The only argument here is against nonsense. Pure and simple. I even made a plea in the original post - stop presenting this sideshow of cranks to us and give is something that actually has a single drop of credibility. This plea falls on deaf ears. Why ? Because there is nobody out there that isn't delusional, doing it for the free advertising, a NWO conspiracist or quite simply defrauding the stupid for personal gain. If there is anybody you can think of that does not fall into these categories, that can actually withstand critical analysis, we ALL would love to see it. Sincerely.
I have to say, I'm not a fan of restricting basic human rights even in the name of science.
Is anyone here actually arguing that we should restrict basic human rights in the name of science?
I love the fact that there is enough random information about anything out here on the internet to be able to read up on differing facts and opinions on otherwise mainstream beliefs perpetuated by popular media. (My emphasis)
Random information does not equal information of quality. Bad information is still bad, even though it is information. And that's the problem: people accepting bad information as good and reliable.
I find it quite scary when people argue against having alternative arguments and differing opinions on subjects. People should be bombarded with as much different information as possible and decide for themselves what they accept or reject, not be told what to think or just go along with popular belief because it is easy or makes them feel nice.
Indeed. But once again, the quality of information is important. Opinion based on bad and erroneous information is a bad and erroneous opinion.
Stephen:Indeed. But once again, the quality of information is important. Opinion based on bad and erroneous information is a bad and erroneous opinion.
Way back in '94 when the common man was making his and her first tentative steps onto the greater public 'net, I was a keen advocate of bad information - the more, I thought, the better. My logic was that being confronted by vast volumes unsubstantiated bullshit, people would be forced to fall back and cultivate critical thinking habits as a natural defense.
Now, 15 years later, I have realised exactly how naive and optimistic I was. Yes, many, many people have rejected all the information that is now at their fingertips. But rather than the critical thinking I was hoping for, they have retreated back into the primitive superstition we had strived so hard to leave behind. We now have censorship by freedom and a whole new demonology to explain the things that are too big for our tiny little brains. Urban folklore of the worst and most destructive kind, and it's spreading unchecked, as fast as the irrational fear that is possessing everyone. It all feels like dark age atavism. Some perverse desire to retreat to the idiocy of our past, where we can have mob law and lynch whatever displeases us, after a democratic vote amongst the villagers.
Non believer of Global Warming? You are delusional then! It is happening. I say, so what, we will adapt or evolve. There is very little we can do with it in today's technology. I think we need to put resources into the technology development for the future instead of throwing money away today!
Also Global Darkening is happening too so lets get out there and pollute some more to conteract the global warming.
That is off topic but I thought I had to respond.
On topic, I got my H1N1 shot this morning and I am still alive!
If one supports a person's right to choose what they believe, one must also support a person's right to choose to refuse to hear certain things. Since people can be brainwashed by sleep deprivation and being bombarded with "facts" (I almost turned myself into a Southern Baptist one night, very tired, listening to some insecure internet man ramble on with his religious faggotry while I crafted a point by point anti-bullshit analysis.
Promoting information bombardment without establishing a limit to such bombardment, is equal to an endorsement of rampant predatory brainwashing. It is the fact that people can get brainwashed or simply persuaded (Brainwash Lite™) that has led to the totalitarianistic Shut-The-Fuck-Uppery of the science and pro-science communities. If someone tries to write bad data in your lab book, you don't chock it up to freedom of speech, you fucking get him or her blacksheep'd so they'll never work in a lab again.
The Earth is old: seas have appeared and vanished, mountains have risen and collapsed, tectonic plates have been grinding together eternally, and throughout all this, water has flowed continuously, leaching and preciptating sediments. Everything on this plane gets cycled and recycled.
Question: What does homeopathic mercury do ? There are homeopathic levels of mercury in water. There has to be. Is this harmful ? If it is, then by extension, this poisoning occurs with all alleged homeopathic remedies. If it is not harmful, then why ? Is it because homeopathy is bogus, or is it because for substances to be harmful, they must be more concentrated ? If mercury is too dilute to cause harm, conversely, how can beneficial compounds at the same levels do good ?
So many more questions follow on from this. But if we can't get an answer to something simple, like why isn't this stuff being posted to the Richard Dawkins forums?, I guess we have no hope.
This is the same style of nonsense from people who want to ban fluoride and tin because of weak correlations, unrealistic scenarios, and sheer amount of misinformation or willful ignorance.
As long as there are people content to accept information fed to them without cross checking there will always be nonsense like this. It's always easier to listen than to investigate and I've found people in general to be intellectually lazy.