Questioning the conclusions that scientists before you have reached is something that is good to do if you have the tools to do your own primary research and publish your own study. If you don't have the tools to do your own study, looking at the hundreds of papers out there in peer-reviewed journals (peer-reviewed meaning multiple independent teams of scientists did the experiment as described and got the same result the authors did) all showing the same results are about as good as you can get. If you don't trust Big Science, just look around you. Take for example the question of whether the vaccine is safe to get. A common argument I heard was that people didn't want to be guinea pigs, which would have been fair were it not for the fact that half the global population had already gotten it and less than 1% had any ill effects. As for whether it protects people from the virus, one need look no further than the endless stories from healthcare workers about the people they kept alive. All of the life threatening cases were from people who hadn't gotten the shot.

Acting as though the conclusions scientists before you have reached are false because a podcast you follow said they were, without supplying any data to suggest such a thing, is a wholesale rejection of the scientific method.

The person you replied to never said anything about Parler itself, let alone whether platforms that don't follow the popular consensus should exist. That is unambiguously good. What they said was that the people who run Parler are fascist bootlickers, which, now that Trump has said in as many words that he plans to be a dictator, is true of anyone who still supports him.
Can't help but notice your response didn't address the piracy issue. Can I assume we agree on that?

[+] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today -18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The problem with “big science” is that the ordinary person has no conceivable means by which to verify any of their claims, they have to be taken by faith. And there have been many, many cases in the past where this turned out to be a mistake. Unlike what some people will have you believe, science is never really settled, things that used to be the common consensus have turned out to be wrong many times in the past. What makes you think that nowadays, we’re somehow past all that, just because our methods are more precise than our forefathers’? Why should the knowledge we have now be the end-all-be-all when not too long ago, doctors used to prescribe cigarettes as a treatment for asthma?
Okay, but that’s just an opinion, not scientific consensus. People on Parler think the Fediverse is full of pedophiles, does that give them the right to shut it down?
I don’t care about stealing as long as there’s a legitimate need and it’s not just out of laziness or greed. I used to pirate my games and software when I was too broke to afford them, but once I started earning more money, I gave up on that and started paying for them, even though pirating would have sometimes been easier or more convenient.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

So you disagree with the scientific consensus. Cool. Where's your data to the contrary? When are you publishing your study? Or are you just here to cast doubt on the validity of science as a concept, and use that as a basis to believe whatever a talking head says?
Parler advertises itself towards Trump supporters. I think it's safe to say there are Trump supporters there. Also, once again, neither I nor the OP said anything at all about Parler itself, only its founders. Where did you get the idea that I think it should be shut down?
I already told you why piracy isn't stealing. Do you have a response to that?

It's becoming increasingly obvious you're not arguing in good faith. I'm going to bed now. You'll have to pretend to argue with someone else for a while.

[+] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today -18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Strawman. I didn’t say I disagree with it, I just listed some valid reasons for why people might.
Yeah, okay, I get it, you just hate them. That’s allowed of course. I’m just pointing out that hating them for hating you makes you no better than them.
Of course it’s stealing, your justifications don’t change that. Like I said, I don’t think it’s objectionable when it’s done for legitimate reasons (like if the company removes access for something you already bought and paid for), and forgivable if you’re too broke to afford it, but it’s stealing nevertheless.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Do we agree, then, that science should be the foremost authority in decision making, since we seem to agree that there is no better one, and that therefore your previous point was addressing nothing?
I don't hate them because they hate me. I hate them because they are rooting for a person who calls himself a dictator, and who has a history of making credible threats against the lives and livelihoods of people I care deeply about, to take over the country in which I live. That does not make me a hypocrite.
I don't hear a counterargument.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Only if your science is comfortable with being questioned and doesn’t require banning, unpersoning, or othering people for the sake of achieving consensus.
How many of your loved ones has Trump killed or is directly responsible for? If zero, then how do you know his threats are credible? Politicians make wild promises all the time, especially during election years, and then end up not keeping them. Unless he has personally sent you a letter saying he’ll kill your mom if he gets elected, I’m gonna suggest you’re overreacting just a little bit.
I said that regardless of whether or not legitimate reasons for it may exist in some circumstances, it is still stealing. If that doesn’t look like a counterargument to you, then I don’t know what does.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I'm gonna need a source to say that's happening.
Well you see, the thing is, Democrats tend to care about people they don't know personally. It's this little thing called having empathy and I know it may seem a foreign concept to you. Trump successfully overturned Roe v Wade. Despite not being a woman, or personally knowing any women who need abortions, I care deeply about this issue, and I surmise that if he can overturn the biggest, most untouchable supreme court case we've ever had, then whatever he has planned for trans people (a group of which I am also not a part) has a pretty good likelihood of succeeding.
You still have not provided a reason why you think piracy is stealing. It's not. If I were to set up an inductor under a power line to steal power, I would be depriving the power company of electricity they could have sold to another paying customer without giving them anything in return. When I torrent a TV show, I don't even put any additional load on Netflix's servers. Heck, with their current revenue model I don't even make the show's producers any less money.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

LMAO you serious? Just look at the amount of shit I got for even speaking out in favor of people who question the science.
"Democrats tend to care about people they don't know personally" – yes, unless they're Republicans, in which case all empathy goes out the window and blind hatred is allowed to take over. Or if they're unborn babies in their mother's wombs, in which case they aren't even people at all, which means it's fine to just kill them.
I'm sorry, but that's stupid. Yes, the producers of the shows that already exist still got paid, but if enough people cancel their subscriptions because they can torrent the content for free, there might not be enough money to produce tomorrow's shows, and if you enjoy watching their stuff, then you kinda stole from yourself, didn't you? Not to mention you're also stealing from the people who ARE paying their subscription because it's them who helped finance those shows you're watching. But like I said, if you are literally so broke that every single dollar you have goes to cover food and rent, I can sympathize, because man doesn't live on bread alone. But if you have the money to spare and you just prefer to spend it on something else, you're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Question the science and believe what instead, genius? We are still in 2024 watching 2000 people die every week and all available data say that getting the shot has no adverse effects and reduces both the risk or contracting the disease, and the risk of death if you do, by over 90%. But Joe Rogan told them it had dead babies or microchips or whatever in it and they decide he knows better than big pharma. Even if these people don't die from the disease they still run the risk of spreading it to someone who wasn't eligible for the shot who might!
You seriously need to get your memory checked, dude. I've told you three times now and given you three different extremely valid reasons why I hate Trump supporters, and you've yet to address a single one of them, instead continuing to insist I hate them for no reason. If you're talking about Democrats and Republicans in general, I'd've hoped you of all people would know better than to make sweeping generalizations like that, especially after you told me off for assuming you believed science didn't work after you provided a list of reasons science didn't work.
2.1. If republicans cared about reducing the number if abortions, they'd advocate for contraception and comprehensive sex ed -- the only things that have ever reliably lowered abortion rates -- but those go against their religion, so they prefer to punish women who have sex at all, even in cases of rape, by forcing them to carry to term.
2.2. As for why that's bad, let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose there's a famous classical musician who got in a car crash, and the only way to save him is a new technique has been developed by which if someone is a perfect genetic match, their consciousness can live alongside a "donor" in the same body. This takes a serious toll on the donor's body to support two lives until the procedure is reversed. Suppose you're a perfect genetic match to this musician, and since you're just some guy off the street and this guy is already famous, they saw fit to do this procedure without asking your consent. He's got a concert coming up next week, and he'll be going in your body. "Don't worry," the doctors say, "he'll only be there for nine months. That's when his tour ends, then he'll be put up for adoption. You can keep him around till then, can't you?" You'd be pretty pissed, right?
So by not paying for a thing that other people pay for, I am stealing from people who paid to have that thing and now have that thing? Those are some serious mental gymnastics. Also, after cancelling Infinity Train, I'm no longer willing to give Netflix the benefit of the doubt that they will use that money to produce new shows.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you still think the vaccine issue was only a matter of not believing the science, you are seriously mistaken. People were upset because Democrats were planning to force everyone to get the shot, regardless of risk factors, and despite it having been developed in record time and with a bunch of the usual safety procedures skipped. That’s not science, that’s forced participation in a scientific experiment, which, BTW, is a violation of the Geneva Convention. People were right to be upset about it regardless of whether it actually worked or not.
You’ve given a great illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Republicans because they’re Republicans, and then work their way backwards to rationalize their hatred by coming up with some silly thought experiment like you did. Meanwhile, Republicans don’t hate Democrats because they are Democrats, they hate them for what they do, but still secretly hope that one day they’ll realize the error of their ways. Meanwhile, the only secret hope Democrats have for Republicans is that they’ll all drop dead.
I’m sorry you’re a bit slow on the uptake, but I already explained it, I’m not going to repeat myself.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You’ve given a great illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Republicans because they’re Republicans, and then work their way backwards to rationalize their hatred by coming up with some silly thought experiment like you did. Meanwhile, Republicans don’t hate Democrats because they are Democrats, they hate them for what they do, but still secretly hope that one day they’ll realize the error of their ways.

I didn't say Republicans. I said Trump supporters. I also gave a laundry list of specific grievances I had with nearly all members of the Republican party, and I thought it was implied that my hatred for them would go away once those grievances did.

Thank you though for this undeniable proof that you are not arguing in good faith. This discussion is over. Good day.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, sure, not all Republicans support Trump, but I bet you that those who don’t support him are still majority pro-life, so for the sake of this argument, it doesn’t really make a huge difference.

So am I to understand that you would stop hating non-Trump supporting Republicans if they became Democrats, but you still want Trump supporters to drop dead?

Good day

And to you as well!

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Correct. That's no less reasonable than you stopping hating democrats if they become republicans, which you just said you did. As for why I hate Trump supporters, it is my responsibility as a US citizen to defend the US from fascism. Trump says he plans to be a "day-one dictator." He quotes Mussolini. He is a fascist. So, by extension, is anyone trying to put him in office.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today -2 points 9 months ago

And there goes another fake news hoax, fueled by blind hatred and deceptively written headlines.

What he actually said was that he would be a dictator ONLY on Day One (Source), but of course that didn't stop many liberal websites from reporting as if he had said it differently.

Now do you see what I mean about trusting "the science"? It only takes one Google search to debunk your claim, yet you go and present it as fact because you want so desperately for it to be true that you only look at the evidence supporting your claim and don't even attempt to disprove your hypothesis. The same thing happens with scientific research that's paid to achieve a certain result.

[–] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's fine to disagree with scientific consensus. Even more so when there is not a real consensus.
1. Going by a recent example where in some cases, it was being mandated for everyone to be vaccinated when possible; later, it was noted that vaccinations weren't significantly useful for people who had recently had COVID (sorry, too lazy too link. It was just a news anyway and not a res paper). But this pertains to a condition that is currently undergoing change, with new strains coming out every now and then.
2. An older example. Old enough to get into our school textbooks. "different tastes on different parts of the tongue". The text used a kind of language that made readers think that given specific tastes can only be detected at those places, whereas the results from actual science were much more nuanced. Furthermore, the textbooks encouraged the students to "verify" this by trying different tasting objects on their corresponding taste locations, while not hinting them to try any of those in places other than those, which would have easily disproven the statement in the way it was written in the text.
- The point here is that you are free to believe what you may, but when your actions significantly and maybe adversely affect others, you have to be careful about what others believe and whether your belief has any concrete proof. e.g. It's fine if you don't want to live in the same room with a vaxxer (just live in some other room, or don't rent a multi-tenant room in the first place), but that doesn't give you the license to harass that person or their family.
meh
It's stealing both ways. Whether it's legal or moral or not, is another discussion. WB stole from the customer. It was legal (they probably had it somewhere in their EULA) and probably immoral (because they knew most customers would not really read it well and those who did, would still probably give them money because they have no other option if they wanted to watch the exclusive). Pirates then stole from WB (in this case it was illegal), but the moral implications change upon perspective. Neither side of the argument is even close to ideal, but sometimes you can't really condemn yourself for saying "It is what it is" and picking a side.

Lookie here! This thread has 8 parallel lines.