@15: As for Jill Stein's anti-science positions?
First off, she wants to ban hydraulic fracturing. Not regulate, but a flat BAN. Fracking is perfectly safe IF done under certain circumstances (mostly making sure that the reservoir doesn't communicate with groundwater or any significant fault zones) and is an excellent short-term way of reducing our dependence on coal (which is probably THE WORST fossil fuel). But Stein doesn't want to regulate fracking; she wants to ban it, because it's scary and can be dangerous if done improperly.
Similarly, she wants a total ban on nuclear power. Why? Because it's scary and can be dangerous if done improperly. Never mind that fission plants emit far less radiation than coal plants do, that modern plant designs are far safer and more efficient than the ones currently in service, and that nuclear power represents the single biggest alternative to fossil fuels currently available to us...
And of course the GMO issue. If she's worried about undue corporate influence in agriculture, she could go after the way we farm these days, maybe even pick a fight with King Corn. If she thinks there are specific risks of particular GM crops, she could open an investigation into them or call for a moratorium pending research to prove their safety. Or if she thinks we need to be less reliant on pesticides, she could call for revision of the laws regarding how pesticides may be applied. But no, instead she's decided to ban ALL genetically modified crops, because (sing along with me, we all know the words by now) they're scary and could be bad if misused! Banning GMOs in an attempt to fight corporate influence over agriculture is like banning the jet engine in an attempt to fight transportation oligopolies. It won't do shit for the stated goal, and it'll just mean we're stuck using older technology.
And then there's her party's support for unreliable and frequently dangerous types of alternative medicine. (Sure, accupressure can help, but there are also kooks out there pitching Vitamin B13.) They just took explicit support for fucking HOMEOPATHY out of their platform a few weeks back. If conferring official legitimacy on alternative medicine (not just legitimate stuff but also absolute woo) in a bold rejection of empiricism isn't anti-science, I don't know what is.
And that brings us, at long last, to the vaccine issue. No, Jill Stein is not an anti-vaxxer, in the same way that Donald Trump is not a neo-Nazi. But they both pander hard to those who are! When asked about vaccines, Stein could have declared them safe and commended them as an example of putting healthcare before profits (in contrast to other practices found within the pharmaceutical industry). She could have dismissed the conspiracy theories and moved on to the actual crimes of Big Pharma. But instead she claimed that we just can't trust vaccines to be safe at all and that the fault lies not with anti-vaxxers and their delusions but rather with the pharmaceutical industry's questionable ethics.
Despite the breathtaking safety record of modern vaccines and the low profit margins produced by them (though they've become more lucrative of late thanks to widespread vaccination in developing countries), she painted a picture of scary dangerous vaccines peddled by a cartoonishly evil Big Pharma that's less concerned with making a buck and more concerned with oppressing people. Note that by dismissing the research supporting the safety of vaccines, allegedly because it's somehow scare-quotes-"tainted" by Big Pharma, she's doing that thing all anti-science types love to do: throwing away conflicting evidence. She may not have said herself that vaccines are dangerous. But she repeated and legitimized the words of those who do.
"Gosh, it must take so much courage to stand up for the big guy."
I don't have a side. I'll pick a fight with hippies, yippies, yuppies, suits, drones, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, capitalists, socialists, communists, rich folk, poor folk, kleptocrats, hepcats, and anyone else who starts spouting bullshit. If you've got your facts straight, I've got your back; if you're lying or misrepresenting the evidence, I'll be on your ass like a dog on a meat-wagon. Sometimes I'll call a guy out for lying and then back him up on a different issue where he's telling the truth (as seen here
). Big guy? Little guy? How about who's got the facts on their side, huh? As it is written:
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." (Leviticus 19:15)
And finally, since you asked, I'm 24. Why do I have two accounts? For my own inscrutable amusement and purposes.