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.
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.
Well it also stems from many peoples' loss of faith in modern medicine as a whole, which is a much more complex issue to dissect, but is nonetheless equally irrational.
Media attention toward problems that modern medicine has so far found intractable and the ties between medical providers and the pharmaceutical industry have hurt public perception of doctors. But even so, listening to what your doctor tells you still has a vastly higher probability of making you healthier than not doing so.
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.
Yeah maybe vaccination was not the best point - non vaccination stays rather marginal I believe ? I was more responding to the overall idea that responding to people's feelings in a democracy is bad and that Trump is a "populist".
The shaming anti-vaccers idea seems an awful lot like the idea that 'fat-shaming' people is an effective means of getting them to exercise more and eat a healthier diet.
I'm aware they're by no means the same but from a purely psychological perspective of getting results, it seems like they would be tapping into the same factors that motivate human behavior.
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.
Carson didn't kill him on it. Carson basically agreed with him because the man is a mousy chump standing next to the class bully.
“Vaccines are very important,” he said. But then he started to walk it back. “Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don’t fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases. But, you know, a lot of this is—is—is pushed by big government. And I think that’s one of the things that people so vehemently want to get rid of, big government.”
That isn't "killing him" under any definition I've ever been aware of.
On July 13 2016 04:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote: The shaming anti-vaccers idea seems an awful lot like the idea that 'fat-shaming' people is an effective means of getting them to exercise more and eat a healthier diet.
might be a shill idk LOL this whole thing makes me laugh
On July 13 2016 04:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote: The shaming anti-vaccers idea seems an awful lot like the idea that 'fat-shaming' people is an effective means of getting them to exercise more and eat a healthier diet.
More like shaming parents who overfeed their obese infants who will have serious health issues before they turn 10, although even then only if it would also hurt the other kids in the class. And those parents should have their kids taken from them imo. Anti-vaxxers aren't hurting themselves. If they were just rendering themselves at risk I wouldn't be so against it.
On July 13 2016 04:33 oBlade wrote: 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.
Again, I view this as an issue of Trump being a political outsider, so we have no metric to go by on how much of what he says is real idiocy vs. pandering bullshit. Politicians who have a track record let us calibrate our bullshit-o-meter so we can make realistic assessments of the difference between what they say vs. what they'll actually do.
Trump being an unknown means there's a real fear thanks to this uncertainty, and I don't think it's one you can flatly dismiss. Again, Trump supporters give him the benefit of the doubt, and Trump detractors will criticize everything-- and likely both will be wrong to some degree. But we still don't know where things will actually land if he's in office, and it's reasonable for people to find that scary.
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.
Carson didn't kill him on it. Carson basically agreed with him because the man is a mousy chump standing next to the class bully.
“Vaccines are very important,” he said. But then he started to walk it back. “Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don’t fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases. But, you know, a lot of this is—is—is pushed by big government. And I think that’s one of the things that people so vehemently want to get rid of, big government.”
That isn't "killing him" under any definition I've ever been aware of.
"There have been numerous studies and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism. This is something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago, and it has not been, adequately, you know, revealed to the public what's actually going on."
"The fact of the matter is we have extremely well-documented proof that there's no autism associated with vaccinations."
"Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions. And this has strained our bonds of understanding and common purpose." George W. Bush has delivered a pretty good speech in Dallas, I'm very impressed for a guy I always pictured as a complete imbecile.
On July 13 2016 04:51 WhiteDog wrote: "Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions. And this has strained our bonds of understanding and common purpose." George W. Bush has delivered a pretty good speech in Dallas, I'm very impressed for a guy I always pictured as a complete imbecile.
Find it hard to believe those words came from him.
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.
Carson didn't kill him on it. Carson basically agreed with him because the man is a mousy chump standing next to the class bully.
“Vaccines are very important,” he said. But then he started to walk it back. “Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don’t fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases. But, you know, a lot of this is—is—is pushed by big government. And I think that’s one of the things that people so vehemently want to get rid of, big government.”
That isn't "killing him" under any definition I've ever been aware of.
"There have been numerous studies and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism. This is something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago, and it has not been, adequately, you know, revealed to the public what's actually going on."
"The fact of the matter is we have extremely well-documented proof that there's no autism associated with vaccinations."
"He's [Trump] an okay doctor." <laughter>
What was the source you were using, what outlet?
And then he goes on to walk it back, talking about big government. I watched the debate.
Killing him would be, as a supposedly well respected doctor actually being honest. Saying "Vaccines don't cause autism. Donald needs to stop this BS fear mongering. They don't cause autism, get your kids vaccinated". But we all know that aint happening.
On July 13 2016 04:51 WhiteDog wrote: "Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions. And this has strained our bonds of understanding and common purpose." George W. Bush has delivered a pretty good speech in Dallas, I'm very impressed for a guy I always pictured as a complete imbecile.
Find it hard to believe those words came from him.
He was actually pretty reasonable in the campaign in 2000. 9/11 fucked up what could have been a perfectly good presidency imo. Not a fan of all his planned policies, his tax cuts were a failure for example, and I'd have preferred Gore but overall I think he'd have been okay had 9/11 not happened.
Lawyers for Hillary Clinton are going to federal court for the first time to block efforts to force her to testify in a civil lawsuit related to her private email set-up.
Clinton's attorneys submitted a legal filing Tuesday morning in a bid to shut down a conservative group's request for an order forcing her to submit to a deposition in the midst of her presidential campaign.
Clinton’s legal team said her testimony was unnecessary and superfluous in light of her questioning before the House Benghazi Committee last October and several State Department inquiries into the issue.
“Despite this public testimony and the various investigative reports, Judicial Watch claims that it needs to depose Secretary Clinton, a former Cabinet Secretary, about six purportedly unanswered questions," the filing states. "The record, however, already answers those questions or makes clear that Secretary Clinton has no personal knowledge to provide.”
Judicial Watch has asked to depose Clinton in a pair of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits which have raised questions about whether her private email system was created in part to avoid making messages accessible under FOIA.
“In any event, the discovery requested by Judicial Watch is futile," the filing states. "Even if this Court had authority to issue such unprecedented relief, Secretary Clinton has nothing to produce, as the server equipment used to host her @clintonemail.com account is in the possession of the FBI.”
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has set a hearing for Monday on the request for Clinton’s testimony in one of the suits.
Clinton's legal team has never previously intervened directly in the lawsuits, which name the State Department as defendant.
However, last year, Clinton did submit a declaration under penalty of perjury saying she'd instructed her attorneys to turn over all federal records in her possession to the State Department. Clinton said it was her belief that had been done.
The State Department is also resisting efforts to call Clinton for depositions in the suits.
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.
The problem is that he means everything I agree with. And everything I disagree with is just pandering.
If it's something he changed his public position on within the last year but you agree with (example: abortion), he means it. If it's something on which his position has been consistent for ages but you disagree with (example: climate change), he doesn't mean it.
Same way people make god's beliefs and morality miraculously coincide with their own.
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.
Carson didn't kill him on it. Carson basically agreed with him because the man is a mousy chump standing next to the class bully.
“Vaccines are very important,” he said. But then he started to walk it back. “Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don’t fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases. But, you know, a lot of this is—is—is pushed by big government. And I think that’s one of the things that people so vehemently want to get rid of, big government.”
That isn't "killing him" under any definition I've ever been aware of.
"There have been numerous studies and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism. This is something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago, and it has not been, adequately, you know, revealed to the public what's actually going on."
"The fact of the matter is we have extremely well-documented proof that there's no autism associated with vaccinations."
"He's [Trump] an okay doctor." <laughter>
What was the source you were using, what outlet?
And then he goes on to walk it back, talking about big government. I watched the debate.
Killing him would be, as a supposedly well respected doctor actually being honest. Saying "Vaccines don't cause autism. Donald needs to stop this BS fear mongering. They don't cause autism, get your kids vaccinated". But we all know that aint happening.
I am really, really confused as to why this is something that people actually talk about. It just all seems so insane. Vaccinations are one of the greatest things to ever happen in human history. And there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
And still, there is apparently a large enough part of the US population that thinks that vaccinations actually hurt their kids that presidential candidates talk about it, and are not willing to piss those people off. It just seems so insane. Nothing makes any sense. If you try to get to the bottom of it, still nothing makes any sense. But apparently it has been going on long enough that these people are now a demographic.
I am having real problems trying to imagine being so irrational. Do you just believe whatever the first guy you talk to tells you about an issue, and then never budge no matter what anyone else says? It is just something i just can't imagine as someone who grew up with a world view based on reason.
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.
Carson didn't kill him on it. Carson basically agreed with him because the man is a mousy chump standing next to the class bully.
“Vaccines are very important,” he said. But then he started to walk it back. “Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don’t fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases. But, you know, a lot of this is—is—is pushed by big government. And I think that’s one of the things that people so vehemently want to get rid of, big government.”
That isn't "killing him" under any definition I've ever been aware of.
"There have been numerous studies and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism. This is something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago, and it has not been, adequately, you know, revealed to the public what's actually going on."
"The fact of the matter is we have extremely well-documented proof that there's no autism associated with vaccinations."
"He's [Trump] an okay doctor." <laughter>
What was the source you were using, what outlet?
And then he goes on to walk it back, talking about big government. I watched the debate.
Killing him would be, as a supposedly well respected doctor actually being honest. Saying "Vaccines don't cause autism. Donald needs to stop this BS fear mongering. They don't cause autism, get your kids vaccinated". But we all know that aint happening.
I am really, really confused as to why this is something that people actually talk about. It just all seems so insane. Vaccinations are one of the greatest things to ever happen in human history. And there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
And still, there is apparently a large enough part of the US population that thinks that vaccinations actually hurt their kids that presidential candidates talk about it, and are not willing to piss those people off. It just seems so insane. Nothing makes any sense. If you try to get to the bottom of it, still nothing makes any sense. But apparently it has been going on long enough that these people are now a demographic.
I am having real problems trying to imagine being so irrational. Do you just believe whatever the first guy you talk to tells you about an issue, and then never budge no matter what anyone else says? It is just something i just can't imagine as someone who grew up with a world view based on reason.
it's mostly because of that one guy who did that study, which was later retracted, who was really pushing for the issue. That, and people often base conclusions from their own experience, ignoring the statistical realities; that's why people often have all sorts of superstitions. For some people, the events coincided in time, so they chose to assign blame that way, even though it's unsound. Most people aren't very logical.
EPT
But there are ways we can sort truth, sincerity, bullshit, and lies independent of whether we agree with what someone's saying.![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pZoiH/eb8bab74d9.png)
