Palin Trashes Science

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Palin Trashes Science
198
Sat, 10-25-2008 - 4:57pm

In her first policy speech she trashes autism research in France involving fruit flies. Sounds reasonable if you don't know anything about autism, or research.

Here is the truth:

1. The research was in the United States, not France. Can you please get your facts right Palin?

2. Fruit flies, like rats, are standard fare in basic research. Trashing research because fruit flies are involved is really dumb.

3. The research in question actually has shown great promise in discovering the causes of autism.

Here it all is in a revealing segment: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27367248

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/

Palin is so uninformed it's ridiculous. And by the way, this is like the umpteenth thing she and McCain have said would be exempt from their "across the board" spending freeze.

PS It's a hoot that she says Republicans are for kids with special needs. She should know that Bush basically screwed us on that front by delaying embryonic stem cell research for 8 years. Bush and the Republicans held up the research on religious grounds. All the while Rove was running around calling the religious right "nuts." As David Kuo, the former faith based advisor to the White House who became disgusted with the Republicans and quit revealed, these people are just hypocrites.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 10:55am

Again: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008Oinkers


Ok, I won't use that word if it offends you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 10:59am

You think I am calling Olbermann a moron because he doesn't agree with me?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 11:08am
No, this has already been explained. There are two issues here, one is that the research she talked about was actually carried out by a US agriculture department in a facility it maintains in France. However, Palin also seemed to ridicule fruitfly research GENERALLY, and it was simply pointed out that, among many, many other things, fruitfly research has been used to learn about autism.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 11:18am

Yes I am a teacher and I can tell you that students are not allowed to engage in name calling in my class. They generally learn that the first few days of school, but the really hard core transgressors learn it through detentions.

Unfortunately name calling does cause me to discount the rest of the post. Name calling is a form of propaganda, it's use undermines what may or may not be otherwise valid points within the post.

"The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.

The most obvious type of name calling involves bad names. For example, consider the following:

* Commie
* Fascist
* Pig
* Yuppie
* Bum
* Terrorist

A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess a negative emotional charge. Those who oppose budget cuts may characterize fiscally conservative politicians as "stingy." Supporters might prefer to describe them as "thrifty." Both words refer to the same behavior, but they have very different connotations. Other examples of negatively charged words include:

* social engineering
* radical
* cowardly
* counter-culture

The name-calling technique was first identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) in 1938. According to the IPA, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name-calling.

* What does the name mean?
* Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?
* Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like?
* Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?"

Edited to ask how do you think I attacked you? I posted my thoughts on name calling. Do you deny that you called Olberman a moron? If you didn't call him a moron then I apologize for misinterpreting your response, however I distinctly remember you calling him a moron. Please point out specifically where I said anything untrue. I was not attacking anyone, merely stating my view on the habit of name calling. You are free to disagree with me and continue to call people names.

Edited 10/26/2008 11:24 am ET by janetheteacher

Edited 10/26/2008 11:24 am ET by janetheteacher




Edited 10/26/2008 3:22 pm ET by janetheteacher
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 11:56am

You mean O'Reilly, who fabricated a story about gangs of pink pistol toting lesbians terrorizing straight males ? Or the O'Reilly who fabricated the phoney "War on Christmas", or the O'Reilly who falsely stated that a public school "banned" the Declaration of Independence ? The school had to hire extra security guards due to the death threats that the school received on THAT lie.

He is not a "watch dog". He is an attack dog.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 12:08pm

It doesn't matter what you explained.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 12:11pm

Sort of do as I say then?


I didn't name call Olbermann.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 12:11pm
Your opinion.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 12:16pm
Are you intentionally missing the point that the money went to a US FACILITY in France? Or are you just making the choice to ignore that pertinent information because it doesn't support your opinion?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 10-26-2008 - 12:26pm


Not sure where this comment fits in with my reply to you "Sort of do as I say then?" since I am not calling you any names. Also not sure how you can make this comment "I didn't name call Olbermann. I used an adjective that accurately describes him." When in three separate posts you did in fact call him a moron.

message #:7829.8 "You really shouldn't listen to Olbermann. He is a moron.

message #: 17829.10 "Again you really shouldn't listen to Olbermann. He is just a moron that has little clue on how to be a good reporter"

Post number 17829.33 "You think I am calling Olbermann a moron because he doesn't agree with me?"

I guess to you it is just a semantics game. Pardon me if I discount the credibility of posts that involve name calling. Its sort of a Godwin's Rule kind of thing.

Pages