Tempus Fugit wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
When it comes to the "conspiracy theory" it doesn't end with mandatory mask wearing. There's also mandatory quarantines. And mandatory business shutdowns. And mandatory vaccine taking. Of a rushed vaccine. All over a virus strain that might have been created in a Chinese laboratory.
Now I personally don't think there's any plot going on. But I can understand why people would think there is. I can understand why they would be suspicious, without thinking they're crazy. I'm willing to consider there's a lot of layers to this situation. And that it might get even more complicated than it already is.
What I don't get is those who's reaction seems to be, no no no this is all perfectly normal and not to be questioned. Only psycho anti-science nutjobs would question any of this.
Now while we're not at a stage where people are being forced to wear masks or are being forced to take the vaccine etc, how far away are we from that? Is it wrong to ponder such things? Or should any postulating be immediately shot down?
I bet whoever attacks me over this post, didn't get past reading the first sentence and assumed the rest. It'll be entertaining to see how far off base they are.
I can understand why people believe absurd conspiracy lies, too. Usually all it takes is some scientific illiteracy, some ignorance, and a dash of dunning-kruger. A little bit of personal bias doesn't hurt. Many things seem "plausible" when there are gaps in one's understanding of things.
Just because I can understand it does not mean I am required to indulge or validate it. It's not hard to understand that ignorant people believe ignorant things because they're ignorant - not as an insult, but in the most literal definition of the word - "lacking knowledge or information". If someone is ignorant, the solution isn't to indulge, and therefore enable, their ignorance - it's to educate them. If someone is trying to solve a math problem, but doing it wrong, you're not helping them by indulging their mistake and not treating it, or correcting it, as a mistake - you correct the mistake, so they can solve the problem.
You have the right to your opinion. You even have the right to be wrong. You do not have the right to have your wrong thinking indulged and entertained by others. Others are not required to agree with you.
Other than being a fine all-or-nothing fallacy, where either ALL absurd baloney MUST be treated as equally valid, no matter how bananas it is, or NOTHING can be discussed and everyone must stick to the original script, as though there isn't a MASSIVE middle ground between those two extremes, your not really saying anything terribly additive or meaningful, besides sharing your opinion.
Very good. That was much better.
In my opinion not everything a particular group (right, left, whatever) calls an absurd conspiracy theory lie balloney bananas et al makes it so. I'm sure as you know ignorance can be a two way street, and there are those who will arbitrarily condemn something counter to what they believe as crazy, without really knowing anything about it.
Likewise when it comes to dunning-kruger, I've seen people pontificate about science, but they don't ever say anything that gives the impression they actually know much about science. I've seen someone who doesn't seem to actually know much about science, but act like they do, pretentiously argue against someone whom I know is an actual scientist.
There are those who appeal to someone's credentials as long as that person says things that appeal to their cognitive bias. But will also say that credentials don't matter, if that person doesn't appeal to their cognitive and or emotional bias.
You don't have the clout to condescend. It's great comedy watching you try, though.
You sure used a lot of words just to say "I know you are but what am I?" and slap down that uno reverse card.
"In my opinion..." A sack full of opinions is worth a sack.
People who know what they are talking about can tell when people don't know what they are talking about, because they know what they are talking about. On the other hand, people who do not know what they are talking about, CAN'T tell the difference between an amateur and an expert, because they lack the requisite knowledge and skills to be able to make that determination.
While it's true that overconfidence can strike both those who know a lot as well as those who know very little, there is one important distinction - an overconfident person who is right, is still right, whereas an overconfident person who is wrong, is still wrong.
Unfortunately, your understanding of many things, including science, seems to be perpetually argued from a position of ignorance, so your opinions regarding whether other people do or don't know what they're talking about, don't exactly carry much weight - and the fact that you think they do, or should, is ironically, a glorious self fulfilling example of how the dunning-kruger effect works.
Now, you can try to flip that back at me, but the reality is, I'm quite clear about whether I believe I am stating a fact, or an opinion. Opinions are neither right nor wrong, they are perspective, so that's a moot point to argue over. And a fact is either true or it isn't, regardless of whether someone "disagrees", and as such are not worth arguing excessively over, even if someone denies it. There's no need to convince people of facts, they're true anyways. If people wish to remain ignorant, that's their right.
29 Dec 2020, 9:29 pm
Just wear the fkng masc.
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
