3 ms·

Not going topless at beaches is a social contract that is followed. But if you want my real opinion, society is subverted by allowing indecency like that.

nautilius 5y ago
Interesting, but not surprising. So what you’re saying is that actually, you are perfectly fine with imposing completely arbitrary rules unto others, that restrict their liberties, with the only justification being ‘because I say so’. You’re perfectly happy with restricting other people’s lives, even though it does not even affect you whatsoever. But, if the rules now somehow affect you instead, even if the justification is “this is safe for surgeons, and current data suggest that we can safe hundreds of thousands of lives (and we could have, the US are by far the country with the most COVID cases and deaths)” this is now somehow authoritarian? More authoritarian than a completely arbitrary rule? Even though this massively impacts other people’s health? You may want to read up on which opinion is actually closer to what the Nazis did.
- gavinhoward 5y ago
  You are completely misreading what I said. I said it was my opinion. I didn't say anything about me actually restricting people because I don't. If such a beach exists, I don't go there. I don't tell people that they can't go there. So your claim that I would restrict the liberties of others is not correct. It seems like a baseless accusation to discredit me. You claim that allowing people to go topless at a beach does not affect me, but it does. It makes it so I can't go to that beach without seeing things I don't want to see, so thus, I don't go to that beach. Also, saying that not allowing toplessness at a beach is a completely arbitrary rule is also disingenuous because there's a completely non-arbitrary reason: to cover up private parts of a body. The claim that "this is safe for surgeons, and current data suggest that we can safe hundreds of thousands of lives (and we could have, the US are by far the country with the most COVID cases and deaths)" is so far not shown to be true in all cases. In some cases, yes. In others, no. For surgeons, they change their masks frequently and wear them in the environment they were designed for. Out in the real world? Not so much. How much do masks actually help? When it comes to children, it appears not at all. For adults, the claim that masks work appear to only consider one variable: does it reduce the transmission of COVID. That is not enough; in science, all factors matter [1], and the scientists seem focused on that one factor to the detriment of all of the others, such as carbon dioxide intake [2] or how masks might expose wearers to more bacteria [3]. If scientists came out and said, "Here's the data, here's the factors we considered, here's the factors we did not consider," then I might listen. But they don't. Instead, they make claims that just one factor matters, which is not scientific at all. Also, you claim that these things affect other people's health? By how much? What are the numbers? How much more than vaccinated people? How much more than masked people? If you can't provide those numbers, then why should I believe you? There have been big sporting events without masks, but we're not seeing the massive spike in cases afterwards. In other words, I think your arguments are completely disingenuous, that they try to draw parallels where there is none, accuse me of authoritarianism for an opinion I hold but do nothing to actually enforce, and actually desire to exercise authoritarianism with few numbers to actually back up your claims. By the way, the Nazis allowed a bit of nudity, but they also coerced medical practices. [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matter/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte... [2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/masks-and-carbon-dioxide/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/masks-and-carbon-dioxide/ [3]: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2021/06/15/a-group-of-parents-sent-their-kids-face-masks-to-a-lab-for-analysis-heres-what-they-found-n2591047 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2021/06/15/a-gr...
  - nautilius 5y ago
    Ah, what a cheap way trying to sneak your way out: “So your claim that I would restrict the liberties of others is not correct.” The crux here was your intention, and willingness, also you don’t even get to live your “because I say so” tendencies, because, as you wrote previously, it’s not being done in a repressive Puritan country anyway. “ there's a completely non-arbitrary reason: to cover up private parts of a body.” and there you go again. You’re so entrenched in your “because I say so” mindset that you cannot even see how arbitrary this is. Finally, you seem to have some major misconceptions about what science is. You demand to have absolute truth from the beginning, and that’s simply not how science works.
    - nautilius 5y ago
      Ah, downvotes, the last resort of the wannabe authoritarian who doesn’t feel respected enough, even though they are “clearly right” and “deserve the respect”, because they “say so”.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        Ah, complaining about downvotes when the person debating you cannot even downvote the comment. And now I know you are arguing in bad faith when you give me a label that you know does not apply. No, I don't deserve respect, but I never said I did, nor did I say that I am "clearly right", nor did I "say so". Thus, you are creating those quotes out of thin air, which means they are straight up lies.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      > The crux here was your intention, and willingness, also you don’t even get to live your “because I say so” tendencies, because, as you wrote previously, it’s not being done in a repressive Puritan country anyway. Again, you are accusing without basis. I simply stated an opinion. I would not stop people from doing something that was allowed. Yes, I would not want to see it, but I would not stop people. So your claim is incorrect, no matter how you would like to spin your narrative. > and there you go again. You’re so entrenched in your “because I say so” mindset that you cannot even see how arbitrary this is. Is it arbitrary if the vast majority of societies the world over and throughout history had that as a reason? No, it's not an arbitrary reason, no matter how much sexual revolutionists would like to pretend it is. It's like Chesterton's Fence: if you don't understand the reason for it, then don't remove it. When you do, then maybe you can. But understanding the reason for it means that you must understand why societies, by and large, set that as a social contract. Beyond that reason, a line must be drawn somewhere. If not there, then where? Why would your line not be any more "arbitrary"? > Finally, you seem to have some major misconceptions about what science is. You demand to have absolute truth from the beginning, and that’s simply not how science works. Again, what appears to be a deliberate misreading of what I said. Science is a process, yes, no doubt about that. But science is not about lies, which we know were told. Science is not about agenda, which we know is being pushed. Science is about evidence now, or otherwise do nothing. That principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It basically says that, without clear evidence that an action will not be harmful, requiring people to do something out of the ordinary should not happen. In other words, we should not throw caution to the wind. That's why I ask for numbers. I want the evidence before I throw caution to the wind. No, I don't need to know absolute truth. But I do require evidence. Isn't that what science is about?

nautilius 5y ago

Interesting, but not surprising. So what you’re saying is that actually, you are perfectly fine with imposing completely arbitrary rules unto others, that restrict their liberties, with the only justification being ‘because I say so’. You’re perfectly happy with restricting other people’s lives, even though it does not even affect you whatsoever. But, if the rules now somehow affect you instead, even if the justification is “this is safe for surgeons, and current data suggest that we can safe hundreds of thousands of lives (and we could have, the US are by far the country with the most COVID cases and deaths)” this is now somehow authoritarian? More authoritarian than a completely arbitrary rule? Even though this massively impacts other people’s health? You may want to read up on which opinion is actually closer to what the Nazis did.

gavinhoward 5y ago
You are completely misreading what I said. I said it was my opinion. I didn't say anything about me actually restricting people because I don't. If such a beach exists, I don't go there. I don't tell people that they can't go there. So your claim that I would restrict the liberties of others is not correct. It seems like a baseless accusation to discredit me. You claim that allowing people to go topless at a beach does not affect me, but it does. It makes it so I can't go to that beach without seeing things I don't want to see, so thus, I don't go to that beach. Also, saying that not allowing toplessness at a beach is a completely arbitrary rule is also disingenuous because there's a completely non-arbitrary reason: to cover up private parts of a body. The claim that "this is safe for surgeons, and current data suggest that we can safe hundreds of thousands of lives (and we could have, the US are by far the country with the most COVID cases and deaths)" is so far not shown to be true in all cases. In some cases, yes. In others, no. For surgeons, they change their masks frequently and wear them in the environment they were designed for. Out in the real world? Not so much. How much do masks actually help? When it comes to children, it appears not at all. For adults, the claim that masks work appear to only consider one variable: does it reduce the transmission of COVID. That is not enough; in science, all factors matter [1], and the scientists seem focused on that one factor to the detriment of all of the others, such as carbon dioxide intake [2] or how masks might expose wearers to more bacteria [3]. If scientists came out and said, "Here's the data, here's the factors we considered, here's the factors we did not consider," then I might listen. But they don't. Instead, they make claims that just one factor matters, which is not scientific at all. Also, you claim that these things affect other people's health? By how much? What are the numbers? How much more than vaccinated people? How much more than masked people? If you can't provide those numbers, then why should I believe you? There have been big sporting events without masks, but we're not seeing the massive spike in cases afterwards. In other words, I think your arguments are completely disingenuous, that they try to draw parallels where there is none, accuse me of authoritarianism for an opinion I hold but do nothing to actually enforce, and actually desire to exercise authoritarianism with few numbers to actually back up your claims. By the way, the Nazis allowed a bit of nudity, but they also coerced medical practices. [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matter/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte... [2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/masks-and-carbon-dioxide/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/masks-and-carbon-dioxide/ [3]: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2021/06/15/a-group-of-parents-sent-their-kids-face-masks-to-a-lab-for-analysis-heres-what-they-found-n2591047 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2021/06/15/a-gr...
- nautilius 5y ago
  Ah, what a cheap way trying to sneak your way out: “So your claim that I would restrict the liberties of others is not correct.” The crux here was your intention, and willingness, also you don’t even get to live your “because I say so” tendencies, because, as you wrote previously, it’s not being done in a repressive Puritan country anyway. “ there's a completely non-arbitrary reason: to cover up private parts of a body.” and there you go again. You’re so entrenched in your “because I say so” mindset that you cannot even see how arbitrary this is. Finally, you seem to have some major misconceptions about what science is. You demand to have absolute truth from the beginning, and that’s simply not how science works.
  - nautilius 5y ago
    Ah, downvotes, the last resort of the wannabe authoritarian who doesn’t feel respected enough, even though they are “clearly right” and “deserve the respect”, because they “say so”.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Ah, complaining about downvotes when the person debating you cannot even downvote the comment. And now I know you are arguing in bad faith when you give me a label that you know does not apply. No, I don't deserve respect, but I never said I did, nor did I say that I am "clearly right", nor did I "say so". Thus, you are creating those quotes out of thin air, which means they are straight up lies.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    > The crux here was your intention, and willingness, also you don’t even get to live your “because I say so” tendencies, because, as you wrote previously, it’s not being done in a repressive Puritan country anyway. Again, you are accusing without basis. I simply stated an opinion. I would not stop people from doing something that was allowed. Yes, I would not want to see it, but I would not stop people. So your claim is incorrect, no matter how you would like to spin your narrative. > and there you go again. You’re so entrenched in your “because I say so” mindset that you cannot even see how arbitrary this is. Is it arbitrary if the vast majority of societies the world over and throughout history had that as a reason? No, it's not an arbitrary reason, no matter how much sexual revolutionists would like to pretend it is. It's like Chesterton's Fence: if you don't understand the reason for it, then don't remove it. When you do, then maybe you can. But understanding the reason for it means that you must understand why societies, by and large, set that as a social contract. Beyond that reason, a line must be drawn somewhere. If not there, then where? Why would your line not be any more "arbitrary"? > Finally, you seem to have some major misconceptions about what science is. You demand to have absolute truth from the beginning, and that’s simply not how science works. Again, what appears to be a deliberate misreading of what I said. Science is a process, yes, no doubt about that. But science is not about lies, which we know were told. Science is not about agenda, which we know is being pushed. Science is about evidence now, or otherwise do nothing. That principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It basically says that, without clear evidence that an action will not be harmful, requiring people to do something out of the ordinary should not happen. In other words, we should not throw caution to the wind. That's why I ask for numbers. I want the evidence before I throw caution to the wind. No, I don't need to know absolute truth. But I do require evidence. Isn't that what science is about?