Freedoms come with responsibilities, and any freedom used without sufficient responsibility is destined to be curtailed.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
How so? You have the government of Denmark and Sweden stating that this form of protest is going to raise tensions both nationally and internationally. And how for Sweden this means their appeal to join the EU, which must be approved by Turkey, could be in jeopardy. How is stating that cowardly?
Denmark considers banning burning of holy texts including Qur’an and Bible at protests
Government say such demonstrations play into hands of extremists and can have ‘significant negative consequences for Denmark’www.theguardian.com
Swedish PM ‘extremely worried’ as more apply to burn Qur’an
Ulf Kristersson says ‘there is a clear risk of something serious happening’ amid growing Muslim anger at the attacks on Islam’s holy book
Cowards.
Also, only the first story (Denmark) talks about exploring legal means of stopping protests involving the burning of holy texts in 'certain circumstances'. By the way, I love how the Sweden Democrates warn for "Islamisation" when only 8% of their population is muslim.
Minor correction, it is the NATO membership it might endanger.
As a dane I have mixed feelings on this, but overall I think of it as a response to a failed education.
It shouldn't be necessary to make it illegal to burn holy books just to piss people off, because any reasonable person should understand that doing things solely to raise tensions is wrong. Act like a child, get treated like a child is the most succinct way to put my opinion on this.
I mean bluntly, I want you to take a step back a minute and think about what you're championing. We aren't talking about cases where you were clearing off your bookshelves and tossed your copy of <religious text>. We're talking about cases where you'd be making a public display of burning books specifically to - at best - express your contempt towards that faith and its members. And let's not lie to ourselves and pretend that isn't the point. It's a purely performative gesture with the sole purpose of communicating how much the burner hates those people.Denmark considers banning burning of holy texts including Qur’an and Bible at protests
Government say such demonstrations play into hands of extremists and can have ‘significant negative consequences for Denmark’
Swedish PM ‘extremely worried’ as more apply to burn Qur’an
Ulf Kristersson says ‘there is a clear risk of something serious happening’ amid growing Muslim anger at the attacks on Islam’s holy book
Cowards.
Take a step back from your opinions on those religions for a minute and ask yourself this: Is book burning really a hill that's worth dying on?
The UPS agreement regarding wages is based on the fact if you drive at 101 degrees, you need to be paid more. My parents who have connections to the logistics industry told me they look for strong people who need to drive a truck and lift heavy packages in the heat or when it's below freezing.
The problem is that they didn't do what the writers and actors are trying to do which is put in a clause against AI. They straight-up forgot about it. Businesses aren't going to act in the best interest of workers, at least not all of the time. They are going to act in the best interest of the executives or at least in the best interests of capital.
The problem is that they didn't do what the writers and actors are trying to do which is put in a clause against AI. They straight-up forgot about it. Businesses aren't going to act in the best interest of workers, at least not all of the time. They are going to act in the best interest of the executives or at least in the best interests of capital.
Siri, what's a "food swamp" and a "food desert"?
People know damn well how to eat healthy. What matters is access to healthy food, and a large part of that access isn't just logistic but rather affordability. All the "eat healthy" public messaging and home economics classes in the world won't help a damn thing, so long as large portions of the population don't have access to healthy food in the first place.
If it's 101 outside, it's going to be 120 or 130 inside the truck, easy. And, it's not just "truck"; it's "plane", "trailer", and "container" as well, docked or undocked, loaded or unloaded. And as we're talking close confines, it's going to get stale and humid in there rather quickly. Physical labor under those conditions absolutely deserve hazard pay, and strict worker safety regulations.
Hell, when I worked on receive dock at Amazon, temperatures inside trailers would hit 110 or 120 at midday when it was only high 80's or low 90's -- with air exchangers hooked directly to HVAC on full power, and air movers inside the trailer. When I was back there, we kept a mini-freezer on the dock loaded with ice packs, water bottles, and electrolyte pops to deal with heat-related illness on the spot. We rotated in the trucks every hour, and were expected to check in with each other and our PA (who was one of the few in the building first aid- and CPR-trained) pretty much constantly. Even so much as a dizzy spell got us pulled immediately, and sent to the break room with an ice pack, water, and electrolyte pop.
At least, until safety made us get rid of the mini-freezer, and took the ice packs, water bottles, and electrolyte pops away. Because apparently, instead of preventing heat-related illness, we're supposed to wait until someone gets sick, then send them up front for treatment. The excuse was the need to standardize safety precautions and response, but we were made to adopt ship dock's standard rather than the other way round.
We had zero heat-related safety incidents, while over on ship dock poor bastards were keeling over every day, to the point our facility contracted with a private ambulance company to sit in the parking lot on standby during summer months. So, it was pretty obvious it wasn't a safety-related decision but rather reducing cost, maximizing productivity, and mitigating civil liability.
[EDIT: But I will admit, pulling the electrolyte pops was probably for the best. Dumb fucks would sneak down to the break room, steal them, and eat them like they were just regular popsicles. They usually learned the hard way those aren't snacks, and however hilarious it was watching morons chow down only to run to the nearest trash can or bathroom five to ten minutes later, it did come at a heavy cost to productivity, unit cost, and janitorial services.]
At least, until safety made us get rid of the mini-freezer, and took the ice packs, water bottles, and electrolyte pops away. Because apparently, instead of preventing heat-related illness, we're supposed to wait until someone gets sick, then send them up front for treatment. The excuse was the need to standardize safety precautions and response, but we were made to adopt ship dock's standard rather than the other way round.
We had zero heat-related safety incidents, while over on ship dock poor bastards were keeling over every day, to the point our facility contracted with a private ambulance company to sit in the parking lot on standby during summer months. So, it was pretty obvious it wasn't a safety-related decision but rather reducing cost, maximizing productivity, and mitigating civil liability.
[EDIT: But I will admit, pulling the electrolyte pops was probably for the best. Dumb fucks would sneak down to the break room, steal them, and eat them like they were just regular popsicles. They usually learned the hard way those aren't snacks, and however hilarious it was watching morons chow down only to run to the nearest trash can or bathroom five to ten minutes later, it did come at a heavy cost to productivity, unit cost, and janitorial services.]
Last edited:
Why would you think I'm arguing that lockdowns literally have no benefits there? I assume someone would know nobody would argue that and didn't think I have to specify it to such a degree. Then, I get accused of moving goalpostsYou said, #5480:
There mostly aren't "requirements" or "minimums", there's only methodological validity and statistical strength. And again, I remind you that were raging here over a paper I presented for looking at drug effects on viral load and general disease progression, for which it was a study with a reasonable size. You claimed it was too small because you ignored all that and only looked at deaths. And again, I remind you that this was a study you (indirectly) originally used to defend your own position.
Whilst both remdesivir and IVM had mixed results, the studies in support of IVM were very low quality, whereas the studies in support of remdesivir were done to a much higher standard. To stress this, you also need to bear in mind that the Solidarity trials did ultimately find a (very small) therapeutic benefit to it, and the WHO eventually approved it.
Remdesivir and three other drugs for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results of the WHO Solidarity randomised trial and updated meta-analyses
Remdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both).www.thelancet.com
Thus history has vindicated my judgement on both IVM and remdesivir. Maybe having a decent idea what one is looking at does count for somethng...
Marty Makary is a rent-a-gob.
He wasn't with the scientific consensus though. The actual experts in the field viewed his prediction as somewhere between extraordinarily optimistic and just wrong. Makary, let's recall, is an gastrointestinal surgical oncologist. You wouldn't put him in your top 100 to diagnose schizophrenia, and you shouldn't put him in your top 100 for the epidemiology of respiratory diseases, either. He didn't have the best expertise to offer that opinion, and yet he did so anyway, with a massive op-ed in a major newspaper. See also his grossly inaccurate view on pediatric covid deaths.
This isn't just happening to be on the wrong side of a 60:40 balance of evidence with a well-considered opinion, this is someone who is not properly clued in to the subjects he aspires to tell the world about. And yet he thought he was fit to spray his bullshit all over news feeds at the highest level anyway. Arrogance? Self-aggrandisement? Attention-seeking? Who knows.
This is not the behaviour of a reliable source.
when I wasn't meaning that to be a 100% literal argument. If I was arguing parachutes work, do I need to specify there are times that they fail?I'll just take the L on the my initial takes on that because I can't find the discussion easily (I think I was right on the one specific point) and I know I made mistakes early on. However, your "evidence" that Florida didn't do well at protecting the elderly (I was able to find that easily via Google for some reason) totally didn't say what you think it did. The first link there actually tells you the opposite of what you claim it did. You were trying to argue that Florida was poor at protecting the elderly but that chart basically told you which states are the unhealthiest because the reason the red unhealthy states that didn't follow "the science" did so well in that stat was because their younger populations are unhealthy; thus more of the population under 65 died, thus making the 65+ that died a lower percentage. This was the kind of stuff you'd post from time-to- time and you're supposed to be the expert at looking at this stuff.
Hindsight doesn't make you right AT THE TIME you said something. Based on the evidence AT THE TIME, IVM and Remdesivir had similar evidence and either you say they both should be used or neither should be used, that's the only way to go if you wanna be consistent. I'd even say that Remdesivir had more evidence against it because the Solidarity trial was better quality than the IVM studies available at the time.I do not necessarily think these are highest reliability, but if true they might lead us to ask some searching questions about how effective Florida really was at protecting its elderly.
What Share of People Who Have Died of COVID-19 Are 65 and Older – and How Does It Vary By State? | KFF
This analysis examines the extent of state-level variation in the share of COVID-19 deaths accounted for by older adults, using data from the CDC as of July 22, 2020, for the week ending July 11, 2020.www.kff.org
COVID-19 Deaths Among Older Adults During the Delta Surge Were Higher in States with Lower Vaccination Rates | KFF
This analysis looks at the relationship between vaccination rates and COVID-19 deaths for adults 65 and older since the Delta variant took hold, and finds that states with lower vaccination rates among adults ages 65 and older had higher death rates among older adults during this period.
His prediction was pretty spot-on at the time as he predicted when cases would start falling off a cliff. The issue with his prediction wasn't the when, it was the fact that herd immunity for covid wouldn't be possible. Literally every other expert was saying herd immunity was gonna be possible as well like Fauci. Marty is also a professor of public health so how is he not qualified to be speaking about public health policy? What was his grossly inaccurate view on pediatric deaths? Marty was for doing the UK strat of prioritizing first doses of the vaccine to get more people protection faster whereas the US choose to get people fully vaxxed as fast as possible. As you said for yourself, history vindicated Marty on that 2-fold because not only is it better to give more people first doses, giving the 2nd dose farther apart ended up in helping in the myocarditis situation (as the CDC changed their recommendation for that in younger men). Marty was right about not ignoring natural immunity whereas people like Fauci wouldn't even speak the words.
"The time from exposure to symptom onset (known as the incubation period) is thought to be two to 14 days. Symptoms typically appeared within five days for early variants, and within four days for the Delta variant. The incubation period appears to be even shorter – about three days – for the Omicron variant."
Also, literally off the CDC webpage:
"If you do not have symptoms but have been exposed to COVID-19, wait at least 5 full days after your exposure before taking a test."
What does it matter if you have covid or the flu/cold? You should stay home either way. The flu basically completely vanished for about a year so chances were super low it was the flu, I willing to bet the common cold was also pushed out by covid that first year as well. Also, it's not like you have to know it's covid (good for the vulnerable to know) but it's not like you can go to the store and pick up covid medicine instead of flu medicine.
Testing was never possible to be able to get you positive test before symptoms so you can know before you got sick, thus there's not much point in some massive testing program.
"The science" said kids needed to mask outside whereas the actual science said that was stupid.
People eat more because they eat lower quality food and you need to eat more to get proper amount of nutrients. And refined carbs has people end up in a vicious cycle of always wanting more food as detailed here. I don't blame people for ending up in such a cycle (with how much bad food and messaging is out there) but at some point you gotta realize you put on too much weight and need to change. It happened to me and I went down 10 pant sizes in less than a year.
This is why I hate this channel, they are very bad at reporting just basic information let alone anything political that gets heavily spun. They are literally making the argument obesity is less dangerous than car crashes. They pulled a study saying overweight/obese account for less excess deaths than car crashes. What they failed to say was that in that study that overweight accounted for -86,000 deaths while obese accounted for +111,000 deaths, thus getting to it only being about 25,000 deaths. Whereas if you only look at the obese group, you have about 3x the deaths of car crashes. They also fail to realize the cause of obesity also directly leads into heart disease, cancers, diabetes, non alcoholic fatty liver disease, kidney failure, etc. Look up the death numbers from those diseases. I only actually watched this awhile back because a friend posted it on Facebook and it had the chick reporting (as I can't stand the dude on the channel).
When your goal is just nutrition, you should tell people what is good and not good to eat. I think the only legit meat studies find only processed meat to have bad associations. Just like anything else, the less processed the food, the better.
Nothing against exercise or anything but diet is the elephant in the room. I probably have to do some exercise myself to lose the rest of the stomach fat and/or build muscle there.
Even a place like Sharks (standard fast food place you'll find in a city like Gary Indiana, been to the one in Gary myself a couple times) has a few options that are healthy food choices. Just pulling up Google Maps for Gary, there's restaurants that have healthy food options, and people will claim Gary is a food swamp/desert. Is it as easy to eat healthy there as somewhere else? No, but you do have choices. Also, part of the reason why communities end up with so many fried food places is because that's what the community buys. If people didn't buy fried foods, the restaurants wouldn't be able to stay open. Also, people don't know how to eat healthy because they were taught to eat unhealthy, just look up the CDC page for healthy diets, it's filled with misinformation.
Last edited:
By the way, if you make below a certain amount of money, have a large enough family, and have a small enough student loan. You don't need to repay it with this loan.
Look, I would be for this solely based on book burning is bad. It doesn't matter what bookDenmark considers banning burning of holy texts including Qur’an and Bible at protests
Government say such demonstrations play into hands of extremists and can have ‘significant negative consequences for Denmark’
Swedish PM ‘extremely worried’ as more apply to burn Qur’an
Ulf Kristersson says ‘there is a clear risk of something serious happening’ amid growing Muslim anger at the attacks on Islam’s holy book
Cowards.
Because that is the meaning of the words you typed. It is your responsibility to communicate accurately with others, and do not blame them when you fail to do so.
AT THE TIME, remdesivir had at least one large and decently conducted clinical trial supporting its use against covid... which is more than IVM ever did. Is it really going to hurt you that much to admit that someone with a PhD in biological sciences and over 20 years had a better grasp of the available information than you did?
He was just wrong, and anyone with a shred of honesty would accept that, ideally starting with himself. The manner in which he was wrong is proof enough he either does not really get the science, or that he recklessly wrote something he knew was extremely unsafe to claim. A couple of months after facts demonstrated how wrong he was, he then wrote a piece blaming everyone else for allegedly misunderstanding him. Ironically, this is the guy who publicly berated the health authorities for not having the humility to admit they were wrong.
As for the pediatric deaths from covid, this was probably worse, as claiming no kids without pre-existing conditions had died of covid was just flatly inaccurate based on easily accessible data.
No he isn't: it says clearly on his university profile "Professor of Surgery": https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/details/martin-makary He certainly has elements of public health in his research interests, but one might note these are overwhelmingly based around the financial and economic aspects of healthcare.
Said every authoratarian ever.
Yes, of course I agree with you in principle, there are absolutely freedoms that should be curtailed (weapons, seatbelts, whatever), but protests and book burning? Really?
UN Human Rights Council gets it wrong: Prosecuting blasphemy won’t stop religious discord, but it will silence dissent
Last month, two men stood outside a mosque in Stockholm and proceeded to tear pages out of a Quran and set the book on fire in front of a crowd of onlookers.
www.thefire.org
Piece of advice, you really don't want to be on the same side as those who support blasphemy laws. You really don't, and I suspect you know that.
It literally states that Denmark is considering the banning of book burning (to be clear, the "cowards" comment was only meant for Denmark, Sweden is simply playing the political game it has to due to the nonsense surrounding it.)
Except the people acting like children are the ones reacting to it.
If your sense of priority that someone burning a book is enough to summon ambassadors over, you really have to evaluate your sense of priorities.
Freedom of speech and a lack of blasphemy laws?
UN expert urges global repeal of blasphemy laws to boost religious freedom
NEW YORK (24 October 2017) – All States with blasphemy laws on their statute books should repeal them to increase freedom of religion or belief, a UN human rights expert has said.
I can sleep easy with that.
Hah, as if I'd have a religious text on a bookshelf. Come on, at least give me some credit.
But more importantly, you're playing a semantic game, that any expression of contempt towards an ideology must, by definition, include the people following said ideology. By that logic, if I burn a copy of the Bible to protest against the Catholic Church, I must be attacking every Christian in the world.
And your source for this is? Because I looked up Salwan Momika, I can't find any quotes to suggest what you're saying. Or, if you are, you're basically going down the route of any attack against a religion is, by definition, an attack against its followers. Do you want to ban flag burning because it could be seen as an attack on the people of the country as opposed to the country itself?
(Please don't entertain that notion, burn as many flags as you want.)
First of all, Goodwin's Law. Yay.
Second of all, that is absolutely a false equivalance and you know it. The closest equivalent to the Nazis in this scenario would be people protesting burnings of religious texts, and that's like saying being at the base of Mount Everest is "close" to the summit. Book burning has been done by various groups over time to curtail the knowledge within, to shore up their own power. The people burning religious texts don't have the power to enforce any kind of ban, while often, the people who want the burning banned do (governments).
Third, I'd ask what hill you'd consider dying on, because your position seems to be a curtail on acts of protest provided there's religion involved.
Reductio ad absurdam, they call it.
Firstly, all freedom are limited, chiefly when they conflict with another right. So for instance the classic "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose". Your freedom of movement does not entitle you to trample over other people's property, and so on. So, we have a significant caveat here.
Secondly, there is pragmatism. If a freedom were abused to the point it caused society enough problems: dissent, conflict, riots, etc. then that freedom would almost certainly be limited. This is not advocacy either way, it is merely the acknowledgement that society will not tolerate excessive damage and disorder. People who genuinely believe in freedoms should not cheer them being tested to potential destruction.
Responding in turn:
1) Godwin's Law describes cases wherein Nazis/Hitler are invoked fallaciously, as a hyperbolic comparison glibly likening someone to the Nazis or Hitler for petty or otherwise irrelevant reasons. For instance, "Oh yes, vegetarians are in great company, with such famous adherents as Hitler..." and "the mods are Nazis for deleting my post" would both be correct invocations of Godwin's Law. It does not apply when the argument is pointing out non-hyperbolic historical parallels.
2) I reject your characterization wholeheartedly. To try and claim that "people protesting burnings of religious texts" are closer to Nazis than the people championing those burnings is simply perverse, and you know it.
3) No, I just happen to draw a line between protesting and "but I'm not touching you" attempts to incite retaliation, much like how I draw a line between a criminal investigation and entrapment. Methods matter.
Last edited:
I'd recommend you reread those quotes, because neither of them support the idea that testing doesn't show positive until after symptom onset.
This is such a foolish paragraph it almost beggars belief. "What does it matter"? Oh, I don't know-- maybe because covid carries a responsibility to self-isolate, while the common cold does not. Maybe because a public health response relies on accurate knowledge of where/when incidences are cropping up. Maybe because each disease has radically different implications for work and family plans over the next several weeks.
Science is not a set of policy instructions. You still seem to think it is.
The sticking point (for the Danish and Swedish governments) here is not the blasphemy. It is public incitement, with the high likelihood of resulting in violence and damage. Hence why those governments are not suggesting that you cannot 'blaspheme' in your own home; just that you can't make a massive public show of it. The latter constitutes incitement.
Ah, but they do have the power to intimidate others, with an eye to forcing people to act in a certain way. That is a big part of their intent-- make people feel unwelcome, hated or unsafe, so that they feel they have to hide their expressions of faith or leave the country.
I know what a food desert is. How the hell does any of that refute any of the science of obesity?
Since we're on the subject, alleviating food deserts would indeed help, but it wouldn't solve everything. Overweightness/obesity still persists in areas where access to healthy food is available.
How is any of that relevant to book burning on the personal level?
Okay, but we tolerate riots/protests anyway. And none of the book burning was violent. If people react with violence, that's on them. And it's not even a hypothetical, there's already been an attack on the Swedish embassy in Iraq.
1: That's not Godwin's Law. Godwin's Law states that the longer an Internet conversation goes on, the more likely comparisons to Hitler/Nazis are going to be made. What you're describing is Reductio ad Hitlerum.
2: If we're talking about fallacious comparisons, you realize that you're the one who made said comparison in the first place, right?
I reject your characterization wholeheartedly. To try and claim that people burning religious texts are closer to Nazis than the people doing the violence is simply perverse, and you know it.
And where is your evidence that it was an attempt to cite retaliation? And even if it was, said retaliation has involved attacks on embassies?
It says a lot about you that you're more religious to religious sensitivities than actual violence.
First, that's semantics. If burning of a religious text incites violence, then the crime is with the people carrying out the violence, said violence having already been carried out.
Second, by that logic, any form of protest could be called public incitement.
Again, by that logic, any protest against anything could be considered incitement. You're basically saying "you can protest, but not in public." So either you're extending that to any form of protest against anything, or you're giving religion special treatment.
Again, citation needed on the intent. And again, with the embassy attacks, no-one forced them to do anything.
In fact, let's run a simple question - what's worse? Attacking a person's religion, or physically attacking them?
Last edited:
Also, this:
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
This is what you're defending.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
This is what you're defending.
No, it's what you're defending.
This is about consequences. You can cast all sorts of moral blame that violence is the responsibility of the violent, but that doesn't negate the reality of cause and effect. It is a simple fact that some people can be excitable, emotional, angry, incitable; you and I and everyone knows it. We therefore know that if you really piss such people off, there's significant potential they may react destructively.
You think agitators should be free to to enrage people, you are tacitly accepting that riots, burnt-down embassies etc. are a price worth paying for their right to do so. If you don't admit this, you are simply denying reality.
Two things can be bad.Also, this:
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
This is what you're defending.