3 ms·

Biased data shows a thing.... Given this shows the engine can't differentiate between UK and US data I would implore not to use that as a sensible source of an

by rob_c 4y ago

Biased data shows a thing.... Given this shows the engine can't differentiate between UK and US data I would implore not to use that as a sensible source of anything. Also articles from biased groups are not a 100% unbiased source and demonstrate the public perception of this again being a partisan issue that would go away if the evil blue suits in the city all disappeared. I,... sigh... yes, You, must be correct because you can copy and paste from google, well done, a person on the internet bows to your clearly superior intelligencia.

n4r9 4y ago
> a person on the internet bows to your clearly superior intelligencia I don't appreciate the sarcastic and attacking nature of this comment (and some previous comments). I've been civil - albeit a little frustrated - and I hope for the same from others. Perhaps you could provide some examples of where other parties' policies, ideology, or MP's statements undermine expert or scientific consensus? For the Conservatives, I can name several issues where MPs have publicly undermined expert consensus, e.g. Brexit, COVID, climate change, and abortion. BTW I do already think that the Green Party's stance on GMO and nuclear verges on anti-intellectual, given that they have supported protests against ongoing scientific trials. Whilst it is a minor party and it doesn't reach the level of Conservative anti-intellectualism, it is an issue. You've mentioned that Labour "promote extremist religious views" which could potentially be anti-intellectual, but this isn't something I've come across except maybe on the very fringes. A slightly stronger claim I've seen is that identity politics could be classed as anti-intellectual if it denies scientific realities regarding sex, although again I haven't really seen this veer into anti-intellectualism except on the fringes.
- rob_c 4y ago
  Of course your correct. I can see that by the size of the wall of text that you must be. Clearly by not reading any of that I'm in the wrong and my life is wasted...
  - n4r9 4y ago
    Out of curiosity, what would it take for you to reconsider your position? You're quick to dismiss sources or reasoning without offering much yourself.

by rob_c 4y ago

n4r9 4y ago

> a person on the internet bows to your clearly superior intelligencia I don't appreciate the sarcastic and attacking nature of this comment (and some previous comments). I've been civil - albeit a little frustrated - and I hope for the same from others. Perhaps you could provide some examples of where other parties' policies, ideology, or MP's statements undermine expert or scientific consensus? For the Conservatives, I can name several issues where MPs have publicly undermined expert consensus, e.g. Brexit, COVID, climate change, and abortion. BTW I do already think that the Green Party's stance on GMO and nuclear verges on anti-intellectual, given that they have supported protests against ongoing scientific trials. Whilst it is a minor party and it doesn't reach the level of Conservative anti-intellectualism, it is an issue. You've mentioned that Labour "promote extremist religious views" which could potentially be anti-intellectual, but this isn't something I've come across except maybe on the very fringes. A slightly stronger claim I've seen is that identity politics could be classed as anti-intellectual if it denies scientific realities regarding sex, although again I haven't really seen this veer into anti-intellectualism except on the fringes.

rob_c 4y ago
Of course your correct. I can see that by the size of the wall of text that you must be. Clearly by not reading any of that I'm in the wrong and my life is wasted...
- n4r9 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, what would it take for you to reconsider your position? You're quick to dismiss sources or reasoning without offering much yourself.