Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
but there is no operative distinction between information and ideology for american conservatives of the bush administration's ilk.
this form of conservatism has nothing to do with that you can read in "the economist" for example--it is not about providing information as the basis for informed policy choices (or anything else) so much as it is about controlling the parameters of debate itself.
american conservative approaches to information are explicitly authoritarian--they are about disabling debate across different viewpoints.
when you translate this politics of information into policy formation, the results can't help but be irrational.
when you compound that by attempting to filter information flows themselves so that their contents square with your ideology, you multiply the irrationality.
you can see the consequences of this all over the record of the bush administration.
|
In order for the above to be correct, in that conservatives can control the debate and disable the debate across differing viewpoints you have to assume that scientist with views contrary to those of conservatives (assuming conservatives agreed on the scientific issues in question), are gutless and unwilling to take a stand against irrational conservative views. I don't believe that. I also think scientists with opposing views to those of conservatives have many outlets and forums where they can express those views and move the debate in a rational direction.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The information on tobacco products is 100% clear: they are dangerous and responsible for (statistics suggest as high or higher than 40,000) deaths every year.
Is it a political agenda to prevent deaths from poison? Really? I mean if everyone that smoked was clear that their intention was suicide, that'd be different, but many are smoking because of addiction, or to keep their weight down by staying perpetually sick. I don't want to turn this into a smoking thread, but I'd hardly call the want to stop people from smoking illegal a political agenda.
|
Smoking is dangerous. Smoking can lead to cancer and other illnesses. On the other hand, if I am aware of the risk, why take the choice away from me? Who gets to decide what is too risky and what is not? Isn't that question answered in the political realm? DC wrote that the SG should not be involved in politics or public policy, so why was he commenting on the legality of smoking?