Politics CHARLIE KIRK SHOT IN UTAH

Yes, all legitimate scientists agreed on COVID.

When you say things like that it proves that you aren't capable of having open and honest dialogue.

That is how we get Donald Trump, RFK Jr. and the rest destroying this country.

Statements like that and assholes like Charlie Kirk spreading statements like that.

 

You are saying you took the time to make that observation without an agenda and being biased? And then insult me on top of it?
Whatever you say sir…..

 

You can say these things because you don't understand the scientific method or how academia works.

You aren't qualified to have this conversation. And I'm not qualified to teach it to you. If you are interested in these kinds of things you should seek education.

 

What is a legit scientist? Anyone with a degree? If so, i do not believe they all agreed.

 

I don’t believe the FBI had anything to do with this.

 

We have real problems with mental illness due to our lack of access to healthcare and a decent social safety net.

 

Incomprehensible political beliefs that can be interpreted by both sides however they please. He is just vague enough of a person that two different realities will start to form around him.

1) that the shooter is a leftist antifa wackjob who was probably on HRT or something
2) that the shooter is an incel/groyper/4chan dweeb accelerationist

 

But see, you have been trying to teach me. You have been trying to teach me I'm being harmful. You have been trying to teach me about scientific methods. Dont you see that? In telling me im wrong and to seek education, you are trying to teach me im wrong but are self admittedly not qualified to do so and this is my point.

My whole point.
Most of us are unqualified, but were still gonna discuss it. Just read facebook man. So when discussing it, we need open and honest dialogue. Honesty includes admitting not knowing all the facts. Open means willing to listen to all to determine what is factual and what is not.

This is all silly. I simply stated that all sides must engage in open and honest dialogue for improvements to be had and you tried to cut that down and dismiss it as harmful.

I stand by my original statement.

 

I can't believe you actually wrote this. Forty percent of America elected that tantrum throwing three year old to the presidency, twice!! I'd sure as hell say that people gave him waaaayyyy more than the time of day.......

 

It appears you are incorrect:


No, all qualified scientists did not agree on how to stop COVID-19. While a broad scientific consensus emerged on core preventative strategies, significant disagreements and ongoing debates persisted on more specific issues, such as the overall effectiveness and necessity of certain interventions
. These scientific discussions were further complicated by political and social polarization surrounding the pandemic.
Scientific consensus and core prevention strategies
Despite the disagreements, there was a strong, widespread consensus among the scientific community on certain fundamental measures to combat the pandemic. These included:

• Vaccination: The consensus was that vaccination was the most effective tool to significantly reduce the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. Health officials, such as those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), emphasized that staying up to date with vaccines was a core prevention strategy.
• Hand hygiene: Frequent and proper hand washing was universally recommended as an effective way to stop the spread of the virus.
• Physical distancing: Limiting close contact with others was shown to limit the spread of the virus and was a broadly agreed-upon strategy, especially early in the pandemic.
• Expansion of treatments: Experts largely agreed on the importance of expanding treatments and care options for those who did get sick.

Areas of scientific disagreement
Scientific debate and disagreement often focused on more complex aspects of the response, including:

• Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs): While measures like lockdowns, travel restrictions, and school closures were implemented in many countries based on scientific advice, there was not unanimous agreement among scientists on their effectiveness, especially regarding the long-term consequences versus the benefits. A Nature article highlighted disagreements on whether a more targeted approach was possible and the potential disproportionate impact of lockdowns on disadvantaged communities.
• Face masks: Early in the pandemic, the recommendations and evidence on mask-wearing were less conclusive, leading to debate. Initial concerns included preserving medical masks for healthcare workers and the potential for a false sense of security. Over time, strong evidence emerged supporting mask-wearing as an effective tool, but debate continued regarding the effectiveness of different types of face coverings and their appropriate use in various settings.
• The origin of the virus: From the beginning, scientists disagreed on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The debate centered on two main hypotheses: a natural spillover from animals and a laboratory-related incident, or "lab leak". The politicization of this issue further complicated open scientific discussion.
• Long-term vaccine side effects: While vaccine safety has been consistently monitored and supported by robust data, discussions have continued on rare side effects like myocarditis. Some scientists, while acknowledging the benefits outweigh the risks, have called for more thorough long-term studies.

Political and social factors
The context of the pandemic made these scientific discussions particularly visible and contentious.

• Misinformation and polarization: Misinformation, fueled by political polarization, undermined public trust in scientific expertise. Non-scientific views and conspiracy theories about vaccine safety and effectiveness proliferated on social media and other platforms.
• Government messaging: Attempts by governments and public health officials to present a "unified front" and portray certain interventions as "following the science" were sometimes viewed as an oversimplification of complex issues and ultimately eroded scientific authority for some.
• Dissenting expert opinions: Some qualified scientists with different views on COVID-19 interventions were demonized or marginalized, further hindering open debate.

 

Context UCD. Again, im referring to common folk interacting with common folk. sigh…..

 

A scientist is an educated and trained person who professionally uses the scientific method to do research.

All of those people agreed on the best general courses of action during COVID.

Real epidemiologists pretty much all agreed. And they were proven right.

 

Areas of scientific disagreement
Scientific debate and disagreement often focused on more complex aspects of the response, including:

• Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs): While measures like lockdowns, travel restrictions, and school closures were implemented in many countries based on scientific advice, there was not unanimous agreement among scientists on their effectiveness, especially regarding the long-term consequences versus the benefits. A Nature article highlighted disagreements on whether a more targeted approach was possible and the potential disproportionate impact of lockdowns on disadvantaged communities.
• Face masks: Early in the pandemic, the recommendations and evidence on mask-wearing were less conclusive, leading to debate. Initial concerns included preserving medical masks for healthcare workers and the potential for a false sense of security. Over time, strong evidence emerged supporting mask-wearing as an effective tool, but debate continued regarding the effectiveness of different types of face coverings and their appropriate use in various settings.
• The origin of the virus: From the beginning, scientists disagreed on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The debate centered on two main hypotheses: a natural spillover from animals and a laboratory-related incident, or "lab leak". The politicization of this issue further complicated open scientific discussion.
• Long-term vaccine side effects: While vaccine safety has been consistently monitored and supported by robust data, discussions have continued on rare side effects like myocarditis. Some scientists, while acknowledging the benefits outweigh the risks, have called for more thorough long-term studies.

 

Who would he consider the most Looney left? Bernie Sanders? I challenge anybody to find any instance of Bernie Sanders advocating for violence in any way.

These people are fucking morons.

 

What sort of open and honest dialogue is there to be had with someone who thinks gays should be stoned to death? Who abhors trans people and think they should be locked up? They're to be treated with respect while offering none? You can both sides it all you want to, but as phats and others have said, there's only one side that routinely advocates for restricting rights to large segments of individuals, who denigrate others based on race and sexual orientation. What sort of honest and open dialogue do you honestly expect one deserves who hates my family members and think of them as not worthy of life and social standing? Who want to take away their rights because of the way they were born.
Let's sit down and listen to the Nazis AND the Jews during this world war, and have an honest and open discussion on our differences...

 

Honest question:

How do you propose to talk and rationalize to a bigot and a racist?

In turn,

How then do you propose to talk to someone who wants Healthcare for all, affordable living, equal rights for all?

See where the chasm is? Dialogue isnt going to help when one is about hate and one is about trying to help people. I think thats where people are having the issue.

We need solutions, yes, but when the solutions are blocked by the very people who have the power to change it, this is what happens. This was inevitable. Its just weird that in a time where communication is at its most efficient, the higher ups decided to erode it with misinformation.

Your cause is noble, wanting to talk it out... there just isnt an actual framework for it to ever be constructive based on not having the ability to do anything about it. We literally cant get common sense bills passed because the powerful people aim to block it all. Its systemic, and talking about it, while it should be the way, just isnt feasible in the current enivronment.

 

None of that disputes anything I said.

Social distancing worked. Masks worked. Vaccines worked. Good luck finding any epidemiologists who said they didn't.