientific wrong-o-meter for measuring actions.

Trump has certainly made scientifically incorrect statements. And we can draw a causal line between some his actions and inactions with respect to COVID-19, and the results in the US, which are among the worst in the world.

 

[Pommer]

This isn't about what Trump does. It's what I would want out of a scientific mag, which I used to subscribe too. I would want a list of actions Trump took, and why those were scientifically wrong actions.

And THEN you’ll defend him anyway.
So why should any of us compile such a list?

 

[Sanoy]

And THEN you’ll defend him anyway.
So why should any of us compile such a list?

I did know you were a prophet.

I'm not asking you to!!! DO you have any idea what you are talking about???? (Answer: No)

 

[Sanoy]

Science can demonstrate that if you drink bleach, you'll injure yourself. If you don't wear a mask, you're at a higher risk of infection. But there is no scientific wrong-o-meter for measuring actions.

Good so you do know what a such a list might look like.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Good so you do know what a such a list might look like.

"He was warned many times in January and February about the onrushing disease, yet he did not develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment, coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines."

Scientifically, if you do nothing for months, then things will be worse.

"Testing people for the virus, and tracing those they may have infected, is how countries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks, saved lives, and successfully reopened businesses and schools. ... Trump opposed $25 billion for increased testing and tracing that was in a pandemic relief bill as late as July."

Scientifically, if you test and contact trace, then you can contain the virus. Conversely, if you do not, you have no such guarantee.

"if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public, [then] it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December, according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine. ... Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors in Michigan and California and elsewhere as they tried to impose social distancing and restrict public activities to control the virus."

It's all there, if you care to read it.

 

[Sanoy]

"He was warned many times in January and February about the onrushing disease, yet he did not develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment, coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines."

Scientifically, if you do nothing for months, then things will be worse.

"Testing people for the virus, and tracing those they may have infected, is how countries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks, saved lives, and successfully reopened businesses and schools. ... Trump opposed $25 billion for increased testing and tracing that was in a pandemic relief bill as late as July."

Scientifically, if you test and contact trace, then you can contain the virus. Conversely, if you do not, you have no such guarantee.

"if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public, [then] it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December, according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine. ... Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors in Michigan and California and elsewhere as they tried to impose social distancing and restrict public activities to control the virus."

It's all there, if you care to read it.

I mean actually bringing it up in the article. Example Trump says x. This is why it's wrong. Not Trump says X, find link, insert link why it's wrong. I used to get the physical mag, I guess they are pure digital now.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I mean actually bringing it up in the article.

It did. "But Trump and his vice president flouted local mask rules, making it a point not to wear masks themselves in public appearances. Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors [on masks and other science-based pandemic responses]."

I used to get the physical mag, I guess they are pure digital now.

No, they're both. I get the print edition.

 

[Sanoy]

It did. "But Trump and his vice president flouted local mask rules, making it a point not to wear masks themselves in public appearances. Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors [on masks and other science-based pandemic responses]."



No, they're both. I get the print edition.

Right but in conjunction.

So much better in print.

 

[Pommer]

I mean actually bringing it up in the article. Example Trump says x. This is why it's wrong. Not Trump says X, find link, insert link why it's wrong. I used to get the physical mag, I guess they are pure digital now.

Lookit them goalposts fly!