Total posts: 1,950
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
> There's a distinction between immutable preferences* (e.g. sexual orientation) and mutable** preferences (e.g. liking or disliking coffee).
*Characteristic, not preference
**mere
Created:
Posted in:
By now many of us have opinions on the the Derek Chauvin trial, which is understandable.
Much media attention has been devoted to its coverage. It's probably the biggest trial since at least George Zimmerman. Probably since OJ Simpson, given the changing political climate in the United States.
Will you accept the jury's verdict?
Why or why not?
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
Thank you, but remind me again why you are blocking me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You are quite correct about that.
Created:
I think everyone had a bunch of ideas about what reality was, based on the media reporting early on.
The trial has made it pretty clear that folks did not have the whole picture.
The question now is whether the media knew about all this other stuff, and chose not to report it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So a black person’s skin and a white person’s skin is a result of what exactly?
Melanin levels.
Created:
I would bet the cop walks, based on what I have seen of that trial.
Though I don't think he should, based on the evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I am replying to post 61, btw
once in a generation events continue to increase in frequency.
This is, at least in my perspective, the critical issue underlying all of our discussion about COVID and any response to it. We have been operating under the assumption that we're not going to see an event like this in our lifetime. I have seen no evidence tending to support that belief.
In fact, what I am actually concerned about is what happens when a pandemic with an R-0 factor of something like 2-4, and an IFR of around 10-15%+ or worse hits.
COVID, though catastrophic by any objective measure, is a "dud" when it comes to actually killing people. Many did die, and that is very tragic, but the reality is that the bullet here was dodged by about 99.999% of human civilization (at least in terms of illness). The economic catastrophe caused by government lockdowns will haunt us for the rest of our lives, but that's tangential to the point of focus now.
COVID may have helped get the technology in place for some vaccines, and rapid commercialization of them (like with mRNA technology) and that's good. But if ebola as contagious as COVID were to start circulating, that's going to destroy civilization as we know it beyond repair. It's the kind of thing humanity will never come back from.
Created:
Posted in:
Here's a few point of consideration:
Do people understand the difference between a "vaccine passport" and "proof of vaccination" for the purpose of obtaining a visa for entry into a country?
I also wonder whether anyone has put any thought into the question of what, if any, value "vaccine passports" offer where most of the world's population is going to be vaccinated before the end of 2021.
If the thought is "well we need to make sure there isn't another outbreak," that's fine but what evidence is there that vaccine passports are going to make a difference on that front? I haven't seen any.
And just exactly what vaccines are going to be accepted? Sputnik-V? SinoVac? SinoPharm? Etc.?
To me, this seems like another stupid layer of regulatory largess that won't make a difference in the big picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Varrack
I'd change to something like:
"China's treatment of its Uyghur minority is justified."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Varrack
It might be easier to discuss this in the context of a specific topic you're looking to debate, rather than at this level of abstraction.
The first thing you want to do is pick a normative topic (i.e., how things ought to be) rather than a positive one (i.e., how things actually are in the world).
So, here's the difference:
- Lockdowns slowed the rate of COVID community spread.
This is an empirical issue that you can only answer with data. If you're not citing hard, reliable data that's analyzed in proper ways, you're not even in the right ball-park.
On the other hand:
- The United States should adopt lockdowns in response to the COVID pandemic.
This is a normative issue that, while it implicates those questions about what is demonstrably true in the world, is really about a value judgment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@Undefeatable
I agree with Whiteflame.
You shouldn't be so defeatist. And, you should also consider whether that which you think is axiomatically true, in fact is.
There are ways to argue that systemic racism is a problem, and we might at some point discuss what the strongest version of the argument for that is. Though for now, I think you should just listen to Thomas Sowell.
Created:
Posted in:
What do you all think about vaccine passports?
The need for vaccination passports for future international travel will soon become an inescapable reality. If Canadians wish to remain internationally mobile, we must proactively seek a solution that integrates international standards and ensures the privacy of Canadian data.
Vaccination certification is the next challenge on the road to global pandemic recovery. The Trudeau government must ensure Canadians are prepared for that eventuality. Prime Minister Trudeau’s concern about the “fairness” of vaccine passports, in that they could create classes of citizens with different freedoms, is understandable. His government will need to weigh the advice of health experts against the broader economic needs and those of Canadian in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
... I can honestly say that the caliber of debaters ranges pretty widely. Doesn't help that a lot of the judging they get for those debates is lay judges (read: mostly parents) with no background in debate who have not the slightest clue what a Kritik is.
I agree with this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
We make our pizza at home
Nice
What kind of oven?
Created:
Posted in:
What kind of pizza do you like?
What kind of toppings do you like on it?
For me, I like thin crust, Sicilian/Detroit/Grandma styles and Chicago tavern style (thin crispy crust baked in a pan).
NY style is ok, but I feel like most places don't know how to get the crust crispy enough so that when you fold it, the slice doesn't flop.
For toppings, I like marinara sauce, fresh or roasted garlic, pepperoni, oregano, mushrooms, sliced roma tomatoes and pineapple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
Your attitude is unavailing. It is at this point obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about, and any effort I made to explain any of this to you would be a waste of my time.
If you decide you want to understand, let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
lol it seems you're missing the other half of the article . . . . .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
The link you provided contradicts everything you have said.
1. No it does not. I see you are not interested in understanding the science, data or methods of analysis for the issues implicated by your claims.
2. I sent you two links. Not one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
What do you think the word "falsify" means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
So if you would like to explain why the direct quote lifted from your source is wrong
And being "wrong" isn't the issue. My Econometrics article is correct. It's the least wrong analysis as to causation for various policy-based NPIs, but it doesn't mean what you think it means, which is the issue in play here.
You clearly have some opinions on these issues, but those opinions are not informed by either the science or the underlying data behind the science. I provided you two articles with some pretty sophisticated analysis, that you don't seem to understand. Further, you don't seem to understand the context of that analysis; or why it matters for the lockdown-debate.
But, laying the foundation for what is going on here is going to take a significant amount of time on my part and I'm not seeing the benefit here because evidence-based discussion as to the causal connections (or lack of them) between certain policy choices and their outcomes does not seem to be what you're interested in.
What you're doing is repeating some pretty shallow claims you heard in the media, that at once misrepresent the underlying data and exaggerate the claims that even those who got it wrong (e.g., Ferguson) made in the first instance. Which is why I'm seeing a problem, here. Which is why I asked whether you even want me to explain this stuff to you, because you don't seem to even be interested in understanding these issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
I am claiming that lockdowns slow the spread of a virus, because if you are sitting at home and not exposed to other people, the opportunity for transmission is little to nothing. That is a fact. You have acknowledged population density as the biggest factor in covid transmission, meaning more people proximation = higher rate of transmission. This confirms my point that limited exposure to people (lockdowns) slows the spread even if that has many other negative repercussions.You have also repeatedly confirmed my point to thett that looking at overall numbers alone (FL vs NY) proves nothing. So if you would like to explain why the direct quote lifted from your source is wrong, you can, but you have already proven me to be correct multiple times, and I am satisfied with that being the end of the discussion.
This is one of those situations where you think you know something that you don't. And you didn't understand what I send you, if this is still your opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
Do you want me to explain to you why the source I linked supports what I said, and does not support what you are claiming despite the fact that the quote you identify appears in the article?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But instead of learning that lesson we’re passing over 250 new laws to stop people from voting, so here we are...
Not just passing laws. Gaming the system at every level to undermine democracy, including by:
1. Gerrymandering districts along overtly partisan lines, that over-represent the party in power and under-represent the party out of power;
2. Changing the locations, times, policies and procedures for polling places within districts from election to election;
3. Placing polling locations in districts that represent the party out of power in non-central, inconvenient and/or inaccessible locations;
4. Restricting early-access voting without cause or explanation; and
5. Limiting the time for voting to working-hours during a work week.
Most of this takes place at the state level, which is why it evades scrutiny. Also, these tactics tend to be too nuanced and sneaky for (mostly stupid) journalists to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
Further:
What is your level of understanding of this stuff? Are you a virologist?
That's a funny question, because virology is the scientific discipline concerned with the study of the biology of viruses and viral diseases, including the distribution, biochemistry, physiology, molecular biology, ecology, evolution and clinical aspects of viruses. That's a bit different than the skillset required to understand statistical modeling, particularly regression analysis, which involves a set of statistical processes for estimating the relationships between a dependent variable (often called the 'outcome variable') and one or more independent variables (often called 'predictors', 'covariates', or 'features').
You can assume for the purpose of our discussion that modeling is something I've had some experience in.
That is why lockdowns slow the rate: because if you are sitting home working or playing video games, and not traveling to other states, your exposure is inherently lower than if you were out and about. That is common sense.
You should also assume for the purpose of our discussion that data more reliably indicate what reality is, rather than "common sense" (though neither support your argument, in the final analysis).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
Actually, I just read over my post and I didn't link what mattered. Apologies. Here's what the data actually say, when correctly understood. The picture is complicated because there's a lot of junk-science and p-hacked garbage out there.
- If the CDC had have implemented a national mandate for face masks in March 2020 would have probably saved 47,000 lives (although maintaining that policy is likely to produce diminishing returns);
- Policy-based NPIs (i.e., lockdowns) had no impact on observed rates of community spread, as compared to alternative worlds in which there were no lockdowns; (read: the virus would have ran its course in essentially the same way at nearly the same rate, regardless of whether the lockdowns were imposed or not);
- No data support that closing schools made any difference in community spread whatsoever, and there is no way to even misinterpret the data to support any argument otherwise in a way that passes basic scrutiny; and
- Models (e.g., Imperial's) vastly over-estimated the number of cases and deaths.
- Neither policy-based NPIs nor ratesof voluntary social distancing explain a meaningful share of geographic variation in virus transmission (i.e., no evidence that lockdowns made a difference); and
- Rather than policy-based NPIs (i.e., lockdowns), the mostimportant predictors of which cities were hardest hit by the pandemic are exogenous characteristics such as population and density.
That Stanford article has some methodological issues, and seems to have included some stuff in there that is inconsistent with other findings, but the analysis/conclusions on population density are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
So, I take by your last post you didn't actually read what I provided you?
Or, maybe you didn't understand it?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm thinking about a series of debates on controversial topics.
I'd like to avoid topics that are too complicated for most people to understand, like lockdowns.
But topics that are pretty simple should be fine.
I think the topic is biased heavily in favor of CON given most American sensibilities, but this may be the inaugural "controversial" debate of this series:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
Lockdowns were meant to slow the spread, not contain the spread, which they did.
There is no evidence that any policy-based NPIs substantially reduced COVID's spread, from what it would have been absent the NPI. Lockdowns are one type of NPI, and the type of evidence you'd need to have in order to support the claim that lockdowns slowed COVID spread would be, at least, evidence that isolated its assessment of causality to only the impact that lockdowns had.
So the obvious problem is how you deal with exogenous factors, like population density. It turns out that, in the final analysis, the only actual predictor of how fast COVID spread was population density. I sent thett a link to some publications talking about these, although I don't think he's cited them here.
Obviously the rate of transmission for an airborne virus is mitigated by limited interactions with people and spaces.
That's a very vague statement, but generally reflective of the level of most people's understanding of this stuff. Limiting interaction and lockdowns do not mean the same thing, and not all limited interaction matters equally in terms of slowing community spread.
It's common sense that more people would have died without lockdowns, and all the data seems to confirm that. But even if we don't accept that and believe only the same amount of people would have died regardless, we know 535,000 have perished in the US with draconian lockdowns and mask mandates in place. So without those things, the same amount of people or more would have died at a faster rate. This would have very likely put strain on hospitals and other industries like morgues and emergency services. It's easy to say that would all be "worth it" in hindsight without having to go through it. Los Angeles and some other places got a glimpse of what that could have been like and it was not pretty. The value we place on lives vs. money is never consistent among civilians or politicians. All bias.
Essentially every claim that you made in this post is wrong. No evidence exists to support the proposition that lockdowns saved a single life. What the data actually say is that outcomes are all over the place no matter what the state did. There aren't even credible correlation studies that pass minimal scrutiny that support the claim that lockdowns saved lives, although there are several that try. They typically cite state-by-state comparisons, relying on manipulated data-sets that support their claims and ignore entirely those that disprove.
But, from a common sense perspective, consider the difference between upstate/rural New York and Manhattan. Would you expect the level of human interaction in rural upstate NY to be the same as that of Midtown? No. The reason is because of differences in population density. In the less densely populated areas of upstate NY, COVID spread at about the same rate in upstate NY as it did in states that never "locked down," whereas in NYC it spread rapidly. Exceptions to this really only exist where one of three things happened:
1. Hospital admissions policies resulted in higher COVID exposure during the pandemic's earliest stages, which is very similar to what took place in Italy (and the reason why Italy had such egregious outcomes despite its NPIs);
2. Cuomo's policy of sending virus-shedding COVID patients to certain nursing homes in NY state; and
3. Volunteers who went to NYC at the height of everything, who contracted COVID, and thereafter brought it back to less populated areas upon their return home.
Moreover, even if we were going to make sweeping and unsupported claims about COVID deaths, your analysis cannot be limited to only the amount of COVID fatalities you think that lockdowns saved (assuming you could make such an estimation). You would need, at least, to also consider the number of deaths that might result from lockdowns themselves, such as preventable deaths due to the lack of receipt of routine health care (e.g., heart attacks, cancer, etc.). It doesn't seem like you thought about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I'm sure YYW would agree with me on that statement as well at #24
I hold Pritzker in the utmost level of contempt.
Created:
Posted in:
A couple of things to consider:
There are some characters who are abnormally highly educated in very niche things, like knowledge of Nietzsche. To the point that one character will be quoting Nietzsche almost word-for-word from the original German, and the book doesn't acknowledge it. In one of the editions, Mitchell acknowledges this in the forward.
The audiobook is, I think, easier to follow than some of the chapters. When Zachry is talking, for example, it's easier to follow if you're hearing it rather than reading it.
But yes, the character arc of Dr. Henry Goose's soul, as it is reincarnated through the hotel manager, Isaac Sachs, Dermot Hoggins, and finally Zachry is pretty incredible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Is he actually arguing that lockdowns are effective? I haven't been following the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Aren't you the one who goes around claiming to be an amazing debater for forum arguments?
He is. He's from Texas. They're special down there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
As if Mr. Potato Head and Dr. Seuss weren’t bad enough, yesterday Jim Jordan and Ken Buck sent a letter to Amazon demanding answers on why certain products were pulled off their website, claiming a pattern of anti conservative bias. Cancel culture has become a right wing obsession as of late, but it’s purely a product of the free market. Do conservatives still believe in it? If so, what exactly is supposed to be done about it and why do republican politicians seem to expect that you will vote for them over this?
You might take a look at this:
This too: Dave Chappelle is my all time favorite comedian
And this: Sarah Silverman is ok too
This also: Bill Burr hits the nail on the head
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well yeah... I blocked him a few weeks ago when he called me a liar. He can find his edification from someone else.
It doesn't really matter to me. I just don't really see the point in talking to someone in his situation. Although I am genuinely amused by the fact that I have a pretty good idea what his public school situation is like.
One of my friends from high school is now a math teacher in northwest Texas, where the kind of attitude he is displaying here is not tolerated. Very conservative area that kind of got stuck in the past.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There used to be a social consequence for disrespecting elders, namely, the denial of collaborative participation where the rude person isn't allowed to learn from their elders. Today there are no consequences for bad behavior.
Well, he does have one penalty: He doesn't get to talk with me about something he actually wants to talk about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Surrogacy just creeps me out. It's something my ex boyfriend and I seriously discussed (like for years in the future) because we both agreed that at some point in our lives we wanted kids, but I could not go that route.
That being said, it is prohibitively complicated to adopt as a gay couple even in liberal cities. Which is one of the greatest tragedies of our time.
There are no shortage of gay/lesbian couples out there that would make fantastic parents, yet somehow if you don't fit the mold you still get looks.
I think in some countries like Canada and Northern Europe it's easier, but in the US it's tens of thousands of dollars in fees, more paperwork than a tax lawyer would have to file and a level of intrusion into your life and affairs that is beyond unreasonable.
Meanwhile, they hand off kids to straight evangelicals that wind up abusing them left and right.
Created:
Posted in:
Theweakeredge says:
Lemme guess, you like Ben Shapiro too?
Nope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
transgenderism likely IS a mental disorder.
It turns out that the predicate for even being eligible for so called "hormone replacement therapy" and "gender re-assignment surgery" is a gender dysphoria diagnosis.
If being trans isn't a psychiatric disorder, then I've got bad news for all those "born in the wrong body" types that want to chemically or surgically alter their anatomy. Because they'll be paying for that out of pocket, which is prohibitively expensive for pretty much anyone whose last name isn't Pritzker.
Created:
Posted in:
I think we both know that if you used that kind of language in school, they'd send you to the principal's office to get swats. Is this your only outlet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Just about an hour ago the Catholic Church decreed there would be no blessing for same sex marriages.saying : "ruling that partnerships between homosexuals are “not ordered to the Creator’s plan.”...
I don't think anyone was surprised by this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't mind that he's animated and kind of a brat. I'm sure if he's in school in Texas, he's been paddled more than several times (and will likely be paddled more than several more throughout the course of his time in school). That might sort him out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree, I was particularly moved when he discussed the emotions involved with raising a family.
He reminds me of a guy I dated in college.
Does Rubin have kids? Did he adopt? I didn't realize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The school system has taught the children to be complete brats to the elders.
I wouldn't exactly call myself an "elder." But the tenor of this other guy's attitude is amusing to me. He wants to discuss these issues at the level of "defund the police," without a thought for what happens next on the assumption that somehow doing "something" is necessary going to improve the situation.
He also didn't read my thread with Double R, which he should.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What is your opinion of Dave Rubin?
I think he's kind of a moron, but he has a nice "everyman" quality to him. I also like to see gay guys think about politics outside of the little boxes that leftists try to put us in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
coal/YYW's
YYW is dead. Coal is an obsolete energy source.
Created: