Bible Thumping Republican doesn't know the difference between Tupperware and Styrofoam

[Joanne98]

He is a deacon at the Lowry City Church of God (Holiness), a member of the Board of Trustees of the Kansas City College and Bible School, served for 15 years as Activities Director of the Harmony Hill Youth Camp, near Fulton, and has written and published teaching materials for the "Way, Truth & Life" Sunday School Curriculum. Singing in organized groups since he was a teenager, Scott was a member of the General Assembly Gospel Singers. The group performed patriotic and gospel music across Missouri, from small churches all the way to Chiefs, Royals and Cardinals stadiums singing the national anthem. The Master s Four Quartet, in which Scott sang bass, recorded an album entitled "It's Time To Sing".

http://www.delbertscott.com/bio.html

Missouri bans wrong plastic from rivers

JEFFERSON CITY | A law that takes effect this week could make criminals out of those who bring Tupperware onto many of Missouri’s rivers.

Lawmakers intended to reduce floating debris and pollution from abandoned foam coolers in the state’s waterways. But they confused their plastics. Instead of banning Styrofoam, they criminalized the plastic containers found in many kitchens but seldom used to ferry beer and soda down a river.

The mix-up means boaters and river floaters can still use foam coolers without fear.

But someone who brings dishwasher-safe containers risks up to a year in jail.

The problem arises because Styrofoam is a brand name, and so lawmakers — who may have been a bit rusty with their chemistry — attempted to name the plastic used to make the foam coolers.

But instead of restricting coolers made from polystyrene, they banned polypropylene containers.

And there’s a big difference between the two.

Polystyrene — commonly called Styrofoam — was created by the Dow Chemical Co. more than a half century ago. Styrofoam was used for life rafts by the U.S. Coast Guard starting in 1942 because the plastic is buoyant and insulating. It’s blue and now frequently used in home insulation.

The variety used to make white foam coffee cups and coolers — the target of the legislation — is called “expanded polystyrene” and is a little different from the Styrofoam developed by Dow Chemical.

Missouri lawmakers banned neither of those foams.

Instead, their legislation goes after a commonly used plastic found in dishwasher-safe containers, hinges and auto parts because it is strong and handles high temperatures. It’s also a fiber used to insulate clothes and in the turf of some miniature golf courses.

That leaves the Missouri State Water Patrol at the ready for any polypropylene coolers that might come down the river but unable to take any action against the ubiquitous white foam ones.

“Our officers will be taking no enforcement on that,” Water Patrol spokesman Sgt. Jerry Callahan said.

The legislation that will turn kitchenware into contraband also seeks to curb lewdness and drinking and applies to all rivers in the state except for the Mississippi, the Missouri and the Osage — which forms the Lake of the Ozarks.

Continued>>>
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1400887.html

He's blaming it on the guvmit.

[Gormy Cuss]

1. Just curious, but why is his bible-thumping relevant to this story?

He's just an idiot legislator who can't admit it when he makes a mistake.

[Joanne98]

2. Anti-science=bible thumper

DUH

[Adsos Letter]

4. Ignorance of chemistry does not equal bible thumper

The article says nothing about the man's being "anti-science;" just ignorant of chemistry, and unwilling to own a mistake.

In fact, the article makes no reference to either a pro or anti-science position on anything.

[Gormy Cuss]

5. DUH is right.

There are a lot of science illiterates who aren't bible-thumpers and also bible-thumpers including preachers who aren't anti-science. Hell, I even know a few in the latter category.

[Duke Newcombe]

9. Sweeping generalization.

Duh, indeed.

[Dogtown]

6. Why do you have to ask?

Fundy = sloppy pseudo-science. This is just more anecdotal evidence of what we already know.

[Gormy Cuss]

7. Anecdotes are weak evidence.

Ask a scientist.

[Dogtown]

11. Weight of evidence matters, though.

Ask a lawyer.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. .Using anecdotes as evidence is the basis for things like DWB stops. n/t

[Dogtown]

13. Your statement makes no sense

Nor does your apologia for fundamentalists. What's your stake?

[Gormy Cuss]

14. Once more: anecdotes are weak evidence -- even a giant pile of anecdotes.

I make no apology for the fundamentalists who are using their faith as a cloak to insulate them from criticism of their anti-science attitudes. There is just no evidence in this article to suggest that the legislator's lack of understanding on plastics is because of his religious belief. Rather, it suggests a lack of knowledge. There are many, many instances where it's crystal clear that religious dogma is trumping scientific reasoning but this isn't one of them.

It's easy to make the knee jerk assumption that the legislator's gaffe was caused by an anti-science attitude based on his faith but if the same mistake was made by a legislator who was an atheist, would anyone assume that it was because he was anti-science? Contrary to the assumption some make here there are many fundamentalists who embrace much of science and just conveniently exclude the portions that are against their religious beliefs. Understanding the difference between polypropelene and polystyrene wouldn't fall into the category of things like evolution.



eta: I'm sorry that my example of DWB didn't make sense. The justification often heard from law enforcement accused of such stops is that someone was 'suspicious,' with suspicious meaning that the person is driving an expensive car, or driving in a white neighborhood, or driving in a high crime neighborhood with the underlying justification being that when LEO have encountered African-Americans in those situation it's in the commission of a crime. Of course the LEO is citing anecdotes, sometimes many of them.

[Dogtown]

15. You're splitting hairs when we're only having a bit of fun

ragging on an opposition legislator.

Anecdotal "evidence" is inadmissible in criminal trials; hence, the confusion. My "weight of evidence" remark applies only in civil cases, and was meant to be facetious.


My *actual* opinion (based on no evidence other than my own experience and, therefore, essentially valueless except to me) is that the legislator in question has no more knowledge of the bible than he does of science. What he *really* knows is the gullibility of his bible-thumping and totally ignorant constituency. I actually believe most of these RW politicians are amoral opportunists and have no faith at all, except faith in the stupidity of voters.

[Gormy Cuss]

16. Ragging on dumb Republicans is a fun past time, but that wasn't the reply that I got to my question.

Poking fun just because the guy is religious is easy snark but doesn't add much to the discussion. Poking fun at him because he's using his religion to defend stupidity, now that would have me rolling on the floor.

Ot answer your earlier question the only stake that I have here is that I'm getting a bit cranky about the tendency to make broad generalizations on topics like faith or lack thereof. Like it or not many of our fellow DUers do hold strong convictions on religion and get offended by silly posts like these. All I'm saying is that I wish that there were more consideration for our own members when the only reason to point out religious belief is to snark.

FWIW, I agree with your assessment of the RW opportunists in this regard.

[tularetom]

3. Here's some help for him with another difficult question

[Mariana]

8. A YEAR in jail, not for littering on the rivers, but for

having stuff that MAY possibly become litter in the future? What the fuck? A YEAR in jail?

[TlalocW]

10. Missouri has a history of these laws

I went to Pittsburg State in the southeast corner of Kansas from 1991 to 1995 and read the Kansas City Star, which provided pretty good news coverage of both Kansas and Missouri. I remember reading about a bill that was passed that was so over-laden with flowery and procedural language, that professional linguists had to be brought in to decipher it. Instead of the original intent (which has something to do with sex predators), it actually outlawed all sex in the state.

TlalocW