I'm gonna make a thread about it tomorrow. I say if we can't trust peer review then we might as well wipe our ass with any data and admit that really we don't know what we're talking about.
This is a place for informed political discussion and we need a standard of evidence especially if we're going to be stating controversial points.
@Nep Nep if ya don’t want an echo chamber for the right or left we gotta instill SOME kind lawful neutral standards
I offer and prepose using widely scientific, journalistic and academic standards for evidence
but if that’s too “left” and woke” Then I guess we can throw poo at walls and have people say all racial slurs and Qtard crap that ya want.
I hear both of you on this. We aren't about silencing dissenting opinions or enforcing a majority view on those to the point of socially ostracizing them from the section and its inherent culture that will emerge from these early baby steps. What we want are proper sources on claims, evidence, articles that are specifically PEER REVIEWED in scientific communities or vetted to a degree that they fit in such a capacity.Again, that should be obvious that we ultimately would want news that isn't permeated in a political slant but that's not the point:
The point is that people SHOULDN'T be silenced based on the politics they have but whether or not their word and their character in terms of actually bringing in that truth matters.
A Debate isn't just getting someone to believe you, it's to allow them to see different perspectives and thoughts and to actually THINK, not just be some NPC for either side.
I don't believe shit that comes from Fauci not because of some random thing of me thinking on the Right, but of the fact the dude is a KNOWN fuckup since the AIDs Epidemic, but if there is a way that people can even remotely see eye-to-eye without trying to go into name slinging or trying to bring up politics rather than actually BE Adults, then you shouldn't engage in these types of discussions. This is exactly the problem with a growing amount of the population on BOTH SIDES.
No one cannot see into both sides and make their own judgment like humans and instead like NPCs.
That's precisely the problem when it comes to ANYTHING these days.
Problem with you makeoit you arent middle ground id be fine with mediation but not yours@Nep Nep if ya don’t want an echo chamber for the right or left we gotta instill SOME kind lawful neutral standards
I offer and prepose using widely scientific, journalistic and academic standards for evidence
but if that’s too “left” and woke” Then I guess we can throw poo at walls and have people say all racial slurs and Qtard crap that ya want.
I can easily debook such a claim tbh not even dismissed lmao im certain of thisyou concede even if you disagree, that the source is credible enough not be out of hand flat out dismissed?
What I'm asking is will you accept evidence if its properly vetted in academic and scientific circles even if it goes against your own beliefs and sources and that goes for others.I can easily debook such a claim tbh not even dismissed lmao im certain of this
I will argue against it as I see fit acceptance would mean submission Im not going to outright dismiss something but If I bring up strings of events and point out a pattern and someone asks for a source I will meet it with scorn for obvious reasons.What I'm asking is will you accept evidence if its properly vetted in academic and scientific circles even if it goes against your own beliefs and sources and that goes for others.
If the data is from a credible source and is peer reviewed with a good sample size then yeah I will not knock IDW for that, or dismiss it.@Makeoutparadise if IWD posts credible sources showing Covid-19 vaccines involving Pfizer or Moderna ones increase and have a corroboration/causation in causing heart related health issues in healthy young men and those are coming from credible sources that are not from crackpots like Alex Jones, you would agree that it isn't politically driven even if it follows their political ideologies on vaccinations not needing to be mandatory? In the same token @Es_ if someone posts evidence showing why Covid-19 vaccines should overrule freedom of bodily independence because the group's welfare outweighs the individual with scientific evidence, would you concede even if you disagree, that the source is credible enough not be out of hand flat out dismissed?
This is not about optics.Optics...optics...optics
This is not about optics.
This isn't the tangent but I can also rebuttal in saying there is strong evidence of Pfizer in under men under the age of 30 having a consistent effect in notable numbers of causing heart palpations and other heart health concerns as well and the CDC has attempted to dismiss this. My point is I want EVERYONE to agree to a degree OF PROPER ETIQUETTE AND DECORUM!@Orwellian
I will say that IDW et al won’t sadly be held to the same standards
The covid 19 vaccine has been tested and FDA approved and millions of people have now gotten it
But despite this evidence they feel there should be a debate about it and dismiss all studies and Scientific studies that do not conform to their conclusions out of hand
To be fair, they probably had common ground in both being absolutely terrible people.There was a time when you had two people who were so estranged in views like George W Bush Jr and Ellen go to a cafe together despite them being so wildly different in beliefs, political allegiance, and ideas because they were still friends.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?