Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:53:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1523 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> 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.
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?
>
> > 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?
Inasmuch as the same forces that want to have Biblical deluges offered up as
"science" want to get medieval (literally) on our schools, it seems worth
arguing over. Certainly you seem to be arguing over it. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Why's that a good question? I thought the govt. was supposed to be workin for us, not just to perpetuate itself. (...) Wow, you guys'll argue over just about anything. On a relative scale this seems about as vital as wrangling over whether you (...) (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
|
|
|
|
