-
The problem with “big science” is that the ordinary person has no conceivable means by which to verify any of their claims, they have to be taken by faith. And there have been many, many cases in the past where this turned out to be a mistake. Unlike what some people will have you believe, science is never really settled, things that used to be the common consensus have turned out to be wrong many times in the past. What makes you think that nowadays, we’re somehow past all that, just because our methods are more precise than our forefathers’? Why should the knowledge we have now be the end-all-be-all when not too long ago, doctors used to prescribe cigarettes as a treatment for asthma?
-
Okay, but that’s just an opinion, not scientific consensus. People on Parler think the Fediverse is full of pedophiles, does that give them the right to shut it down?
-
I don’t care about stealing as long as there’s a legitimate need and it’s not just out of laziness or greed. I used to pirate my games and software when I was too broke to afford them, but once I started earning more money, I gave up on that and started paying for them, even though pirating would have sometimes been easier or more convenient.
-
So you disagree with the scientific consensus. Cool. Where’s your data to the contrary? When are you publishing your study? Or are you just here to cast doubt on the validity of science as a concept, and use that as a basis to believe whatever a talking head says?
-
Parler advertises itself towards Trump supporters. I think it’s safe to say there are Trump supporters there. Also, once again, neither I nor the OP said anything at all about Parler itself, only its founders. Where did you get the idea that I think it should be shut down?
-
I already told you why piracy isn’t stealing. Do you have a response to that?
It’s becoming increasingly obvious you’re not arguing in good faith. I’m going to bed now. You’ll have to pretend to argue with someone else for a while.
-
Strawman. I didn’t say I disagree with it, I just listed some valid reasons for why people might.
-
Yeah, okay, I get it, you just hate them. That’s allowed of course. I’m just pointing out that hating them for hating you makes you no better than them.
-
Of course it’s stealing, your justifications don’t change that. Like I said, I don’t think it’s objectionable when it’s done for legitimate reasons (like if the company removes access for something you already bought and paid for), and forgivable if you’re too broke to afford it, but it’s stealing nevertheless.
- Do we agree, then, that science should be the foremost authority in decision making, since we seem to agree that there is no better one, and that therefore your previous point was addressing nothing?
- I don’t hate them because they hate me. I hate them because they are rooting for a person who calls himself a dictator, and who has a history of making credible threats against the lives and livelihoods of people I care deeply about, to take over the country in which I live. That does not make me a hypocrite.
- I don’t hear a counterargument.
- It’s fine to disagree with scientific consensus. Even more so when there is not a real consensus.
- Going by a recent example where in some cases, it was being mandated for everyone to be vaccinated when possible; later, it was noted that vaccinations weren’t significantly useful for people who had recently had COVID (sorry, too lazy too link. It was just a news anyway and not a res paper). But this pertains to a condition that is currently undergoing change, with new strains coming out every now and then.
- An older example. Old enough to get into our school textbooks. “different tastes on different parts of the tongue”. The text used a kind of language that made readers think that given specific tastes can only be detected at those places, whereas the results from actual science were much more nuanced. Furthermore, the textbooks encouraged the students to “verify” this by trying different tasting objects on their corresponding taste locations, while not hinting them to try any of those in places other than those, which would have easily disproven the statement in the way it was written in the text.
- The point here is that you are free to believe what you may, but when your actions significantly and maybe adversely affect others, you have to be careful about what others believe and whether your belief has any concrete proof. e.g. It’s fine if you don’t want to live in the same room with a vaxxer (just live in some other room, or don’t rent a multi-tenant room in the first place), but that doesn’t give you the license to harass that person or their family.
- meh
- It’s stealing both ways. Whether it’s legal or moral or not, is another discussion. WB stole from the customer. It was legal (they probably had it somewhere in their EULA) and probably immoral (because they knew most customers would not really read it well and those who did, would still probably give them money because they have no other option if they wanted to watch the exclusive). Pirates then stole from WB (in this case it was illegal), but the moral implications change upon perspective. Neither side of the argument is even close to ideal, but sometimes you can’t really condemn yourself for saying “It is what it is” and picking a side.
Lookie here! This thread has 8 parallel lines.
