|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
@FDM: LOL.
First off, what is a "Public Health Professional" and how do I become one? Sounds like a sweet job. Right up there with wizard and Sex with attractive women philanthropist.
Second, "Just because other activities exist that cause more death does not mean that less deadly activities should be ignored." I never said they should be, but then I never claimed public health and safety (nor implied it through my arguments) should be legislative/social goals. However, since your argument is contingent upon health/safety through legislation as a primary goal, you are either being knowingly inconsistent, or are totally oblivious to the selective nature of your argument here.
Third, you just knowingly admitted the data we have is suspect, data which has been used by both sides. So...we're even? O_o?
Final bit, I'm going to be honest, even if they irrefutably proved that gun ownership is positively linked to increased suicides (seems to be the case), I wouldn't care. For a cost we can always make our lives safer. No one is arguing we should save human lives, what you fail to recognize is that we're just haggling over the proverbial "price" involved. Which is an arbitrary and variable quantification. Which is what legislation amounts to, the price in our lives we're willing to pay.
It's the same old hat every time: Learn the Metric Question, then realize that other people have different values that don't particularly care for yours. And what doesn't make any sense to me, is the fearful optimism gun control advocates (leftists, Progressives, Liberals) have for the future. Take your utopian society and shove it.
Edit: Congratulations by the way, you've successfully gotten me mired in a dialectical diatribe I swore I'd stay out of. A recommendation if I may? Try cutting to the heart of the issue with your arguments instead of floating them as if they stand alone. It's reassuring to see how much effort you put into this, it says you're intelligent. But you need to take that extra step and bring all the evidence back to your central point.
|
@Kim: LOL.
1)
What is a public health professional? Someone who makes a living in public health. Doctors, scientists, professors. People whose profession lies here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health
2)
Your argument was this: If you care about public health, then you are obligated to care about the most serious public health concern, and not lesser concerns. I explained why this is patently wrong. Research into all matters of public health must happen -- and the research must be funded in proportion to the respective contribution to morbidity and mortality in the US. Whatever inconsistency you are seeing must be a result of a miscommunication because I am failing to follow what you are saying there.
3)
Poor interpretation of what I said. I acknowledged the obvious fact that some papers in academic research are bad. I then acknowledged the fact that there is no reason to automatically assume a paper is flawed based alone on the fact that 100% of published papers aren't honest. A paper should not be accepted at face value, but they also should not be rejected at face value, which is precisely what a few have done here. If they don't want to or can't access the paper they may remain skeptics or may simply ignore the related discussion. They absolutely should not make unsubstantiated claims that they think the paper they have not examined is flawed.
4)
K. I value being compelled by the public health obligation, you value something else.
Your last little snippet makes you reek of bipartisan extremism. I don't care for any of that, so I won't toss around "leftist" or "gun nut" or "neo con" or whatever other mildly offensive political label I fancy to use in order to "make a point". You win there...got me. I guess I'll go shove it now.
|
On May 24 2013 12:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:@Kim: LOL. 1) What is a public health professional? Someone who makes a living in public health. Doctors, scientists, professors. People whose profession lies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health2) Your argument was this: If you care about public health, then you are obligated to care about the most serious public health concern, and not lesser concerns. I explained why this is patently wrong. Research into all matters of public health must happen -- and the research must be funded in proportion to the respective contribution to morbidity and mortality in the US. Whatever inconsistency you are seeing must be a result of a miscommunication because I am failing to follow what you are saying there. 3) Poor interpretation of what I said. I acknowledged the obvious fact that some papers in academic research are bad. I then acknowledged the fact that there is no reason to automatically assume a paper is flawed based alone on the fact that 100% of published papers aren't honest. A paper should not be accepted at face value, but they also should not be rejected at face value, which is precisely what a few have done here. If they don't want to or can't access the paper they may remain skeptics or may simply ignore the related discussion. They absolutely should not make unsubstantiated claims that they think the paper they have not examined is flawed. 4) K. I value being compelled by the public health obligation, you value something else. Your last little snippet makes you reek of bipartisan extremism. I don't care for any of that, so I won't toss around "leftist" or "gun nut" or "neo con" or whatever other mildly offensive political label I fancy to use in order to "make a point". You win there...got me. I guess I'll go shove it now.
Yay! We're continuing to enumerate things, I'm so happy! (And apparently we're both really happy since we're BOTH laughing so much). What a wonderful exchange of ideas...sigh*
1. So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs. Neat. I think I want to do that when I grow up Mary!
2. That's entirely possible. We have very different ways of structuring our arguments and (from what I can tell) very different frames of reference for approaching the same topic. I'll chew on this one for a day or two and see if I can PM you a better summation. If not, I apologize for any communicative errors on my part.
...now back to the dick-ish mockery/sarcasm!
3. You seem to completely miss what their argument was here. If they can't access your sources to corroborate what you're claiming, then you need to find different sources, or provide them with a way to access your originals. Of course they'll make claims that the paper they can't see is flawed if it contradicts what they believe based on existing schemata. Honestly, what do you expect them to do? Drop everything and rearrange their thought processes and belief systems because of evidence they have no access to? A basic understanding of human behavior would tell you this would be their response.
To illustrate my point: "They absolutely should not make unsubstantiated claims that they think the paper(GOD) they have not examined(SEEN/SENSED) is flawed (NON-EXISTENT)." Try and explain that to atheists, see how far you get.
The Bipartisan extremism you sense, is probably real. I am a proudly self-avowed enemy of Socialism/Egalitarianism/Democracy/Multiculturalism. And no, I'm not one of the sign waving idiots shouting that Obama is a socialist and a fascist in the same sentence. I'm actually a Fascist...-ish. Emphasis on the ish since it's not entirely accurate, but as far as colloquial political labels go, "Fascist" is the nearest to the mark.
Edit: Also, because I forgot to add it to the beginning LOL. Wouldn't want to end a good laughing fit right?
|
On May 24 2013 13:16 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 12:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:@Kim: LOL. 1) What is a public health professional? Someone who makes a living in public health. Doctors, scientists, professors. People whose profession lies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health2) Your argument was this: If you care about public health, then you are obligated to care about the most serious public health concern, and not lesser concerns. I explained why this is patently wrong. Research into all matters of public health must happen -- and the research must be funded in proportion to the respective contribution to morbidity and mortality in the US. Whatever inconsistency you are seeing must be a result of a miscommunication because I am failing to follow what you are saying there. 3) Poor interpretation of what I said. I acknowledged the obvious fact that some papers in academic research are bad. I then acknowledged the fact that there is no reason to automatically assume a paper is flawed based alone on the fact that 100% of published papers aren't honest. A paper should not be accepted at face value, but they also should not be rejected at face value, which is precisely what a few have done here. If they don't want to or can't access the paper they may remain skeptics or may simply ignore the related discussion. They absolutely should not make unsubstantiated claims that they think the paper they have not examined is flawed. 4) K. I value being compelled by the public health obligation, you value something else. Your last little snippet makes you reek of bipartisan extremism. I don't care for any of that, so I won't toss around "leftist" or "gun nut" or "neo con" or whatever other mildly offensive political label I fancy to use in order to "make a point". You win there...got me. I guess I'll go shove it now. Yay! We're continuing to enumerate things, I'm so happy! (And apparently we're both really happy since we're BOTH laughing so much). What a wonderful exchange of ideas...sigh* 1. So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs. Neat. I think I want to do that when I grow up Mary! 2. That's entirely possible. We have very different ways of structuring our arguments and (from what I can tell) very different frames of reference for approaching the same topic. I'll chew on this one for a day or two and see if I can PM you a better summation. If not, I apologize for any communicative errors on my part. ...now back to the dick-ish mockery/sarcasm! 3. You seem to completely miss what their argument was here. If they can't access your sources to corroborate what you're claiming, then you need to find different sources, or provide them with a way to access your originals. Of course they'll make claims that the paper they can't see is flawed if it contradicts what they believe based on existing schemata. Honestly, what do you expect them to do? Drop everything and rearrange their thought processes and belief systems because of evidence they have no access to? A basic understanding of human behavior would tell you this would be their response. The Bipartisan extremism you sense, is probably real. I am a proudly self-avowed enemy of Socialism/Egalitarianism/Democracy/Multiculturalism. And no, I'm not one of the sign waving idiots shouting that Obama is a socialist and a fascist in the same sentence. I'm actually a Fascist...-ish. Emphasis on the ish since it's not entirely accurate, but as far as colloquial political labels go, "Fascist" is the nearest to the mark. Edit: Also, because I forgot to add it to the beginning LOL. Wouldn't want to end a good laughing fit right?
I'm just commenting on your thoughts on public health professionals. It sounds like you think he's making this term up.
Here are links to 57 universities in the USA that have colleges/schools of public health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schools_of_public_health_in_the_United_States
Here is the webpage for the association of schools of public health.
http://www.asph.org/
The american public health assocation.
http://www.apha.org/about/Public Health Links/LinksGovernmentHealthAgencies.htm
Here are a few public health subsections of the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/phps/
http://www.cdc.gov/PHIN/
http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/
http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/capabilities/
Wiki definition of public health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health
I realize this was rather asinine to link all of these. I felt compelled to do it after you ridiculed public health professionals, and referred to them as "So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs. Neat. I think I want to do that when I grow up Mary!"
You might as well claim that lawyers, pilots, and teachers are also imaginary titles given to people who actually do something else.
|
On May 24 2013 13:25 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 13:16 Kimaker wrote:On May 24 2013 12:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:@Kim: LOL. 1) What is a public health professional? Someone who makes a living in public health. Doctors, scientists, professors. People whose profession lies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health2) Your argument was this: If you care about public health, then you are obligated to care about the most serious public health concern, and not lesser concerns. I explained why this is patently wrong. Research into all matters of public health must happen -- and the research must be funded in proportion to the respective contribution to morbidity and mortality in the US. Whatever inconsistency you are seeing must be a result of a miscommunication because I am failing to follow what you are saying there. 3) Poor interpretation of what I said. I acknowledged the obvious fact that some papers in academic research are bad. I then acknowledged the fact that there is no reason to automatically assume a paper is flawed based alone on the fact that 100% of published papers aren't honest. A paper should not be accepted at face value, but they also should not be rejected at face value, which is precisely what a few have done here. If they don't want to or can't access the paper they may remain skeptics or may simply ignore the related discussion. They absolutely should not make unsubstantiated claims that they think the paper they have not examined is flawed. 4) K. I value being compelled by the public health obligation, you value something else. Your last little snippet makes you reek of bipartisan extremism. I don't care for any of that, so I won't toss around "leftist" or "gun nut" or "neo con" or whatever other mildly offensive political label I fancy to use in order to "make a point". You win there...got me. I guess I'll go shove it now. Yay! We're continuing to enumerate things, I'm so happy! (And apparently we're both really happy since we're BOTH laughing so much). What a wonderful exchange of ideas...sigh* 1. So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs. Neat. I think I want to do that when I grow up Mary! 2. That's entirely possible. We have very different ways of structuring our arguments and (from what I can tell) very different frames of reference for approaching the same topic. I'll chew on this one for a day or two and see if I can PM you a better summation. If not, I apologize for any communicative errors on my part. ...now back to the dick-ish mockery/sarcasm! 3. You seem to completely miss what their argument was here. If they can't access your sources to corroborate what you're claiming, then you need to find different sources, or provide them with a way to access your originals. Of course they'll make claims that the paper they can't see is flawed if it contradicts what they believe based on existing schemata. Honestly, what do you expect them to do? Drop everything and rearrange their thought processes and belief systems because of evidence they have no access to? A basic understanding of human behavior would tell you this would be their response. The Bipartisan extremism you sense, is probably real. I am a proudly self-avowed enemy of Socialism/Egalitarianism/Democracy/Multiculturalism. And no, I'm not one of the sign waving idiots shouting that Obama is a socialist and a fascist in the same sentence. I'm actually a Fascist...-ish. Emphasis on the ish since it's not entirely accurate, but as far as colloquial political labels go, "Fascist" is the nearest to the mark. Edit: Also, because I forgot to add it to the beginning LOL. Wouldn't want to end a good laughing fit right? I'm just commenting on your thoughts on public health professionals. It sounds like you think he's making this term up. Here are links to 57 universities in the USA that have colleges/schools of public health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schools_of_public_health_in_the_United_StatesHere is the webpage for the association of schools of public health. http://www.asph.org/The american public health assocation. http://www.apha.org/about/Public Health Links/LinksGovernmentHealthAgencies.htmHere are a few public health subsections of the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/phps/http://www.cdc.gov/PHIN/http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/capabilities/Wiki definition of public health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_healthI realize this was rather asinine to link all of these. I felt compelled to do it after you ridiculed public health professionals, and referred to them as "So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs. Neat. I think I want to do that when I grow up Mary!" You might as well claim that lawyers, pilots, and teachers are also imaginary titles given to people who actually do something else.
No, no, rest assured, I believe it's real. Actually, scratch that, I KNOW it's real. I just happen to think it's full of shit(as a concept). "Public Health Professional" is just "Talking political head in the box with X credentials" for the most part. Why not just say, Scientist? or Professor? or Doctor? Or hell, even Cleanup Guy.
I mean, Christ, right off of the ASPH website you linked, first page: "Next steps are to develop a new tagline and logo to highlight the goals and objectives of ASPPH. Founding members will remain closely involved as these branding tools and the governance structure are developed. "
Edit: "So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs." if that is what they actually DO in order to get the title, not de jure, but de facto, then I don't see where the problem is. Otherwise, wouldn't we just call them by their ACTUAL job title?
Also, last time I checked Teacher was synonymous with Educator...so they must...teach or educate people? And pilots pilot things, and lawyers interpret laws. Public Health Professionals then do what?
|
On May 24 2013 13:32 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 13:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 24 2013 13:16 Kimaker wrote:On May 24 2013 12:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:@Kim: LOL. 1) What is a public health professional? Someone who makes a living in public health. Doctors, scientists, professors. People whose profession lies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health2) Your argument was this: If you care about public health, then you are obligated to care about the most serious public health concern, and not lesser concerns. I explained why this is patently wrong. Research into all matters of public health must happen -- and the research must be funded in proportion to the respective contribution to morbidity and mortality in the US. Whatever inconsistency you are seeing must be a result of a miscommunication because I am failing to follow what you are saying there. 3) Poor interpretation of what I said. I acknowledged the obvious fact that some papers in academic research are bad. I then acknowledged the fact that there is no reason to automatically assume a paper is flawed based alone on the fact that 100% of published papers aren't honest. A paper should not be accepted at face value, but they also should not be rejected at face value, which is precisely what a few have done here. If they don't want to or can't access the paper they may remain skeptics or may simply ignore the related discussion. They absolutely should not make unsubstantiated claims that they think the paper they have not examined is flawed. 4) K. I value being compelled by the public health obligation, you value something else. Your last little snippet makes you reek of bipartisan extremism. I don't care for any of that, so I won't toss around "leftist" or "gun nut" or "neo con" or whatever other mildly offensive political label I fancy to use in order to "make a point". You win there...got me. I guess I'll go shove it now. Yay! We're continuing to enumerate things, I'm so happy! (And apparently we're both really happy since we're BOTH laughing so much). What a wonderful exchange of ideas...sigh* 1. So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs. Neat. I think I want to do that when I grow up Mary! 2. That's entirely possible. We have very different ways of structuring our arguments and (from what I can tell) very different frames of reference for approaching the same topic. I'll chew on this one for a day or two and see if I can PM you a better summation. If not, I apologize for any communicative errors on my part. ...now back to the dick-ish mockery/sarcasm! 3. You seem to completely miss what their argument was here. If they can't access your sources to corroborate what you're claiming, then you need to find different sources, or provide them with a way to access your originals. Of course they'll make claims that the paper they can't see is flawed if it contradicts what they believe based on existing schemata. Honestly, what do you expect them to do? Drop everything and rearrange their thought processes and belief systems because of evidence they have no access to? A basic understanding of human behavior would tell you this would be their response. The Bipartisan extremism you sense, is probably real. I am a proudly self-avowed enemy of Socialism/Egalitarianism/Democracy/Multiculturalism. And no, I'm not one of the sign waving idiots shouting that Obama is a socialist and a fascist in the same sentence. I'm actually a Fascist...-ish. Emphasis on the ish since it's not entirely accurate, but as far as colloquial political labels go, "Fascist" is the nearest to the mark. Edit: Also, because I forgot to add it to the beginning LOL. Wouldn't want to end a good laughing fit right? I'm just commenting on your thoughts on public health professionals. It sounds like you think he's making this term up. Here are links to 57 universities in the USA that have colleges/schools of public health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schools_of_public_health_in_the_United_StatesHere is the webpage for the association of schools of public health. http://www.asph.org/The american public health assocation. http://www.apha.org/about/Public Health Links/LinksGovernmentHealthAgencies.htmHere are a few public health subsections of the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/phps/http://www.cdc.gov/PHIN/http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/capabilities/Wiki definition of public health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_healthI realize this was rather asinine to link all of these. I felt compelled to do it after you ridiculed public health professionals, and referred to them as "So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs. Neat. I think I want to do that when I grow up Mary!" You might as well claim that lawyers, pilots, and teachers are also imaginary titles given to people who actually do something else. No, no, rest assured, I believe it's real. Actually, scratch that, I KNOW it's real. I just happen to think it's full of shit(as a concept). "Public Health Professional" is just "Talking political head in the box with X credentials" for the most part. Why not just say, Scientist? or Professor? or Doctor? Edit: "So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs." if that is what they actually DO in order to get the title, not de jure, but de facto, then I don't see where the problem is. Otherwise, wouldn't we just call them by their ACTUAL job title?
I'm not sure, but I bet that public health is an interdisciplinary field. There could be people working as 'public health professionals' with various backgrounds in medicine, law, sociology, psychology, statistics, etc.
It's kind of a weird profession to get mad at. You should hate lawyers and used car salesmen instead.
|
On May 24 2013 13:39 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 13:32 Kimaker wrote:On May 24 2013 13:25 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 24 2013 13:16 Kimaker wrote:On May 24 2013 12:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:@Kim: LOL. 1) What is a public health professional? Someone who makes a living in public health. Doctors, scientists, professors. People whose profession lies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health2) Your argument was this: If you care about public health, then you are obligated to care about the most serious public health concern, and not lesser concerns. I explained why this is patently wrong. Research into all matters of public health must happen -- and the research must be funded in proportion to the respective contribution to morbidity and mortality in the US. Whatever inconsistency you are seeing must be a result of a miscommunication because I am failing to follow what you are saying there. 3) Poor interpretation of what I said. I acknowledged the obvious fact that some papers in academic research are bad. I then acknowledged the fact that there is no reason to automatically assume a paper is flawed based alone on the fact that 100% of published papers aren't honest. A paper should not be accepted at face value, but they also should not be rejected at face value, which is precisely what a few have done here. If they don't want to or can't access the paper they may remain skeptics or may simply ignore the related discussion. They absolutely should not make unsubstantiated claims that they think the paper they have not examined is flawed. 4) K. I value being compelled by the public health obligation, you value something else. Your last little snippet makes you reek of bipartisan extremism. I don't care for any of that, so I won't toss around "leftist" or "gun nut" or "neo con" or whatever other mildly offensive political label I fancy to use in order to "make a point". You win there...got me. I guess I'll go shove it now. Yay! We're continuing to enumerate things, I'm so happy! (And apparently we're both really happy since we're BOTH laughing so much). What a wonderful exchange of ideas...sigh* 1. So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs. Neat. I think I want to do that when I grow up Mary! 2. That's entirely possible. We have very different ways of structuring our arguments and (from what I can tell) very different frames of reference for approaching the same topic. I'll chew on this one for a day or two and see if I can PM you a better summation. If not, I apologize for any communicative errors on my part. ...now back to the dick-ish mockery/sarcasm! 3. You seem to completely miss what their argument was here. If they can't access your sources to corroborate what you're claiming, then you need to find different sources, or provide them with a way to access your originals. Of course they'll make claims that the paper they can't see is flawed if it contradicts what they believe based on existing schemata. Honestly, what do you expect them to do? Drop everything and rearrange their thought processes and belief systems because of evidence they have no access to? A basic understanding of human behavior would tell you this would be their response. The Bipartisan extremism you sense, is probably real. I am a proudly self-avowed enemy of Socialism/Egalitarianism/Democracy/Multiculturalism. And no, I'm not one of the sign waving idiots shouting that Obama is a socialist and a fascist in the same sentence. I'm actually a Fascist...-ish. Emphasis on the ish since it's not entirely accurate, but as far as colloquial political labels go, "Fascist" is the nearest to the mark. Edit: Also, because I forgot to add it to the beginning LOL. Wouldn't want to end a good laughing fit right? I'm just commenting on your thoughts on public health professionals. It sounds like you think he's making this term up. Here are links to 57 universities in the USA that have colleges/schools of public health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schools_of_public_health_in_the_United_StatesHere is the webpage for the association of schools of public health. http://www.asph.org/The american public health assocation. http://www.apha.org/about/Public Health Links/LinksGovernmentHealthAgencies.htmHere are a few public health subsections of the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/phps/http://www.cdc.gov/PHIN/http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/capabilities/Wiki definition of public health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_healthI realize this was rather asinine to link all of these. I felt compelled to do it after you ridiculed public health professionals, and referred to them as "So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs. Neat. I think I want to do that when I grow up Mary!" You might as well claim that lawyers, pilots, and teachers are also imaginary titles given to people who actually do something else. No, no, rest assured, I believe it's real. Actually, scratch that, I KNOW it's real. I just happen to think it's full of shit(as a concept). "Public Health Professional" is just "Talking political head in the box with X credentials" for the most part. Why not just say, Scientist? or Professor? or Doctor? Edit: "So a public health professional is...some imaginary title given to people who have real careers and then decide to politicize their jobs." if that is what they actually DO in order to get the title, not de jure, but de facto, then I don't see where the problem is. Otherwise, wouldn't we just call them by their ACTUAL job title? I'm not sure, but I bet that public health is an interdisciplinary field. There could be people working as 'public health professionals' with various backgrounds in medicine, law, sociology, psychology, statistics, etc.
It's just an issue I take with the language. Ill-defined, and no intention of improving.But forget it. We're already ranging pretty far afield from the Topic at hand anyway.
|
On May 24 2013 13:32 Kimaker wrote:
Public Health Professionals then do what?
They work toward understanding and addressing public health matters by targeting the agent and environment in which the public health problem persists.
|
On May 24 2013 13:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 13:32 Kimaker wrote:
Public Health Professionals then do what? They work toward understanding and addressing public health matters by targeting the agent and environment in which the public health problem persists.
I'll PM you tomorrow since we're getting way off topic here.
|
On May 24 2013 13:49 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 13:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 24 2013 13:32 Kimaker wrote:
Public Health Professionals then do what? They work toward understanding and addressing public health matters by targeting the agent and environment in which the public health problem persists. I'll PM you tomorrow since we're getting way off topic here.
Alright. Sounds good. Cheers
|
On May 24 2013 12:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:
2)
Your argument was this: If you care about public health, then you are obligated to care about the most serious public health concern, and not lesser concerns. I explained why this is patently wrong. Research into all matters of public health must happen -- and the research must be funded in proportion to the respective contribution to morbidity and mortality in the US. Whatever inconsistency you are seeing must be a result of a miscommunication because I am failing to follow what you are saying there.
But don't you want to get the biggest bang for your buck? Why put much effort into solving relatively small problems when much larger ones exist?
Its simple economics, do you spend $10 to make $11, or do you spend $10 to make $100?
|
On May 24 2013 15:54 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 12:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:
2)
Your argument was this: If you care about public health, then you are obligated to care about the most serious public health concern, and not lesser concerns. I explained why this is patently wrong. Research into all matters of public health must happen -- and the research must be funded in proportion to the respective contribution to morbidity and mortality in the US. Whatever inconsistency you are seeing must be a result of a miscommunication because I am failing to follow what you are saying there.
But don't you want to get the biggest bang for your buck? Why put much effort into solving relatively small problems when much larger ones exist? Its simple economics, do you spend $10 to make $11, or do you spend $10 to make $100?
If X causes 1,000 of the 1,500 total deaths while Y causes 500 of the 1,500 total deaths, then X should receive twice as much research funding as Y. X shouldn't be the sole focus just because it causes more deaths than Y. They both must be addressed in proportion to their contribution to morbidity and mortality in the US. It's illogical to argue that one problem shouldn't be addressed proportionately due to the existence of other problems.
As a simple example, consider cancer: There are many types of cancer. Some are much more deadly than others. Should all oncologists and principal investigators focus only on the more deadly form of cancer? Or should some of them address other forms too?
What about Battens disease? It's an extremely rare genetic disorder -- should we toss funding for it out the window given that more common, lethal diseases exist? And so on.
|
United States24673 Posts
On May 25 2013 01:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:
If X causes 1,000 of the 1,500 total deaths while Y causes 500 of the 1,500 total deaths, then X should receive twice as much research funding as Y.
What if you have one million dollars, a cure for X costs one million dollars, and a cure for Y causes 500,000 dollars? It's better to pour all one million into curing X than to split it up proportionally. Alternately, if curing Y would only cost 50 dollars, then better to give it the 50 it needs, and get to work on scrounging up 50 more dollars for X later.
These are extremely hypothetical, but illustrate that a proportional response is not always the most efficient in a world that isn't purely continuous.
edit: the real world is somewhere in between discrete (like in the example) and purely continuous.
|
On May 25 2013 05:16 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 01:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:
If X causes 1,000 of the 1,500 total deaths while Y causes 500 of the 1,500 total deaths, then X should receive twice as much research funding as Y. What if you have one million dollars, a cure for X costs one million dollars, and a cure for Y causes 500,000 dollars? It's better to pour all one million into curing X than to split it up proportionally. Alternately, if curing Y would only cost 50 dollars, then better to give it the 50 it needs, and get to work on scrounging up 50 more dollars for X later. These are extremely hypothetical, but illustrate that a proportional response is not always the most efficient in a world that isn't purely continuous. edit: the real world is somewhere in between discrete (like in the example) and purely continuous.
That hypothetical is rather useless in that medical research is rarely if ever able to quantify the cost of a cure it has not found yet.
|
United States24673 Posts
On May 25 2013 05:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 05:16 micronesia wrote:On May 25 2013 01:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:
If X causes 1,000 of the 1,500 total deaths while Y causes 500 of the 1,500 total deaths, then X should receive twice as much research funding as Y. What if you have one million dollars, a cure for X costs one million dollars, and a cure for Y causes 500,000 dollars? It's better to pour all one million into curing X than to split it up proportionally. Alternately, if curing Y would only cost 50 dollars, then better to give it the 50 it needs, and get to work on scrounging up 50 more dollars for X later. These are extremely hypothetical, but illustrate that a proportional response is not always the most efficient in a world that isn't purely continuous. edit: the real world is somewhere in between discrete (like in the example) and purely continuous. That hypothetical is rather useless in that medical research is rarely if ever able to quantify the cost of a cure it has not found yet.
I think you missed the point of the hypothetical.
|
On May 25 2013 05:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 05:16 micronesia wrote:On May 25 2013 01:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:
If X causes 1,000 of the 1,500 total deaths while Y causes 500 of the 1,500 total deaths, then X should receive twice as much research funding as Y. What if you have one million dollars, a cure for X costs one million dollars, and a cure for Y causes 500,000 dollars? It's better to pour all one million into curing X than to split it up proportionally. Alternately, if curing Y would only cost 50 dollars, then better to give it the 50 it needs, and get to work on scrounging up 50 more dollars for X later. These are extremely hypothetical, but illustrate that a proportional response is not always the most efficient in a world that isn't purely continuous. edit: the real world is somewhere in between discrete (like in the example) and purely continuous. That hypothetical is rather useless in that medical research is rarely if ever able to quantify the cost of a cure it has not found yet.
Then it works even better, because you don't actually know that proportional spending is smart. Maybe we've hit diminishing returns as far as spending on gun violence research goes.
|
United States42609 Posts
On May 24 2013 11:52 Wegandi wrote:
Pretty much. They attempt to corner the moral high ground by acting like they're acting selflessly and in the interests of these poor people, but it's only a mask to hide their agenda which is almost always to give more power to the State and take it away from the individual.
Saying that the only reason people are in favour of state control of things is because they have a fetish for state control over individual control for unspecified reasons and not because they think it could be a good idea is fucking retarded. The vast majority of people believe things like armies should be state controlled rather than private because they think private armies would be bad for society for example, not because they have a hardon for state control.
Think of something you think should be state controlled. There must be something. Then think "why do I think that should be state controlled?". If the answer is anything other than "to increase the ability of the state to strip the freedoms of individuals as part of my long term game plan/conspiracy" then you have now gained understanding of how your political opponents think.
|
On May 25 2013 05:26 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 05:18 farvacola wrote:On May 25 2013 05:16 micronesia wrote:On May 25 2013 01:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:
If X causes 1,000 of the 1,500 total deaths while Y causes 500 of the 1,500 total deaths, then X should receive twice as much research funding as Y. What if you have one million dollars, a cure for X costs one million dollars, and a cure for Y causes 500,000 dollars? It's better to pour all one million into curing X than to split it up proportionally. Alternately, if curing Y would only cost 50 dollars, then better to give it the 50 it needs, and get to work on scrounging up 50 more dollars for X later. These are extremely hypothetical, but illustrate that a proportional response is not always the most efficient in a world that isn't purely continuous. edit: the real world is somewhere in between discrete (like in the example) and purely continuous. That hypothetical is rather useless in that medical research is rarely if ever able to quantify the cost of a cure it has not found yet. Then it works even better, because you don't actually know that proportional spending is smart. Maybe we've hit diminishing returns as far as spending on gun violence research goes.
No, not knowing is a reason to try and know more, particularly when it is in a political groups agenda to stand in the way of that process. Arbitrarily saying "well maybe we can't know more" is not enough to stopper further research.
|
On May 25 2013 05:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 05:26 Millitron wrote:On May 25 2013 05:18 farvacola wrote:On May 25 2013 05:16 micronesia wrote:On May 25 2013 01:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:
If X causes 1,000 of the 1,500 total deaths while Y causes 500 of the 1,500 total deaths, then X should receive twice as much research funding as Y. What if you have one million dollars, a cure for X costs one million dollars, and a cure for Y causes 500,000 dollars? It's better to pour all one million into curing X than to split it up proportionally. Alternately, if curing Y would only cost 50 dollars, then better to give it the 50 it needs, and get to work on scrounging up 50 more dollars for X later. These are extremely hypothetical, but illustrate that a proportional response is not always the most efficient in a world that isn't purely continuous. edit: the real world is somewhere in between discrete (like in the example) and purely continuous. That hypothetical is rather useless in that medical research is rarely if ever able to quantify the cost of a cure it has not found yet. Then it works even better, because you don't actually know that proportional spending is smart. Maybe we've hit diminishing returns as far as spending on gun violence research goes. No, not knowing is a reason to try and know more, particularly when it is in a political groups agenda to stand in the way of that process. Arbitrarily saying "well maybe we can't know more" is not enough to stopper further research.
You just said you can't know how much research it will take to solve a problem. Ergo, there is a possibility that you've hit the point of diminishing returns.
|
On May 25 2013 05:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 05:33 farvacola wrote:On May 25 2013 05:26 Millitron wrote:On May 25 2013 05:18 farvacola wrote:On May 25 2013 05:16 micronesia wrote:On May 25 2013 01:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:
If X causes 1,000 of the 1,500 total deaths while Y causes 500 of the 1,500 total deaths, then X should receive twice as much research funding as Y. What if you have one million dollars, a cure for X costs one million dollars, and a cure for Y causes 500,000 dollars? It's better to pour all one million into curing X than to split it up proportionally. Alternately, if curing Y would only cost 50 dollars, then better to give it the 50 it needs, and get to work on scrounging up 50 more dollars for X later. These are extremely hypothetical, but illustrate that a proportional response is not always the most efficient in a world that isn't purely continuous. edit: the real world is somewhere in between discrete (like in the example) and purely continuous. That hypothetical is rather useless in that medical research is rarely if ever able to quantify the cost of a cure it has not found yet. Then it works even better, because you don't actually know that proportional spending is smart. Maybe we've hit diminishing returns as far as spending on gun violence research goes. No, not knowing is a reason to try and know more, particularly when it is in a political groups agenda to stand in the way of that process. Arbitrarily saying "well maybe we can't know more" is not enough to stopper further research. You just said you can't know how much research it will take to solve a problem. Ergo, there is a possibility that you've hit the point of diminishing returns.
And what I am saying is that, within the frame of gun violence and prevalence in regards to issues of public health and criminology, not enough research has been done in order to make that judgment. Ergo, more research needs to be done, preferably without lobbied obstruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
