|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2020 13:01:40 GMT
Let me make it clear from the outset that I do not recommend challenging authorities. I recommend following their advice and rules even when it might not appear perfectly sensible on cursory inspection. Order seems sensible to me in its own right. In the rare and extreme cases of obviously mistaken authorities and for an emergent critical decision, civil disobedience might be excusable, however this pandemic is not such a situation. I believe that if people have legitimate advice of their own they need to bring it to authorities for approval first.
That said, I want to compare traffic deaths to deaths from the pandemic virus. Automobiles have ever been and still are obviously leading to numerous deaths. The question then becomes whether we should ban automobiles. How important are cars to the economy? With the development of the internet is the role of the automobile in society reduced?
You may check online yourself but at its peak the virus killed at a rate much higher than automobiles do. That of course was because of people being taken by surprise. What if people continue to die from the virus but the death rate becomes comparable to automobile deaths or even less?
In other words in the apparent conflict between poorly educated religious and poorly educated scientific faithful, which if either wins? The point here is that it might be found later that neither "prayer" nor "science" can stop the deaths or even bring them to comfortably low levels.
As most of you here are aware by now "popular" science is not science at all and the reason Donald Trump won in 2016. Had you tried on your own without the current pandemic this round Trump would likely have kicked all of you to Jupiter and gone, even as ignorant as he appears of both religion and science. The pandemic, whether exaggerated not, makes it possible for you to defeat him. There simply isn't enough time before the November election to come to terms with the emergency in science. That is probably best.
You can still find people who believe their "confidence" in science is somehow better than the "faith" other people have in religion. That is however still not true, even in the pandemic, and especially because of the pandemic. There are limits to what even science do.
The news for some strange reason does not seem to recognize that eliminating deaths from the current pandemic virus might not be possible ever. Unlike other problem diseases before it might be too difficult to isolate it out of power. Perhaps its ability to survive in people without symptoms might be the problem, and perhaps testing them can never be thorough enough.
That is not intended to justify any devil-may-care attitudes. Rather it is intended to force people to recognize their limitations and make the most reasonable accommodations to those limitations.
Driverless automobiles are not likely to end traffic deaths either, especially in snow or rain.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 6, 2020 16:59:59 GMT
So would you agree that a government order for mandatory face masks in public is reasonable, similar to mandatory seat belt laws to reduce traffic fatalities?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 6, 2020 19:44:30 GMT
"The point here is that it might be found later that neither "prayer" nor "science" can stop the deaths or even bring them to comfortably low levels."
Unless of course a vaccine is developed (which is what scientists are working on)
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2020 20:29:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 22:20:24 GMT
Life always has a certain amount of risk attached to it.
Yes, one can die or be severly injured in a car accident going to the grocery store. There is such a thing called mitigating risk; one can wear a seat belt, drive defensively, not drive when in toxicated and obey the speed limit (and the list could go on). This cuts down on the risk of being in an accident as well as the severity of any accident. Having adequete insurance helps mitigate the financial effects of being in an accident.
This would apply to anything else in life. There's risks to everything. Take smoking, it's well established that smoking affects health and increases risk of early death. While not everyone will get lung cancer who smokes and not smoking isn't a guarantee that you won't get it, there is an increased risk.
I wouldn't follow Trump's advice on anything. He's got a case of verbal diarrhea caused by mental constipation.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2020 10:23:06 GMT
Do you remember how I mentioned that "stereotyping" or "generalizing" can be very wrong? I typically use the example of people from the southern states using far more iced tea or not. Remember how I mentioned that it would be wrong to assume that some individual likes iced tea simply because he is from the southern states? Remember how I said that nevertheless it might be necessary for people who stock store shelves in southern states to generalize about that area and stock more tea supplies? Please answer, this is not a rhetorical question. Just as it would be wrong to assume some individual likes iced tea simply because he is from a southern state, it would be wrong to assume that people from southern states generally like karate just because one individual does. Can you see that? Please answer, this is not a rhetorical question. Notice how few examples of religious people having difficulty with science you have? That's three people. Even if you count in their congregations who probably had strong misgivings that still isn't many people when you consider the large population of the world. Is it right to assume religion is the problem when you have so few examples? Please answer, this is not a rhetorical question. Notice how very scientific I have been so far. There are more than three lawsuits against "scientists" for malpractice of medicine. You can even see some of them on television. If we must discredit religion for the behavior of three people then shouldn't we also discredit science for the behavior of three thousand? Notice that I have been clear in my opposition to bad religion and bad science. Many people on Reddit were at one time adamant that their "confidence" in science was very different and far better than the "faith" people have in religion. They might still be. That would be wrong of course, just have you have proved here.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2020 10:30:40 GMT
"The point here is that it might be found later that neither "prayer" nor "science" can stop the deaths or even bring them to comfortably low levels." Unless of course a vaccine is developed (which is what scientists are working on) I happen to expect some sort of strategy to be developed. I have a little bit of faith in science myself. I would point out that even before the current virus people died from the flu despite there being numerous vaccines. Some of those lives might have been saved but the person did not get the most up to date vaccine. It is very suspicious how effective vaccines can be if you need a different one each year. I agree that science can be a wonderful thing, but it is important to be mindful of its limitations and failures.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2020 10:41:17 GMT
So would you agree that a government order for mandatory face masks in public is reasonable, similar to mandatory seat belt laws to reduce traffic fatalities? I suppose that one day it might be shown to be effective and in the mean time it is wise to be more cautious than less. I think it is important to remember the limitations and failures of science and government though. For example do infant restraint seats reduce the number of infant deaths and injuries in automobile accidents? It might be very difficult to establish that since before the restraints were available people avoided taking infants on automobile trips and were especially careful on the few trips they did take infants. Having infants on far many more trips might mean higher death and injury rates even if the seats are the correct size and used properly. It seems when deaths do occur there can always be someone else to blame.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2020 10:54:23 GMT
Traffic deaths is why we must have so many annoying traffic laws, automobile regulations, child safety seats, and car insurance...otherwise the traffic death toll would be much higher. And it’s not the virus defeating Trump, it’s his total stupidity about it out for the world to see. Have you ever met a cowboy? I have. I attended a small church in the Midwest where in the coatroom above where the coats would hang you could see the rather numerous "ten gallon" (proper) cowboy hats of the congregation. Cowboys can be much more independent than people accustomed to city life, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. In fact it can mean they are better equipped and prepared for life. Are you really still in denial that people, especially in the city, are more fond of science lately than capable of it? If you want to defeat Trump my recommendation is that you do not try to use your "superior" knowledge of science since you don't have any and do not try to blame religion for any problems since he is not religious.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2020 11:00:16 GMT
Life always has a certain amount of risk attached to it. Yes, one can die or be severly injured in a car accident going to the grocery store. There is such a thing called mitigating risk; one can wear a seat belt, drive defensively, not drive when in toxicated and obey the speed limit (and the list could go on). This cuts down on the risk of being in an accident as well as the severity of any accident. Having adequete insurance helps mitigate the financial effects of being in an accident. This would apply to anything else in life. There's risks to everything. Take smoking, it's well established that smoking affects health and increases risk of early death. While not everyone will get lung cancer who smokes and not smoking isn't a guarantee that you won't get it, there is an increased risk. I wouldn't follow Trump's advice on anything. He's got a case of verbal diarrhea caused by mental constipation. The good news is that you do not have to choose between science and religion. Donald Trump doesn't represent either one anyway. Wearing masks rather obviously might reduce risks, but how far? There are still plenty of ways to spread a virus even with that. Then you must take all those precautions into account when assessing how mitigating risks are.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jul 7, 2020 11:49:32 GMT
Because he's for Christianity and the common person where as the godless left is getting more hostile towards Christianity as time passes and is headed towards chaos. it's becoming more of a battle of good vs evil instead of petty differences between right vs left politics of the past. that's why I think the two major political parties are so opposed nowadays as the left is going too far left and is basically getting more disordered as a result. pretty soon, sanity will be their enemy (because more and more of them already oppose Christianity which is order). lol but that stuff aside... I do see your point in that people think they can control a virus, even though they have less control than they think they do. but I been saying a while now, it's not worth obsessing over it and screwing the country over as the suffering from shutting down the country is far worse than the limited deaths it will cause. people die, it's just the way it is. you can't stop all of the deaths from COVID-19. so just take some basic precautions like social distancing a bit and wash ones hands etc and don't obsess over the rest and it's just noise. But it's obvious Trump is not against Christianity like many on the left are. that pretty much tells you a lot right there as anyone who opposes Christianity is the villain. the left is too radical nowadays as they have more in common with disorder than order. general313Hell no, forcing people to wear face masks is flat out wrong especially given the death rate is simply not high enough (probably less than 1% or no more than 2-4% at most) to even consider extreme measures. if society panics this much over a virus that only has a tiny chance to kill you, imagine the chaos if there was a virus that posed a real threat to people. say something like a 20% death rate or higher. paulslaughRegardless of the virus, he's clearly doing a overall better job for the USA than the godless left will do, especially in todays world where they try forcing their radical agenda on the common person who anyone with common sense knows is bad. lowtacks86Personally I want the vaccine to get made soon as this way it will keep the left quiet and stop obsessing over a virus that only has a small chance to kill you. they have a irrational fear of something that only has a small chance to kill you. but ill never take that crap as there is probably a higher chance the vaccine is more damaging to the common persons health than COVID-19 is. @l7weenie But at least he's not got some level of dementia like Biden clearly has as having a little slip here and there is one thing but he's clearly beyond that point now. imagine Biden trying to run the country? ; it's a joke as he does not have the mental acuity to hand that job, especially not lately as it's obvious he's got some level of dementia. but the left does not care as it's all about a power grab as they just want someone in there so they can return to 'business as usual' (i.e. corruption with no one to expose it or stop them or get in their way etc). besides, some speculate that if Biden were to win, it won't be long before they have him step down and say he's got dementia and then the vice president, who will likely be more corrupt than Biden, will take power. the left is just too messed up nowadays to vote for as they have become to radical as a vote fort the left is like voting for the hammer-and-sickle and the like and it's getting worse as time passes.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2020 12:49:17 GMT
Have you ever met a cowboy? I have. I attended a small church in the Midwest where in the coatroom above where the coats would hang you could see the rather numerous "ten gallon" (proper) cowboy hats of the congregation. Cowboys can be much more independent than people accustomed to city life, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. In fact it can mean they are better equipped and prepared for life. Are you really still in denial that people, especially in the city, are more fond of science lately than capable of it? If you want to defeat Trump my recommendation is that you do not try to use your "superior" knowledge of science since you don't have any and do not try to blame religion for any problems since he is not religious. Are you drunk? And have I ever met a cowboy? Of course, I’m gay. Are you missing my point on purpose? Just for laughs? People in the city are more like the herd than the cowboy, that's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 7, 2020 17:05:33 GMT
general313 Hell no, forcing people to wear face masks is flat out wrong especially given the death rate is simply not high enough (probably less than 1% or no more than 2-4% at most) to even consider extreme measures. if society panics this much over a virus that only has a tiny chance to kill you, imagine the chaos if there was a virus that posed a real threat to people. say something like a 20% death rate or higher. You're an imbecile if you think that 1 to 4 percent chance of death is "tiny".
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 7, 2020 17:27:00 GMT
So would you agree that a government order for mandatory face masks in public is reasonable, similar to mandatory seat belt laws to reduce traffic fatalities? I suppose that one day it might be shown to be effective and in the mean time it is wise to be more cautious than less. I think it is important to remember the limitations and failures of science and government though. For example do infant restraint seats reduce the number of infant deaths and injuries in automobile accidents? It might be very difficult to establish that since before the restraints were available people avoided taking infants on automobile trips and were especially careful on the few trips they did take infants. Having infants on far many more trips might mean higher death and injury rates even if the seats are the correct size and used properly. It seems when deaths do occur there can always be someone else to blame. Have you any evidence that people "avoided taking infant on automobile trips" before restraints were available? I do know that the general trend for automobile deaths per traveler mile has dropped hugely in the last 100 years, and I'm sure concern for safety in the design of cars can be credited for most of the change (seat belts, air bags, padded interiors, no more sharp hood ornaments). Try shopping for car insurance for a vintage car with no air bags or seat belts and see what kind of bargain you can find.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2020 19:14:49 GMT
Do you remember how I mentioned that "stereotyping" or "generalizing" can be very wrong? I typically use the example of people from the southern states using far more iced tea or not. Remember how I mentioned that it would be wrong to assume that some individual likes iced tea simply because he is from the southern states? Remember how I said that nevertheless it might be necessary for people who stock store shelves in southern states to generalize about that area and stock more tea supplies? Please answer, this is not a rhetorical question. No I don't remember that. But then you write so much which is either irrelevant or vague and rambling unfortuately I don't read every one of your posts. But I do remember how you often employ stereotypes yourself, whether calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid with poor reading skills etc, that an atheist must be someone with a belief, or depicting traditional Christians as those who think God is a 'old man in the sky with a beard'. Do you? Please answer, this is not a rhetorical question. I have transposed your sentence to make it more relevant. And the answer is: I would agree with you. As I recently mentioned Dr Anthony Fauci bewailed the frequent anti-science bias in the States adding to the worsening health crisis www.newsweek.com/fauci-blames-anti-science-bias-people-not-following-covid-19-rules-1512019 It is reasonable to believe that anti-science sentiment is likely found more often among those with conservative religious beliefs (and America is a country which is predominantly conservatively religious) as well as poor education. So in those cases, including the high profile instances of church leaders who thought faith was enough to ignore scientific advice and came therefore to a sticky end, then yes, we can assume religious belief is indeed some of the 'problem'. There is no current suggestion that scientific malpractice is adding to the woes of the current epidemic. As for bad science more generally I don't think I will safely trust the judgement of such from one who says Darwin contributed nothing to research, that Relativity is as much fiction as Star Trek's warp drive or thinks that we don't know how old the cosmos is, thank you all the same. There is also, as you have been told before, a difference between the credulity as far as the positively unevidenced deliberate supernatural is concerned and confidence in disciplines of knowledge which are based on empiricism, falsification and constant revision in the light of new facts. On the contrary I have shown high profile instances where it is the faith in religion that has proved disasterously misplaced, and also shown how America's leading infectious disease expect has articulated an issue with those who do not follow the science - which is enough to throw doubt on another one of your sweeping statements. But, once again of asking: perhaps death rates are higher for atheists and scientists than for those preferring instead faith and prayers? How is the world-wide confidence that the recommendations of science (handwashing routines, social distancing, lockdowns, modern intensive care etc) are working out in controlling the disease and reducing deaths? Please answer, these are not rhetorical questions. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2020 21:32:46 GMT
I suppose that one day it might be shown to be effective and in the mean time it is wise to be more cautious than less. I think it is important to remember the limitations and failures of science and government though. For example do infant restraint seats reduce the number of infant deaths and injuries in automobile accidents? It might be very difficult to establish that since before the restraints were available people avoided taking infants on automobile trips and were especially careful on the few trips they did take infants. Having infants on far many more trips might mean higher death and injury rates even if the seats are the correct size and used properly. It seems when deaths do occur there can always be someone else to blame. Have you any evidence that people "avoided taking infant on automobile trips" before restraints were available? I do know that the general trend for automobile deaths per traveler mile has dropped hugely in the last 100 years, and I'm sure concern for safety in the design of cars can be credited for most of the change (seat belts, air bags, padded interiors, no more sharp hood ornaments). Try shopping for car insurance for a vintage car with no air bags or seat belts and see what kind of bargain you can find. So no, you have no evidence that infant restraints lowered the death rate per year. Even though it would be much easier to find if it existed you have no evidence that the death rate per mile is lower either. I am not the one going around telling other people what they must do. I don't need any "evidence" for that. If you want to tell people what they need to drive then you get some evidence.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 7, 2020 21:50:32 GMT
You could argue there would be more deaths without motor vehicles than there would be with them.
Some examples How many would die if the ambulance didn't get them to the hospital when every minute counts when they have a medical emergency? How many would die if the fire fighters didn't arrive with their trucks?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 7, 2020 21:54:03 GMT
Have you any evidence that people "avoided taking infant on automobile trips" before restraints were available? I do know that the general trend for automobile deaths per traveler mile has dropped hugely in the last 100 years, and I'm sure concern for safety in the design of cars can be credited for most of the change (seat belts, air bags, padded interiors, no more sharp hood ornaments). Try shopping for car insurance for a vintage car with no air bags or seat belts and see what kind of bargain you can find. So no, you have no evidence that infant restraints lowered the death rate per year. Even though it would be much easier to find if it existed you have no evidence that the death rate per mile is lower either. I am not the one going around telling other people what they must do. I don't need any "evidence" for that. If you want to tell people what they need to drive then you get some evidence. Actually I do have evidence for the claim I made, though I don't expect it to matter to you, since you've demonstated a disdain for science. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png If you look at the references you'll see that they are data from the Department of Transportation.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2020 22:16:23 GMT
since before the restraints were available people avoided taking infants on automobile trips and were especially careful on the few trips they did take infants. Without substantiation for this claim - which from Arlon is entirely characteristic - such an opinion can be dismissed on the same basis as it is presented. What is known, without doubt, is that car safety devices save lives.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 8, 2020 9:25:52 GMT
So no, you have no evidence that infant restraints lowered the death rate per year. Even though it would be much easier to find if it existed you have no evidence that the death rate per mile is lower either. I am not the one going around telling other people what they must do. I don't need any "evidence" for that. If you want to tell people what they need to drive then you get some evidence. Actually I do have evidence for the claim I made, though I don't expect it to matter to you, since you've demonstated a disdain for science. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png If you look at the references you'll see that they are data from the Department of Transportation. You did not address my claim. You did not show that infant deaths in traffic accidents decline as a result of child restraint seats. In fact, although the numbers are rather specific regarding population and number of deaths, they are notoriously vague on the issue of infant/child restraint seats. Since your data does not address miles driven, I suppose I can grant you that those increased in the early years and probably began dropping off after the 1973 oil crisis and the preference for smaller vehicles. I never claimed that children as tall as adults were often excluded from automobile trips ever, so yes, it is possible they frequently died in automobile accidents even before child restraint seats. I do not expect you to admit you lost this argument since you have demonstrated a disdain for science, and your obvious failure to use it in interpreting what you read..
|
|