Rick Santorum's candidacy

  • News
  • Thread starter ThomasT
  • Start date
In summary: Apparently Rick thinks that scientists aren't moral and need to be "checked"He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.This inherent amorality of human constructs is why we need to regulate them. Businesses need to be constrained in what they can and cannot do. So does medical research, weapons research, and just about any other scientific research that unconstrained could adversely
  • #1
ThomasT
529
0
Another of the current frontrunners in the GOP race. Anything you want to say about Santorum. Would you vote for him? Do you like anything about him? Etc.

My current opinion is that he seems to be a fanatical fundamental Christian extremist. So, being an atheist myself, I wouldn't vote for him. Hopefully this thread will enable me and others to learn more about this candidate.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, he did well in Iowa due to the Evangelical endorsement. He has the Reality TV breeding rabbits The Duggars endorsing him.

Is he a flash in the pan? The media says the Evangelical endorsement won't travel far.
 
  • #3
Evo said:
Well, he did well in Iowa due to the Evangelical endorsement. He has the Reality TV breeding rabbits The Duggars endorsing him.

Is he a flash in the pan? The media says the Evangelical endorsement won't travel far.
The media seems to want Romney, so far. Whether the Evangelical endorsement might be a deciding factor is arguable -- but, Americans did elect G.W. Bush to two terms, so ...
 
  • #4
ThomasT said:
The media seems to want Romney, so far. Whether the Evangelical endorsement might be a deciding factor is arguable -- but, Americans did elect G.W. Bush to two terms, so ...

I really think the party bosses cringe at the notion of a Santorum candidacy. Now I admit I'm not following the race very closely, but I did see that McCain has endorsed Romney. I bet in the next few weeks several more mainstream Republicans will do the same, as the party tries to sway the undecideds towards Romney.

OTOH, after New Hampshire there is South Carolina...I think it's very possible Santorum could smoke Romney there.
 
  • #5
I think Rick Santorum will be gone fairly quickly. It was one caucus, and he was basically tied for first (what was it, 9 votes behind?). In a month most people will think he's crazy. I already do.

I am making a killing off these elections. Seriously, a lot of money. I already put $1000 to win ~$300 on Herman Cain not getting nominated, and about the same for Gingrich and about ~$150 on Bachmann. Meanwhile I got Obama winning @ even odds a while back and put $5k on him.

Yes, I do bet on politics. By far (and I mean FAR) the most lucrative betting I've ever done.
 
  • #6
lisab said:
I think it's very possible Santorum could smoke Romney there.

I don't think Santorum would do that simply because Santorum doesn't seem the type to roll Romney into a large piece of paper and light him up. :tongue2:
 
  • #7
Santorum has problems. I won't link them here, but he has been behind many of the things that he claims to be against. Any of these will kill his candidacy vs Romney. Romney is the GOP candidate, IMO. If the Republicans don't learn to accept him, Obama has a second term.
 
  • #8
Apparently Rick thinks that scientists aren't moral and need to be "checked"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjv0ZEdi8ss&
 
  • #9
Ryan_m_b said:
Apparently Rick thinks that scientists aren't moral and need to be "checked"
He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.

This inherent amorality of human constructs is why we need to regulate them. Businesses need to be constrained in what they can and cannot do. So does medical research, weapons research, and just about any other scientific research that unconstrained could adversely impact us. The inherent amorality of human constructs applies to just about everything humans do as a group per Reinhold Niebuhr. His thinking has influenced a number of American politicians -- including both of the main contenders in the 2008 presidential election.
 
  • #10
ThomasT said:
Another of the current frontrunners in the GOP race. Anything you want to say about Santorum. Would you vote for him? Do you like anything about him? Etc.

My current opinion is that he seems to be a fanatical fundamental Christian extremist. So, being an atheist myself, I wouldn't vote for him. Hopefully this thread will enable me and others to learn more about this candidate.

I agree with your current opinion.

Santorum also opposes contraception. ALL forms of contraception. I can almost understand being opposed to Plan B, and I can certainly understand opposition to RU486, but being opposed to contraception in general? It boggles the mind.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”
 
  • #11
In the same vein,
(CNN) - Potential 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the "abortion culture" in America is to blame for the failing Social Security system.​
In short, young American women are getting busy and then getting abortions instead of getting busy birthing the future taxpayers needed to keep Social Security afloat. :uhh:

See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...on-culture-for-problems-with-social-security/ for the full article.
 
  • #12
D H said:
He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.
Science isn't really amoral, biomedical research especially isn't considering it is done to better people's quality of life and to save lives. To say that scientists just go off and do whatever they want is utterly stupid, bioethics is a massive part of modern biology and biomedical research. What he is suggesting is that no scientist is thinking of the consequences and are committing immoral research because of their amorality, hidden subtext being that they aren't agreeing with his religions dogma.
disregardthat said:
What's he's saying here is not any more extreme than what any animal right's group would say. He did say he talked in particular about the scientists who are doing animal studies and harming animals in the process.
I wasn't referring to the animal rights stuff, all medicines are tested on animals because for the moment we have no other way. What he is trying to do here is shut down research like stem cell research because his religion (and by extension the voters who share his religion) deem it to be sinful and he's presenting it in a way that portrays researchers as amoral mad scientists who don't think of the consequences of their actions.
 
  • #13
D H said:
He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.

This inherent amorality of human constructs is why we need to regulate them. Businesses need to be constrained in what they can and cannot do. So does medical research, weapons research, and just about any other scientific research that unconstrained could adversely impact us. The inherent amorality of human constructs applies to just about everything humans do as a group per Reinhold Niebuhr. His thinking has influenced a number of American politicians -- including both of the main contenders in the 2008 presidential election.

You just said two different things in your post. You said "He said [scientists] are amoral." You then said that human constructs can be amoral, including science.

There is a difference between scientists and science. Santorum said (as did you at first) that scientists are amoral. As in, the people. The human beings themselves, not the "human construct" of science, as you put it. I find this to be highly offensive. You cannot let a few bad people who happen to also be scientists paint the rest of us.
 
  • #14
Google "santorum" and read the first result.
 
  • #15
Ryan_m_b said:
Science isn't really amoral, biomedical research especially isn't considering it is done to better people's quality of life and to save lives. To say that scientists just go off and do whatever they want is utterly stupid, bioethics is a massive part of modern biology and biomedical research.
I guess I would have thought "bioethics" was created to deal with moral issues surrounding research because the research itself is amoral.

So whether reseach results in inventions that betters lives or kills people doesn't mean the work contains moral considerations. Scientific discovery is about finding knowledge, regardless of where it might lead. Placing constraints on it for reasons of morality is unscientific at face value.
 
  • #16
Jack21222 said:
There is a difference between scientists and science. Santorum said (as did you at first) that scientists are amoral. As in, the people. The human beings themselves, not the "human construct" of science, as you put it. I find this to be highly offensive...
I think you are making something out of nothing: I think Santorum was talking about the work, not the people and was just being sloppy with the wording.
 
  • #17
Amoral ≠ immoral.
 
  • #18
D H said:
Amoral ≠ immoral.
Not necessarily, but an amoral persom might do something a moral person finds immoral because they didn't consider the moral implications. Bioethics was created to keep scientists from crossing that line, for that reason.

You don't spend a lot of time in ethics classes examining cases where people acted ethically.
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
I guess I would have thought "bioethics" was created to deal with moral issues surrounding research because the research itself is amoral.

So whether reseach results in inventions that betters lives or kills people doesn't mean the work contains moral considerations. Scientific discovery is about finding knowledge, regardless of where it might lead. Placing constraints on it for reasons of morality is unscientific at face value.
russ_watters said:
Not necessarily, but an amoral persom might do something a moral person finds immoral because they didn't consider the moral implications. Bioethics was created to keep scientists from crossing that line, for that reason.

You don't spend a lot of time in ethics classes examining cases where people acted ethically.
I'm not sure I understand, the research always contains moral considerations. For example is it ethical to perform experiment X if the cost of it is to subject a number of animals to Y. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that bioethics as a field was created to keep scientists in line if only because that implies that scientists are unable to regulate themselves. Rather I think the field is a formalised/institutionalised version of what happens anyway.
 
  • #20
russ_watters said:
I think you are making something out of nothing: I think Santorum was talking about the work, not the people and was just being sloppy with the wording.

I doubt that he was thinking that hard about it. Santorum is attempting to court a demographic that by and large distrusts science for ideological reasons, and he saw an opportunity to say something vaguely consistent with those beliefs ("those people you disagree with are bad". There's nothing more to it.
 
  • #21
Number Nine said:
I doubt that he was thinking that hard about it. Santorum is attempting to court a demographic that by and large distrusts science for ideological reasons, and he saw an opportunity to say something vaguely consistent with those beliefs ("those people you disagree with are bad". There's nothing more to it.
I basically agree with your assessment. But I do, currently anyway, think that Santorum has a real personal aversion to science. Which, for me, is reason number two (2) to not vote for him.
 
  • #22
NeoDevin said:
Google "santorum" and read the first result.
Santorum has some people working very hard to keep Savage's definitions out of the #1 slot in Google. It probably costs him a bundle.
 
  • #23
russ_watters said:
I think you are making something out of nothing: I think Santorum was talking about the work, not the people and was just being sloppy with the wording.

I can only go by what he said. I'm not a mind-reader like you, russ.
 
  • #24
ThomasT said:
I basically agree with your assessment. But I do, currently anyway, think that Santorum has a real personal aversion to science. Which, for me, is reason number two (2) to not vote for him.

I absolutely agree, I just think his aversion is mostly a dogmatic and emotional one; I don't think there's a thoroughly reasoned position behind it, and I don't think he intended to offer one with his statement.
 
  • #25
NeoDevin said:
Google "santorum" and read the first result.
I'll just say that that was interesting.
 
  • #27
Ryan_m_b said:
I'm not sure I understand, the research always contains moral considerations. For example is it ethical to perform experiment X if the cost of it is to subject a number of animals to Y. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that bioethics as a field was created to keep scientists in line if only because that implies that scientists are unable to regulate themselves. Rather I think the field is a formalised/institutionalised version of what happens anyway.
Why would the field need to be formalized? My engineering company does not employ an engineering ethicist.

...although along the same lines, my engineering field has a technical society that writes/sets standards. Why would we need a committee to write standards if engineers are capable of regulating themselves? Because we're all human, not all engineers will agree about what good engineering practice is, even if we assume that all engineers will attempt to follow what they believe is good engineering practice. Furthermore, a praciticing engineer does not have the time to spend writing a position paper on every engineering problem they have to solve, justifying why a certain choice is a good one. It is much easier to just follow the standard that the committe spent years researching and justifying. Similar logic, just not about ethics.

Surely you're not suggesting that LAS researchers don't have the same human failings as everyone else - that all LAS researchers always made all the same decisions regarding research ethics prior to formalization of the field? Or even that there has never been a bad apple in the research field?
 
Last edited:
  • #28
russ_watters said:
Why would the field need to be formalized?

I think he's stating that the current formalization (bioethics) is a morality which follows scientific advances. Which would be a bit lousy since 1% of the world's population are sociopaths who wouldn't care about experimenting on children, except for the fact that it may make them look bad. So I guess at the moment we're just following the sociopaths.
 
  • #29
MarcoD said:
I think he's stating that the current formalization (bioethics) is a morality which follows scientific advances. Which would be a bit lousy since 1% of the world's population are sociopaths who wouldn't care about experimenting on children, except for the fact that it may make them look bad. So I guess at the moment we're just following the sociopaths.

We do experiment on children. I ran a 7 year old through an experiment yesterday.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Number Nine said:
We do experiment on children. I ran a 7 year old through an experiment yesterday.

Yeah, but we normally don't do it without ethical consideration. (At least, the we who are the 99% non-sociopaths.)
 
  • #32
Santorum is acting like a contortionist twisting Obama's words on education.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/07/santorum-obamas-education-stance-is-snobbery/

Here is Obama's comment:
Obama has repeatedly said he wants the United States to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. Earlier this year, while announcing plans to reform "No Child Left Behind," Obama also said he intends for every student to graduate "career and college ready."

Here is Santorum's response:
"The hubris of this president to think that he knows what's best for you [...] This is the kind of snobbery that we see from those that think they know how to run our lives," the former Pennsylvania senator said in a forum at St. Anselm's New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

It goes on with Santorum claiming that Obama said he wants every child to GO to college. All Obama said is that he wants every child to be READY to go to college if they so choose, or a career if they so choose. In any case, Santorum believes that giving our kids a proper high school education is "snobbery."
 
  • #34
  • #35
Apparently, it is.
 
<h2>What are Rick Santorum's qualifications for running for president?</h2><p>Rick Santorum has a Bachelor's degree in Political Science, an MBA, and a Juris Doctorate. He also served as a Senator for Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007.</p><h2>What is Rick Santorum's stance on key issues?</h2><p>Rick Santorum is known for his conservative views on social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration. He also supports a strong national defense and smaller government.</p><h2>Has Rick Santorum run for president before?</h2><p>Yes, Rick Santorum ran for president in 2012 and 2016. He won the Iowa caucuses in 2012 but ultimately lost the nomination to Mitt Romney.</p><h2>What challenges does Rick Santorum face in his candidacy?</h2><p>Rick Santorum faces challenges in gaining support from moderate and independent voters due to his conservative views. He also faces competition from other candidates with more name recognition and political experience.</p><h2>What is Rick Santorum's campaign strategy?</h2><p>Rick Santorum's campaign strategy focuses on appealing to conservative and religious voters, particularly in key primary states. He also emphasizes his working-class background and experience in Congress.</p>

What are Rick Santorum's qualifications for running for president?

Rick Santorum has a Bachelor's degree in Political Science, an MBA, and a Juris Doctorate. He also served as a Senator for Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007.

What is Rick Santorum's stance on key issues?

Rick Santorum is known for his conservative views on social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration. He also supports a strong national defense and smaller government.

Has Rick Santorum run for president before?

Yes, Rick Santorum ran for president in 2012 and 2016. He won the Iowa caucuses in 2012 but ultimately lost the nomination to Mitt Romney.

What challenges does Rick Santorum face in his candidacy?

Rick Santorum faces challenges in gaining support from moderate and independent voters due to his conservative views. He also faces competition from other candidates with more name recognition and political experience.

What is Rick Santorum's campaign strategy?

Rick Santorum's campaign strategy focuses on appealing to conservative and religious voters, particularly in key primary states. He also emphasizes his working-class background and experience in Congress.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
22
Replies
735
Views
64K
Replies
293
Views
32K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Replies
5
Views
845
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
28
Views
3K
Back
Top