3 ms·

>a differently minded news source What else falls in this category? Flat Earthers? Anti-vaccine advocates? Holocaust deniers? It's clear that the majority of

>a differently minded news source What else falls in this category? Flat Earthers? Anti-vaccine advocates? Holocaust deniers? It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019.

a_tractor 8y ago
>What else falls in this category? Another person who thinks they should be the arbiter of the truth for the world, attempting to make an argument for ideological limitations on speech. The entire basis for thinking democracy is even possible, much less a good idea, is that man is a rational being capable of applying logical and moral reasoning in pursuit of the truth, or least the best answer. You seem to disagree. The allowance of free expression on all topics and ideas along with rational debate ensures that better ideas are not suppressed and that the worst ideas get exposed and defeated. >Flat Earthers? Shouldn't be difficult to prove wrong. >Anti-vaccine advocates? Science should be able to put their fears to rest while disproving their arguments. No? >Holocaust deniers? Again, there is historical evidence that can be used to defeat their arguments and expose their true agenda. No? What part of suppressing those ideas, or silencing their advocates rather than debating them, proves that your argument is the correct one? Because you happen to think you have authority with whatever consensus you think exists? Do you think truth is based on consensus? Do you not see how it makes your position more suspicious (as in fraudulent) if you are not willing to address the challenges of skeptics or even devil's advocates? Also, given what we know about astroturfing and social media bots, how many of these people do you really think there are? >It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills Well, that would have been even more true when the concept of free speech was established, when literacy rates were truly abysmal, as in the vast majority of people in even the most advanced societies couldn't even read. You are saying the problem is either that people today can acquire the information and/or that they lack the capacity to apply reason and logic in order to separate truth from fiction? So is the problem that information which isn't necessarily "true" or "morally good" is available? Or is it that people lack the tools needed in order to separate truth from fiction, reality from theory, good from bad, etc? Is it an education/skill development thing, or a mental capacity/IQ thing? Where do ethics and morality come in to play, and what would that have to do with "information literacy" when speaking of anti-vax people? >and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019. Measles was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000. Did people have higher "information literacy" back in the 80s and 90s than they do now? Was there nobody who was against vaccinations in the 80s and 90s? And if it was eliminated from the US by the year 2000, and it is a re-emerging problem in 2019, then didn't it actually have to be imported? It couldn't have anything to do with the 10s of millions of illiterate and poorly educated, un-vaccinated illegal immigrants from the third world that have been flooding this country for the last several decades, could it? No, it must be the ${insert ideological opponent of the day} and their ${straw-man trait based on bigoted assumptions} who are wrong.
propogandist 8y ago
>The [vaccine] court -- and the law that established it more than two decades ago -- buffers Wyeth and other makers of childhood-disease vaccines from much of the litigation risk that dogs traditional pill manufacturers and is an important reason why the vaccine business has been transformed from a risky, low-profit venture in the 1970s to one of the pharmaceutical industry's most attractive product lines today. >...the vaccine court limits compensation in death cases to $250,000. >Even if they had won their cases, the families of autistic children wouldn't have been paid by the companies that make the vaccines, as is common in other pharmaceutical-liability cases. Instead, the government would have footed the bill, using the funds from a tax levied on inoculations. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123535050056344903 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123535050056344903 You won't hear any of the popular news outlets (who rake in big $ from pharma advertising) talk about this side of the "anti-vax" story. All this anti-vax nonsense is a smokescreen.

a_tractor 8y ago

>What else falls in this category? Another person who thinks they should be the arbiter of the truth for the world, attempting to make an argument for ideological limitations on speech. The entire basis for thinking democracy is even possible, much less a good idea, is that man is a rational being capable of applying logical and moral reasoning in pursuit of the truth, or least the best answer. You seem to disagree. The allowance of free expression on all topics and ideas along with rational debate ensures that better ideas are not suppressed and that the worst ideas get exposed and defeated. >Flat Earthers? Shouldn't be difficult to prove wrong. >Anti-vaccine advocates? Science should be able to put their fears to rest while disproving their arguments. No? >Holocaust deniers? Again, there is historical evidence that can be used to defeat their arguments and expose their true agenda. No? What part of suppressing those ideas, or silencing their advocates rather than debating them, proves that your argument is the correct one? Because you happen to think you have authority with whatever consensus you think exists? Do you think truth is based on consensus? Do you not see how it makes your position more suspicious (as in fraudulent) if you are not willing to address the challenges of skeptics or even devil's advocates? Also, given what we know about astroturfing and social media bots, how many of these people do you really think there are? >It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills Well, that would have been even more true when the concept of free speech was established, when literacy rates were truly abysmal, as in the vast majority of people in even the most advanced societies couldn't even read. You are saying the problem is either that people today can acquire the information and/or that they lack the capacity to apply reason and logic in order to separate truth from fiction? So is the problem that information which isn't necessarily "true" or "morally good" is available? Or is it that people lack the tools needed in order to separate truth from fiction, reality from theory, good from bad, etc? Is it an education/skill development thing, or a mental capacity/IQ thing? Where do ethics and morality come in to play, and what would that have to do with "information literacy" when speaking of anti-vax people? >and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019. Measles was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000. Did people have higher "information literacy" back in the 80s and 90s than they do now? Was there nobody who was against vaccinations in the 80s and 90s? And if it was eliminated from the US by the year 2000, and it is a re-emerging problem in 2019, then didn't it actually have to be imported? It couldn't have anything to do with the 10s of millions of illiterate and poorly educated, un-vaccinated illegal immigrants from the third world that have been flooding this country for the last several decades, could it? No, it must be the ${insert ideological opponent of the day} and their ${straw-man trait based on bigoted assumptions} who are wrong.

propogandist 8y ago

>The [vaccine] court -- and the law that established it more than two decades ago -- buffers Wyeth and other makers of childhood-disease vaccines from much of the litigation risk that dogs traditional pill manufacturers and is an important reason why the vaccine business has been transformed from a risky, low-profit venture in the 1970s to one of the pharmaceutical industry's most attractive product lines today. >...the vaccine court limits compensation in death cases to $250,000. >Even if they had won their cases, the families of autistic children wouldn't have been paid by the companies that make the vaccines, as is common in other pharmaceutical-liability cases. Instead, the government would have footed the bill, using the funds from a tax levied on inoculations. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123535050056344903 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123535050056344903 You won't hear any of the popular news outlets (who rake in big $ from pharma advertising) talk about this side of the "anti-vax" story. All this anti-vax nonsense is a smokescreen.