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".Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.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
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".
While I wouldn't ban, I would be ok with de-prioritizing those that engage in risky activity such as not getting vaccinated. When there are not enough hospital beds to go around, difficult choices have to be made, it's not an ideal situation but it is reality.
I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.Are you out of your mind? I just.. I can't even comprehend how you get from A to B.
If I question whether there should be a law against posession of cocaine, that is absolutely NOT the same as advocating for possession of cocaine. Not even close.
It is though. You are then saying that it is OK for people to possess cocaine and people shouldn't be punished for doing so. The fact that you cannot see that, is on you. Not me.
Remove the specific organ transplant thing and substitue for basic (no covid related) health issues. Once again, people and even politicans advocated for this "cancellation" of basic health rights. In that case it's absolutely trivial to argue that an unvaccinated person equally paid their taxes and is therefore completely entitled to the equal health care they paid for.
In fact you can use your same argument to say that an unvaccinated person who has worked and paid their taxes should get health care prioritised over someone who was vaccinated but has not worked and just sponged off government welfare their entire life.
I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?Advocate ≠ question. We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.No, of course it is not!
For example, I can, and have, questioned whether Finland should have a death penalty for serial murderers, to find the reason why we don't (via comparison to countries that do have the death penalty). (I am also quite interested in the history as to why certain countries have it in law, and why it is or is not still applied in practice. It tells me what other people in other cultural contexts have perceived as fair and just.)
If it were to come to a vote, I will vote against capitol punishment in Finland, because of my personal view of the world.
Indeed, questioning a subject as if you were a proponent for it, is an extremely important investigative and educational tool.
Ever heard of the Socratic method?
I practice it all the time, and not just in human-to-human communications. When I do IT security, I 'don' the persona of the worst black hat I can imagine (and that version of NA is a true asshole) to find out the weak points, and how to defend the position I truly 'advocate' for.
I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?I honestly thought we discussed this already.
The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.
The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority. It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.
It is though. You are then saying that it is OK for people to possess cocaine and people shouldn't be punished for doing so. The fact that you cannot see that, is on you. Not me.No it is not at all.
I think I see what is going on here. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what it means "to question" something. It does not mean you simply state that it is wrong, instead it means let's ask ourselves if this is right and then sit down and look over the data and evaluate it. Maybe in the end we decide it is in fact sensible, maybe it's sensible under certain circumstances, maybe we aren't really sure, or maybe after looking at the data it turns out that it's wrong.
I've noticed there are some people in this world that see everything in binary, black & white, right and wrong and struggle with nuance, and thus it could make sense that questioning something would be interpreted the same as saying that it's wrong since it can't be anything in between. Perhaps you are one of those? I don't know.
I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?
"selfish behaviour" is not an absolute thing. What one person can view as selfish another can view as being the opposite, and even have legit reason to back up that view of it not being selfish.
You are falling into the trap of thinking that things are binary, that's almost always never the case in anything.
Precisely my point. You questioned the law because you didn't agree with it.
But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it.
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.
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.
But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it.
I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though.QuoteConsider 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.
He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference.
Precisely my point. You questioned the law because you didn't agree with it.
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".
Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.
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
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.
But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it.
I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though.QuoteConsider 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.
He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference.Then what is happening? You said it's not ok to question some things, but then you say that's not what's happening?
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.
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.
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.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.
I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.
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.
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."
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.
Ohh, I'm so terrified!
What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability, is at the very core of the scientific method. We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties. (I myself recommend Popperian falsifiability approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego. I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs. We got here by questioning. If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.