Flat Earther v Heliocentric Enthusiast

[theCapraAegagrus]

Alright, so, two of my closest friends have kinda brought me into the Flat Earth discussion.

One of them has been bashing Flat Earthers on Facebook for a few years. It infuriates him and I completely understand. He's not an intellectual by any means, so for something like this to bother him, it takes a lot of collected stupidity to do so.

My best friend has been showing me videos of debates, which seriously blows my mind and really does piss me off to my core, and recently videos of guys hilariously insulting them when they gather in one place.

They call people who understand reality and science "heliocentric enthusiasts". Last night, briefly thinking about this entire topic, I have 1 question for them that I don't think they can circumvent with alleged "common sense". They claim that the poles aren't just at the North and South extremes of the globe, but are entirely surrounding the "flat circular Earth". If this is the case, then how, if you fly directly along the equator, do you never encounter an "end"..?

Is anyone else here aware of this phenomenon of stupidity continually increasing in popularity and support? I feel that very soon these people will be watering plants with Gatorade. It's what plants crave.

[Bradius]

The Earth, flat or not, is full of people with ideas and concepts that boggle the mind. There is no point in trying to argue or reason with them. Ignore them and move on to something worthwhile.

Now, if they talk about the vibrating super-string origami earth theory, then that is different. That might hold water...or not.

By the way, I haven't actually tried it, but I don't thing a magnetic field can hold up water, even if their are trace amounts of metal in it.

That said, a strong enough magnetic field might allow reality to be distorted enough for someone with a very small brain to...

[ICantShuffle]

Sorry to possibly resurrect an old thread, but:

Hmm, this is interesting, I seem to notice that Flat Earthers are becoming the enemy du jour. I feel quite indifferently about them, unless I know them personally and they've done something actually offensive.

From my understanding of Flat Earth, it was actually meant to be a society of skeptics. There's a coffee house that's open 24 hours that I like to hang out at frequently. One night I was hanging out and this man approached us (probably because of the reading materials we had-- not flat earth related) and asked if we were "here for the meetup group." Basically, we said no, but invited him to join us anyway, apparently his group never ended up meeting. I think it ended up being about 4 hours of conversation-- I asked a lot of questions about Flat Earth and most of it seems focused on the mental exercises rooted in epistemology. In that it focuses on challenging a held belief, any given belief. The spherical Earth is just the easiest one because it is one of the most fundamental assumptions any of us that have not actually been into space and observed it from there personally hold and the evidence is multi-disciplinary/multi-faceted. He was actually a pretty intelligent and well-read guy. That has been my general experience with Flat Earthers.

It goes something like this: with your given example, I would take the David Hume approach-- have you flown along the equator and not reached an end, yourself? If not, you're operating on an assumption that: 1) your theoretical knowledge is in fact, reality, and not just an abstraction or interpretation of an external, objective reality, which could be incorrect or incomplete; 2) you (specifically you, not the generalized second person) have no experiential evidence or past occurrence of this phenomenon and 3) without number 2, you're relying on faith that number 1 shares a relationship of causality with your predicted result.

I'm not saying I actually disagree with you. I also believe the Earth is an oblate spheroid and, that, many other observable phenomena from the surface of it seem to jive with that belief (apparent retrograde movement of planets in the night sky visible to the naked eye, for example).

The best example I can give off the top of my head would be gravity. All of us in this thread have probably had some experience with it in the past, we've tripped and fallen at some point, or dropped/spilled something and this has happened repeatedly. So, it's not exactly an act of faith to say that this phenomenon we call gravity causes objects to move towards the surface of the earth at a predictable rate. However, that does not mean that our understanding of gravity as a phenomenon is at all correct or complete (especially not when you are talking about individual to individual). To my, albeit layman's, understanding we cannot describe what gravity is, that is to say it's "quiddity," we observe its effects, but we don't know what it is. We understand on a macro-scale its relationship to mass, but essentially gravity is still, to humanity, the value we plug in to equations that make them work, until we observe some condition that it doesn't work or returns a null result. So, the gravity "debate" is still a "debate." But, maybe in the not too distance future, when there is a unified field theory, would we be taking pride or feeling righteous in insulting other human beings for asking the question "hey, maybe we missed something?" Or, would it just be something fun to talk about?

I think that Flat Earth was originally meant to promote the kind of thinking that the scientific method was developed to produce. Skepticism of held belief, so that evidence might be evaluated with as little bias as possible. That would ultimately produce better, more accurate ways of describing/predicted observed phenomena. I think some people do it to sort of philosophically deconstruct themselves.

I'm not saying all Flat Earthers are just philosophy majors or out of work, temporarily embarrassed, physicists or astronomers. I'm sure there are many that see it as a religious belief or something more than a mental exercise. I actually kind of find it funny, because those people actually are a "parody by opposition" to all of the "I effing love science" people out there. You know the ones, they wear the Einstein or Tesla t-shirts, and prattle on about string theory or whatever the latest Michio Kaku book is about-- as if it were the word of god to them, appropriately interpreted by the clergy, of course.

Anyway, that's my fitty cents.

[Lotrek]

When it comes to stupidity, the possibilities are endless. If you try to talk using logic, you're lost.
In Greece there is a "movement" of people in debt to banks, tax authorities etc, around a guy who one day appeared from nowhere and said that he possesses stocks of the "Banque d' Orient" (a Bank that doesn't exist since the early 30's) that their value is 600 billion euros! He promised to pay Greece's debt with this money. Despite the fact that this guy (now in jail) being supposedly that rich was asking from his followers monthly donations, he managed to have about 10000 sworn jerks as loyal followers who still believe that his imprisonment was a Jewish conspiracy. For those that may be surprised, in Greece is very popular among the retarded people the belief that Jews want to destroy Greece.
So, compared to all this, flat earthers seem to be just a harmless deviation from logic

[theCapraAegagrus]

There's a massive, massive difference between a Flat Earther and a skeptic. Every Flat Earth debate that I've seen has been a clash between reality and stupidity. Skepticism is something that I would never say is inherently bad.

Gravity is definitely something that isn't a 100%-quantified science. It is a science that we understand relatively well, though. It requires multiple sciences to explain, and even then, it isn't entirely explained. Many, many, way too many Flat Earthers flat-out deny gravity's reality. They don't have any science to support an alternative explanation to the phenomenon that we call gravity, though.

[PipChick]

When it comes to stupidity, the possibilities are endless. If you try to talk using logic, you're lost.
...
So, compared to all this, flat earthers seem to be just a harmless deviation from logic

I have similar sentiments when it comes to the anti-vaxxers / "natural" medicine / homeopathy movement / etc; to my knowledge, flat earthers at least aren't actively putting the rest of society at risk of harm with their ignorance so I don't even consider giving them the time of day to acknowledge whatever absurd thought process behind their "reasoning" because even that is giving 'em a grossly unwarranted platform in which to spew & spread their vicious, anti-intellectualism & scientifically illiterate nonsense; but people behind other, much more dangerous movements, specifically those I referred to above, should absolutely be silenced and, if need be, jailed for their BS as was the case with this Greek guy Lotrek referred to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom of speech and wouldn't take the suggestion of depriving anyone of this right lightly, but there needs to be some line of censorship in which to hold these conspiracy theory nutcases that are leading such movements legally responsible for the dissemination of this kind of detrimental misinformation & defamation of others with false claims - fundamentally, what they're doing is inciting war against public health that is literally threatening innocent lives of the less informed that are incapable of protecting themselves (both followers & non-followers alike), and as a society, I don't believe we should be standing idly by to allow that to happen under the guised protection of free speech. There's absolutely no value or public interest in perpetuating false statements as fact, even if presented only as "personal opinion", but in these cases, it's not just stupid; it's a very tangible threat that should not be acceptable or allowed.

For most that actually know me, know that I'm usually pretty chill and really quite tolerant of a lot of stuff/opinions that differ from my own, but this kinda shit I just can't stand; so sorry if I strayed a bit away from the whole Flat-Earthers topic, but again, I think there's many more and much more dangerous movements out there that should be addressed before being distracted by this sorta nonsense

[ICantShuffle]

I'm just not sure how people voicing an opinion is inherently harmful or causing direct harm. Even if it's "anti-vaxxers." Now, if say, one of these groups were to call for direct and specific violence against a manufacturer or person distributing the vaccines, that would be different. That's where your free speech rights end and someone else's right to self-defense/safety begin.

Let me break this down a bit further:

I think calling these people "anti-science" or "peddlers of disinformation" is intellectually dishonest and a pattern I see quite frequently occurring because people like to oversimplify rather complex phenomena (anti-vaxxers are just the flavor of the month example). I'm not an epidemiologist myself, but I do know how to read, and I would say that there are quite a few valid (raised by people like chemists and pathologists) concerns that individuals should have with vaccines-- and keep in mind that just like everything else there's profit motive in manufacturing and distribution of vaccines. However, I think that the immediate threat posed by potentially debilitating or lethal infections outweigh the risks associated with the vaccines themselves. That's a conclusion I came to concerning my own assessment of available information, because we all have our own agency as individuals. Just because someone says something, does not immediately produce some irresistible force that then compels other people to do something.

There were actually quite a few studies funded by NIH and private interests regarding ingredients used in vaccines that were shown to have significant clinical dangers and related increases in overall lifetime morbidity rates, since the 1970s, a lot of research has actually been done on this subject. Many of them were funded and performed because people raised concerns and remained skeptical about the long-term health effects of vaccines. This has led to regulatory bodies in the U.S. (and abroad) prohibiting the use of such ingredients in the manufacture of vaccines. So, in effect, the fact that people do raise concerns and public awareness has actually made vaccines safer and, presumably, continue to.

So, yeah, there is actually a social benefit to allowing largely unrestricted free speech-- even if you think someone is stupid or wrong. No one is compelled to follow anything, unless they choose to.

I would also like to point out that there's a difference between committing bank/wire/mail fraud by making claims of rights to property that they don't own in order to influence investors' or creditors' risk decisions when evaluating a potential investment and voicing a personally held belief in a public forum with no personal financial gain.

[Lotrek]

Freedom of speech unfortunately comes with freedom of stupidity. You cannot force someone to think logically and you cannot also ban them from expressing their beliefs no matter how outrageous they are -racist, sexist and hate speech of course is an exception.
Everyone is responsible for what they believe though. If I believe someone who claims that the Earth is flat, I'm also responsible for passing on the nonsense. Everybody knows that Earth is triangular and slightly curved.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Sorry, not sorry, but Flat Earthers and anti-vaccination individuals are, factually, anti-science and typically peddlers of dishonesty.

Most "anti-vaxxers" read an article, fall into a "medical research hole", and come to one of the most idiotic anti-science conclusions you could ever fathom in the modern world. There is a plethora, the majority in fact, of misrepresented information spread throughout the internet regarding vaccinations. You do not become a doctor or expert in modern medicine by reading unreliably-sourced blogs for a few hours. If you want to see the evidence of vaccination effectiveness and impact go read the headstones of the dozens of children that early 20th century parents had to bury. People had 20 children because the majority of them would die before they aged in double-digits. If you want your child to die from polio then take your kid to Antarctica, and let it happen in isolation, Karen.

The desire to encourage the free speech of stupidity is a poor stance. The "respect other's thoughts and opinions" outlook is what drives this world into pure Idiocracy. These people should, and need to be, criticized. There are swing thinkers in droves. The increased potential of them being influenced by a stupid thought and/or idea is degradation for humanity. Screw "don't hurt anyone's feelings" and all that SJW BS. The power of belief is one thing, suspending understanding and/or realization of science is another.

[STLBluesNut]

cannot also ban them from expressing their beliefs no matter how outrageous they are -racist, sexist and hate speech of course is an exception. .

You cannot ban them from expressing those either, in America anyway. People can say pretty much anything they like. You just have to know there may be repercussions to saying said things. Loss of business, loss of respect, getting popped in the mouth, etc.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ICantShuffle]

Sorry, not sorry, but Flat Earthers and anti-vaccination individuals are, factually, anti-science and typically peddlers of dishonesty.

...You do not become a doctor or expert in modern medicine by reading unreliably-sourced blogs for a few hours.

Careful about painting with such a broad brush. I don't think anyone is claiming to be a doctor. I don't consider the National Institute of Health's curated database of peer-reviewed reports and findings of medical professionals (clinicians and researchers) an unreliably sourced blog, but okay whatever keeps your boat afloat. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Also, your implied argument is based on a fallacy, appeal to authority. For someone that touts themselves as rationally minded, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on epistemological methods. No offense.

The desire to encourage the free speech of stupidity is a poor stance.

I encourage free speech without qualifiers. Do you consider yourself an objective arbiter of what is and isn't "stupid?"

Is it "stupid" or is it prudent to be at least somewhat questioning of people, they might even be well-paid or have spent a lot of time being told what materials to read to reach that position, when they introduce foreign substances into your body?

So far, I've seen you present a lot of platitudes and a repeating mantra "their claims are anti-science." In fact, what you said is actually a misrepresentation of the "anti-vaxxer" argument (at least anyone's that I'm aware of that hold any credibility), i.e. you're arguing against a strawman:

If you want to see the evidence of vaccination effectiveness and impact go read the headstones of the dozens of children that early 20th century parents had to bury. People had 20 children because the majority of them would die before they aged in double-digits. If you want your child to die from polio then take your kid to Antarctica, and let it happen in isolation, Karen.

From what I've seen, the anti-vaccination argument isn't against their effectiveness at preventing diseases that they're intended to increase immunity against (at least in the short term, more on that below). The argument is that there are a lot of variables, including ingredients used to make the vaccines that there has been very little study (until more recently, the last two or three decades) on their long term health effects and possible causes of morbidity (not just death). Also, referring back to the effectiveness of increased immunity: so far we've only really seen about two generations in most of the industrialized world that has had varying levels of vaccinations (pretty much everyone on this board that went to school in the U.S. has had the MMR, but I was old enough I never received the pox vaccine and I had it as a kid, so I already produce the antibodies for it)-- we're not certain as to the long term effectiveness as we see genomes mutate. The best historical example of this is the bubonic and pneumonic plague vaccine-- first developed in 1897, it's no longer administered because the vaccine was not statistically effective against the pneumonic plague. However, there are newer attenuated live vaccines that are more effective against the pneumonic plague.

Continuing on with the plague example, your argument is further weakened by other related facts. The bubonic plague was largely ended as an epidemic, not by vaccines, but by improving overall hygiene and, thus, preventing means of transmission. How does this relate to your example? Look at pre-1930s hygienic practices, pre-and-post natal care, and compare them to today. Also, proliferation of antibiotics allowed post-hoc treatment of many otherwise-death-sentence infectious diseases that (even today) aren't vaccinated for. Vaccines enhance our ability to interrupt the transmission chain, but they do very little by themselves. Again, going to go back to this habit people have of oversimplifying complex phenomena.

I'm not saying vaccines are a bad idea, but also ridiculing people because they don't share your true unquestioning faith of strangers, is pretty ridiculous.

Would you consider any of what I presented above to be "anti-science," or would it simply be using our current knowledge base to ask questions to expand said knowledge base using the scientific method?

The "respect other's thoughts and opinions" outlook is what drives this world into pure Idiocracy.

You seem to be purposefully misinterpreting the argument being made. You don't have to respect someone else's opinion, sound or not. What you do have to respect is another individual's right, and unless another individual's speech is directly harmful to you (i.e. specific threats of violence or defamation) then it's protected.

In fact, what we have in this thread is a perfect example of exercising free speech. You're perfectly allowed to ridicule others, but I mean, I'm sorry that you're getting upset because not everyone is just going along with your attempt to further convince yourself of your own superiority. It's a two way street.

The power of belief is one thing, suspending understanding and/or realization of science is another.

You seem to have this weird conceptualization of "science" as a belief system or set of core beliefs or moral instructions. Science is none of these things. It's a method. A method to provide a means, within the constraints of our limited perceptions as biological organisms with many inherent biases, to attempt to describe or understand an objective external reality. That descriptive understanding is continuously changing.

I also just like playing devil's advocate.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Sorry, not sorry, but Flat Earthers and anti-vaccination individuals are, factually, anti-science and typically peddlers of dishonesty.

...You do not become a doctor or expert in modern medicine by reading unreliably-sourced blogs for a few hours.

Careful about painting with such a broad brush. I don't think anyone is claiming to be a doctor. I don't consider the National Institute of Health's curated database of peer-reviewed reports and findings of medical professionals (clinicians and researchers) an unreliably sourced blog, but okay whatever keeps your boat afloat. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.)

Also, your implied argument is based on a fallacy, appeal to authority. For someone that touts themselves as rationally minded, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on epistemological methods. No offense.

The desire to encourage the free speech of stupidity is a poor stance.

I encourage free speech without qualifiers. Do you consider yourself an objective arbiter of what is and isn't "stupid?"

Is it "stupid" or is it prudent to be at least somewhat questioning of people, they might even be well-paid or have spent a lot of time being told what materials to read to reach that position, when they introduce foreign substances into your body?

So far, I've seen you present a lot of platitudes and a repeating mantra "their claims are anti-science." In fact, what you said is actually a misrepresentation of the "anti-vaxxer" argument (at least anyone's that I'm aware of that hold any credibility), i.e. you're arguing against a strawman:

If you want to see the evidence of vaccination effectiveness and impact go read the headstones of the dozens of children that early 20th century parents had to bury. People had 20 children because the majority of them would die before they aged in double-digits. If you want your child to die from polio then take your kid to Antarctica, and let it happen in isolation, Karen.

From what I've seen, the anti-vaccination argument isn't against their effectiveness at preventing diseases that they're intended to increase immunity against (at least in the short term, more on that below). The argument is that there are a lot of variables, including ingredients used to make the vaccines that there has been very little study (until more recently, the last two or three decades) on their long term health effects and possible causes of morbidity (not just death). Also, referring back to the effectiveness of increased immunity: so far we've only really seen about two generations in most of the industrialized world that has had varying levels of vaccinations (pretty much everyone on this board that went to school in the U.S. has had the MMR, but I was old enough I never received the pox vaccine and I had it as a kid, so I already produce the antibodies for it)-- we're not certain as to the long term effectiveness as we see genomes mutate. The best historical example of this is the bubonic and pneumonic plague vaccine-- first developed in 1897, it's no longer administered because the vaccine was not statistically effective against the pneumonic plague. However, there are newer attenuated live vaccines that are more effective against the pneumonic plague.

Continuing on with the plague example, your argument is further weakened by other related facts. The bubonic plague was largely ended as an epidemic, not by vaccines, but by improving overall hygiene and, thus, preventing means of transmission. How does this relate to your example? Look at pre-1930s hygienic practices, pre-and-post natal care, and compare them to today. Also, proliferation of antibiotics allowed post-hoc treatment of many otherwise-death-sentence infectious diseases that (even today) aren't vaccinated for. Vaccines enhance our ability to interrupt the transmission chain, but they do very little by themselves. Again, going to go back to this habit people have of oversimplifying complex phenomena.

I'm not saying vaccines are a bad idea, but also ridiculing people because they don't share your true unquestioning faith of strangers, is pretty ridiculous.

Would you consider any of what I presented above to be "anti-science," or would it simply be using our current knowledge base to ask questions to expand said knowledge base using the scientific method?

The "respect other's thoughts and opinions" outlook is what drives this world into pure Idiocracy.

You seem to be purposefully misinterpreting the argument being made. You don't have to respect someone else's opinion, sound or not. What you do have to respect is another individual's right, and unless another individual's speech is directly harmful to you (i.e. specific threats of violence or defamation) then it's protected.

In fact, what we have in this thread is a perfect example of exercising free speech. You're perfectly allowed to ridicule others, but I mean, I'm sorry that you're getting upset because not everyone is just going along with your attempt to further convince yourself of your own superiority. It's a two way street.

The power of belief is one thing, suspending understanding and/or realization of science is another.

You seem to have this weird conceptualization of "science" as a belief system or set of core beliefs or moral instructions. Science is none of these things. It's a method. A method to provide a means, within the constraints of our limited perceptions as biological organisms with many inherent biases, to attempt to describe or understand an objective external reality. That descriptive understanding is continuously changing.

I also just like playing devil's advocate.

The "appeal to authority" hot phrase of the week, really..? I'll continue discussing, despite the fact that this term does nothing to actually describe myself or my outlook on this topic. Do you not find it ironic that people who think they know better than doctors, scientists, and police, continually use this phrase, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with "appealing to authority"? That response is an attempted wet blanket to deflect from the fact that the authority exists for a reason. Support of it isn't inherently blind, and "repeal to authority" does nothing to expand on support (or rebellion) of authority.

Yes, I am an objective arbiter of what is and is not stupid. Stupid is as stupid does, and says, and thinks. How can you seriously even sit there and defend stupidity? Again, without deflecting to some debate about "questioning authority". Stop introducing strawmen. Either you're defending stupidity or you're not. How is using scientific and historical evidence to support the scientific claims and impact of vaccinations a strawman..? "From what you've seen" is enough for me here. If you haven't been in the "trenches" of an anti-vaccination discussion, then you're speculating. I have experience in this 100% stupid debate.

If you don't think that stupidity, the rebellion of science and the spread of that stupidity isn't inherently harmful, then go ahead and live a life doing nothing to make the Flat Earth and humanity a better place. The assertion that stupid thoughts, ideas, and misinformation is not harmful is dangerously ignorant. Stupid is a stupid does. Stupid thoughts lead to stupid actions. "Allowing" people to be stupid is a bad idea. Timmy shouldn't be allowed to think that 2 + 2 = 5. Free speech is fine. When you allow that free speech to be "weaponized" in a campaign where people will certainly die (anti-vaccination)...

I certainly won't tell an anti-vaccination idiot what to do. I wish that I could ignore their stupidity, allow their kid to get sick, and their bloodlines cease to impact society. Fact is, though, that the outcome may not affect more than just that family and just that child. So, for the better of humanity, it's in 'our' best interests to tell them what to do and be bothered if they don't recognize the science and positive impact that their thoughts and actions have on our society.

You seem to have this weird misinterpretation that I think science is a system of belief. That is the furthest thing from what I communicated. Science is not a concept. Scientific concepts are theories. You seem to be breaking down into the "language" argument that every losing debate comes to. Just because something can't be 100% interpreted into the English language does not discredit it's reality.

[PipChick]

I'm just not sure how people voicing an opinion is inherently harmful or causing direct harm.

Before blindly believing that voicing an opinion is "harmless", just take a look at the countless examples throughout ancient, modern and recent history, my friend. Of course, there are varying degrees of danger and harm, and sometimes the effect an opinion may or may not have can be both intended to cause direct or indirect harm, or, in some cases, not intended to cause harm at all (but that doesn't dismiss the fact that it may and/or does).

Okay, I've digressed; but as my post stated, I'm not at all suggesting censorship of just anyone voicing any opinion at just any time/place; I specified those that are publically leading such movements. And as with the example of anti-vaxxers; yes, they are calling for direct harm, not only in risking their own child's/children's health and life, but also others in the community that are immunodeficient/compromised by insisting that parents choose not to vaccinate. It threatens the overall health and safety of herd immunity not just for those at risk but society as a whole and no matter what benefits the skepticism of this particular movement may or may not have subjectively offered, it will never outweigh the greater good of keeping populations safe from the spread of communicable life-threatening diseases through the trusted tried, tested and true practice of vaccination.

With that said, I didn't intend for this example to derail the thread into a debate over vaccines or homeopathic medicine or whatever other issues driven by conspiracy theory movements - it was only intended to provide another example of how some movements are more dangerous to society and warrant more concern than others (like those belonging to Flat Earthers).

But since this discussion has seemed to devolve into a debate of free speech more or less, I'll try to wrap this up with just a bit of food for thought in regards to opinion and expressing it.

It seems we often hear any retort to even a slightly controversial issue to be somewhere along the lines of "I'm entitled to my opinion" which, to me, has become a lazy shorthand phrase for "I can think, believe and say whatever I damn well please" - this alone I have no objection to (people can believe/think whatever they want and are free to do so - no argument here) but what I've noticed is that people fail to acknowledge that the thing about opinions, unlike hard facts backed up by science and/or mounting evidence, is that there's always going to be some degree of subjectivity and/or uncertainty, and because of such, some opinions hold a greater degree of accuracy or fallacy than others. Just because everyone is "entitled to their opinion" doesn't mean that one person's opinion is of equal value to another person's and therefore, shouldn't/cannot be held to and regarded as the same, equal level of serious consideration no matter how entitle someone feels they are to it. And when two opposing viewpoints that are of unequal value are presented equally in an effort to remain falsely neutral or unbiased in any kind of discussion, this is a form of propagating misinformation because it's allowing viewers/readers/whoever to assume that both viewpoints are equally valid when they are not.

Now, when we look at the issue of free speech, this all gets a bit muddled because not only do we have all these subjectively unequally valued opinions flying about in which everyone demands equal consideration of, but also other factors that can greatly affect the authority/power of such opinions and often artificially hyper-inflates their value - things like influence, reputation, education, wealth, fame, etc. And, unfortunately, there are many MANY people that can and do exploit the authority/power these factors have granted them to not only lead such movements, but also extort money from it's followers, as some regard these factors as validation for their meritless opinions - such examples I can think of off the top of my head are Dr. Oz and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Now I agree that we all have our own agency to make our own choices - if Gwyneth Paltrow tells me to jump off a bridge, doesn't by any means require that I actually have to do it and I, and I alone, make the decision to actually do so, if I so desire to - but in the case of vaccinations (not to bring this back up, but it is just a perfect example), babies/children do not have that autonomy (cognitively/competently nor legally) to make those choices for themselves and must rely on the judgment of their parents, regardless of how ill-informed they are. And by giving such figures a public platform to so widely indoctrinate the masses with their misinformed opinions/stances on such issues, I think, is socially irresponsible knowing the critical repercussions of taking the very actions these people are encouraging. Again, everyone is "entitled to their own opinions" but this doesn't excuse them from the burden of responsibility in the potentially dangerous/harmful consequences expressing those opinions have. This is where I believe the line needs to be drawn. What people discuss in the privacy of their own homes doesn't concern me in the slightest - be as racist, sexist, homophobic, anti- whatever as you want and openly share your beliefs/opinions, whatever they may be on whatever issues, with whomever you'd like; but what is publically propagated to the masses can, as history has shown time and time again, be dangerous and there should be some level of defense against such to protect society as a whole, especially when it's encouraging actions that threaten the health and safety of others.

In Germany we have a pretty common phrase that greatly governs the issue surrounding free speech: "Die Freiheit des einen endet dort, wo die Freiheit des anderen beginnt" or sometimes also phrased as "Die Freiheit des einen hört da auf, wo das Recht des anderen beginnt". Some even go as far to metaphorically describe this rhetoric as the right to swing one's fist ends where another man's nose begins lol.

Anyways, it actually translates to "the freedom of one ends where the freedom/rights of another begins"; this rhetoric is also carried over to the freedom of speech in that your right to express whatever beliefs you may hold ends at the point in which it begins to express ideas or opinions that impede, or even suggest to impede, on any other person's freedom/rights. For this reason, the laws here are much, MUCH more strict when it comes to such things like hate speech for example as many of the laws surrounding such matters were specifically created for, well, nazis (maybe you've heard that there's been some trouble in the past regarding that here in Germany? and guess what, it all started from expressing opinions - yup) So, unlike in the States, much of the speech used to promote the beliefs and opinions held by proud and out white supremacists, is illegal. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen nor that we don't have such people walking among us in society, just that their right to publicly express such opinions is not protected by the law, and so much of it is done covertly (which one could also argue is even more dangerous - which is a completely other issue not up for debate at this time - but at least it's not spreading such ideas with the intention of influencing the masses as it has once been done so before in the past to detrimental ends).

But for me, any speech that also threatens public health and can/does literally lead to the indiscriminate loss of innocent lives (again, as in the case of willfully choosing not to vaccinate) should also be covered because we all deserve the same basic human right of life by not being threatened with the risk of deadly communicable diseases. If an unvaccinated child, or another individual not at all affiliated with the anti-vaxxer movement, dies unnecessarily as a result of contracting an illness because some idiot parent decided against it, and even though it was indirect and unintentional, is that still not murder? Was this innocent person not striped of their right to live? And if so, who should be held responsible? For me, I personally believe it should be the leaders of such movements that have encouraged the actions that set this whole thing into motion through their influence and mass public propagation. But that's just my opinion and I'm not really here to discuss it further; just some food for thought as it relates to opinions, expressing them and, as I try to use this example to further clarify, of how unconditionally protecting such expression of opinions under the right of free speech in some cases can be threatening/harmful/dangerous to the greater good of society as a whole.

Now that I've exhaustively expressed myself and my own opinions on the matter (ones that I can confidently affirm would be quite difficult to sway me from considering my background in healthcare), I have literally nothing more to add to this discussion. Peace out!

[51problems]

I'm just not sure how people voicing an opinion is inherently harmful or causing direct harm.

Before blindly believing that voicing an opinion is "harmless", just take a look at the countless examples throughout ancient, modern and recent history, my friend. Of course, there's very levels of danger and harm, and sometimes the effect an opinion may or may not have can be both intended to cause direct or indirect harm, or, in some cases, not intended to cause harm at all (but that doesn't dismiss the fact that it may and/or does).

Okay, I've digressed; but as my post stated, I'm not at all suggesting censorship of just anyone voicing any opinion at just any time/place; I specified those that are publically leading such movements. And as with the example of anti-vaxxers; yes, they are calling for direct harm, not only in risking their own child's/children's health and life, but also others in the community that are immunodeficient/compromised by insisting that parents choose not to vaccinate. It threatens the overall health and safety of herd immunity not just for those at risk but society as a whole and no matter what benefits the skepticism of this particular movement may or may not have subjectively offered, it will never outweigh the greater good of keeping populations safe from the spread of communicable life-threatening diseases through the trusted tried, tested and true practice of vaccination.

With that said, I didn't intend for this example to derail the thread into a debate over vaccines or homeopathic medicine or whatever other issues driven by conspiracy theory movements - it was only intended to provide another example of how some movements are more dangerous to society and warrant more concern than others (like those belonging to Flat Earthers).

But since this discussion has seemed to devolve into a debate of free speech more or less, I'll try to wrap this up with just a bit of food for thought in regards to opinion and expressing it.

It seems we often hear any retort to even a slightly controversial issue to be somewhere along the lines of "I'm entitled to my opinion" which, to me, has become a lazy shorthand phrase for "I can think, believe and say whatever I damn well please" - this alone I have no objection to (people can believe/think whatever they want and are free to do so - no argument here) but what I've noticed is that people fail to acknowledge that the thing about opinions, unlike hard facts backed up by science and/or mounting evidence, is that there's always going to be some degree of subjectivity and/or uncertainty, and because of such, some opinions hold a greater degree of accuracy or fallacy than others. Just because everyone is "entitled to their opinion" doesn't mean that one person's opinion is of equal value to another person's and therefore, shouldn't/cannot be held to and regarded as the same, equal level of serious consideration no matter how entitle someone feels they are to it. And when two opposing viewpoints that are of unequal value are presented equally in an effort to remain falsely neutral or unbiased in any kind of discussion, this is a form of propagating misinformation because it's allowing viewers/readers/whoever to assume that both viewpoints are equally valid when they are not.

Now, when we look at the issue of free speech, this all gets a bit muddled because not only do we have all these subjectively unequally valued opinions flying about in which everyone demands equal consideration of, but also other factors that can greatly affect the authority/power of such opinions and often artificially hyper-inflates their value - things like influence, reputation, education, wealth, fame, etc. And, unfortunately, there are many MANY people that can and do exploit the authority/power these factors have granted them to not only lead such movements, but also extort money from it's followers, as some regard these factors as validation for their meritless opinions - such examples I can think of off the top of my head are Dr. Oz and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Now I agree that we all have our own agency to make our own choices - if Gwyneth Paltrow tells me to jump off a bridge, doesn't by any means require that I actually have to do it and I, and I alone, make the decision to actually do so, if I so desire to - but in the case of vaccinations (not to bring this back up, but it is just a perfect example), babies/children do not have that autonomy (cognitively/competently nor legally) to make those choices for themselves and must rely on the judgment of their parents, regardless of how ill-informed they are. And by giving such figures a public platform to so widely indoctrinate the masses with their misinformed opinions/stances on such issues, I think, is socially irresponsible knowing the critical repercussions of taking the very actions these people are encouraging. Again, everyone is "entitled to their own opinions" but this doesn't excuse them from the burden of responsibility in the potentially dangerous/harmful consequences expressing those opinions have. This is where I believe the line needs to be drawn. What people discuss in the privacy of their own homes doesn't concern me in the slightest - be as racist, sexist, homophobic, anti- whatever as you want and openly share your beliefs/opinions, whatever they may be on whatever issues, with whomever you'd like; but what is publically propagated to the masses can, as history has shown time and time again, be dangerous and there should be some level of defense against such to protect society as a whole, especially when it's encouraging actions that threaten the health and safety of others.

In Germany we have a pretty common phrase that greatly governs the issue surrounding free speech: "Die Freiheit des einen endet dort, wo die Freiheit des anderen beginnt" or sometimes also phrased as "Die Freiheit des einen hört da auf, wo das Recht des anderen beginnt". Some even go as far to metaphorically describe this rhetoric as the right to swing one's fist ends where another man's nose begins lol.

Anyways, it actually translates to "the freedom of one ends where the freedom/rights of another begins"; this rhetoric is also carried over to the freedom of speech in that your right to express whatever beliefs you may hold ends at the point in which it begins to express ideas or opinions that impede, or even suggest to impede, on any other person's freedom/rights. For this reason, the laws here are much, MUCH more strict when it comes to such things like hate speech for example as many of the laws surrounding such matters were specifically created for, well, nazis (maybe you've heard that there's been some trouble in the past regarding that here in Germany? and guess what, it all started from expressing opinions - yup) So, unlike in the States, much of the speech used to promote the beliefs and opinions held by proud and out white supremacists, is illegal. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen nor that we don't have such people walking among us in society, just that their right to publicly express such opinions is not protected by the law, and so much of it is done covertly (which one could also argue is even more dangerous - which is a completely other issue not up for debate at this time - but at least it's not spreading such ideas with the intention of influencing the masses as it has once been done so before in the past to detrimental ends).

But for me, any speech that also threatens public health and can/does literally lead to the indiscriminate loss of innocent lives (again, as in the case of willfully choosing not to vaccinate) should also be covered because we all deserve the same basic human right of life by not being threatened with the risk of deadly communicable diseases. If an unvaccinated child, or another individual not at all affiliated with the anti-vaxxer movement, dies unnecessarily as a result of contracting an illness because some idiot parent decided against it, and even though it was indirect and unintentional, is that still not murder? Was this innocent person not striped of their right to live? And if so, who should be held responsible? For me, I personally believe it should be the leaders of such movements that have encouraged the actions that set this whole thing into motion through their influence and mass public propagation. But that's just my opinion and I'm not really here to discuss it further; just some food for thought as it relates to opinions, expressing them and, as I try to use this example to further clarify, of how unconditionally protecting such expression of opinions under the right of free speech in some cases can be threatening/harmful/dangerous to the greater good of society as a whole.

Now that I've exhaustively expressed myself and my own opinions on the matter (ones that I can confidently affirm would be quite difficult to sway me from considering my background in healthcare), I have literally nothing more to add to this discussion. Peace out!

You dropped that eloquent explanation and everything but the reason people put forth what they say as an opinion and not an argument is because they believe that opinions do not need to be defended. Basically the false equivalency that you mentioned. The people who argue these things believe that "I think vaccines cause autism" is on an equal level with "I think yellow is an ugly color". Usually falling back on Freedom of Expression when even the slightest whisper points out that idiocy. This cycle continues until the credible person is exhausted and gives up.

I leave you with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit# ... _principle

[theCapraAegagrus]

You dropped that eloquent explanation and everything but the reason people put forth what they say as an opinion and not an argument is because they believe that opinions do not need to be defended. Basically the false equivalency that you mentioned. The people who argue these things believe that "I think vaccines cause autism" is on an equal level with "I think yellow is an ugly color". Usually falling back on Freedom of Expression when even the slightest whisper points out that idiocy. This cycle continues until the credible person is exhausted and gives up.

I leave you with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit# ... _principle

A pretty nice post for your 1st. I can't disagree.

Welcome to the boards.

[ICantShuffle]

I'm going to respond in two posts, because I want to provide the same level of thoughfulness.

The "appeal to authority" hot phrase of the week, really..? I'll continue discussing, despite the fact that this term does nothing to actually describe myself or my outlook on this topic. Do you not find it ironic that people who think they know better than doctors, scientists, and police, continually use this phrase, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with "appealing to authority"? That response is an attempted wet blanket to deflect from the fact that the authority exists for a reason. Support of it isn't inherently blind, and "repeal to authority" does nothing to expand on support (or rebellion) of authority.

I guess I should have clarified, your example of someone "becoming a doctor" was what I was referring to as an appeal to authority. One doctor's, or group of doctors', claims or findings would and should be considered spurious unless subject to the peer-review process. This is why authority exists, peer-review which rejects or fails to reject some observation into its body of knowledge. Not because their observations mean anything on their own, because peer-review's a device that's supposed to minimize bias when evaluating results. It's also not, in and of itself, a guarantee or airtight. It can be subverted, and it can also serve to reinforce or perpetuate understanding that is incorrect, we've seen examples in the past (see "phrenology").

In this case both claims, "vaccinations reduce incidence of disease in a population" and "certain vaccines contain harmful ingredients" are both supported by credible, peer-reviewed research. However, these claims also aren't mutually exclusive. And, as far as repealing to authority, much of our advancement is due to re-evaluation of commonly held precepts-- an understanding that was largely supported by existing body of knowledge, but new observations challenge the validity of previous conclusions. Maybe I am misunderstanding your position, but if we were to silence or just ridicule those contrary to your position, we'd still be manufacturing and administering vaccines that pose their own risks to public health.

I guess I should have also made it a point to vocalize this point: What I think you're struggling (or interacting) with is an impotent movement that seems more influential or louder than it is because of amplification by social media. However, it also serves a tertiary function, it influences people opposed to the movement to subconsciously associate rational concerns of vaccine safety with those who have made their risk decision to not get vaccines at all-- which I largely agree is a knee-jerk reaction.

It's also something of a false-dichotomy, just because one does not receive a vaccination against a contagion does not necessarily mean one will contract it, or transmit it to other persons. There are some particularly nasty afflictions that vaccinations exist for, but are not administered. Why? Because transmission risk is pretty thoroughly addressed through other means. So, to say that because in 19XX there were Y number of incidents of disease Z, and less than Y (or no occurrences) in 20XX, because incidentally vaccine for disease Z was introduced in >19XX<20XX is not a scientifically rigorous argument. Because it does not account for any other factors. My argument is not that vaccines aren't helpful, but that they aren't sufficient on their own, or as a substitute for the myriad of other methods of control that have helped eliminate infections like, for example, Polio and Bubonic plague. Mumps, which is airborne, yes, much more helpful, as those are more difficult to control without isolation due being airborne.

Yes, I am an objective arbiter of what is and is not stupid. Stupid is as stupid does, and says, and thinks. How can you seriously even sit there and defend stupidity?

Okay, you made a claim, now time to provide evidence to support that claim:

1) Define stupid.

Stop introducing strawmen. Either you're defending stupidity or you're not.

I'm not actually introducing strawmen. Your second sentence is a false dichotomy. At least, until you can provide specifics as what your definition of "stupid" and "anti-vaxxer" is I can only assume your argument is essentially this: anyone that questions authority is "stupid," anyone that possibly questions conclusions of a given authority, even if on the basis of valid scientific reasoning is "stupid," and that somehow posing a specific question to an authority, about a particular aspect of one phenomena in one field of science, is representative of, or reflects that individual's or group of individual's attitude towards the entire body of knowledge and theory we refer to as the sciences.

"From what you've seen" is enough for me here. If you haven't been in the "trenches" of an anti-vaccination discussion, then you're speculating. I have experience in this 100% stupid debate.

So, providing a specific example of their unscientific argument, in order to enlighten me, should not be an issue, then?

How is using scientific and historical evidence to support the scientific claims and impact of vaccinations a strawman..?

It's not, and I did just that in my previous post.

You're attacking a strawman when you make claims that apply to people with clinical concerns regarding vaccinations, based on an argument that I can only find exists as a social media apparition, as being "stupid." Again, you're crusading against an impotent movement, and that's by design. But maybe that's just apophenia on my part.

I actually liken it to the "SJW BS," you mentioned before. It's something that started in the academic fringe community using post-modernist critique (which was largely abandoned by its progenitors), but it is a philosophical dead-end. It was popularized, because we see how it can be used as a tool to create useful idiots, not just the proponents of the philosophies themselves, but those that fall into the trap of trying to oppose it. That isn't to say there isn't some foundation for the moral impetus for the movement, but it fails to address that in its entirety through its methodology and its foundational philosophical critique can equally be turned against itself.

It also stands that, in most jurisdictions (inside and outside the U.S. where vaccines are readily available) there are already legal controls which help eliminate exposure to uninoculated individuals. I.e. if you want to send your child to a publicly supported school, child care facilities (public or private), or even private schools (due to insurance/liability concerns) you have to provide vaccination records upon enrollment (for at least the major pandemic diseases, MMR, IPV, DTap, and Varicella). You can be fairly certain that's not going away any time soon due to the massive amount of lobbying by pharmaceutical manufacturers, either (the one of maybe a few cases where corruption actually provides a positive social benefit).

[theCapraAegagrus]

I am so exhausted and bored of defining elementary terms and defending science & reality.

You wanna be stupid? Be my guest. Believing in a Flat Earth, that doesn't exist, is stupid.

I'm not calling you stupid, ICS, but I am dumbfounded by your argument(s) here.

[PipChick]

[ICantShuffle]

I'm not calling you stupid, ICS, but I am dumbfounded by your argument(s) here.

Admittedly, this is my shortcoming as a communicator, I tried proofreading my posts and responses and then realized that I left out thoughts that kind of connected the ideas I was trying to present.

For the record, I'm not an "anti-vaxxer" but from what I have seen of the arguments they make it mostly has to do with regulatory overreach and raising concerns with some of the ingredients used (in the past). I think both of these arguments have largely been settled to most parties satisfaction, though. Which is why the whole anti-vaxxer thing kind of seemed interesting to me, in that you're engaging in active debate with people who must have unaddressed or other concerns.

I do want to respond to PipChick's post, since she made an effort. I will be doing that as soon as I have a nice block of time.

I think shifting it towards a free speech discussion holds more relevance and kind of gets to the core of the issue at hand (RE: Flat Earth, Anti-vaxxers).

[Lotrek]

People often confuse opinion with taste. You don't have to logically support why you don't like bean soup or why you like red shoes. On the other hand, everybody should be free to express their opinion PROVIDED that it is based on some kind of evidence. If you say that "Jews want to destroy Greece" you have to back it with something more stable than just the fact that you're antisemit. I cannot respect anyone's opinions that are based on the phrase "This is what I think and I'm free to express it". The answer could easily be "I think you're a moron and I'm free to express it".

[PipChick]

I do want to respond to PipChick's post, since she made an effort.

oh gee golly, will I also get a trophy for my participation in the big boys' adult convo?? lol

[theCapraAegagrus]

I do want to respond to PipChick's post, since she made an effort.

oh gee golly, will I also get a trophy for my participation in the big boys' adult convo?? lol

Yes, but only because you didn't cram in any puns.

[PipChick]

Yes, but only because you didn't cram in any puns.

well TwoPiece.... unlike you and your extreme & irrational distaste for the lowest form of wordplay humor, the only thing Flat Earthers have to fear, is sphere itself...

[theCapraAegagrus]

Yes, but only because you didn't cram in any puns.

well TwoPiece.... unlike you and your extreme & irrational distaste for the lowest form of wordplay humor, the only thing Flat Earthers have to fear, is sphere itself...

I will give you kudos for this pun not being pure garbage.

I think it's very rational to hate excess puns. Puns should be reserved for special occasions when they are just home runs.

Your puns are like the Kickstarter Playing Cards market. They usually suck, but every now and then there's a good one worth something (a smile/chuckle, in your case).

[PipChick]

hey man, I'm only following the pundamentals :

[theCapraAegagrus]

hey man, I'm only following the pundamentals :

Whoever made this guide must be the most annoying person ever birthed. These are basically the polar opposites of how you should think and execute puns.