| General > General Technical Chat |
| Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website |
| << < (123/222) > >> |
| Kim Christensen:
--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 05:22:11 am ---But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it. --- End quote --- I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though. --- Quote ---Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct. --- End quote --- He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference. |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 04:49:56 am ---No. What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism. Do you think that experts haven't already "sat down and looked over the data and evaluated it?" This is the typical "Oh we're just talking here; No harm no foul" that constantly comes from the "right". So I just don't buy the, "I'm just asking questions" excuse any more. Climate change, vaccines, abortion, economics, etc are some areas where this is done constantly and always with an agenda. --- End quote --- Which experts are those? Taking the cocaine example, are you actually saying that possession being illegal is absolutely beyond question, that it has been discussed and studied to the greatest extent possible, there is absolutely no other way of looking at it and that is final? Really? I personally question whether possession being a crime is the best approach. You are saying that means I am advocating that people should all be encouraged to carry cocaine around which of course is absolute nonsense. I don't want that at all, cocaine is a dangerous drug, use can have serious consequences, but I am not convinced that throwing people in jail for possessing it is the most effective approach. I think that perhaps a combination of education and treatment, along with enforcing existing laws against distributing it, producing it, and being under the influence in public. You on the other hand are suggesting I should not be able to even suggest this, that the way we handle it is settled and that is that. This is a very rigid and inflexible outlook that is exactly the opposite of science. Climate change, abortion, vaccines and economics are great examples of other things that are not settled at all, we should always be questioning, always studying and always trying to further our understanding. I think it's obvious that humans activity has contributed to climate change, scientists are pretty much in agreement but there is still some debate over how much and what can be done about it, and it's worth remembering that these same scientists in the 70s were fretting that the earth was going to enter another ice age. We learned more and determined that was in fact not likely to happen and now it is pretty clear there is a warming trend and it's pretty clear why. It is naive though to think it is impossible that we will learn something new at some point in the future that will change the outlook. That's how science works. Same deal with abortion, some people very strongly that it is murder and should be illegal, in their mind that is beyond question. I on the other hand question that approach, I am staunchly pro-choice, as well as anti-abortion. Paradox? Absolutely not. I believe there are things that can be done to reduce the number of abortions without making it illegal, that will have a better outcome for all involved. I think abortion should be legal, accessible, safe and rare. I support family planning, "free" taxpayer funded birth control and accurate sex education (not ideology, just simply the facts, risks and methods to mitigate the risks). Maybe it will turn out my ideas don't work, if that turns out the case then we change course when presented with new information, it's never settled and absolute. Vaccines I think it's pretty clear that in general they are effective and that the risk is offset by the benefit, but I absolutely think we should continue to study intensely and I am open to any new information we discover, once again this is how science works, in fact the entire premise of science is based on constantly questioning, testing and trying to prove our theories wrong. That is literally one of the core components of the scientific method. Religion is settled, science is never settled. Economics I'm not going to discuss because Dave has made it clear he doesn't want that discussed here but there is absolutely room to question economic theories, there are many of them, many are in contradiction and their proponents all believe they are absolutely right and there is no room for questioning, but there absolutely is. It is absolutely always ok to question something, always, period. Any theory that cannot stand up to questioning is a gigantic red flag. Free energy nuts have been questioning the laws of physics intently for far longer than the laws were defined in scientific terms, yet they are still holding up just fine because despite intense questioning, nobody has yet found a situation under which they do not hold up. |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 05:38:07 am --- --- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 05:22:11 am ---But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it. --- End quote --- I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though. --- Quote ---Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct. --- End quote --- He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference. --- End quote --- Then what is happening? You said it's not ok to question some things, but then you say that's not what's happening? Legitimate to who? Today we know he was right but at the time many people didn't think his proof was legitimate. Are you so arrogant as to think that you are immune to believing something, anything, so firmly that you blow off legitimate proof that what you believe is false as some kind of conspiracy theory? You are totally and completely confident that everything you believe to be true is, and you are not interested in hearing any alternate theories that eventually come to light? And you believe this so strongly that you think anyone that does question your belief should be silenced? Think about that carefully. |
| Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 04:24:32 am ---Precisely my point. You questioned the law because you didn't agree with it. --- End quote --- No. I questioned the law to examine it. Whether I actually agree with the law, is irrelevant. By "question", I do mean "to challenge", "to cast doubt on". To undermine it to my fullest ability, without holding back; to test its mettle. |
| vk6zgo:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 11, 2023, 03:56:43 am --- --- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:53:29 am --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on March 11, 2023, 01:25:12 am ---For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation". --- End quote --- Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment. --- End quote --- I said "talks and demands", but yes, it has happened: https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/covid-vaccines-unvaccinated-patients-not-priority-on-organ-transplant-waitlist-warns-ama-c-4877733 --- End quote --- That was never an official position, it was a claim by the AMA, who are the "Doctor's Union", & have their own agenda. In the real world, such decisions were made by the Specialist who would perform the operation. In that regard, a major consideration would be that transplant patents are the very definition of "vulnerable people". Treating them in hospitals which have substantial numbers of Covid 19 patients is exposing them to worse risks than delaying their treatment until, hopefully the number of Covid cases fell a lot. A kidney patient, for instance, can survive a long time on Dialysis, but if they contracted Covid following their transplant, their likelihood of recovery would be low in any case, & very slim for an unvaccinated person. Even for fairly routine examinations of much lower risk, operations were put back months. My fully vaccinated wife was scheduled to have a procedure done, & it was delayed in the latter years of the Pandemic. Another point is that Covid patients required a lot of staff to treat them, so that surgical staff could be, & were, called upon to do that work as well as their normal occupations. They couldn't be in two places at the same time. Doctors are more than ordinarily cautious in any case--when I had my left knee replacement well before Covid appeared on the horizon, I was found to have group A Streptococcus bacteria in my nose (yep, they stuck a long swab up my nose just like the Covid test). I had to insert antibacterial cream into my nose every day, & shower using an antibacterial bodywash. Had I still had the bacteria present after a week of doing this, I would have almost certainly had my operation delayed. Of course, those who think that Covid was "just a sniffle" would probably "pooh hoo" Strep as well, as Type II Necrotizing Fasciitis only effects a few people. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |