this is dumb. label people based on a personal choice. That's just great. The 1st amendment is dead because of stupid people. Thread is nothing more than to entertain useless argument.

We are living in an age of mass censorship where the first amendment is under direct threat, and you are so desperately trying to normalize this.

Of course I take him at his word. I’m done with the totalitarian frog boil.

Well you obviously have made up your mind and I don't think I am going to convince you otherwise. This "dissident", Dr. Z. Dogg, clearly hasn't been silenced. I'll say your claims are hyperbolic and that I disagree and leave it at that.

Why are you trying to convince anyone of anything?

If you're truly trying to objectively and unemotionally discuss the issues, you should not be trying to sway anyone one way or the other.

That's why those of us with some experience are suspicious of you.  You claim to want to do "thought experiments" and examine all sides of issues, when in fact you are trying to sell a particular viewpoint -- by your own admission.

This may be a specific point of fact you're trying to argue, but it's indicative of many of your posts.  You want to "convince" and "change minds."

I guess you could say I am emotionally attached to objectivity and the truth. A truth doesn't always exist but sometimes it does and when it does it reasons we should all be in agreement with it because opposing positions can't both be right on a matter of truth.

So in the case of Dr. Z. Dogg, I would speak up if someone said something demonstrably false against him. And I would do this whether I loved him or hated him. If someone said Hitler ate babies I would point out that there is no evidence he hates babies but not because I defend Hitler rather because I try to defend truth. So take a coworker I might hate and not get along with at all, I still wont exaggerate negatives about them.

I do enjoy a good debate with points and counter points even on topics I don't have a stance on. I appreciate a well formed counter argument even if it is from a position I disagree with. Sometimes speak to sway others on a topic and sometimes I do it just so the discussion is well informed and full of context. We don't necessarily have to come to the same conclusion but it is still better off to have an fuller and more accurate understanding of the opposing viewpoint and sometimes a thought experiment accomplishes that

I hope that adds a bit of light to my discussion style.

It's a fact (as in "true") that you and I can both be right at the same time while having different opinions on what the truth is.

Let's say you have several well-documented studies, clinical trials and testimonials that a new, cheaper, more environmentally safe soap exists.  So you swap out all the old soap dispensers and install the new ones.  You have all the data on you side to support that decision.

However, I also have studies showing that 5% of the participants have allergic reactions, can't stand the smell or simply prefer the old soap.  I also have evidence from the EPA that shows any benefit to the environment caused by using the soap itself end is more than negated by the cost of production to handle contaminants/byproducts safely with special machinery that use hard-to-mine rare elements.

So, while your conclusion is right based on the information you think is relevant, I am also right in rejecting the new soap since the old one had no negative studies affecting a portion of the population no matter how small.

If 5% of the soap users are not happy, whereas 100% were happy before, was it "more right" to try and save money over keeping all the users happy?

The answer lies in whether you have the money to continue using the old soap versus how disgruntled the 5% will become (resignations, lower employee productivity, ...).

It's almost a problem in quantitative analysis and optimal solutions.  You have to include all constraints on every possible solution before you can determine the optimal solution.  That means that it's possible for there to be 2 optimal solutions depending on the weights assigned to the constraints.  The constraints can represent many things, including the need to cause no more resistance over the soap change than existed before.  That causes my solution to be right.  If the constraint says the cost is required to be X% lower than the previous soap, that causes your solution to be right,  If the dollar cost and the resistance factors are equal, then those 2 constraints are not going to determine which solution has more merit.  If all other things are equal, then both are correct, but they achieve different objectives based on priorities.

I am in complete agreement with you. I try to make clear differentiations between facts and opinions which are based on those facts. With regards to covid I understand disagreements about how to react based on the facts but I want us all to at least be on the same level when it comes to the facts themselves. I am totally fine with someone who says "covid has an x% chance at killing me but I don't think that risk is high enough for me to take the vaccine" but if he is saying it is a 0.0001% chance and I am saying it is a 0.01% chance then I see something is wrong because we aren't even getting the facts right in the first place. If we don't have the facts right then our opinions on what to do based on those facts are meaningless.

The government, the media (including big tech), politicians, and the medical community have done a very poor job providing those facts, in part because they can't bring themselves to utter the words, "We don't now."

Given the lack of facts and transparency of the last 2 years, it's amazing that anyone has the confidence to say the vaccine is safe.  They only repeat that conclusion because they've been told it's safe.  No sense in confusing us with all those big words, actual data, and historical comparisons.

If they can't even determine the origin of the disease, how the heck are they so confident the cure is effective and safe to the level they THINK it is?  Total confusion between what they tell us and what they are not telling us.

The common excuse i hear people make for fauci's mistakes/lies is that covid is so new, no one knows whats what.

I am in complete agreement with you. I try to make clear differentiations between facts and opinions which are based on those facts. With regards to covid I understand disagreements about how to react based on the facts but I want us all to at least be on the same level when it comes to the facts themselves. I am totally fine with someone who says "covid has an x% chance at killing me but I don't think that risk is high enough for me to take the vaccine" but if he is saying it is a 0.0001% chance and I am saying it is a 0.01% chance then I see something is wrong because we aren't even getting the facts right in the first place. If we don't have the facts right then our opinions on what to do based on those facts are meaningless.

so was "all available data" fact or opinion?

The government, the media (including big tech), politicians, and the medical community have done a very poor job providing those facts, in part because they can't bring themselves to utter the words, "We don't now."

Given the lack of facts and transparency of the last 2 years, it's amazing that anyone has the confidence to say the vaccine is safe.  They only repeat that conclusion because they've been told it's safe.  No sense in confusing us with all those big words, actual data, and historical comparisons.

If they can't even determine the origin of the disease, how the heck are they so confident the cure is effective and safe to the level they THINK it is?  Total confusion between what they tell us and what they are not telling us.

Clearly that is not a matter of opinion, it is either true or it isn't.

Is the origin of the disease necessary to establish confidence in how to fight it?

then why do you refuse to post it if it's true?

If I tell you I can fix your car, but after 6 months, I still have been unable to determine what's causing it to stall, how confident are you in my ability to repair it?

If you can't define what "is", how can you possibly do more to solve it other than use trial and error?

Back to the illegals topic, biden admin wants to pay illegals who were separated after crossing ILLEGALLY $450K.

Liberals at it again.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I do think it is true, I already said that.