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 05:13 Simberto wrote: 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.
Again, I doubt that the anti-vaxx crowd is based simply on this isolated belief, but rather is one manifestation of some amount of dissatisfaction/skepticism with medical care in the United States. Which is nonetheless still irrational, but has a lot more contributing factors than simply "someone told me vaccines harm my kids".
Basically to reach that point, someone has to get to the point where they sufficiently distrust their own doctor, and that's a product of a lot of things.
On July 13 2016 05:00 Introvert wrote: And I'm reading that Obama's speech started really well, but then he couldn't help himself. At the funeral for 5 dead cops.
What a jerk.
I thought his speech was pretty weak yeah, must tired from all those really difficult situations.
On July 13 2016 05:13 Simberto wrote: 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.
Again, I doubt that the anti-vaxx crowd is based simply on this isolated belief, but rather is one manifestation of some amount of dissatisfaction/skepticism with medical care in the United States. Which is nonetheless still irrational, but has a lot more contributing factors than simply "someone told me vaccines harm my kids".
Basically to reach that point, someone has to get to the point where they sufficiently distrust their own doctor, and that's a product of a lot of things.
I agree with you to a certain extent for small marginal groups. But when the discontent reach a certain magnitude, you can oftentime find a rational cause somewhere.
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 (and that's how you create a Trump btw). 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 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 and Trump is stupid.
I was really impressed by this congressionnal earing tho, it is a great political ritual.
The fear of zombies can be at an all time high , that doesn't mean we should have 'zombie prevention' groups and assure the people we are doing all we can do prevent zombie outbreaks. That is ridiculous.
Science, technology, history all give us the answer. Zombies do not exist and Vaccines do not cause autism.
I like to think we have come a long way since the dark ages, that we as a species are educated enough now to see evidence provided and realize that whatever fairy tail we believed was wrong. Instead we get people like Trump and statements like "The people have had enough of experts" (Grove on the Brexit). We really are no better then cavemen in the end.
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.
They're part of a broader demographic who are disillusioned with authority figures, college graduates, politicians and so forth and find themselves attacked from every side. Their jobs have gone overseas, their wages have stagnated, their wives are allowed to divorce them and sometimes they see coloreds driving the kind of cars they can't afford. And they're mad about it and they're tired of people telling them that they're too dumb to understand the macroeconomic reasons why they can't work in the factory their dad worked in and buy a house, especially when they know it's the fault of immigrants anyway. The policies that would help them come from the left but they're not interested due to what they perceive correctly as elitism and condescension so instead they eat up things like "the American dream will only survive if we stop taxing inherited fortunes" as long as it's sandwiched between "China takes advantage of us" and "and Mexico will pay for it".
On July 13 2016 05:00 Introvert wrote: And I'm reading that Obama's speech started really well, but then he couldn't help himself. At the funeral for 5 dead cops.
What a jerk.
I thought his speech was pretty weak yeah, must tired from all those really difficult situations.
Time and time again he has come before the people after yet another mass shooting. At some point you run out of hope and faith in a solution.
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 (and that's how you create a Trump btw). 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 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 and Trump is stupid.
I was really impressed by this congressionnal earing tho, it is a great political ritual.
The fear of zombies can be at an all time high , that doesn't mean we should have 'zombie prevention' groups and assure the people we are doing all we can do prevent zombie outbreaks. That is ridiculous.
Science, technology, history all give us the answer. Zombies do not exist and Vaccines do not cause autism.
I like to think we have come a long way since the dark ages, that we as a species are educated enough now to see evidence provided and realize that whatever fairy tail we believed was wrong. Instead we get people like Trump and statements like "The people have had enough of experts" (Grove on the Brexit). We really are no better then cavemen in the end.
You gave a magnificient exemple : zombie is an african myth. Do you not see the link between the rise of zombies and zombie like genre in movies or video game and the fear of migration or the latest fear of malaria from africa to the US ? I personally see a continuum in all that, there is a rational that one can discuss and adress.
On July 13 2016 05:00 Introvert wrote: And I'm reading that Obama's speech started really well, but then he couldn't help himself. At the funeral for 5 dead cops.
What a jerk.
I thought his speech was pretty weak yeah, must tired from all those really difficult situations.
Time and time again he has come before the people after yet another mass shooting. At some point you run out of hope and faith in a solution.
What do you tell people when you full well know that congress will do nothing but use this as a political football?
On July 13 2016 05:20 WhiteDog wrote: I agree with you to a certain extent for small marginal groups. But when the discontent reach a certain magnitude, you can oftentime find a rational cause somewhere.
I don't think it's irrational to believe that medical care in the United States is fucked up. What's irrational is the jump from that to "it's in my best interest for me to not do something my doctor tells me to do".
On July 13 2016 05:00 Introvert wrote: And I'm reading that Obama's speech started really well, but then he couldn't help himself. At the funeral for 5 dead cops.
What a jerk.
I thought his speech was pretty weak yeah, must tired from all those really difficult situations.
Time and time again he has come before the people after yet another mass shooting. At some point you run out of hope and faith in a solution.
The American people have spoken and they have said that the death of patriotic innocent Americans is a price they will gladly collectively pay for the right to bear arms. Obama may disagree with that decision but it's still a decision that resolves the problem of "what to do about mass shootings". The answer is "nothing, it's the cost of admission for an armed society". A lot of people think that's a shitty answer but it's still the answer the American people chose. For myself I think terrorism is the price of a free society and that the cure, a police state, is worse than the disease so I can hardly judge people who think the same of guns. Just update your facebook profile picture and wait for the next one.
It's either depressing or standing by your values and sacrificing for them, depending on how you see it.
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.
Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting.
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.
Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting.
You’re right. Cops in America murder lots of people and get away with it. Black people are just smart enough to get together and complain about it.
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.
Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting.
You’re right. Cops in America murder lots of people and get away with it. Black people are just smart enough to get together and complain about it.
They're smart enough to get together and hold violent riots over the fact that 'racist police are targeting black people all over America' when no such thing is occurring?
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.
Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting.
most people aren't claiming that cops go out of their way to murder blacks cuz of racism; they're claiming that due to racism, some cops go too far, more than they do with whites, and that they aren't adequately punished when they do so. and that people are mostly emotional rather than logical is very well established by now certainly, agreed.
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.
Easy things to say when you're not (anymore) the one with power in your hands...
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 (and that's how you create a Trump btw). 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 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 and Trump is stupid.
I was really impressed by this congressionnal earing tho, it is a great political ritual.
The fear of zombies can be at an all time high , that doesn't mean we should have 'zombie prevention' groups and assure the people we are doing all we can do prevent zombie outbreaks. That is ridiculous.
Science, technology, history all give us the answer. Zombies do not exist and Vaccines do not cause autism.
I like to think we have come a long way since the dark ages, that we as a species are educated enough now to see evidence provided and realize that whatever fairy tail we believed was wrong. Instead we get people like Trump and statements like "The people have had enough of experts" (Grove on the Brexit). We really are no better then cavemen in the end.
You gave a magnificient exemple : zombie is an african myth. Do you not see the link between the rise of zombies and zombie like genre in movies or video game and the fear of migration or the latest fear of malaria from africa to the US ? I personally see a continuum in all that, there is a rational that one can discuss and adress.
Horror movies have always been a way of expressing the fears unique to the time. Victorian vampires were creatures of unrestrained sexual passion in a very repressed era for example. Frankenstein's monster was about fear of science but they all change over time. Hell, Daybreakers was full of vampires but it was about the breakdown of capitalism in a society of scarcity. The entire Japanese Godzilla/Kaiju thing is a way of expressing a horror that destroys cities because of radiation, not a hugely complicated metaphor. Zombies, like anything else, have been used to express all sorts of different fears over time. Sometimes bioterrorism, sometimes just the end of the world, sometimes an inability to understand other humans or a fear of the masses, sometimes, as you identify, it's an immigration metaphor.
There's an awful lot that can be written about horror movies and the ways they reflect society if we have any first year film students on tl who want to explain it all.
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.
Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting.
You’re right. Cops in America murder lots of people and get away with it. Black people are just smart enough to get together and complain about it.
They're smart enough to get together and hold violent riots over the fact that 'racist police are targeting black people all over America' when no such thing is occurring?
You mean peaceful protests with a small minority that resulted in violence. Don’t forget that the police were taking selfies with the protesters in Dallas right up until the shooting.
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.
Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting.
most people aren't claiming that cops go out of their way to murder blacks cuz of racism; they're claiming that due to racism, some cops go too far, more than they do with whites, and that they aren't adequately punished when they do so. and that people are mostly emotional rather than logical is very well established by now certainly, agreed.
They don't though. The study did indicate in non-lethal use of force there was a disparity of 10-20%, but it's been statistically proven to be the opposite with regards to lethal use of force.
The entire effort is doomed to fail from the get-go because it's been made into a racial issue instead of fighting against police brutality, keeping police accountable, etc. And most police are probably not racists. The idea that 'cops around the country are murdering innocent blacks' as a phenomena is a very problematic thing to propagate throughout the media. It's just creating more racial tension rather than alleviating it.
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.
Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting.
most people aren't claiming that cops go out of their way to murder blacks cuz of racism; they're claiming that due to racism, some cops go too far, more than they do with whites, and that they aren't adequately punished when they do so. and that people are mostly emotional rather than logical is very well established by now certainly, agreed.
They don't though. It's been statistically proven to be the opposite with regards to lethal use of force.
no, it hasn't. someone posted quite a thorough rebuttal to the studies you cited, and the studies themselves included in their caveats things that nullified the claim you're making with them. and it has been proven that in some places the cops were seriously and systemically racist.
On July 13 2016 04:33 oBlade wrote: [quote] 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.
[quote] 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.
Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting.
most people aren't claiming that cops go out of their way to murder blacks cuz of racism; they're claiming that due to racism, some cops go too far, more than they do with whites, and that they aren't adequately punished when they do so. and that people are mostly emotional rather than logical is very well established by now certainly, agreed.
They don't though. It's been statistically proven to be the opposite with regards to lethal use of force.
no, it hasn't. someone posted quite a thorough rebuttal to the studies you cited, and the studies themselves included in their caveats things that nullified the claim you're making with them. and it has been proven that in some places the cops were seriously and systemically racist.
And the studies ignored the fact that much of the data we have on the use of force by police in the US is incomplete.
EPT
But there are ways we can sort truth, sincerity, bullshit, and lies independent of whether we agree with what someone's saying.
