Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:54:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1439 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > IOW if there were some scientists researching something that wouldn't
> > help the US government, even if they succeeded, should it be funded,
> > simply because it's "scientific"?
>
> Good question.
Why's that a good question? I thought the govt. was supposed to be
workin for us, not just to perpetuate itself.
> I know that a few people in this forum would shout "NO!" I
> can't say that all "scientific" pursuits should be funded, but it's
> a mistake to fund religious doctrine with Federal money in any case.
Wow, you guys'll argue over just about anything. On a relative
scale this seems about as vital as wrangling over whether you should
or should not be allowed to purchase a "Lucky Jackalope Foot" at a
gift shop in the Badlands National Park. Mine seems to have lost
all it's powers. Can I still get a new one?
Have fun,
Don
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) No we won't! How dare you accuse us of that! :) (...) You may certainly buy a new one. However, if you're looking to return your Lucky Jackalope Foot, you'll have to demonstrate that it had, and then lost its powers. Or you might just need to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) And if we direct the government to fund said research (oh, say, a JPL probe to Neptune) then isn't that the government working for us? (...) Inasmuch as the same forces that want to have Biblical deluges offered up as "science" want to get (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Because geologic theory is based in testable science rather than non-testable religion, and the Fed's choice to endorse an article of religious faith is manifestly unconstitutional. Even the claim made elsewhere that Dubya himself didn't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
