Anti vax are funny
I hope that a political party one day rises, that has no opinions on anything, but instead takes positions based only on science.
We will call them: Educrats or maybe Ricktators
@Dr Rick Sanchez, That would be a miracle
@Dr Rick Sanchez, Libertarians. You're talking about Libertarians.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, science and the constitution.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, you rang?
@Dr Rick Sanchez, how renaissance of you.
@DHS Crisis Actor, Nothing wrong with having different political views, but I PROMISE I'm not talking about Libertarians
@Dr Rick Sanchez, oh well. You would've been correct if you were
@Dr Rick Sanchez, But the world could end up being ruled on the principles of eugenics and social Darwinism and everything would be all fascist and pretty sh*tty
@DHS Crisis Actor, how are you such a ignorant conceded ass?
@funny pic veteran, excuse me?
@AtThePhrygianLion , But social Darwinism isn't science, it's a nicer term for racism. Instead, statistics would show that minorities on average have less money and shorter life expectancies, so the gov would operate on that information to fix it
@DHS Crisis Actor, you're excused.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, Erudites?
@Dr Rick Sanchez, you're breaking character, the real Rick Sanchez hates bureaucracy!
@Dr Rick Sanchez, no it wouldn't.
If it operated on pure scientific principles then.
The difference in DNA between different races=0
So, there are no races. Everyone is treated the same, no preference, no punishment.
@meanpies, Actually, an infinite amount of Ricks worked together to form a government. C-137 was just a dick about it
@talmet, Hell, that'd still be better than what we've got!
But I think you're just confusing biology with science as a whole. Science is using empirical data to test hypotheses. So with empirical data that minorities are disenfranchised, a logical response would be targeting minorities with aid.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, I disagree. Science would say there are no races.
There are groups of people who do poorly, and need help. Some of those groups might be groups you think of as races, but some wouldn't.
I.e. Education and economic success of people living in trailer parks is not very good. That group isn't a "race".
@talmet, Saying "race isn't real because the genes are virtually identical" is like saying "matter isn't real because atoms are virtually empty space" Genetics isn't the only science to prove if things exist; sociology and statistics are sciences too. (like gays for example, there is no sexuality gene, but differences in sexuality exist and are observable/quantifiable)
But I think that's digressing. My original point was that believing only in science will lead to less racism because we could apply the scientific method to find and remove inherent racism. That seems pretty agreeable to me.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, I agree with that point, about reducing racism by science.
Saying matter isn't real because atoms are empty space??? What does empty space mean? The space inside atoms isn't empty, it's full of energy, photons, and virtual particles...there's no such thing as "empty space."
Having space with absolutely nothing inside it, is a theoretical impossibility.
I thought the big thing with liberals was that homosexuals were born that way? Isn't that something people get called homophobic for disagreeing with?
-Good that we agree. I think that's the other benefit of the rule of science. If people disagree, we can study whether racism exists at all and have a y/n answer.
-Off topic, but the space atoms occupy is mostly empty, the particles inside are tiny compared to how much space the atom takes up. It's an interesting physics fact!
-Wait do you think homosexulity is a choice? Honestly I thought conservatives moved past that. I'm saying genetics can't account for it, but it obviously exists
@Dr Rick Sanchez, woah woah woah, easier there. If we had rational governments we wouldn't have governments
@Dr Rick Sanchez, But science has no moral position. We have political parties because we have different moral values, not because people don't understand logic.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, Correlation does not equal causation. For example, although science might say there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence does not mean that gun violence is caused by gun ownership.
@Planeswalker, They don't though! That's the crazy thing. There are people who think racism doesn't exist anymore, or climate change isn't real, or vaccines cause autism.
I think science would interpret morality in a utalitarian way, but it doesn't really matter, since at the very least, a heightened public intelligence would never lead towards immorality
And consider this: causation may not always be the issue. A lot of diseases have been cured by treating the symptoms when we can't find the cause! So in the case of gun violence, regardless of what causes it (and it is 100%, unequivocally guns) treating the symptom of guns would have positive effects
@Planeswalker, Let me change that last thing I said,
This is how believing only in data and science will be so useful: instead of you and I entering an argument about guns, we let science figure out the answer. Empirical data can be used to determine what effects removing gun rights will have and then we both have to accept whatever conclusion that is
@Dr Rick Sanchez, Sure, but, and correct me of I'm wrong, science is based a lot on hypothesis and tests. There is never a straight forward way to determine what might happen in response to a change. For example, the alcohol prohibition. The idea was by banning alcohol, people would stop getting drunk. That backfired horribly as it led to a whole underground crime syndicate. I know I've not even scratched the surface of prohibition, but I think you can see what I'm getting. Science is to fails until you are right. I'm sure you can see why on a national level that would be bad. We shouldn't have to come up with hypotheses and run multiple tests every time we reach some sort of moral epidemic. What we have now may not be perfect, but it's worked so far and unfortunately is more efficient than scientifically figuring out which moral pathway to take, especially when you take into Account the US citizens who don't believe in science.
@Planeswalker, I'm not saying a scientific party is a bad idea, just that in the world we live in, it's very unlikely to achieve the desired result.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, ...I have a PhD in high energy physics. The space in atoms is not empty.
Sometimes people simplify what is going on by saying "it's mostly empty". But really it's full of photons, neutrinos, W-bosons, and other virtual particles. It is empty of other electrons, and as 99% of people don't know about the other particles, it is easier to just say "it's basically empty."
E=mc^2, means energy can become mass. It's called the threshold energy for a particle. There is energy in atoms, and that energy takes the form of particles sometimes (and then the particles annihilate each other, and turn back into energy). It's sometimes referred to as the quantum foam.
Homosexuality: If it isn't genetics, and it isn't a choice...what else is left?
@Dr Rick Sanchez, ah, but who decides what facts and what data to use?
I.e. Among the public, you probably don't hear about this. But in climate science there are huge arguments about what studies are good, and what studies are bad. Is NASA temperature data better than ocean readings? You can't say both are good, because they are different (NASA says there has been zero temperature change in the last 18 years).
And please, give an example of a disease that has been eradicated by treating the symptoms...
@Dr Rick Sanchez, just go by data on gun violence?
Ok, 192 out of the last 194 mass shootings occurred in gun free zones...so, conclusion gun free zones cause mass shootings, and we ban gun free zones....are you ok with that? Personally, I am...but I doubt you are.
@talmet, This is gonna be a doozy:
-I was surprised to hear that atoms aren't empty so I looked it up. I can't find any source that agrees with you, but this isn't a point I care to argue about.
-Homosexuality is genetics, I said genetics can't account for it (yet). Like how it can't account for intelligence - obvioualy genes control who we are, but genetics is way too complex to discover exactly which 1mil out of 1trillion genes influence what. (Also it could just be phenotype rather than genotype)
-There is a PUBLIC debate about climate change bc people aren't scientific. This is where my political party would be so useful! This is NO scientific debate. It is 98% of research vs 2% of (often funded by special interest) research. It is scientific fact.
-Your data perfectly represents that banning guns in only certain areas is ineffective. So any scientist could come to the conclusion that we shouldn't do that. Now that we agree on that, we can look at data on how developed nations with universal gun bans have way less gun violence. That suggests that the order of best to worst solutions is:
1) Ban guns nationwide
2) Allow all guns
3) Ban guns in certain, arbitrary places
Also a side note, please don't diminish gun violence to (although also horrifyingly big) numbers like "194 mass shootings". Almost 40,000 people were injured or killed by guns THIS year in the US. Mass shootings are a horrible, but a fractional part of how f*cked up gun ownership is.
@talmet, Oh and in Greece, there was Cholera or something like it where people died of dehydration, so with obviously no unserstanding of microbes, they treated people by giving them tons of water, and the disease subsided. That's the example that comes to mind, but any doctor will tell you that if you can't treat the cause, work on the symptoms
@Dr Rick Sanchez, actually, there isn't a 98% consensus...that is a farce created by a student studying for her masters.
Her name was Margret Zimmerman. She surveyed over 3000 earth scientists, and found that only 45% agreed with human caused global warming. She then excluded scientists AFTER she surveyed them. Her final result was based on only 77 scientists....look it up.
I didn't diminish gun violence. Mass shootings are horrible, and they happen world wide. (Don't be like Obama, standing in Paris less than a week after a huge mass shooting and announce that mass shootings don't occur outside of America...do you know how foreign news agencies treated that? He became a joke.)
So you mean they treated an illness, not eradicated it. There's a difference.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, oh, and you might not have been able to find a source for atoms, because the question doesn't make sense in quantum physics.
Particles do not have set positions, that's one of the basic ideas...so asking "where is an electron?" Is not a valid question. Which also means "is it empty where there isn't an electron?" Is also not a valid question...
@Dr Rick Sanchez, I could go more in depth about atoms, as the question is a good one...but the English language (or any other language) doesn't really have words to describe the quantum world, which is why we use math. And I can't type differential equations (well, I could...but I don't know how to put hats on letters in funny pics. Hat, meaning the arrow on a variable that turns it into an Operator.)
@Dr Rick Sanchez, as simply as I can say this: an electron in an orbit is
-not in one place of its orbit
-it is not in all places of its orbit
-it is not in no place
It is in a superposition of all places of its orbit. As the electron is in a superposition, asking if the space is empty where the electron isn't, doesn't make sense.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, If you're interested, MIT opencourseware on YouTube has a pretty good lecture series from an Intro to quantum physics class. I don't know your math background, but the first class is an intro to the concept of superposition, and has no math.
@Dr Rick Sanchez, it's MIT course 8.04, professor is Dr. Allan Adams
Jokes aside, please get your kids vaccinated so we don't have rampart diseases.
@Pubmarine Shamwich, sorry, side effects of all the vaccinations I've received in my time
@NegroMancer, I thought it was a clever play on words.
Rampart: a defensive wall of a castle or walled city, having a broad top with a walkway and typically a stone parapet.
@KevinTheTreeslayer, this is literally almost two years old.....
@Pubmarine Shamwich, its not like anyone but you is gonna see this then, so why care?
If you don't get vaccinated you'll end up smelling like elderberries
@awkrap, your mother will be a hamster and everyone will fart in your general direction
@Lonely Monkey Fart, I object
*Farts in the general direction of the person who made this*
That's pretty much how their argument goes
a 5oz bird cannot carry a 1lb coconut.
Well, while some people believe this and some people don't, do you guys think they should be mandating EVERY vaccine whether or not you have a religious exemption? They're kind of starting to do this....
@Blagen, unless you have a medical condition that prevents you from getting vaccines, there are many that should be enforced. It's a matter of general health. Because of so many people not getting vaccines, there have been resurgences of diseases that we had previously prevented thanks to vaccines. Religious exemption doesn't permit you from harming yourself and others. Not getting a vaccine is exactly that.
There are people (like myself) who due to medical reasons can't get vaccines. That means they have to trust the people around them to get vaccines to prevent those diseases. However, when nobody is getting the vaccines, it puts people who can't get the vaccine at even greater risk.
It's not just preventing those illnesses for yourself, but those around you. It's a matter of general safety for the entire country.
Check out howdovaccinescauseautism.com to learn the truth.
@SmartFeller, I'm not going to bother going to the link, is it anti-vax or not? Just trying to decide whether to upvote or downvote
@Cpzombie, I'm a little late to this... if you go to the link you just get a page that says "They fvcking don't." 4 downvotes tell me that no one has time for that, and would prefer to assume I'm anti-Vax. 🤷♀️
@SmartFeller, how did you even get back to this to reply? That was 20 months ago!
@Cpzombie, I recently got another downvote haha