Thank the Good Lord for that! — andrewk
the rest of my argument still stands: scientists and those who give them credence do not lack empathy; their motivations are very often driven precisely by empathy. — NKBJ
THAT sounds more like a strawperson to me — NKBJ
but I do not think that they are the same, or have the same motivations as the average person who is anti-science. — NKBJ
Are you perhaps mistaking vehemently disagreeing with someone with not being able to understand/empathize with their view? — NKBJ
Too many people will suffer and die if we wait to consider the feelings of the poor, gullible people that have been sucked in by such nonsense. — andrewk
The problem that skeptics face in grasping the rationale behind some mainstream scientific conclusions isn't methodological. It is rather, to put it crudely, that they don't have a clue what it is they are talking about. That's simply because they lack a sufficient formal training in the relavant fields. — Pierre-Normand
In order to correctly assuage the worries of the skeptics, the mainstream scientists would need to highlight the substantial flaws in their arguments, and also criticize the ideologies that bias the skeptics' evaluations of the practical aims and other social aspects of the research, rather than advocate for them to accept mythical methodological principles that nobody actually obeys. — Pierre-Normand
But it's foolish to require absolute certainty, — Ciceronianus the White
and so foolish to rely on the lack of absolute certainty as a guide to policy, or practical decisions of any kind. Probability is all we can reasonably require; the higher the better, of course. "There's always some reason to doubt" is no basis for decision-making. — Ciceronianus the White
Claiming that science and empathy are somehow at odds is a false dichotomy. — NKBJ
Empathy is precisely what drives me to vaccinate my children. If I am fortunate enough to be healthy and have healthy offspring, I have an obligation towards those less fortunate to help establish herd immunity so that they do not die of the whooping cough, rubella, polio, etcetcetc. — NKBJ
Intuition is great, but it can lead you astray. That's where pretty much all logical fallacies come from: our intuitions being imperfect. The gambler's fallacy, for example, feels so right, but is oh so wrong! — NKBJ
In respect to the former - there has been considerable fear, uncertainty and doubt cast on the science by lobbyists associated with fossi fuel companies, and by industrialists with vested interests. — Wayfarer
It’s very unfortunate that the facts of climate change have now been dragged into lunatic debates about green politics and conspiracy theory. — Wayfarer
It is a clear and present danger to the lives of billions of people and needs to be dealt with accordingly - soberly, effectively, and guided by the science. — Wayfarer
As for anti-vaccination theories, they are either misguided idealists or simply misinformed. In any case, their misinformation is pernicious and again can lead to many preventable deaths and illnesses. — Wayfarer
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, ‘everyone has a right to their own opinions, but nobody has a right to their own facts’. — Wayfarer
Lack of intelligence doesn't correlate well with holding these highly unscientific ideas. Some of the idea holders I've known are really quite intelligent. Maybe slightly crazy, but definitely not stupid. Many of them were also quite pleasant people who, for the most part, led more or less normal lives doing productive work. — Bitter Crank
Too many people will suffer and die if we wait to consider the feelings of the poor, gullible people that have been sucked in by such nonsense. — andrewk
The use of science should be restricted to scientific topics - LIKE climate change and the risks and benefits of vaccination. — andrewk
How do you define same opportunities? — Coldlight
We all know that men and women are different. — Purple Pond
Men are usually more masculine and women are usually more feminine. — Purple Pond
This is not to say that perceptions of what consists of masculinity and femininity can't change. — Purple Pond
In the STEM field, for example, men are grossly overrepresented in jobs related to science, technology, engineering, and math. — Purple Pond
But why is there such a gap? Are women being oppressed? — Purple Pond
Perhaps in other cases there is a reason beyond the discrimination, may be in certain areas male traits are more desirable such as competitiveness and assertiveness. Can you think of other reasons why there is gender inequality? — Purple Pond
I personally haven't decided on whether or not there should be gender equality. I don't know how much male and female trait differences matter. What do you think? — Purple Pond
Oh yeah, that's scientism to a tee. It's sad that scientism is so pervasive. — Metaphysician Undercover
When you discover the memo, we can discuss that, but until you do discover it, the mere possibility that there might be such a memo undermines the discussion without adding anything. — unenlightened
Thus we can discuss how life is but a dream — unenlightened
— andrewk
When we wake up, we can have a laugh about that maybe, but in the dream, I want to talk about the dream-world, and to bring that up is just a futile undermining of any conversation, that is equivalent to the radical postmodern denial of fact that you seemed to want to reject. — unenlightened
Your 25,000th voter doesn't know what the total is, of course. For all he knows, the election IS already decided by many votes. — Bitter Crank
How else can it be interpreted? — darthbarracuda
Either the proposition that there are no truths is true, in which case it refutes itself, or it's false, in which case there are some propositions that are true — darthbarracuda
A vocal minority does not represent the whole movement. — darthbarracuda
When people say they hate "feminists", they hate the small, vocal minority, the "feminazis" or whatever, and not the actual feminists, whom I think most people would actually agree with if they took the time to listen. — darthbarracuda
From a radical feminist perspective, pointing out men's issues when radfems point out women's is an attempt to downplay the severity of the woman's predicament. — darthbarracuda
The fact is that many MRAs are misogynists. They point out the issues men deal with to make it seem like women are selfish, greedy, bitchy and should shut up and go back to the kitchen. Of course, it's veiled a lot of the time. But you'll notice that a lot of the time, MRAs are explicitly reacting to radical feminist theory. It's not really "about" men's issues - it's about obscuring women's issues. — darthbarracuda
What if the truth is simply hard to accept? Is it not a possibility that "extreme" points of view may actually be true? Like I said before, having a tough skin is necessary if you are to trudge through the political arena. You have to be able to entertain notions without accepting them. — darthbarracuda
While there is nothing much I want to disagree with there, it seems one sided. Whilst there may be no final answers, there must be provisional answers that are accepted as the starting point of any conversation. If we are talking about astronomy, we probably don't want to consider the possibility that the Earth is flat. — unenlightened
Likewise, if we are talking about feminism, we need to acknowledge that it has a history roughly along these lines (this is UK history, there are other stories along similar lines). If it is agreed that there has been a progressive development of equal rights from a prior state of inequality, then we can discuss whether or not we have arrived at the destination of equality, or there is some way to go, or we have overshot the mark to female dominance. — unenlightened
On the other hand, if you wish to claim, as a certain ex-contributor recently did, that women should not have the vote, then there is not much to talk about. We must have some common ground, and that discussion has been settled a while ago; though there are still flat-earthers out there, they are not worth talking to. — unenlightened
On the other hand, can this claim escape itself? Can the assertion that there are no truths but only truth claims, itself claim to be more than simply a truth claim? — darthbarracuda
Now I don't want to read into you too much, but the words "radical feminism" followed by a short rant and a comparison between the former and organized, dogmatic religion makes it seem like you had a rough encounter with some of the "vocal" radical feminists when you found that what you thought was innocent or a-moral turns out to make a lot of women very angry. — darthbarracuda
What that means is that I often have to tell myself to let people scream, vent, and mock, even if I don't agree with them (or even if I do). They have experiences I don't. They deserve the right to speak their mind. For many, ideology is all they have. Bread fills the stomach but ideology might fill the soul. — darthbarracuda
Another thing I've noticed is that when people try to silence the noise of a dissatisfied group, it's usually because they don't like what they have to say. One way of doing this is by claiming you have the truth in an even louder voice and killing anyone who disagrees. Another way is to get rid of truth, which effectively pulls the rug right out under the opposition. — darthbarracuda
But you have to see how this sounds to someone who has certain experiences that are more true and wrong than anything else in the world. To them, it is the truth-denier who is the enemy. The truth-denier is suppressing them. The truth-denier is privileged to be able to deny truth! How can they not see it? The truth-denier is preventing real progress, and we're getting impatient! — darthbarracuda
Hence why I'm increasingly attracted to the idea of a free and open society, where allegiance to some truth claims does not require everyone else's allegiance. One philosopher that I highly recommend on this topic is Paul Feyerabend, especially his judgment on the place of science in society.
In my opinion, we all need to have a bit more tough skin if we're going to open up and understand each other. — darthbarracuda
Should convicted violent criminals be able to acquire firearms for their personal protection? — Chany
How about the mentally ill? — Chany
How about minors? — Chany
Should I be able to acquire other weapons of war with no more restrictions than aquiring a handgun or rifle? In other words, if I find it necessary and can show that owning grenades could possibly save someone's life in defending themselves? Let's say that, if we never regulated hand grenades and allowed to public to buy them just like any sporting shotgun, one person per year since 1950 would be able to defend their life and their property that would not have been able to otherwise. However, as a result, the number of people who were killed by hand grenades since 1950 caused, on average, an additional 500 deaths per year. Is this grounds for heavily regulating hand grenades, even? — Chany
The actual argument is that the evidence indicates that the current proliferation and use of firearms is not positive or nuetral. When, statistically speaking, more people get shot, commit suicide, and face other social ills like domestic disputes than guns are used to defend themselves, there is a problem. When owning a firearm makes you supposedly three times more likely to be killed by a firearm, it becomes hard to see why owning a firearm is a justifiable means of self defense that the state is obligated to protect. Even if we doubt the statistics the pro-gun control crowd use, I find it disingenuous to pretend that their argument amounts to "we don't need guns because we have cops." — Chany
But if you file a suit because the FBI said you were a Moscow agent, and this ruined your business, you'll probably be told to take a walk. — Bitter Crank
Bear in mind a point that was raised earlier: The State has sovereign immunity. It can be sued only if it is willing to be sued. — Bitter Crank
If the Second Amendment is repealed, it won't be by the Federal Government. "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and by 3/4th of the states (38) or a constitutional convention called by 3/4th of the states. — Bitter Crank
I just demonstrated to you why the right to a weapon for self-defence would be irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover
Anyone can claim that anything they want is "justified", but to actually justify it, you must demonstrate why it is right. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your claim though, is that the right to a weapon for self-defence is "universal", and that's why it's irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, you've missed the point. The case cited that has caused you such consternation — Hanover
I'm still not convinced by your case. — Bitter Crank
the police chief is called before the City Council and asked about it with hundreds of angry Peorians screaming about in the room. If the City Council decides to support the police chief despite his decision to not do his job, the next election won't go so well for the councilmen and the mayor. That's how it's done all the time, not through the filing of civil suits demanding damages. In fact, if there were a rebel police chief and city council, would they really care if the City of Peoria were required to pay its tax dollars to a damaged citizen? Would that really alter their behavior? It seems like in this example they don't really care about much.
And all this explains why the police do their job, which is the same reason that everyone does his job, which is that they don't want to get fired because ultimately everyone is accountable to someone. — Hanover
No, what you're missing is the point that there are other ways to regulate conduct other than civil lawsuits. — Hanover
If the Peoria PD decides it no longer wants to protect its citizens, — Hanover
How do you account for the reality that the police actually do protect people from bad things happening to them? — Bitter Crank
So protecting the "general public" from harm is like public health protecting the people from sickness. It invariably involves individuals. The "general public" doesn't get shot, robbed, hit over the head, or murdered. Similarly, "the public" doesn't get sick. Individuals get sick, so they are vaccinated, one by one. — Bitter Crank
This is a fairly radical claim. More facts, please. — Bitter Crank
If you are in danger from the actions of another person, then they are committing a crime, and the police are (I believe) supposed to stop crime. — Bitter Crank
That's how you get protected. — Bitter Crank
The core of the argument is that 1) gun control, up to and including a ban of firearms, would reduce deaths, injuries, and increase social welfare, — Chany
2) owning a firearm is not a right like free expression of ideals or freedom of religion. It is, at best, a civil right whose primary justification- arming a citizen's militia against the federal government- no longer makes sense in a modern context or is not strong enough to warrant the level of protection guns currently have in American society. — Chany
If one wants to ban firearms, then one thinks the Second Amendment should be repealed somehow and that people, while having the right to self-defense, do not possess to the right to whatever weaponry they desire. — Chany
The police and their response to crime are ultimately irrelevant to the argument. The core of the argument is reduction in deaths per capita and the fact that owning a gun for either the purpose of either self-defense or defense against a tyrannical government are faulty. — Chany
You specifically brought up the right to bear arms, which was a reference to the 2nd Amendment. — Hanover
The title of this thread suggests an inconsistency between not protecting your right to bear arms and the state's lack of duty to protect you from crime. — Hanover
I was pointing out that there was no inconsistency because your right to bear arms, to the extent it exists, is not based upon the citizen's right to protect himself from other citizens, but only from the government itself. — Hanover
There are better solutions to solving the problem of inept police enforcement than deputizing the public to self-police. — Hanover
They are duty bound to protect you. — Hanover
The question is how you remedy a failure by the police. The case cited indicates it is not through the civil justice system. — Hanover
I don't know that they have a single monolithic argument, but to the extent they are arguing you lack the right to have guns because there are police there to protect you, they have missed the point of the 2nd Amendment, which is that you have a right to own guns to protect you from the government. — Hanover
But again the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to protect yourself from citizens, only the government. Why would the Bill of Rights contain a provision protecting you against other citizens when the reason for independence was due to an oppressive government? — Hanover
This is an argument from policy, asking what is the best way to handle the problem, which I don't have a problem with, but at least realize you're not now arguing from a position of rights. — Hanover
The question then would be: will we have fewer violent crimes if we arm the public than if we require reliance upon the police? If the answer is yes, then I'd be in favor of legislating freer gun access, but if it's not, then I wouldn't. On the other hand, if the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, then I wouldn't care about the policy reasons or the consequences. A right is a right. My hunch is that reduction of gun ownership will reduce violent crime. Call it a strong hunch. — Hanover
The basis for the 2nd Amendment is not to assure the right of vigilantism of every citizen, but to protect you against a tyranical government. — Hanover
If a police department is unresponsive or inept, — Hanover
corrective efforts should be made, but there's no reason to believe that civil lawsuits are the best or most effective way to regulate the police. Instead of paying off injured parties on a case by case basis, it seems like a state regulator would be better suited than occasional juries. — Hanover
"Right to sue" is irrelevant guff — andrewk
All that matters is: in what proportion of incidents where police were called to protect somebody being attacked, did they refuse to attend? — andrewk
The promise of life after death is religion's lure. — CuddlyHedgehog
Freedom from religious dogmas originates from acceptance that there is no life after death. — CuddlyHedgehog
So they will undercut their own sales? Fat chance. — schopenhauer1