Scientists Also Lying About Ebola, Explains George F. Will

[ksen]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/george-will-scientists-also-lying-about-ebola.html

Appearing yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Will explained to his incredulous co-panelists that Ebola is actually far easier to transmit than the authorities are letting on:

The problem is, the original assumption was that with great certitude, if not certainty, was that you need to have direct contact, meaning with bodily fluids with someone, because it's not airborne. There are now doctors who are saying, we're not so sure that it can't be in some instances transmitted by airborne …

In fact, there are doctors who are saying that in a sneeze or some cough, some of the airborne particles can be infectious?

Neera Tanden, appearing on the panel, asked, “I'm sorry, who are the doctors saying this? I mean, we have — I mean, this is what I think is really important, that facts about this disease do not lead to panic. So far, every expert that I've seen has said—” At which point, Will, goaded by the appeal to scientific authority, interjected, “Every expert that you've seen. Here we go again.”

Didn't George Will use to be smart or something?

 

[ksen]

I wonder what other things George believes is part of Big Science's Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?

Gravity?

The Periodic Table?

The Moon Landing?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

George Will wears a bow tie and glasses so people THINK he's smart. He also knows some two dollar words.

Did he used to sound better? Yes, but he used to be on stage with people who would call him on his more blatant bullshit.

Now on Fox, there are no filters or restraints to make him do better.

 

[Togo]

Didn't George Will use to be smart or something?

No, he's erudite. If that was the same as smart, then the world would be run by classics professors.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Scientists are so lame. Have they ever told the truth about anything?

We're all so lucky that we have the right-wing gas bags around to keep those dishonest fuckers in check.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nothing like stoking a panic. Apparently Nigeria can eradicate the virus, but the US can't. Oh wait... the media lied about Nigeria too.

What George Will, Ted Cruz, etc... are doing should be illegal. This shit is usually left to the Alex Jones of the world, and his reach is very limited, only to the most paranoid of the bunch.

And they are only saying this because of the party in charge of the White House. Remember Reagan? Oh wait... we can one up that time line wise. Remember Anthrax? Remember how the George W. Bush Admin said it was safe to work, and the few people that died as a result?

Still at 0 domestic contraction American deaths. And these assholes are trying to whip America up into a panic!

 

[braces_for_impact]

It's often pointed out that the right has an innate distrust of government. I don't think this is necessarily true. Their actions over many decades bear this out. I think the real problem is the innate distrust that somehow, somewhere, people in power are going to use it against them to remove their hard won privileged status. When you combine this with the evangelical Christian persecution complex, you have a level of paranoia about government that is this close to true conspiracy theory level shit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's often pointed out that the right has an innate distrust of government. I don't think this is necessarily true. Their actions over many decades bear this out. I think the real problem is the innate distrust that somehow, somewhere, people in power are going to use it against them to remove their hard won privileged status. When you combine this with the evangelical Christian persecution complex, you have a level of paranoia about government that is this close to true conspiracy theory level shit.

But it isn't Government they don't trust. This stuff didn't come out when W failed to do anything about terrorism prior to 9/11, about the danger of the air quality at Ground Zero, Anthrax attack. In fact, liberals were criticized as being anti-American for bringing anything up that questioned the veracity of the W Administration.

 

[ZiprHead]

Typical fox news tactic. "Some say..."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Typical fox news tactic. "Some say..."

I'm not saying George Will is the source of Ebola in America, I'm just saying that some people are wondering if George Will is the reason two American nurses contracted the disease.

 

[ZiprHead]

He turned me into a newt. I got better.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It's often pointed out that the right has an innate distrust of government. I don't think this is necessarily true. Their actions over many decades bear this out. I think the real problem is the innate distrust that somehow, somewhere, people in power are going to use it against them to remove their hard won privileged status. When you combine this with the evangelical Christian persecution complex, you have a level of paranoia about government that is this close to true conspiracy theory level shit.

And it is their persecution complex that is holding the cult together.

 

[laughing dog]

Didn't George Will use to be smart or something?

No.

 

[doubtingt]

By conservative standards George Will is a brilliant intellectual hero, just like C.S. Lewis and William F. Buckley Jr. (founder of The National Review and host of Front Line). Up against your run of the mill cowardly and inept journalists they come off as learned and articulate (but who doesn't). But up against actual learned and reasonable people, they are exposed for the deeply ideological and dishonest rhetoricians that they are/were (as was done to Buckley in debates with Sagan and Chomsky).

 

[fromderinside]

By conservative standards George Will is a brilliant intellectual hero, just like C.S. Lewis and William F. Buckley Jr. (founder of The National Review and host of Front Line). Up against your run of the mill cowardly and inept journalists they come off as learned and articulate (but who doesn't). But up against actual learned and reasonable people, they are exposed for the deeply ideological and dishonest rhetoricians that they are/were (as was done to Buckley in debates with Sagan and Chomsky).

I think Buckley got the better of Chomsky. From my viewpoint it was Tweedledee versus Tweedledum there. Now all things useful were originally important for fitness nor is there a genetic set of meaningful elements for language syntax. Reasons is same is there is no God selecting features to inherit anything else. Random processes generate randomly guided results. So here we get the claim from Chomsky that this genetic reasoning is somehow guided to a inclusive language acquisition structure. Chomsky doesn't win that one against anyone including a smart man with a degree in English named Buckley.

Re: this discussion it makes no sense to choose winners and losers in a science or medicine debate when the participants aren't first really versed in the topics at hand.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

By conservative standards George Will is a brilliant intellectual hero, just like C.S. Lewis and William F. Buckley Jr. (founder of The National Review and host of Front Line). Up against your run of the mill cowardly and inept journalists they come off as learned and articulate (but who doesn't). But up against actual learned and reasonable people, they are exposed for the deeply ideological and dishonest rhetoricians that they are/were (as was done to Buckley in debates with Sagan and Chomsky).

I think Buckley got the better of Chomsky. From my viewpoint it was Tweedledee versus Tweedledum there. Now all things useful were originally important for fitness nor is there a genetic set of meaningful elements for language syntax. Reasons is same is there is no God selecting features to inherit anything else. Random processes generate randomly guided results. So here we get the claim from Chomsky that this genetic reasoning is somehow guided to a inclusive language acquisition structure. Chomsky doesn't win that one against anyone including a smart man with a degree in English named Buckley.

Re: this discussion it makes no sense to choose winners and losers in a science or medicine debate when the participants aren't first really versed in the topics at hand.

Science should never be debated! It isn't something where popular vote wins. Granted, it could be argued that general consensus could be similar, but you have to prove your position and debates are about convincing, not proving.

 

[ksen]

I think Buckley got the better of Chomsky. From my viewpoint it was Tweedledee versus Tweedledum there. Now all things useful were originally important for fitness nor is there a genetic set of meaningful elements for language syntax. Reasons is same is there is no God selecting features to inherit anything else. Random processes generate randomly guided results. So here we get the claim from Chomsky that this genetic reasoning is somehow guided to a inclusive language acquisition structure. Chomsky doesn't win that one against anyone including a smart man with a degree in English named Buckley.

Re: this discussion it makes no sense to choose winners and losers in a science or medicine debate when the participants aren't first really versed in the topics at hand.

Science should never be debated! It isn't something where popular vote wins. Granted, it could be argued that general consensus could be similar, but you have to prove your position and debates are about convincing, not proving.

prove it

Show

looooooooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!!!

 

[doubtingt]

By conservative standards George Will is a brilliant intellectual hero, just like C.S. Lewis and William F. Buckley Jr. (founder of The National Review and host of Front Line). Up against your run of the mill cowardly and inept journalists they come off as learned and articulate (but who doesn't). But up against actual learned and reasonable people, they are exposed for the deeply ideological and dishonest rhetoricians that they are/were (as was done to Buckley in debates with Sagan and Chomsky).

I think Buckley got the better of Chomsky. From my viewpoint it was Tweedledee versus Tweedledum there. Now all things useful were originally important for fitness nor is there a genetic set of meaningful elements for language syntax. Reasons is same is there is no God selecting features to inherit anything else. Random processes generate randomly guided results. So here we get the claim from Chomsky that this genetic reasoning is somehow guided to a inclusive language acquisition structure. Chomsky doesn't win that one against anyone including a smart man with a degree in English named Buckley.

Re: this discussion it makes no sense to choose winners and losers in a science or medicine debate when the participants aren't first really versed in the topics at hand.

Did Chomsky debate Buckley on Linguistics? I am referring to their 1969 debate about Viet Nam and US foreign policy in general in which Buckley gets so flustered with his inability to match Chomsky of facts and reason that he threatens to punch Chomsky. This "joke" of violence is not at all surprising as you watch and listen to Buckley speak and glean the quiet yet transparent seething intolerance, bigotry, and religious authoritarianism at the core of Buckley's worldview.

Chomsky was a world leader in the science of linguistics ideas in that area continue to be extremely influential. There may be points of disagreements with him among other linguists, but no reasoned arguments I know of from the likes of Buckley, and I doubt Chomsky every said anything as absurd about linguistics as Buckley did about most topics he spoke on.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It's often pointed out that the right has an innate distrust of government. I don't think this is necessarily true. Their actions over many decades bear this out. I think the real problem is the innate distrust that somehow, somewhere, people in power are going to use it against them to remove their hard won privileged status. When you combine this with the evangelical Christian persecution complex, you have a level of paranoia about government that is this close to true conspiracy theory level shit.

And it is their persecution complex that is holding the cult together.

Exactly right. We're more polarized now. Church is anti-science? Some people leave. Use the Internet to fact check your pastor? More people leave. Teaching hatred of the poor and far right conservative ideology? More people leave. Preaching anti-gay hate? More people leave. The moderates are becoming the "nones" (no religious affiliation) and those that are left are the ones that just gulp that kool-aid down and ask for more.

The youngest generations now are also the most secular that we've ever had in this country. Combine these with the "nones" and the actual vocal atheists out there and we're a force to be reckoned with. So it's us versus the crazies. They're not particularly smart, as those that have left caused a brain drain among the Christians and conservatives. Yet, too many people still buy into religion being the source of morality, so deference is given to them even though they demonstrate their moral bankruptcy time and again. I mean, look at this current crop of Republicans, look at the Tea Party. Mental midgets with a persecution complex, trying to hold onto their privileged status, all the while screaming persecution. Unfortunately, the days of the thoughtful, intellectual Republican is gone. Everything they do is faith-based. Economics, climate change, church/state separation, evolution.

They have and they continue to do a LOT of damage. We have to clean it up, and they are never held responsible.