3 ms·

A breach of integrity? What the F*$)? It's just the president introducing the show, we don't know what he plans to say but until we do, we should not be holdin

A breach of integrity? What the F*$)? It's just the president introducing the show, we don't know what he plans to say but until we do, we should not be holding any opinions nor should we bringing up the accusation that this is a politicization of science. IMO, you have offended yourself as a scientist by being closed minded and accusing/assuming crap without analyzing the facts first.

javert 13y ago
> we should not be holding any opinions nor should we bringing up the accusation that this is a politicization of science. How many years of this president would it take before you accumulated enough evidence to reach a conclusion about him? To give him the benefit of the doubt after this many years is simply willful ignorance.
- mikhailt 13y ago
  I'm not giving anybody any benefits of the doubt nor am I giving any conclusion about anything. As a person of science, I do not judge or make any conclusion without actually trying it myself in person. I don't care about the president. This whole thing is about a potential important science show and you're attacking it because of some few minutes of introduction from the most important man in the country. The president may be doing the show a favor to bring in more viewers. Without viewers, the show will fail. The president giving the introduction HAS NO IMPACT of how I'm going to feel about the actual show itself. You know why? Because I'll base my opinion AFTER I watch it, NOT BEFORE. You're accusing the show of lacking of integrity and won't watch it because some guy is introducing the show, rather than actually watching the show first and then come up with your own opinion, which will then be more of a solid foundation. If the show and the introduction made me feel like it was bastardized by politics, then I will be happy with agree with you. I just can't agree with you without watching this in the first place.
  - javert 13y ago
    If it were Pat Robertson (evangelical Christian leader) introducting the show, would you say the same thing? What if it were Hitler? It would not matter if either of those figures appeared to perfectly espoused science for a few minutes; it does not erase who they are. The same is true for Obama. This is a man who is adamantly and explicitly opposed to the founding principles of America, including legislative and constitutional restraint on his power (see his "selective enforcement" of Obamacare, for example). This is a man who is creating a two-tiered healthcare system: one for the very rich and one for everyone else. This is a man who blocked the Keystone pipeline. (Can someone be pro-science but against the industrial development and improvement of the country? Answer: No.) And I could go on and on. He is extremely politicized, literally 1/2 of the country hates living under his rule, and he has no business being allowed anywhere near science.
    - robotron 13y ago
      ...and someone's own biases are showing. You're obviously right-leaning (nothing wrong with that) in your "non-politicized" opinion. Unclench and just be happy that scientific wonder is getting some time in the media spotlight for once. It would even be okay if George Bush had an opportunity to do this during his presidency. Unfortunately, the show wasn't airing at the time.
      - javert 13y ago
        > ...and someone's own biases are showing. And would you also call me "biased" for claiming that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around? > Unclench and just be happy that scientific wonder is getting some time in the media spotlight for once. No, Obama is getting time in front of the spotlight that ought to be instead shining on science.
    - mikhailt 13y ago
      Nice to see Godwin's law kicking in. I wouldn't care if Pat Robertson introduced the show, that'd hurt him more than the show since he'd be effectively promoting a science show. In fact, I hated Bush but I still wouldn't bash the show for asking him of the introduction. I wouldn't make any judgments until I watch both first. There are always at least two sides to the same story and I learnt from experience not to rush to any judgements until afterward. By the way, Hitler? That's just a quick way to lose the argument.

javert 13y ago

> we should not be holding any opinions nor should we bringing up the accusation that this is a politicization of science. How many years of this president would it take before you accumulated enough evidence to reach a conclusion about him? To give him the benefit of the doubt after this many years is simply willful ignorance.

mikhailt 13y ago
I'm not giving anybody any benefits of the doubt nor am I giving any conclusion about anything. As a person of science, I do not judge or make any conclusion without actually trying it myself in person. I don't care about the president. This whole thing is about a potential important science show and you're attacking it because of some few minutes of introduction from the most important man in the country. The president may be doing the show a favor to bring in more viewers. Without viewers, the show will fail. The president giving the introduction HAS NO IMPACT of how I'm going to feel about the actual show itself. You know why? Because I'll base my opinion AFTER I watch it, NOT BEFORE. You're accusing the show of lacking of integrity and won't watch it because some guy is introducing the show, rather than actually watching the show first and then come up with your own opinion, which will then be more of a solid foundation. If the show and the introduction made me feel like it was bastardized by politics, then I will be happy with agree with you. I just can't agree with you without watching this in the first place.
- javert 13y ago
  If it were Pat Robertson (evangelical Christian leader) introducting the show, would you say the same thing? What if it were Hitler? It would not matter if either of those figures appeared to perfectly espoused science for a few minutes; it does not erase who they are. The same is true for Obama. This is a man who is adamantly and explicitly opposed to the founding principles of America, including legislative and constitutional restraint on his power (see his "selective enforcement" of Obamacare, for example). This is a man who is creating a two-tiered healthcare system: one for the very rich and one for everyone else. This is a man who blocked the Keystone pipeline. (Can someone be pro-science but against the industrial development and improvement of the country? Answer: No.) And I could go on and on. He is extremely politicized, literally 1/2 of the country hates living under his rule, and he has no business being allowed anywhere near science.
  - robotron 13y ago
    ...and someone's own biases are showing. You're obviously right-leaning (nothing wrong with that) in your "non-politicized" opinion. Unclench and just be happy that scientific wonder is getting some time in the media spotlight for once. It would even be okay if George Bush had an opportunity to do this during his presidency. Unfortunately, the show wasn't airing at the time.
    - javert 13y ago
      > ...and someone's own biases are showing. And would you also call me "biased" for claiming that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around? > Unclench and just be happy that scientific wonder is getting some time in the media spotlight for once. No, Obama is getting time in front of the spotlight that ought to be instead shining on science.
  - mikhailt 13y ago
    Nice to see Godwin's law kicking in. I wouldn't care if Pat Robertson introduced the show, that'd hurt him more than the show since he'd be effectively promoting a science show. In fact, I hated Bush but I still wouldn't bash the show for asking him of the introduction. I wouldn't make any judgments until I watch both first. There are always at least two sides to the same story and I learnt from experience not to rush to any judgements until afterward. By the way, Hitler? That's just a quick way to lose the argument.