EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2314
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 19 2015 02:39 Eliezar wrote: This is a serious problem in discussion. I have actually read through the vaccine case studies that showed that there was a higher percentage of people who got poison ivy (or something weird like that) after getting a vaccine than ended up with Autism (I'm talking like 500 page case study). However, if you are involved in the medical community then you know that we haven't tested everything. Here is an example for you: Say you are taking medicines A, B, C, and D. Every 2 medicine combination has been tested out of them, 99% of the time every 3 combination has been tested. However, when someone has a crazy response and you look...you are almost never going to have all 4 tested together. So the Pharmacist can't even help advice you...there hasn't been testing done. Also, I was going along with the 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made (although I think this entire sentence is stupid and not accurate at all). Then I read THIS WEEK an article from the Wall Street Journal that showed that the 97% figure seems to have no basis (I think it was from August of last year or something). As they dug it up they were finding numbers like around 60%. But all of that is meaningless like the original sentence. 1) We know the earth will naturally get way warmer than it is now (we are in a cooler period). 2) We need to prepare for the earth to be a warmer place 3) We can look at Venus and see what happened there 4) We need to work for solutions that will help us deal with the warming earth and make sure we aren't accelerating the problem. I think there is a problem of people being brainwashed by repeated statements and then trying to bully others to accept them when they are not necessarily fact. For instance, can someone point to a study that examined the autism rate of children who were given the combo vaccines vs children that had them spread out? Has that study even been done? That is how science works...we have to keep asking and keep looking. For the record on autism, the strongest correlation in the US is days of rain fall to autism rate per the study I read in 2008. The researchers were suggesting that if there is something in the environment that causes it, that it might have something related to that and proposed studies on things like lack of sunlight, tv watching, etc that would be more common for children who couldn't go outside as much. Just an interesting thought. This whole claim that the 97% statistic is false has been debunked. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/ As to your ridiculous vaccine argument, that's actually NOT how science works. Here's how it works. 1) Vaccines were first created. Rigorous scientific testing went into seeing if 1) they worked and 2) they were safe. They do and are. 2) Because the science is established, the burden of proof is on the anti-vax crowd to come up with science that disputes the well-established literature on the efficacy and safety of vaccines. 3) Some hack comes up with a terrible study that is then widely discredited. 4) The burden of proof is still on anti-vaxxers. It isn't the responsibility of reasonable individuals to waste precious time and money on creating MORE studies on vaccines when there are 1) plenty of them out there and 2) there isn't a damn shred of evidence that vaccines cause autism. It's the responsibility of anti-vaxxers to bring real evidence, which they never have. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
On September 19 2015 02:25 Plansix wrote: "Who needs facts or science when you have opinions and belief?" - Republican Party 2015 and the Poll leader Trump. Eliezar - The man attends a Christian Church every Sunday. He is fucking Christian. Just because he has a library that happens to have other religious text doesn't validate the argument. This isn't' some chem trails shit. I'm having flash backs to Good Night and Good Luck where reading socialist ligature made you a communist. You are saying he attends church every Sunday and yet Michelle Obama said on live tv that they don't have time to go to church on Sundays as their family has other things to do on "Live with Kelly and Michael". You can't just make things up because you want your belief to be right. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
On September 19 2015 02:50 Stratos_speAr wrote: This whole claim that the 97% statistic is false has been debunked. As to your ridiculous vaccine argument, that's actually NOT how science works. Here's how it works. 1) Vaccines were first created. Rigorous scientific testing went into seeing if 1) they worked and 2) they were safe. They do and are. 2) Because the science is established, the burden of proof is on the anti-vax crowd to come up with science that disputes the well-established literature on the efficacy and safety of vaccines. 3) Some hack comes up with a terrible study that is then widely discredited. 4) The burden of proof is still on anti-vaxxers. It isn't the responsibility of reasonable individuals to waste precious time and money on creating MORE studies on vaccines when there are 1) plenty of them out there and 2) there isn't a damn shred of evidence that vaccines cause autism. It's the responsibility of anti-vaxxers to bring real evidence, which they never have. Here is the challenge on you. Link a study done on vaccine safety and the use of 5-6 vaccines at once. Here is another challenge to you. Where is the article that debunked this? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 Both are mostly meaningless to me as I believe in going Green and if my kid's doctor says there haven't been studies done on the safety of grouped vaccines then I'm simply not going to do it unless I see otherwise (and don't have more kids coming through so it is a moot point). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 The crux of his argument is pretty impressive, since he is saying there is no way we can know what every scientist thinks. He disputed the number, but in now way disputes that the overwhelming majority agree on climate change. Even when he could find dissent, he only found in some obscure survey about meteorologists that all agreed global warming is real, but did not agree if humans were "primary cause". It doesn't deny they are the part of the cause, just that they might not be the primary(6% thought that, most cited not enough information). Edit: The man is Christian. Saying anything otherwise is just lying. Even if he can't attend church every Sunday. It's fact. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 19 2015 02:55 Eliezar wrote: Here is the challenge on you. Link a study done on vaccine safety and the use of 5-6 vaccines at once. Here is another challenge to you. Where is the article that debunked this? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 Both are mostly meaningless to me as I believe in going Green and if my kid's doctor says there haven't been studies done on the safety of grouped vaccines then I'm simply not going to do it unless I see otherwise (and don't have more kids coming through so it is a moot point). Your argument seems pretty weak, since you linked a pay-walled article that also starts out with an absurdly biased tone. Also, there is no evidence to question the safety of the vaccination schedule. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that shows the dangers of spreading it out too much. The burden of proof is on you to show us why research money and resources have to be wasted on another study on vaccinations. If you don't understand this, then you need to take some more science classes. Oh, and just because you're probably too lazy to Google "vaccine schedule safety" or are in denial, here's the first link. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/research/iomreports/index.html It seems like the CDC already has you covered. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
On September 19 2015 02:46 ticklishmusic wrote: Gonna have to call you out on this one: the autism-vaccine link is bullshit. It was fully retracted by the Lancet (the journal which published it), and the doctor who wrote it was shown to have financial interests-- he also lost his license. There is no meaningful correlation, let along causative link between autism and vaccines. I don't know what kind of ridiculous 500 page case study you're citing. Don't try creating "reasonable doubt" about various scientific issues when there really isn't. So the 500 page case study is "ridiculous" but it is one of the major studies done showing that there is no link between autism and vaccines...can I have some of what you are smoking man? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
In other news, an atheist wrote an article about how God doesn't exist. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 19 2015 02:59 Eliezar wrote: So the 500 page case study is "ridiculous" but it is one of the major studies done showing that there is no link between autism and vaccines...can I have some of what you are smoking man? They made a video about this exact argument: http://imgur.com/gallery/ou22d6T Here is the summary. We don't need to argue about reality here. The evidence is overwhelming that they don't cause autism. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
On September 19 2015 02:55 Plansix wrote: You mean this editorial: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 The crux of his argument is pretty impressive, since he is saying there is no way we can know what every scientist thinks. He disputed the number, but in now way disputes that the overwhelming majority agree on climate change. Even when he could find dissent, he only found in some obscure survey about meteorologists that all agreed global warming is real, but did not agree if humans were "primary cause". It doesn't deny they are the part of the cause, just that they might not be the primary(6% thought that, most cited not enough information). Edit: The man is Christian. Saying anything otherwise is just lying. Even if he can't attend church every Sunday. It's fact. I'll stand by my stance that all evidence points to Obama being in the Joseph Campbell genre based not on internet poster "lies and facts" but just Obama's own information when he says stuff like "I don't know what happens after you die" and that he thinks that "Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Shintos" are all on the same road. That statement is Joseph Campbell and not Christian fwiw. I mean, unless the defining factor is not facts but just stuff Plansix makes up. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45041 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 19 2015 03:04 Eliezar wrote: I'll stand by my stance that all evidence points to Obama being in the Joseph Campbell genre based not on internet poster "lies and facts" but just Obama's own information when he says stuff like "I don't know what happens after you die" and that he thinks that "Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Shintos" are all on the same road. That statement is Joseph Campbell and not Christian fwiw. I mean, unless the defining factor is not facts but just stuff Plansix makes up. I'm Christian and I believe exactly that, so I fail to see your point. Obama just doesn't prescribe or claim his religion as the only regional that might be correct. Its how being a secular politician works. You don't devalue other peoples views of the world. On September 19 2015 03:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Eliezar, it seems that you have two strikes of ignorance against you so far, with thinking that Obama is a Muslim and that vaccines cause/ can cause autism. What's number three? Climate change is a hoax? Evolution? Gravity? Holocaust is a hoax. Or maybe the moon landing. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 19 2015 03:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Eliezar, it seems that you have two strikes of ignorance against you so far, with thinking that Obama is a Muslim and that vaccines cause/ can cause autism. What's number three? Climate change is a hoax? Evolution? Gravity? He's already demonstrated climate change skepticism. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21952 Posts
The guy is smart enough to know God is not real and the bible is a work of fiction. Sadly America is not ready to accept an atheist as President so he has to pretend to be a Christian. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On September 19 2015 03:04 Eliezar wrote: I'll stand by my stance that all evidence points to Obama being in the Joseph Campbell genre based not on internet poster "lies and facts" but just Obama's own information when he says stuff like "I don't know what happens after you die" and that he thinks that "Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Shintos" are all on the same road. That statement is Joseph Campbell and not Christian fwiw. I mean, unless the defining factor is not facts but just stuff Plansix makes up. And I still have no idea why his religious affiliation matters at all. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18114 Posts
On September 19 2015 02:55 Eliezar wrote: Here is the challenge on you. Link a study done on vaccine safety and the use of 5-6 vaccines at once. Here is another challenge to you. Where is the article that debunked this? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 Both are mostly meaningless to me as I believe in going Green and if my kid's doctor says there haven't been studies done on the safety of grouped vaccines then I'm simply not going to do it unless I see otherwise (and don't have more kids coming through so it is a moot point). The point is that there is NO evidence that autism is caused by vaccines. I am sure there are about a million-and-one things that haven't been tested (and I'm sure that if you look hard enough, spurious correlations will even make it look SUPERFICIALLY like there might be a causal link to what you're searching for). I claim the moon is made of cheese. You tell me NASA went to the moon, brought back moon rock, and they showed conclusively that there is no cheese in there. I then say: ah, but the Apollo missions landed in the wrong spot. If you look 100km to the west, THAT bit of the moon is definitely made of cheese. You are moving the goal posts, in order to be able to hold onto your beliefs. That is NOT how science works. What you are doing is constructing unfalsifiable hypotheses. To make your hypothesis worth testing, you have to come up with a reason why 5 vaccines would cause autism. I might as well say we should test that getting 5 vaccines together causes Alzheimers. Is that a valid scientific experiment to do? NO. It is not, because there is absolutely NO reason to believe there is any causal effect between Alzheimers and vaccination. Just as there is absolutely NO reason to believe there is any causal effect between Autism and vaccination. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
On September 19 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote: Here is an idea. Obama is a 'Christian' because the political culture in America requires it. The guy is smart enough to know God is not real and the bible is a work of fiction. Sadly America is not ready to accept an atheist as President so he has to pretend to be a Christian. Here's an idea: there are multitudes of highly intelligent individuals who believe in God, and you are in no position to question the faith of another person. This discussion is as vulgar as it is stupid. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21952 Posts
On September 19 2015 03:27 farvacola wrote: Here's an idea: there are multitudes of highly intelligent individuals who believe in God, and you are in no position to question the faith of another person. This discussion is as vulgar as it is stupid. Do you think being an Atheist makes it less likely to be elected compared to being Christian? | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On September 19 2015 03:34 Gorsameth wrote: Do you think being an Atheist makes it less likely to be elected compared to being Christian? That's not the part of your post he was responding to. Was probably the part where you said Obama is "smart enough to know religion is bullshit" that he is taking issue with. I'm pretty sure everyone here recognizes that identifying as an atheist would hurt your chances at the presidency, and there are varying degrees of religious observation. I called myself a Christian until a few years ago but have been to Church less than 10 times since I was six years old. | ||
| ||
