|
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. |
On July 13 2016 04:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:10 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 04:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 04:04 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 03:57 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 03:50 amazingxkcd wrote:
nice blanket dismissal of trump supporters. if this is truly what you assume, then nothing i say will change your opinions. at least this is good to know The fact that not all Trump supporters are like that doesn't change the fact that tweets like those linked are pandering to that crowd. im fine with him pandering to those crowds. some pandering has to be done to garner support. Not unlike bernie pandering to college liberals or hillary to her voting base. but to make a remark that "oh a large part of his voting base are dumb insecure people" is just fucking unbelievable. So you are happy that he panders to the uneducated who would endanger their child’s welfare and panders to their dangers beliefs, but get upset when someone points out that isn’t very responsible? Are you implying Hillary doesn't pander to uneducated voters? at least not climate change deniers and antivaxxers,... 'your idiots are more idiotic than my idiots' Lol This whole discussion is silly. I think of it more in terms of one set of idiots being more dangerous than another. The "white people have never been poor" idiots might moan about reparations which is politically unfeasible and if it ever happened would be nothing more than a broadening of the welfare net. The "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" idiots are the reason why Iran felt like it needed nukes. I guess broadly speaking liberal idiots want to fuck shit up on a micro scale by demanding that you recognize their new gender identity of genderfluid while conservative idiots want to know why we don't nuke Japan again, just so they know we're not sorry about the first two times after Obama went to a memorial. There is also the "open the floodgates and let in infinity billion potentially malicious immigrants" idiots from the liberal side. That's plenty harmful in quite a few ways.
The floodgates are already open, so try another pointed characterization 
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 13 2016 04:16 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:14 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2016 04:10 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 04:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 04:04 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 03:57 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 03:50 amazingxkcd wrote:
nice blanket dismissal of trump supporters. if this is truly what you assume, then nothing i say will change your opinions. at least this is good to know The fact that not all Trump supporters are like that doesn't change the fact that tweets like those linked are pandering to that crowd. im fine with him pandering to those crowds. some pandering has to be done to garner support. Not unlike bernie pandering to college liberals or hillary to her voting base. but to make a remark that "oh a large part of his voting base are dumb insecure people" is just fucking unbelievable. So you are happy that he panders to the uneducated who would endanger their child’s welfare and panders to their dangers beliefs, but get upset when someone points out that isn’t very responsible? Are you implying Hillary doesn't pander to uneducated voters? at least not climate change deniers and antivaxxers,... 'your idiots are more idiotic than my idiots' Lol This whole discussion is silly. I think of it more in terms of one set of idiots being more dangerous than another. The "white people have never been poor" idiots might moan about reparations which is politically unfeasible and if it ever happened would be nothing more than a broadening of the welfare net. The "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" idiots are the reason why Iran felt like it needed nukes. I guess broadly speaking liberal idiots want to fuck shit up on a micro scale by demanding that you recognize their new gender identity of genderfluid while conservative idiots want to know why we don't nuke Japan again, just so they know we're not sorry about the first two times after Obama went to a memorial. There is also the "open the floodgates and let in infinity billion potentially malicious immigrants" idiots from the liberal side. That's plenty harmful in quite a few ways. i never got the impression that there were that many of that disposition among the american liberals i could be wrong though idk
Thankfully not at the moment, though they do in general seem to support taking a limited, though substantial, number of refugees. The European and American liberals do seem to be converging in the long-term though, which may serve to change that.
On July 13 2016 04:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:14 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2016 04:10 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 04:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 04:04 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 03:57 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 03:50 amazingxkcd wrote:
nice blanket dismissal of trump supporters. if this is truly what you assume, then nothing i say will change your opinions. at least this is good to know The fact that not all Trump supporters are like that doesn't change the fact that tweets like those linked are pandering to that crowd. im fine with him pandering to those crowds. some pandering has to be done to garner support. Not unlike bernie pandering to college liberals or hillary to her voting base. but to make a remark that "oh a large part of his voting base are dumb insecure people" is just fucking unbelievable. So you are happy that he panders to the uneducated who would endanger their child’s welfare and panders to their dangers beliefs, but get upset when someone points out that isn’t very responsible? Are you implying Hillary doesn't pander to uneducated voters? at least not climate change deniers and antivaxxers,... 'your idiots are more idiotic than my idiots' Lol This whole discussion is silly. I think of it more in terms of one set of idiots being more dangerous than another. The "white people have never been poor" idiots might moan about reparations which is politically unfeasible and if it ever happened would be nothing more than a broadening of the welfare net. The "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" idiots are the reason why Iran felt like it needed nukes. I guess broadly speaking liberal idiots want to fuck shit up on a micro scale by demanding that you recognize their new gender identity of genderfluid while conservative idiots want to know why we don't nuke Japan again, just so they know we're not sorry about the first two times after Obama went to a memorial. There is also the "open the floodgates and let in infinity billion potentially malicious immigrants" idiots from the liberal side. That's plenty harmful in quite a few ways. The floodgates are already open, so try another pointed characterization
Erm.. wat? I'm just going to have to treat this as a troll post given that I don't see any factual basis in your short one-liner.
|
On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either.
I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small.
On July 13 2016 04:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:09 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 03:57 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 03:50 amazingxkcd wrote:
nice blanket dismissal of trump supporters. if this is truly what you assume, then nothing i say will change your opinions. at least this is good to know The fact that not all Trump supporters are like that doesn't change the fact that tweets like those linked are pandering to that crowd. im fine with him pandering to those crowds. some pandering has to be done to garner support. Not unlike bernie pandering to college liberals or hillary to her voting base. but to make a remark that "oh a large part of his voting base are dumb insecure people" is just fucking unbelievable. So you are happy that he panders to the uneducated who would endanger their child’s welfare and panders to their dangers beliefs, but get upset when someone points out that isn’t very responsible? Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. trump certainly didnt accurately paint the picture of how vaccines can cause marginal harm, so i didn't think that was ever actually a point Autism is not marginal ? Firstly, vaccines don't cause autism. Secondly, vaccines don't cause autism. Thirdly, being autistic is not caused by vaccines. Fourthly, not getting vaccinated will, if enough people do it, kill a shitton of people including those who got vaccinated. Fifthly, vaccines don't fucking cause autism.
Most citizens are not scientist, they express their fears in an irrelevant manners. Doesn't mean that vaccines cannot have any kind of negative effect, nor that our policy in vaccination is perfect. The point is how you discard entirely an electorate because they express a feeling (as uneducated, and anybody who respond to those feelings as a populist), not that there indeed some facts on any given topic.
|
On July 13 2016 04:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 04:04 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 03:57 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 03:50 amazingxkcd wrote:
nice blanket dismissal of trump supporters. if this is truly what you assume, then nothing i say will change your opinions. at least this is good to know The fact that not all Trump supporters are like that doesn't change the fact that tweets like those linked are pandering to that crowd. im fine with him pandering to those crowds. some pandering has to be done to garner support. Not unlike bernie pandering to college liberals or hillary to her voting base. but to make a remark that "oh a large part of his voting base are dumb insecure people" is just fucking unbelievable. So you are happy that he panders to the uneducated who would endanger their child’s welfare and panders to their dangers beliefs, but get upset when someone points out that isn’t very responsible? Are you implying Hillary doesn't pander to uneducated voters? at least not climate change deniers and antivaxxers,... 'your idiots are more idiotic than my idiots' Lol This whole discussion is silly. The "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" idiots are the reason why Iran felt like it needed nukes.I guess broadly speaking liberal idiots want to fuck shit up on a micro scale by demanding that you recognize their new gender identity of genderfluid while conservative idiots want to know why we don't nuke Japan again, just so they know we're not sorry about the first two times after Obama went to a memorial.
The underlined portion is why I thought the GOP was such a joke in 2008 and 2012. I couldn't stand how overtly religious it was. Certain GOP candidates like Ted Cruz would have been just as bad. Donald Trump does not strike me as that type of GOP candidate. When he cites a Bible verse as 'two corinthians', whether he did it intentionally or not, he strikes me as someone who would largely keep politics secular (probably similarly to how he ran his businesses). At the same time he wouldn't be afraid of calling them 'christmas trees' at work to appease PC culture.
I would just have to disagree and say you're unfairly comparing 'different classes of idiots' so to speak. There are violent/dangerous idiots who are conservatives and violent/dangerous idiots who are liberals. There are pacified spoiled idiots who just like to whine and bicker but don't pose any threat to anyone on both sides as well.
I don't have any evidence for this belief but I don't think you have any evidence for the contrary either. I'm all ears if there actually have been studies on this.
I seriously doubt the existence of any sizable amount of conservative crazies who actually would consider us nuking Japan again, let alone push for it as a policy.
|
At this point he could claim the earth is flat and not lose voters. This campaing has reached religious levels of rationalization, anything my candidate says that I disagree with he doesn't actually mean.
|
On July 13 2016 04:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:09 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 03:57 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 03:50 amazingxkcd wrote:
nice blanket dismissal of trump supporters. if this is truly what you assume, then nothing i say will change your opinions. at least this is good to know The fact that not all Trump supporters are like that doesn't change the fact that tweets like those linked are pandering to that crowd. im fine with him pandering to those crowds. some pandering has to be done to garner support. Not unlike bernie pandering to college liberals or hillary to her voting base. but to make a remark that "oh a large part of his voting base are dumb insecure people" is just fucking unbelievable. So you are happy that he panders to the uneducated who would endanger their child’s welfare and panders to their dangers beliefs, but get upset when someone points out that isn’t very responsible? Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. trump certainly didnt accurately paint the picture of how vaccines can cause marginal harm, so i didn't think that was ever actually a point Autism is not marginal ? Firstly, vaccines don't cause autism. Secondly, vaccines don't cause autism. Thirdly, being autistic is not caused by vaccines. Fourthly, not getting vaccinated will, if enough people do it, kill a shitton of people including those who got vaccinated. Fifthly, vaccines don't fucking cause autism.
And this is actually why you can't really inform people about marginal health risks, because if you tell them that one in 10k gets the flu the next day every tabloid is going to tell the populace how vaccines cause super-autism. Can't really blame scientists or politicians for the fact that the public can't contextualize risks.
|
On July 13 2016 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:09 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 03:57 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 03:50 amazingxkcd wrote:
nice blanket dismissal of trump supporters. if this is truly what you assume, then nothing i say will change your opinions. at least this is good to know The fact that not all Trump supporters are like that doesn't change the fact that tweets like those linked are pandering to that crowd. im fine with him pandering to those crowds. some pandering has to be done to garner support. Not unlike bernie pandering to college liberals or hillary to her voting base. but to make a remark that "oh a large part of his voting base are dumb insecure people" is just fucking unbelievable. So you are happy that he panders to the uneducated who would endanger their child’s welfare and panders to their dangers beliefs, but get upset when someone points out that isn’t very responsible? Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. trump certainly didnt accurately paint the picture of how vaccines can cause marginal harm, so i didn't think that was ever actually a point Autism is not marginal ? Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:11 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 03:57 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 03:50 amazingxkcd wrote:
nice blanket dismissal of trump supporters. if this is truly what you assume, then nothing i say will change your opinions. at least this is good to know The fact that not all Trump supporters are like that doesn't change the fact that tweets like those linked are pandering to that crowd. im fine with him pandering to those crowds. some pandering has to be done to garner support. Not unlike bernie pandering to college liberals or hillary to her voting base. but to make a remark that "oh a large part of his voting base are dumb insecure people" is just fucking unbelievable. So you are happy that he panders to the uneducated who would endanger their child’s welfare and panders to their dangers beliefs, but get upset when someone points out that isn’t very responsible? The problem is Kwark barely understand what is politics and thus identify any topic that would contredict "technic" or "science" as "populism" - a bad thing. What's responsible is to respond to the fears of the population, what is irresponsible is to declare those feelings irrelevant because science and technology as an ideology gave us the "right" answer. The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. When you're unable to defend that political choice, and to show how this choice has been beneficial to us through out history (which it has), then you hide behind science and claim experts are right. Although I agree with some of Kwarks points, it is not the reason I dislike populism. I view populism, or telling voters what they want to hear even if it is not viable or straight up dangerous, the exact opposite of leadership. And someone like Trump, who just panders at all time to whoever he is speaking to at that moment, is not showing leadership. He is simply telling people what they want to hear, making promises he will never be able to deliver on. What is not viable or straight up dangerous in Trump proposals ? I think it's a better discussion than saying than Trump is a populism - which to me is a quality (not of Trump, but in general).
The wall of Mexico will accomplish nothing, most illegal immigrants overstay their visas, not cross the board. Mass deportation is not viable and will never happen. He wants to open of liable laws to allow rich people to file lawsuits against publications that criticize them. He banned specific outlets from covering him and could do the same in the white house. He wants to violate civil liberties by banning Muslims from entering the country.
This is on top of this weird obsession with dictators and generally thin skinned behavior that I believe will be deeply dangerous when controlling the CIA, FBI and armed services.
|
On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small.
yea, but when it becomes a meme (in the original sense) for some social group to avoid vaccines en masse, then it becomes an issue
if the exceptions were well-understood, like if there were a vaccine deliverable only 1 way and a certain amount of the population were allergic to that vaccine, and only those people were the exceptions, that'd probably be ok... but when a popular misconception spreads that vaccines are dangerous, the amount of people who want to opt out can become an issue
|
On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small.
This assumes that the population is a closed environment and does not have exposure to outside populations which have lower vaccination rates. Insofar as that's increasingly not the case, vaccination still carries nonzero benefit on an individual level even in a country where high vaccination rates result in a high protective effect due to the population being mostly vaccinated.
|
On July 13 2016 04:20 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small. yea, but when it becomes a meme (in the original sense) for some social group to avoid vaccines en masse, then it becomes an issue if the exceptions were well-understood, like if there were a vaccine deliverable only 1 way and a certain amount of the population were allergic to that vaccine, and only those people were the exceptions, that'd probably be ok... but when a popular misconception spreads that vaccines are dangerous, the amount of people who want to opt out can become an issue
A terrible health issue yes. But if everytime people express a feeling towards a specific thing - a vaccine or anything else - but only meet laugh and accusations rather than rational discussion and improvements (the vaccination policy can be improved like anything else) then those people stop vaccination and vote Trump (imo).
For ages politics have discarded the feeling of huge part of the population in many places in the occidental world, and somehow we have trump like candidates everywhere. It's the lack of populism that create a Trump, as a violent backlash to the blindness of the elite.
On July 13 2016 04:24 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small. This assumes that the population is a closed environment and does not have exposure to outside populations which have lower vaccination rates. Insofar as that's increasingly not the case, vaccination still carries nonzero benefit on an individual level even in a country where high vaccination rates result in a high protective effect due to the population being mostly vaccinated.
True, didn't think about that.
|
On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small. Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:14 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:09 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 03:57 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 03:50 amazingxkcd wrote:
nice blanket dismissal of trump supporters. if this is truly what you assume, then nothing i say will change your opinions. at least this is good to know The fact that not all Trump supporters are like that doesn't change the fact that tweets like those linked are pandering to that crowd. im fine with him pandering to those crowds. some pandering has to be done to garner support. Not unlike bernie pandering to college liberals or hillary to her voting base. but to make a remark that "oh a large part of his voting base are dumb insecure people" is just fucking unbelievable. So you are happy that he panders to the uneducated who would endanger their child’s welfare and panders to their dangers beliefs, but get upset when someone points out that isn’t very responsible? Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. trump certainly didnt accurately paint the picture of how vaccines can cause marginal harm, so i didn't think that was ever actually a point Autism is not marginal ? Firstly, vaccines don't cause autism. Secondly, vaccines don't cause autism. Thirdly, being autistic is not caused by vaccines. Fourthly, not getting vaccinated will, if enough people do it, kill a shitton of people including those who got vaccinated. Fifthly, vaccines don't fucking cause autism. Most citizens are not scientist, they express their fears in an irrelevant manners. Doesn't mean that vaccines cannot have any kind of negative effect, nor that our policy in vaccination is perfect. The point is how you discard entirely an electorate because they express a feeling (as uneducated, and anybody who respond to those feelings as a populist), not that there indeed some facts on any given topic.
The part regarding herd immunity would work - if the parts of the herd would stay in one place and not travel or if that herd completely excludes all visitors, because if either of those isn't true, then:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/health/measles-arizona-outbreak/
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-disneyland-measles-under-vaccination-20150316-story.html
|
On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small.
No, it's absolutely never individually beneficial to not get any vaccine. Some vaccines don't prevent infection, only reduce the severity of it. Being in contact with someone with a mild version of a disease that they don't even notice could kill you in such a scenario.
|
On July 13 2016 04:25 WhiteDog wrote:
A terrible health issue yes. But if everytime people express a feeling towards a specific thing - a vaccine or anything else - but only meet laugh and accusations rather than rational discussion and improvements (the vaccination policy can be improved like anything else) then those people stop vaccination and vote Trump (imo).
Nobody's pediatrician is laughing at them when they say they don't want to vaccinate their kids. At least not to their face.
Decisions by parents not to vaccinate are made in spite of rational arguments, not due to lack thereof.
|
On July 13 2016 04:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:20 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small. yea, but when it becomes a meme (in the original sense) for some social group to avoid vaccines en masse, then it becomes an issue if the exceptions were well-understood, like if there were a vaccine deliverable only 1 way and a certain amount of the population were allergic to that vaccine, and only those people were the exceptions, that'd probably be ok... but when a popular misconception spreads that vaccines are dangerous, the amount of people who want to opt out can become an issue A terrible health issue yes. But if everytime people express a feeling towards a specific thing - a vaccine or anything else - but only meet laugh and accusations rather than rational discussion and improvements (the vaccination policy can be improved like anything else) then those people stop vaccination and vote Trump (imo).
i agree that the scientifically-educated need to find ways to be less condescending and off-putting overall... mockery is always lazy and often counterproductive
on the other hand, i feel like those are the types of people who probably would've voted trump anyway due to other issues with the establishment and status quo, if not their views on vaccines
edit: also yea, i doubt too many doctors are being directly antagonistic... my impression of doctors is that patiently explaining medical consensuses without mockery in the face of complete ignorance is pretty much part of the job description
|
United States42963 Posts
On July 13 2016 04:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:20 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small. yea, but when it becomes a meme (in the original sense) for some social group to avoid vaccines en masse, then it becomes an issue if the exceptions were well-understood, like if there were a vaccine deliverable only 1 way and a certain amount of the population were allergic to that vaccine, and only those people were the exceptions, that'd probably be ok... but when a popular misconception spreads that vaccines are dangerous, the amount of people who want to opt out can become an issue A terrible health issue yes. But if everytime people express a feeling towards a specific thing - a vaccine or anything else - but only meet laugh and accusations rather than rational discussion and improvements (the vaccination policy can be improved like anything else) then those people stop vaccination and vote Trump (imo).
This is part of the cause of the Brexit imo. The politicians thought the public were too stupid to understand European policy so they decided it was a matter for the politicians, not the public. The public grew to resent this and then protest voted to do whatever the politicians didn't want, thus proving the politicians right in a self fulfilling prophecy. The only answer to this is for an educated and informed populace who are informed by a media with an interest in promoting knowledge and understanding, not conflict and clan loyalty. In short, we're fucked. But in the mean time I still want vaccines to be mandatory for those without a medical reason to be exempt.
|
On July 13 2016 04:28 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:25 WhiteDog wrote:
A terrible health issue yes. But if everytime people express a feeling towards a specific thing - a vaccine or anything else - but only meet laugh and accusations rather than rational discussion and improvements (the vaccination policy can be improved like anything else) then those people stop vaccination and vote Trump (imo). Nobody's pediatrician is laughing at them when they say they don't want to vaccinate their kids. At least not to their face. Decisions by parents not to vaccinate are made in spite of rational arguments, not due to lack thereof.
This
The anti-vax crowd is driven by emotion on the issue. I heard vaccines will ruin my kid, I love my kid, I don't want my kid ruined, so fuck that!
It doesn't matter if you smash facts into their head with a sledge hammer, you're not going to counter that. You're not going to combat the emotional mind with facts and information. Especially when that emotional mind is fixated on its own progeny. That person's mind is already made up.
|
United States42963 Posts
On July 13 2016 04:28 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:20 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small. yea, but when it becomes a meme (in the original sense) for some social group to avoid vaccines en masse, then it becomes an issue if the exceptions were well-understood, like if there were a vaccine deliverable only 1 way and a certain amount of the population were allergic to that vaccine, and only those people were the exceptions, that'd probably be ok... but when a popular misconception spreads that vaccines are dangerous, the amount of people who want to opt out can become an issue A terrible health issue yes. But if everytime people express a feeling towards a specific thing - a vaccine or anything else - but only meet laugh and accusations rather than rational discussion and improvements (the vaccination policy can be improved like anything else) then those people stop vaccination and vote Trump (imo). i agree that the scientifically-educated need to find ways to be less condescending and off-putting overall... mockery is always lazy and often counterproductive on the other hand, i feel like those are the types of people who probably would've voted trump anyway due to other issues with the establishment and status quo, if not their views on vaccines edit: also yea, i doubt too many doctors are being directly antagonistic... my impression of doctors is that patiently explaining medical consensuses without mockery in the face of complete ignorance is pretty much part of the job description
I read a great article recently that presented research showing that being informed of the factual truth of a matter, such as vaccines and autism, did absolutely nothing to dissuade the disbelievers and actually reinforced their doubts while being shamed by peers did far more to change their mind. I'll see if I can find it.
Couldn't find it but I found a lot of things quoting the same findings.
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/when-evidence-backfires
Basically there's an effect called the backfire effect in which thoroughly refuting a falsehood with facts and evidence actually reinforces belief in the falsehood in the mind of the believer.
|
On July 13 2016 04:03 kapibara-san wrote:
its not kool aid... it's a measured perception that the status quo is better than the gamble that is trump
not even denying that he might end up better (its an untestable hypothetical in any case). but from a probabilistic evaluation, i dont wanna take that risk
That's not what I'm talking about, there are always fair and serious reasons not to support someone, nothing wrong with that.
What we had for months was the left telling us how Trump is bad, for all the usual reasons Republicans are bad (racist, sexist, stupid, talks funny, lies, policies won't work), but that he also can't get along with Republicans and they hate him. It doesn't add up.
On anti-vaxxing, it's kind of like being a birther, it was playing for attention. He hasn't talked about it for months, right? Since Ben Carson killed him on it at that primary debate? Not everything is a "policy" statement. He might even believe it sincerely (but I'd bet money his kids were vaccinated on schedule), but it's not like an issue for him.
On July 13 2016 04:19 Dan HH wrote:
At this point he could claim the earth is flat and not lose voters. This campaing has reached religious levels of rationalization, anything my candidate says that I disagree with he doesn't actually mean.
And if he said that, would it change anything about the shape of the Earth?
He obviously doesn't mean everything he says given the fact that he's contradicted himself before. Why after decades of modern politics do people have this new impeccable standard for the candidate on the other side? Of course he's not serious about everything that comes out of his mouth. He's running for president.  But there are ways we can sort truth, sincerity, bullshit, and lies independent of whether we agree with what someone's saying.
|
On July 13 2016 04:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:28 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:20 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small. yea, but when it becomes a meme (in the original sense) for some social group to avoid vaccines en masse, then it becomes an issue if the exceptions were well-understood, like if there were a vaccine deliverable only 1 way and a certain amount of the population were allergic to that vaccine, and only those people were the exceptions, that'd probably be ok... but when a popular misconception spreads that vaccines are dangerous, the amount of people who want to opt out can become an issue A terrible health issue yes. But if everytime people express a feeling towards a specific thing - a vaccine or anything else - but only meet laugh and accusations rather than rational discussion and improvements (the vaccination policy can be improved like anything else) then those people stop vaccination and vote Trump (imo). i agree that the scientifically-educated need to find ways to be less condescending and off-putting overall... mockery is always lazy and often counterproductive on the other hand, i feel like those are the types of people who probably would've voted trump anyway due to other issues with the establishment and status quo, if not their views on vaccines edit: also yea, i doubt too many doctors are being directly antagonistic... my impression of doctors is that patiently explaining medical consensuses without mockery in the face of complete ignorance is pretty much part of the job description I read a great article recently that presented research showing that being informed of the factual truth of a matter, such as vaccines and autism, did absolutely nothing to dissuade the disbelievers and actually reinforced their doubts while being shamed by peers did far more to change their mind. I'll see if I can find it.
I don't believe you, and if you link the study, I'll double down on not believing you.
|
On July 13 2016 04:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:28 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:20 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 04:18 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2016 04:13 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2016 04:07 WhiteDog wrote:
The discussion around vaccination is a good exemple of that : vaccine can cause, in some marginal cases, individual harms and have great collective benefit. Refuting the fact that it can cause some marginal harm in some marginal cases is not scientific, it is the result of a political choice that favor the important collective gain against the marginal harm it can cause in some infinitesimal cases. I would argue that, even on an individual level, actually acting on that very marginal risk is still a -EV choice and requires either ignorance of the likelihood of benefit/harm or an irrational level of risk aversion. It's usually the former, but the latter doesn't constitute sound, intelligent decision making either. I actually believe differently from you in this regards : from an individual standpoint, as the entire population is vaccinated, it can be individually beneficial not to get any vaccine. You're basically a clandestine passenger - since the entire population is protected, your chance to get the disease is very small. yea, but when it becomes a meme (in the original sense) for some social group to avoid vaccines en masse, then it becomes an issue if the exceptions were well-understood, like if there were a vaccine deliverable only 1 way and a certain amount of the population were allergic to that vaccine, and only those people were the exceptions, that'd probably be ok... but when a popular misconception spreads that vaccines are dangerous, the amount of people who want to opt out can become an issue A terrible health issue yes. But if everytime people express a feeling towards a specific thing - a vaccine or anything else - but only meet laugh and accusations rather than rational discussion and improvements (the vaccination policy can be improved like anything else) then those people stop vaccination and vote Trump (imo). i agree that the scientifically-educated need to find ways to be less condescending and off-putting overall... mockery is always lazy and often counterproductive on the other hand, i feel like those are the types of people who probably would've voted trump anyway due to other issues with the establishment and status quo, if not their views on vaccines edit: also yea, i doubt too many doctors are being directly antagonistic... my impression of doctors is that patiently explaining medical consensuses without mockery in the face of complete ignorance is pretty much part of the job description I read a great article recently that presented research showing that being informed of the factual truth of a matter, such as vaccines and autism, did absolutely nothing to dissuade the disbelievers and actually reinforced their doubts while being shamed by peers did far more to change their mind. I'll see if I can find it.
that really sounds interesting... wonder if the "peers" need to be limited to peers of similar social groups and social standing... i look forward to you finding it
On July 13 2016 04:33 JinDesu wrote:
I don't believe you, and if you link the study, I'll double down on not believing you.
chuckled
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
