If only science were always unbiased Posted on 3/29/2018 at 05:34:06 PM by D. Bag
...I wouldn't disagree with many things it claims as fact. Your 72 genders is a prime example - it isn't as if there was a breakthrough study that suddenly revealed such facets of self-imagined sexuality to give concrete evidence that there actually ARE more than 2 genders. It was simply that an agenda existed, and the scientists (term used loosely) attempted to validate something that's purely imaginary and emotional. Which is very dangerous in that when science is used to back up a social agenda vs. social agendas being backed up by hard science that's irrefutable.
The takeover of the term "science" on the political left as if it's exclusionary to opposing viewpoints was a terrible thing to have happen. Instead of actually being objective (which actual science is), we get subjective outcomes designed to back up an argument instead of the other way around as it should be. And now, instead of people discussing actual objective data and outcomes that may not always be as hoped for, the side who claims their "science" must be 100% correct instead tries to demean the opposing view by claiming it's "too stupid to understand" what's going on. We've seen it with Mr. Science here - dare to disagree, and instead of offering more hard data to back up his/her/xer's opinion, it becomes a moral and intellectual highgrounding stance instead in an attempt to claim victory.
It's akin to a supplement company enlisting a university to "find a way" to allow them to make their claim that you're going to get 24553% more muscle growth using their formula, and the scientists working backward to ensure the goal is met instead of potentially accepting that they may be pushing junk that cannot live up to the claims. It's doing things in an ass-backward fashion again because any time that science is tailored to suit a specific outcome, it's no longer objective, and becomes bunk. Replies: