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.
Ok I can get behind thatThis 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.
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 playI 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"
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.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
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.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
This pretty much I don't deal in quboomer shit
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?