Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 299 more replies »
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@TheEmperor Because we are talking about something should be allowed or dissalowed in society. We are talking about a toppic, where people either in favor, none caring or against it. Because a moral judgement is being maked.
Someone brings in, that being gay is not the "default position". I challenge that because I think being gay is a natural occurence, I don't believe human beings have 1 default position. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are just as a "default-position" as black haired people and redheads. Homosexuality is part of humanity for me. It excists, it will not go away. We have been through puritan times, with way more wide spread persecution and harassment then there is today. And it didn't go away. It's there. So we have to deal with it as a society. The sollution being brought for is too put gay people in the closet a little longer. So that we can all pretend it doesn't excist which will lead too some society that is better then the alternative. My stance is too accept it, get being gay on an equal level as being heterosexual so that eventually next generations don't have to do this debate again. And also to stop the suffering that those people that are in the closet are feeling, because the rest of society isn't mature enough to recogise a phenomena that is a part of reality. Mostly in favor of some personally held orthodoxy that needs to be maintained at all costs for some reason. But it's not going away, I want to get over the discussion so we can spend time on other, hopefully better toppics.
If you talk about "default positions" and "the norm" in that kind of discussion, you try to strengthen your argument. Because that's still what we are talking about. Just like when you add that you don't think you need to use words that only excisted for 5 minutes and mention how long civilisation excist, when trying to attack the legitamacy as word, you are trying to strengthen your argument in some strange way. If this is not the case, then why bring it up in this conversation at all?
And I do think it's important to understand who sets the norm in a conversation. For the example with the hair for instance, and I'm not being contrararion here, for me "red" is also the norm. Because I think the norm can excist out of more then 1 data set. Considering that all hair types are natural and are not rare where I live (for as far as I'm aware), it's quite normal to see a redhead on the street. People that die their hair in green and blue or something... those things would be outside of norm. Because I define it that way. Every studio that wants to invoke a "norm", needs to define that norm. The norm is always set by the person that defines it. I think being gay, is not rare enough to be outside the norm when it comes to sexual behavior while others might. I'm not going to let a discussion being won by someone that invokes "a norm" that my "norm" will not agree with.
And considering that we are talking about "the norm", "default positions" but also someone that mentions tastes in the sense of being "naturally repulsed". I think I might like to add that I actually agree with Bourdieu who said:
[quote]Tastes [i](i.e. , manifested preferences)[/i] are the practical affirmation of an inevitable difference. It is no accident that, when they have to be justified, they are asserted purely negatively, by the refusal of other tastes.[b] In matters of taste, more than anywhere else, all determination is negation; and tastes are perhaps first and foremost distastes, disgust provoked by horror or visceral intolerance[/b][i] ('sick-making')[/i] [b]of the tastes of others.[/b] '[b][u]De gustibus non est disputandum[/u][/b]': not because 'tous les gouts sont dans la nature', [b]but because each taste feels itself to be natural-and so it almost is, being a habitus--which amounts to rejecting others as unnatural and therefore vicious.[/b] Aesthetic intolerance can be terribly violent. Aversion to different life-styles is perhaps one of the strongest barriers between the classes; class endogamy is evidence of this. [b]The most intolerable thing for those who regard themselves as the possessors of legitimate culture is the sacrilegious reuniting of tastes which taste dictates shall be separated.[/b]
[b]This means that the games of artists and aesthetes and their struggles for the monopoly of artistic legitimacy are less innocent than they seem.[/b] At stake in every struggle over art there is also the imposition of an art of living, that is, the transmutation of an arbitrary way of living into the legitimate way of life which casts every other way of living into arbitrariness. The artist's life-style is always a challenge thrown at the bourgeois life-style, which it seeks to condemn as unreal and even absurd, by a sort of practical demonstration of the emptiness of the values and powers it pursues. The neutralizing relation to the world which defines the aesthetic disposition potentially implies a subversion of the spirit of seriousness required by bourgeois investments. [b]Like the visibly ethical judgements of those who lack the means to make art the basis of their art of living, to see the world and other people through literary reminiscences and pictorial references, the 'pure' and purely aesthetic judgements of the artist and the aesthete spring from the dispositions of an ethos; but because of the legitimacy which they command so long as their relationship to the dispositions and interests of a group defined by strong cultural capital and weak economic capital remains unrecognized, they provide a sort of absolute reference point in the necessarily endless play of mutually self-relativizing tastes. By a paradoxical reversal, they thereby help to legitimate the bourgeois claim to 'natural distinction' as difference made absolute.[/b]
- Pierre Bourdieu, [i]Distinction[/i] (1979)[/quote]
Someone brings in, that being gay is not the "default position". I challenge that because I think being gay is a natural occurence, I don't believe human beings have 1 default position. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are just as a "default-position" as black haired people and redheads. Homosexuality is part of humanity for me. It excists, it will not go away. We have been through puritan times, with way more wide spread persecution and harassment then there is today. And it didn't go away. It's there. So we have to deal with it as a society. The sollution being brought for is too put gay people in the closet a little longer. So that we can all pretend it doesn't excist which will lead too some society that is better then the alternative. My stance is too accept it, get being gay on an equal level as being heterosexual so that eventually next generations don't have to do this debate again. And also to stop the suffering that those people that are in the closet are feeling, because the rest of society isn't mature enough to recogise a phenomena that is a part of reality. Mostly in favor of some personally held orthodoxy that needs to be maintained at all costs for some reason. But it's not going away, I want to get over the discussion so we can spend time on other, hopefully better toppics.
If you talk about "default positions" and "the norm" in that kind of discussion, you try to strengthen your argument. Because that's still what we are talking about. Just like when you add that you don't think you need to use words that only excisted for 5 minutes and mention how long civilisation excist, when trying to attack the legitamacy as word, you are trying to strengthen your argument in some strange way. If this is not the case, then why bring it up in this conversation at all?
And I do think it's important to understand who sets the norm in a conversation. For the example with the hair for instance, and I'm not being contrararion here, for me "red" is also the norm. Because I think the norm can excist out of more then 1 data set. Considering that all hair types are natural and are not rare where I live (for as far as I'm aware), it's quite normal to see a redhead on the street. People that die their hair in green and blue or something... those things would be outside of norm. Because I define it that way. Every studio that wants to invoke a "norm", needs to define that norm. The norm is always set by the person that defines it. I think being gay, is not rare enough to be outside the norm when it comes to sexual behavior while others might. I'm not going to let a discussion being won by someone that invokes "a norm" that my "norm" will not agree with.
And considering that we are talking about "the norm", "default positions" but also someone that mentions tastes in the sense of being "naturally repulsed". I think I might like to add that I actually agree with Bourdieu who said:
[quote]Tastes [i](i.e. , manifested preferences)[/i] are the practical affirmation of an inevitable difference. It is no accident that, when they have to be justified, they are asserted purely negatively, by the refusal of other tastes.[b] In matters of taste, more than anywhere else, all determination is negation; and tastes are perhaps first and foremost distastes, disgust provoked by horror or visceral intolerance[/b][i] ('sick-making')[/i] [b]of the tastes of others.[/b] '[b][u]De gustibus non est disputandum[/u][/b]': not because 'tous les gouts sont dans la nature', [b]but because each taste feels itself to be natural-and so it almost is, being a habitus--which amounts to rejecting others as unnatural and therefore vicious.[/b] Aesthetic intolerance can be terribly violent. Aversion to different life-styles is perhaps one of the strongest barriers between the classes; class endogamy is evidence of this. [b]The most intolerable thing for those who regard themselves as the possessors of legitimate culture is the sacrilegious reuniting of tastes which taste dictates shall be separated.[/b]
[b]This means that the games of artists and aesthetes and their struggles for the monopoly of artistic legitimacy are less innocent than they seem.[/b] At stake in every struggle over art there is also the imposition of an art of living, that is, the transmutation of an arbitrary way of living into the legitimate way of life which casts every other way of living into arbitrariness. The artist's life-style is always a challenge thrown at the bourgeois life-style, which it seeks to condemn as unreal and even absurd, by a sort of practical demonstration of the emptiness of the values and powers it pursues. The neutralizing relation to the world which defines the aesthetic disposition potentially implies a subversion of the spirit of seriousness required by bourgeois investments. [b]Like the visibly ethical judgements of those who lack the means to make art the basis of their art of living, to see the world and other people through literary reminiscences and pictorial references, the 'pure' and purely aesthetic judgements of the artist and the aesthete spring from the dispositions of an ethos; but because of the legitimacy which they command so long as their relationship to the dispositions and interests of a group defined by strong cultural capital and weak economic capital remains unrecognized, they provide a sort of absolute reference point in the necessarily endless play of mutually self-relativizing tastes. By a paradoxical reversal, they thereby help to legitimate the bourgeois claim to 'natural distinction' as difference made absolute.[/b]
- Pierre Bourdieu, [i]Distinction[/i] (1979)[/quote]
SamInAZ · 41-45, M
@TheEmperor it's not the norm to be a ginger, it is something that happens naturally though
Guitarman123 · 31-35, M
Guitarman123 · 31-35, M
@Thinkerbell we can't see the universe so can't possibly recognise it
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@Guitarman123
[quote]"we can't see the universe..."[/quote]
Oh, really? Then what are astronomers wasting their time with? 🙄
Astronomer Hoyle would obviously disagree with you.
He was not just a pantheist, but a panentheist, believing there was a conscious mind behind the visible universe, as this quote shows:
"Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." "
[c=1F5E00]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle[/c]
[quote]"we can't see the universe..."[/quote]
Oh, really? Then what are astronomers wasting their time with? 🙄
Astronomer Hoyle would obviously disagree with you.
He was not just a pantheist, but a panentheist, believing there was a conscious mind behind the visible universe, as this quote shows:
"Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." "
[c=1F5E00]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle[/c]
Guitarman123 · 31-35, M
Slade · 56-60, M
@Guitarman123 Woke means you are a shit for brains idiot
Guitarman123 · 31-35, M
@Slade ok, moron
MartinII · 70-79, M
@helenS Well that’s certainly not true in the UK. There’s nothing right-wing about being opposed to the antics of Extinction Rebellion, or opposing the claims of males who “identify” as females to be treated in all respects as if they were women - both, the latter especially, being key tenets of the woke agenda. In my more pessimistic moments I wonder if the Conservative Party isn’t more woke than the Labour Party. Certainly the Labour leader has made it clear by his pronouncements on various issues that he doesn’t subscribe to the woke agenda.
TheEmperor · 26-30, M
@helenS Historically, the term “woke” has been used somewhat extensively in slang throughout the twentieth century to refer to a state of awareness of the discrimination, disenfranchisement, and mistreatment of blacks, especially in America, and it is in that sense always had some connection to the critical mode of thought in the New Left. The term is alleged to have gained its first contemporary connotation in 2008 with the Erykah Badu song “Master Teacher,” in which Badu envisions and dreams of a world of racial equality and then advises genuine activism with the admonishment that listeners should “stay woke.” The term developed from there, particularly via black activism on Twitter.
Guitarman123 · 31-35, M
@TheEmperor most workers don't have resources
sree251 · 41-45, M
@Guitarman123 Labor is a resource. It is called human resource.
Guitarman123 · 31-35, M
@sree251 its a necessity for survival
anythingoes477 · M
sree251 · 41-45, M
@TheEmperor You said: "And over here, ‘far right ‘ values are just the norm."
I live in both places: 6 months at home in the US and 6 months abroad (visa limitation) in Asia where men are men, women are women, and all planets have their assigned places in the cosmos. It is very much the same situation in America.
As you rightly pointed out, it is the woke fringe that perceives it has the mandate to dictate public policy and moral correctness.
I live in both places: 6 months at home in the US and 6 months abroad (visa limitation) in Asia where men are men, women are women, and all planets have their assigned places in the cosmos. It is very much the same situation in America.
As you rightly pointed out, it is the woke fringe that perceives it has the mandate to dictate public policy and moral correctness.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Might be worth reminding ourselves what "woke" really means, by its etymology.
It is a slang contraction of "awoke", in the sense of being awakened, and to injustice and oppression.
It was coined by Afro-Americans in the 1930s and first appeared traceably in a blues song after a group of black youths were wrongly accused and convicted of raping a white woman. They were later freed, not least because the woman spoke up for their being innocent.
It appears to have become a term of American political slanging-matches generally only within the last few years, and to become merely abuse meaning only what its user wants it to mean - if anything at all.
It is a slang contraction of "awoke", in the sense of being awakened, and to injustice and oppression.
It was coined by Afro-Americans in the 1930s and first appeared traceably in a blues song after a group of black youths were wrongly accused and convicted of raping a white woman. They were later freed, not least because the woman spoke up for their being innocent.
It appears to have become a term of American political slanging-matches generally only within the last few years, and to become merely abuse meaning only what its user wants it to mean - if anything at all.
SamInAZ · 41-45, M
@ArishMell It's not from the 1930's, "Woke" has always been a part of African American Vernacular English(AAVE)..it is a grammatical error in plain english, it means to awaken. The political use of the term really comes from the late '60's-early '70's & didn't really catch on until recently in common usage. Like most of AAVE, it's just english with poor grammar & syntax.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SamInAZ Even older than the 30s then? A song, I think it was said by Leadbelly, is the first actually recorded use.
I said it is from "awaken" and slang, but perhaps the poor grammar reflected the standard of education given to those who coined it 90 or more years ago.
I don't recall ever hearing it used in the 1970s but it certainly became prominent in the last few years, when it also crossed the Atlantic to be used probably even further removed from its own reality.
I said it is from "awaken" and slang, but perhaps the poor grammar reflected the standard of education given to those who coined it 90 or more years ago.
I don't recall ever hearing it used in the 1970s but it certainly became prominent in the last few years, when it also crossed the Atlantic to be used probably even further removed from its own reality.
SamInAZ · 41-45, M
@ArishMell it was becoming more popular in left-wing radical academic circles within the universities in the 70's. With theorist types. But yeah, it originates from Ebonics a.k.a AAVE, which is basically just a southern dialect, rural whites in the South have used woke instead of awake for a long time too.
@sree251 "Experts in academia"? I'm a non-dualist. I don't understand myself as "facing" an external material reality. We are an integral part of Reality (Even quantum theory would see us as ultimately inseparable from the whole)
Then again, I'm "religious", a Pure Land Buddhist. Pure Faith in Reality. Touch base, [i]then[/i] we can differentiate. But first we must know in our bones that we are all the same in a fundamental sense (although each unique in another)
Sadly many view human consciousness and intelligence as some sort of accident in the midst of boundless stupidity. In fact - at least as I see it - there is an organism/environment polarity. One cannot [i]be[/i] without the other.
Non-dualism. Not that "all is one", but that Reality is [i]not-two[/i]
I really am getting tired. It has been a long day. But to finish, "right conduct" can only ever be a [u][i]by-product[/i][/u] of wisdom. Knowing/seeing correctly.
Then again, I'm "religious", a Pure Land Buddhist. Pure Faith in Reality. Touch base, [i]then[/i] we can differentiate. But first we must know in our bones that we are all the same in a fundamental sense (although each unique in another)
Sadly many view human consciousness and intelligence as some sort of accident in the midst of boundless stupidity. In fact - at least as I see it - there is an organism/environment polarity. One cannot [i]be[/i] without the other.
Non-dualism. Not that "all is one", but that Reality is [i]not-two[/i]
I really am getting tired. It has been a long day. But to finish, "right conduct" can only ever be a [u][i]by-product[/i][/u] of wisdom. Knowing/seeing correctly.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@Dharmabump You said: "Non-dualism. Not that "all is one", but that Reality is not-two"
So, The Reality of non-dualism is neither two nor one. We are using the language of duality to express non-duality. We will inevitably end up serving each other word salads. Let's try, anyway.
To simplify this discussion, let's consider that humanity is not 8 billion but just two of us.
I am indeed Reality, this entirety of my existence. I am that. Reality is all encompassing. Therefore, I am all encompassing.
This conversation is between two of us: me and you. Two voices within Reality. I am that.
Comments?
So, The Reality of non-dualism is neither two nor one. We are using the language of duality to express non-duality. We will inevitably end up serving each other word salads. Let's try, anyway.
To simplify this discussion, let's consider that humanity is not 8 billion but just two of us.
I am indeed Reality, this entirety of my existence. I am that. Reality is all encompassing. Therefore, I am all encompassing.
This conversation is between two of us: me and you. Two voices within Reality. I am that.
Comments?
TheEmperor · 26-30, M
@zonavar68 no, triggered refers to being triggered…
zonavar68 · 51-55, M
[![]()
BohemianBoo · M
TheEmperor · 26-30, M
‘ Nope. Raising the minimum wage doesn't actually cause companies to raise their prices, it also doesn't contribute to outsourcing.’
Yes it does, I should know, I’ve worked as an account and fund raise for several companies and charities and currently run several 6 figure international companies and charities and know what I’m talking about @BohemianBoo
“Immigrants are less likely to become dependent on welfare’. Source.
Okay I’ll buy into your idea that the left and right are borgs and all think exactly the same as each other,What are their other answers to low birth rates?
Yes it does, I should know, I’ve worked as an account and fund raise for several companies and charities and currently run several 6 figure international companies and charities and know what I’m talking about @BohemianBoo
“Immigrants are less likely to become dependent on welfare’. Source.
Okay I’ll buy into your idea that the left and right are borgs and all think exactly the same as each other,What are their other answers to low birth rates?
BohemianBoo · M
@TheEmperor [quote]Yes it does, I should know, I’ve worked as an account and fund raise for several companies and charities and currently run several 6 figure international companies and charities and know what I’m talking abou[/quote]
That's anecdotal evidence. Generally speaking, corporations will do anything to say money no matter the situation. Republicans are constantly cutting taxes for the rich, it never results in less outsourcing, lower prices, or higher employment.
[quote]“Immigrants are less likely to become dependent on welfare’. Source.[/quote]
"Once refugees and U.S.-born children are excluded from the data, most research shows that immigrants are not welfare prone. On average, immigrants consume 27 percent fewer benefits than U.S.-born who have similar incomes and ages. Furthermore, some programs are utilized as a source of temporary support."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8478291/
[quote]What are their other answers to low birth rates?[/quote]
Social welfare programs raise birth rates, especially ones that specifically make it easier to have kids, such as like maternity/paternity leave, free school lunch, child tax credit, and so on. This worked in a bunch of European countries.
We do have to accept that as a country becomes industrialized, birth rates drop significantly because people no longer need ten kids to work the fields. But social welfare programs at least get people to have a replacement level birth rate.
That's anecdotal evidence. Generally speaking, corporations will do anything to say money no matter the situation. Republicans are constantly cutting taxes for the rich, it never results in less outsourcing, lower prices, or higher employment.
[quote]“Immigrants are less likely to become dependent on welfare’. Source.[/quote]
"Once refugees and U.S.-born children are excluded from the data, most research shows that immigrants are not welfare prone. On average, immigrants consume 27 percent fewer benefits than U.S.-born who have similar incomes and ages. Furthermore, some programs are utilized as a source of temporary support."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8478291/
[quote]What are their other answers to low birth rates?[/quote]
Social welfare programs raise birth rates, especially ones that specifically make it easier to have kids, such as like maternity/paternity leave, free school lunch, child tax credit, and so on. This worked in a bunch of European countries.
We do have to accept that as a country becomes industrialized, birth rates drop significantly because people no longer need ten kids to work the fields. But social welfare programs at least get people to have a replacement level birth rate.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Pfuzylogic · M
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
Yep.. All those super-sensitive Republicans, so caring and sharing.... Oh Wait.. Thats Socialism...😷
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@sunsporter1649 But I can understand why you wont be on one. Its the "Workers" part, isnt it?😷
curiouslady93 · 26-30, F
@whowasthatmaskedman It's not that they prefer to live in those conditions, it's just that with democratic leadership in that state, they cant afford to move. You've got to be a pretty horrible person to see someone in that condition and think "I'll use their suffering as a cheap political jab".
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@curiouslady93 I am with you on this. So many of the arguments Americans make are presented as blabk and white. If I am right you must be wrong, where in fact the shades of grey are infinite. People still come to America to escape worse treatment in other places. Yet there are better places than America that are simply not as easy to get into since the black economy there is essential to keep the system running.. Then you add the competitive nature of American society where not being a "winner" makes you a "loser" and so many then look for people who have lost worse to support their fragile egos.. Its a very complex problem I am glad not to be a part of..😷
zonavar68 · 51-55, M
Russell Brand is next to be culled
BohemianBoo · M
@TheEmperor But you know sometimes that is the case, right? Like I know people are complicated, no two people agree on everything, but when it comes to certain issues, a lot of people just blindly tow the party line and repeat whatever their media says. If nothing else, that's what Trumpism taught us.
[quote]It's like whenever people want to prove "science" is on their side, it's always a figure between 90-100%, it's never like 82%, because that doesnt have the same effect.[/quote]
That's because science isn't an opinion. The scientific community generally agrees on facts, even when they disagree on what to do regarding facts.
[quote]It's like whenever people want to prove "science" is on their side, it's always a figure between 90-100%, it's never like 82%, because that doesnt have the same effect.[/quote]
That's because science isn't an opinion. The scientific community generally agrees on facts, even when they disagree on what to do regarding facts.
TheEmperor · 26-30, M
@BohemianBoo "But you know sometimes that is the case, right? Like I know people are complicated, no two people agree on everything, but when it comes to certain issues, a lot of people just blindly tow the party line and repeat whatever their media says. If nothing else, that's what Trumpism taught us."
How does Trumpism teach you that?
And certainly, people do seem to have to choose 1 or 2 sides when it comes to coverage of politics, what is your source for that 95% figure?
Science is also not a democracy. When Galileo proposed his heliocentric theory, it was actually the scientific community that persecuted him. The church didn't actually feel it threatened their theology. Was it therefor wrong because most scientists agreed with him?
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way." (Michael Critchton)
How does Trumpism teach you that?
And certainly, people do seem to have to choose 1 or 2 sides when it comes to coverage of politics, what is your source for that 95% figure?
Science is also not a democracy. When Galileo proposed his heliocentric theory, it was actually the scientific community that persecuted him. The church didn't actually feel it threatened their theology. Was it therefor wrong because most scientists agreed with him?
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way." (Michael Critchton)
BohemianBoo · M
@TheEmperor TL ; DR
SmoothKnight · 51-55, M
Beetlejuice68 · 51-55, M
But are they wrong about other people being insensitive? Same as being cancelled, who has been cancelled with out good cause, Andrew Tate, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson? They all still seem to be shooting their mouths off when ever they feel like it.
TheEmperor · 26-30, M
@Beetlejuice68 "shooting your mouth off" isn't reason to be cancelled. Because then you'd refer to anyone you dont like as "shooting their mouth off" or some other negative way of framing speech, to get someone censored. Oh, that already happens. Any time someone gives a lengthy explanation in disagreement to something pushed by the establishment, establishment outlets call it a "rant". They then try and find some detail about it that they can twist to then include the word "bizarre", they love the term "bizarre rant", for any thought out criticism of the establishment.
CactusJackManson · 41-45
THIS
TheEmperor · 26-30, M
@sree251 It should be self explanatory if you've spent more than a few days on the internet.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@TheEmperor Are you kidding me? You guys have been firing off posts at one another at the rate of a sub-machine gun. I couldn't keep up.
TheEmperor · 26-30, M
@sree251 I haven't said anything else to TinaN
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
jehova · 31-35, M
Dude u know its just that u gotta understand the pain man. But while doing ballerina thatll wake em up.
TrashCat · M
This post makes my soul fart
Do "they"?
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
18,427 people following
Politics Personal Stories, Advice, and Support![]()
New Post Associated Forums Topic Members
Politics Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
