Is on the Gin
- May 26, 2020
Um some people were saying 2+2=5 and it's just because people aren't enlightened enough to truly see it. That's how this nonsense started.I you believe that anybody is actually, literally saying that 2+2=5 in any and all literal mathematical circumstances, then you are the least credulous person on Al Gore's internet
One year is not "quite a while". Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent study that stuck around for a over decade, causing a massive surge in vaccine denial that's killed quite a huge number of people. Does that mean we should dismantle vaccine study as a medical discipline?Scanners try to watch the red-blue divide play out underneath the skullwww.scientificamerican.com
Debate is good, generally speaking. Gotta examine your existing biases and beliefs to see if they still hold up.
If the starting line is not equal, you cannot have a meritocracy. The less equal the starting line is, the less meritocratic it is.
You and I disagree on several of those "objective truths". Far as I can tell, we are both rational. Objective truth does not exist.
Any basic reading of history would tell me that there were several centuries where Western Europe was running roughshod over other cultures, destroying their cultures and advances so that Western Europeans could snort dead people.
"The best theory we have" is not objective truth and to say otherwise is pure hubris
It's part of a wider and dumber effort to push back against the idea of objective truth which is deemed a western modernity standard and instead to embrace a holistic approach of personal truth thus if a person says 2+2=5 then it must be accepted as true and you cannot deny their claim because it's their personal truth you can only assert your personal truth is 2+2=4.
The Grievance studies thing stuck round long enough and blew up big enough and only died when it was revealed as a fake and honestly shouldn't have died as such but evolved into introspection from there for said field but it didn't and instead evolved into attempts to punish them responsible one way or another. Andrew Wakefield never confessed his study was fake hence it stuck round longer.
As for objective truth. Well you're right there is no objective truth I may not exist you may be hallucinating my replies while in a coma because you nearly died in an alien invasion attack on Mars and it's really the year 2525. We can only observe things from our own perception. The problem is without some level of accepting things as an objective truth or as far as we are able to determine it is truth based on perception by many and pushback by few society falls into chaos and madness. E.G. You can't object to any quack peddling fake cures because their truth is drinking Turpentine is totally a cure (I shouldn't have to say this but don't drink Turpentine) or eating basically cyanide capsules can cure cancer (I don't think I really need to say don't do this one). Thing is you might laugh at my examples but these happened, these were real claims made by people.