When you find a specific objection, I would like to hear it.
Of course, no one gets everything right — but censoring everyone that you disagree with will result in great ignorance and other failings.
Sorry I engaged you. I didn’t recall the lesson I learned at the time from our discussion in early 2020 about Sweden, herd immunity, masking, etc.
Like yelling fire, spreading disinformation during a deadly pandemic costs lives, and not just the lives of those taken in by that disinformation either. The collatoral damage to contacts and increasing the opportunity for the virus to evolve and improve costs lives and hurts the economy.
4 Likes
I think there is a great risk when all dissenting voices are deplatformed or silenced.
Rather than censorship, perhaps the better choice is thoughtful rebuttal.
Greetings again! How is your church doing? I hope you are doing well.
Have you looked at CDC? They have tons of very good research in easily accessible form. You can go to the “Science Briefs” for summaries of the scientific thinking and research, with links and bibliography to top level epidemiology, infectious disease/virology, etc, as well as nuanced reasoning why experts came to their conclusions. I highly recommend it to my patients, friends and family. If you have trouble finding a spot, let me know, and I can try to help. Thanks.
2 Likes
Thoughtful rebuttal is not heard by the closed ears of those who profit from conspiracy theories or the experts whose egos are boosted by spreading misinformation.
But if people were online advocating to yell fire in crowded theaters are we to prioritize freedom of speech over the public well being? If they put forth experts are we to acquiesce to the consequences even if the few they come up with go against the consensus and cannot or at least have not been able to influence that consensus within established channels?
3 Likes
Of course, experts disagreeing on matters is not the same thing as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
The comparison doesn’t apply.
It is like the saying “trust the science,” a statement which does not acknowledge that science should continue to question its conclusions and views.
I am doing well and so is the church. Thanks for asking.
You might find this week’s email from church interesting:
So we can access science never act on urgent matters that impinge on the public good so long as there is any disagreement at all? That seems a little extreme. We have to deal with the pandemic one way or the other. Why shouldn’t rely on the best mainstream science? Surely we don’t just roll over die so long as there is any disagreement from those unable to convince the consensus?
3 Likes
How about ‘experts’ spreading misinformation that said it was okay to shout fire in a theater? Shouldn’t they be censored?
2 Likes
It is a closer parallel but don’t expect too much.
1 Like
Dangerous misinformation needs to be shut down. Ooh – we could politicize it. That would help!
1 Like
We should allow ‘experts’ to say there’s no pandemic and if anyone is getting sick it’s from the rollout of 5G. Oh wait, we’re doing exactly that. Maybe Jon Rappoport has financial ties to Malone and Malone with bitchute.
And legislation for PCR and vaccination Covid passports.
1 Like
I noticed you replied to my post, but your questions don’t seem to have anything to do with the points that I made.
Perhaps you confused my desire to hear multiples points of view with an unwillingness to act while and after consideration of those multiple viewpoints.
My position included an opposition to censorship, not a bias for inaction.
I’d prefer thoughtful criminal prosecution.
1 Like
Ah, criminal prosecution for dissenting opinions.
There is a great model for that in China.
I do pray that it never happens here in the US.
It has already happened. The FDA usually doesn’t allow you to make false and misleading claims about drugs, food, etc.
3 Likes
Who is “you” in your post?
Have you confused fraudulent advertising by a seller with a dissenting opinion by an expert?