EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3204
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10187 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote: Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote: People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions. You haven't addressed that. So what about people who go to an anti-vax protest? They are doing exactly the same thing as those trying to convince people on the internet. Jail them all too? Are there other protests the government should make illegal? What about anti-capitalism... Should we make spreading those ideas on the internet illegal too? Look at the number of people that have died from having a leftwing government worldwide. (I don't really think like this, but its a similar argument with a bit of extra reach) Opinions having consequences doesn't mean its the governments place to try and legislate them away. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10187 Posts
On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote: People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
I guess following the lines of argument we had earlier about police killings, if we can establish that anti Vax people going too close to others indeed are dangerous, this gives sufficient reason to shoot them because they are a serious threat to others. Edit for clarity | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote: You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. Yeah its pretty simple imo. Its not the government's place to tell people what to think and what they are or are not allowed to hear and say. Its doubly bad when what people are saying is rooted in a mistrust of the government and medical establishment. Anti-vax at its core (although it is obviously full of misinformation and terrible conclusions) is a bunch of people saying "I don't trust the government to tell me what chemicals to put in my body", which on its own, without all the nonsense of the specifics of anti-vax is a fair message. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On April 30 2021 14:55 JimmiC wrote: No they shouldn't, but me and most of the other people are not saying they should. We are saying they shouldn't be able to lie or spread mistruths as facts. What is the societal bonus to it? It influences people, because people trust it. Anti capitalists should not be allowed to lie about facts anymore than capitalists should be. You can actually take the same facts and have a different opinion, the opinion part being different is good, and you can have good discussions on why each believe the facts point somewhere else, that is how learning happens. But having people make up their own facts and spread them as truth is bad, it does not matter if it is "communist" China on the Uighurs, fascist Germany on the jews, capitalist US on their involvement in Iran contra the lying is all bad and should not be tolerated. You shouldn't lie about abortion no matter your side, or about the dangers of vaccines. If someone wants to say that they don't want to take the vaccine because 1/250000 chance of blood clots is scarier to them then a 3.4 % chance of hospitalization from covid as a 30-39 year old. I would think their opinion was crazy but it is factually accurate. Now someone said the vaccine is more dangerous than covid. That would not be factually accurate. It becomes worse if they say, top viralogists say the vaccine is more dangerous than covid. And worse if it's purpose is to sell something. And further more no one is saying blackjack should be arrested, they are just saying he is wrong. Hell as small as making people title it as news or opinion goes a long way. This whole discussion is about the government being able to censor people online, right? So necessarily, in your world where people aren't allowed to lie online due to government bodies/legislation being in charge of the censorship, the government becomes the arbiter of what is or is not the truth. Are you happy with that? I'm not. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On April 30 2021 14:59 JimmiC wrote: It might be a fair message if that was what they were saying, however there is a huge crossover between the antivax and the prolife people. So if the fundamentally believed people should have control over their own bodies and the government should not regulate that they would not be wanting the government to regulate other peoples bodies. What antivaxxers are saying is I have received bad information and I believed it and now I have come to a bad conclusion. Coming to a different conclusion from true facts should be allowed. Tricking people into bad conclusions with bad facts should not be. The bolded part is a bad argument, because its based on a generalization and in most cases that I've come across, it isn't true (I support your right to make the argument though  ).I just don't get what it is you want. A lying commission set up by the government to detect and censor anything they decide is a lie? Some mechanism by which the government can use the courts to censor people in extreme circumstances? The outright banning of all conspiracy theory or anti-vax messaging? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On April 30 2021 15:13 JimmiC wrote: That is where it started, but that is not where it is at now, it has moved a long way to where now it is whether or not people should be corrected for bad facts or not. The legislation people want exists for news already (not in the US anymore), it works pretty well. People are saying to apply it to the internet. You can have a opinion in your news paper, you just have to say it's a opinion. Your facts however have to be actual facts or you have to print a retraction or can get sued or fined. None of that restricts free speech, or restricts dangerous manipulation. If you want to play the slippery slope.game the counter to your argument is why do we have governments say what vaccine people can take? Stop making them do trials and pass certain safety protocols to be allowed, if people want to put chemicals in their bodies let them, and if.vaccine companies want to say it works 100% of the time with no side effects when it works 25% of the time and kills 25% of the time, let them free speech for all. Both extremes are awful and it sucks that regulation is not perfect, but no regulation is worse. You have to try to come up with the best balance and then continue to try to improve on it. If all you are saying is people should be corrected, you can go and do that yourself, you don't need a government to do it for you. If by corrected, you mean censored, and by the government, that is where our argument is. With regards to the argument that companies shouldn't be allowed to lie about their products, therefore private citizens shouldn't be allowed to lie about some company's products, there is a massive difference there. There is a reason business needs regulating in a way that isn't practical or helpful to private citizens. For a start, a company is expected to know all the information about their product and to be an expert on that product. Citizens should be allowed to make claims when they are not experts. Otherwise we will need to watch we we are saying at all times and again, end up with a situation where the experts become arbiters of truth. Secondly, the existing legislation you refer to involves knowingly lying, always knowingly (that's what makes cases like that so hard to prove in court). Anti-vax nonsense is always hearsay, passed from one information source to a person who passes it along etc. Most of the people in that chain believe what they are saying and are not knowingly lying. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
What if I think the bridge looks fine and there's just incompetence at work as I mightn't be a qualified structural engineer -and a bit of ideology because these bridges they want to rebuild, they are expensive and these are my taxes after all? Would that warrant the police stopping me from telling people to cross the bridge? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On April 30 2021 15:31 Artisreal wrote: If I tell you the bridge is safe to cross even though I know it isn't, would you want me to be prosecuted or at least ensured that I stop telling people to cross the bridge? What if I think the bridge looks fine and there's just incompetence at work as I mightn't be a qualified structural engineer -and a bit of ideology because these bridges they want to rebuild, they are expensive and these are my taxes after all? Would that warrant the police stopping me from telling people to cross the bridge? I don't know how much of this is a genuine question and how much is just analogy making but the sensible solution is to put a barrier across the bridge that stops people from crossing it with a giant sign saying 'unsafe bridge'. That way the guy can keep telling people to cross it anyway and probably no-one would. At that point, even if they did, with terrible consequences, it would be their fault for believing the guy. Another point is that there's a fundamental difference between encouraging people to do something dangerous and encouraging people not to do something that will grant safety. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On April 30 2021 15:17 JimmiC wrote: Edit: posted by misclick while adding sources, will update with sources. I think your anecdotal experiences are giving you the wrong info. Here's an article about how similar the beliefs are and what it's based on. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/429602-anti-vax-and-anti-abortion-movements-are-filled-with-misinformation?amp It originally was the "earthly cruncher" who was antivaxx but since covid its been adopted by the far right, which in the US context means almost certainly prolife. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/06/the-anti-vax-movements-radical-shift-from-crunchy-granola-purists-to-far-right-crusaders/ https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-movement-2020 Anti vaxx is also very much Republican, the most Republucan states can't rid of their vaccines where as heavily democratic states are needing more. First article is on why, next is showing the statement is true. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/05/27/anti-vaccine-republican-mainstream-1344955 https://www.google.ca/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wireStory/red-states-us-electoral-map-lagging-vaccinations-77073867 https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/07/republicans-covid-vaccine/?outputType=amp It's becoming even more so since now some vaccines are developed from a fetal cell. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/re-officials-gird-war-vaccine-misinformation-vaccines-create-needless-anti-vaxxers-using None of these conclusively prove that being anti-vax makes you more likely to be anti-abortion. The only reason I'm going on my anecdotal evidence is because I know probably about 40 anti-vax people and not a single one of them is anti-abortion. I guess its different in America because its such a religious country, so I'd be happy with the association with the caveat that it only applies in the US and religious communities. This creates another problem though, which is religious freedom. I don't even want to touch that tbh because I disagree with religious freedom that grants exceptions to people based on their religion, but its still a thing. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28561 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On April 30 2021 15:48 JimmiC wrote: The people sharing the video would not be punished, other then by having the false info video removed. I think we do mostly agree, but my difference with you is in this quote. I just don't get who is allowed to be the arbiter of this. If it was to go through courts then I could maybe get behind it, but that wouldn't be practical. So who is it? The government? I just don't trust them with facts, given that they are the biggest liars of all., no matter where you live or who the government is at any time. Of course, there are other various issues with fining or jailing people for making money of their lies. You would have a whole situation with religion that would be an unfixable contradiction there, because you have preachers telling people that God will heal them if they don't take medicine, and I don't know anywhere that would have the balls to make that illegal. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
