General > General Technical Chat
Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 05:44:38 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
Yet that is precisely what happened during the covid hysteria. People were deplatformed, cancelled, lost their jobs etc etc for even dare trying to question "the science".
Now it's all blown up in everyones face who supported those canellations, huge backflips everywhere.
Back to Adams, he said today that he's had more invites on shows than ever. So apart from his syndication financial "cancelling", he's doing phenomenally well. The tide turned very quickly on that one by the looks of it.
Kim Christensen:
--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 05:50:31 am ---
--- 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?
--- End quote ---
No, I never said that you couldn't question. I said that by questioning you are making a statement that you do not trust or might disagree with the subject at hand.
It's why holocaust deniers are so vehemently attacked. Because they use the "question" as a weapon to cast doubt on historical facts.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
No. I just have a very sensitive bullshit detector. It is especially alert when the party asking the "question" stands to gain from doubt being sown about the subject at hand.
james_s:
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 06:10:47 am ---No, I never said that you couldn't question. I said that by questioning you are making a statement that you do not trust or might disagree with the subject at hand.
It's why holocaust deniers are so vehemently attacked. Because they use the "question" as a weapon to cast doubt on historical facts.
--- End quote ---
No, that's not what you said. You said "Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X."
I presented at least a couple of examples where that is most certainly not the case.
"Making a statement that I do not trust or might disagree with the subject at hand"
Yes I might disagree, or I might not, and I might trust, to some degree but not completely. It is arrogant and foolish to trust completely, I've been burned in the past by blindly trusting what someone says, so now I tend to trust to a degree and then verify based on how much trust there is. It is not binary, almost nothing is binary. If somebody tells me their account of an event and something sounds a bit off I might question it and explore alternate possibilities but that doesn't mean I don't believe them, I just understand that perception and memory is not as absolute as we like to think.
I think we have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the holocaust happened, I mean there's kind of actual, physical evidence, a LOT of it, that a person can go see to this day,. That's a pretty extreme example that I don't think is really related to anything else being discussed here. It's not a scientific theory, it's not something we are still studying, it's not something that there has ever been any credible alternate theories, it's an actual event that millions of people witnessed first hand and documented, to fake it would have been an absolutely monumental undertaking like nothing mankind has ever seen, and to what end? It's not necessary to attack the people questioning it, simply present the evidence that it happened, which is plentiful and unambiguous to the rest of the world and the *vast* majority of people will accept it because it is extremely compelling. If somebody really doesn't believe it happened then you certainly won't change their mind by attacking and trying to silence them, they will dig in their heals and you will reinforce their beliefs and make them believe you trying to silence them means they are onto something, that's just psychology. Holocaust deniers can scream their theories until they're blue in the face and no reasonable person will believe them.
fourfathom:
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 03:20:17 am ---
--- Quote from: fourfathom on March 11, 2023, 02:43:22 am ---
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 02:12:24 am ---Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
--- End quote ---
Do you honestly believe this? So many counter-examples come to mind that I'm not going to bother giving one. But I can if you really need one.
--- End quote ---
I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.
--- End quote ---
I think others have already made the point, but sure, here goes:
I question a law that bans [marijuana use]. I hardly advocate for marijuana use (I've seen too many people waste their lives by being wasted), but I am also not generally in favor of prohibition laws. How can you not see this? It's just basic logic.
Kim Christensen:
--- Quote ---It's not necessary to attack the people questioning it, simply present the evidence that it happened, which is plentiful and unambiguous to the rest of the world and the *vast* majority of people will accept it because it is extremely compelling. If somebody really doesn't believe it happened then you certainly won't change their mind by attacking and trying to silence them, they will dig in their heals and you will reinforce their beliefs and make them believe you trying to silence them means they are onto something, that's just psychology.
--- End quote ---
They shouldn't be surprised when they are attacked though.
If you asked your wife if she had been unfaithful, it would have an effect on your relationship. Most likely only temporary for a single instance. But if you repeatedly asked this question over and over it would eventually break the relationship.
This is what's happening in society on a macro level when individuals with a social media megaphone constantly question sensitive topics. It about sending a message and not really a question at all.
That's what I meant when I said, "Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version