Resolved Standards of evidence discussion.

[The Immortal WatchDog]

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.

The problem is whose standard of evidence?

A socialists? The wokesters? We have demonstrable proof that the scientific and medical communities are engaging in widespread fraud for ideological reasons and who trusts what?

Put the sources out in public and let people decide.

Don't force people to use only sources that you and the staff find respectable. Given some of your peers here I assure you, you will be dispensing witchcraft.

Edit- it's rather disturbing that you think you can only have knowledge on a subject if you cite information that other people approve of.

Knowledge doesn't work on consensus.

 

[Makeoutparadise]

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!

We all don't share the same social beliefs, political views, ideas and ideologies on marriage, government, etc...what we want as the Staff collectively is intellectual discourse that is not falling into personal attacks, slurs, or alienating people who differ.

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.

That is all I'm asking. That is all we are asking.

Ok I can get behind that

 

[The Immortal WatchDog]

I will reserve judgment until I see this Utopia in action for myself.

But I agree that a set criteria needs to be established but I think rules need to be based off more than just "lel peer reviewed"

 

[Es_]

I will reserve judgment until I see this Utopia in action for myself.

But I agree that a set criteria needs to be established but I think rules need to be based off more than just "lel peer reviewed"

This peer reviewed evidence is a buzzword people will cite dudes who think hobbies are disorders but think encoraging children to castrate are ok in the same breath a degree of common sense needs to come to play

 

[Aurelian]

This peer reviewed evidence is a buzzword people will cite dudes who think hobbies are disorders but think encoraging children to castrate are ok in the same breath a degree of common sense needs to come to play

It is not. I know you and IWD like to argue and debate passionately but you cannot simply dismiss other's sources because they disagree or clash with yours.

What I am asking is you guys to extend the same courtesy. You don't have to concede an argument if someone brings strong credible sources instead of talking out of their ass, but you can't simply dismiss or ignore it either. And that goes the same way if you pull your own articles and sources with evidence, they don't have to agree just because it goes against their views but they have to acknowledge it exists.

 

[Es_]

We argue agamst the points I dont recall outright dismissal ive cited flaws in how said concenius is reached

The problem with most studies are id trust a claim from a retired or independent study over a dude who is funded by a grant or a corporate check

Sure there can be crackpot claims but money can be a factor in things is my point

 

[Aurelian]

We argue agamst the points I dont recall outright dismissal ive cited flaws in how said concenius is reached

The problem with most studies are id trust a claim from a retired or independent study over a dude who is funded by a grant or a corporate check

Sure there can be crackpot claims but money can be a factor in things is my point

That is fine. The nature of a debate is to battle the finer points and tangents of the argument someone is making and that can include scrutinizing their sources and the author behind them. But do not conflate that with outright dismissing every single one as being essentially poison because you disagree.

Does this make sense to you?

 

[Es_]

I have never said such a conflation. Theres a fucking study that says "toxic masculinity" is harmful like adventure and taking risks bad and I will not outright dismiss how retarded it is I will go in detail

I can make a thread even

 

[The Immortal WatchDog]

I just want to point out, @Es_ posted a video that I believe was a 5 hour long discussion by the FDA where multiple FDA employees admit the vaccines are dangerous and some took a step further and it was dismissed with posturing and dishonest attacks against his character and repeated gaslighting by Nep and Makeout.

Not to revive an old discussion but you don't get to dismiss something that damming as a bad source and I think it's concerning how no one has drawn attention to that.

 

[Ral]

I would like to point out that after the new section is created, now that the group has already been taken care of, we will move this thread over there for further discussion.

 

[Es_]

ok

 

[ShinAkuma]

There is no such thing currently as a "standard of evidence" considering how many authoritative sources are either incompetent or purposely corrupt. And then you get into the weeds of what is "authoritative", another never ending frivolous battle that ignores actual logic.

The argument made will either stand up to scrutiny or it won't. If some dude uses a post at 8chan for his evidence that leads to some insane ramblings of a Qtard that doesn't contain any actual evidence or logic, then that argument will get railroaded.

Attempting to gatekeep debates leads to the same lunacy at Fanverse - lazy illogical trolls will use weak arguments that lean on BS from sources like CNN/Fox/Whatever corrupt MSM and call it a day while defending their position by yelling "peer reviewzzzz" or "conspiracy" or whatever buzz term they love to inject rather than make a legit point.

 

[Es_]

This pretty much I don't deal in quboomer shit

 

[The Immortal WatchDog]

This pretty much I don't deal in quboomer shit

IM PLOOOONNINNNGG!

Pathetic psyop go get the Boomers to stay calm that's all it was.

 

[Odd]

This thread is super gay

 

[jane]

i am gay

 

[Ral]

Alright ladies and gents, I think we had our fill of fun with this thread and now it's time to finally close it as I mentioned previously.

There is a new section for these kinds of discussions as discussed with @The Immortal WatchDog privately and if you would like access to this new section, within the News section, you can PM either @Trinity, @Orwellian, or myself to add you to the group. So that everyone else knows that we're being transparent about this, the new group is called "Round Table Members" and they will have access to a new section called "The Round Table" which can be located here for those who are already part of the new user group.

https://onelastforum.com/index.php?forums/the-round-table.53/

In the future, I am hoping to finish fixing this Join-able User Groups add-on which will allow you to join this new group and gain access to this private section via your account settings.

Thank you all for your time and patience with this matter :)