5 ms·

Do you think saying "vaccines cause cancer" is fair game then? Where do you draw the line?

by steeve 4y ago

poszlem 4y ago
What do you mean by fair game? Is that true? Probably not. Should people be censored and prevented from talking about that? Absolutely fecking not. We have enough examples of medical misinformation coming from the most reputable sources to doubt their ability to impartially make decisions about what should and shouldn't be "fair game".
- steeve 4y ago
  So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    There's a fun story related to that quote. It's a quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the same Supreme Court Justice also well known for his "two generations of imbeciles" quote in a ruling in defense of eugenics. The quote comes from the case Schenck v United States [1]. Holmes envisioned the quote as a reasonable metaphor for why Mr. Schenck must be imprisoned for spreading such dangerous, provocative, and utterly unacceptable speech. That speech? Scheck was handing out fliers encouraging people to refuse to comply with the military draft. So yes, I do think it's important we allow people to discuss this "fire in the crowded theater" because if the present somehow doesn't show you where the alternative leads, then merely look to the past - there are illustrations aplenty. Schenck lost and was convicted under the Espionage Act. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
  - evandale 4y ago
    Yes, if people want to discuss fire in a crowded movie theatre they are free to do that. That doesn't mean they can jump out of their seat, scream "fire", and urge everyone to evacuate the theatre. I could see consequences for doing that, but calmly asking "does anyone smell smoke?" seems harmless.
    - steeve 4y ago
      So you _do_ draw a line.
      - evandale 4y ago
        Yes and that line is drawn at an action, not a word. People can talk about whatever they want and there isn't a line I would draw anywhere that said "you can't talk about that". People can _talk_ about whatever they want.
        steeve 4y ago
        You're playing with words. Let's go there. Perhaps I'm discussing the fire loud enough for people to hear. How do you differentiate between "word" and "action"?
DrThunder 4y ago
You don't draw the line. Some of you have a real problem understanding the entire meaning of free speech. If you just think a few steps ahead you'll understand that if you "draw the line" then someone has to be the arbiter of truth. That arbiter will not always be on your side as we've seen over and over throughout history. If you see someone touting a blatant lie you only need o refute it with actual evidence. Suppression of this stuff will do nothing but cause you to look like you're trying to hide evidence for some nefarious reason. You do not get to play mother to an entire nation of people and decide what they are allowed to see and not see. Grow up, act like an adult and realize you're going to hear things that aren't true and things you don't agree with. This is how civil discussion takes place.
- steeve 4y ago
  "Some of you": nice. You do sound like someone who never had to decide anything in their life and thinks only theoretically, disregarding reality. Absolute free speech is dividing by zero, basically.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    why are you moving goalposts? parent did not say you are free to yell fire in a crowded theater
    - steeve 4y ago
      How am I moving goalpost? Parent is living in a fantasy world where pure argumentation replaces BS. I'm guessing Jan 6 and COVID proved that world doesn't exist.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        There's an alternate fantasy world where authorities never wrongly decide what truth is. I'm guessing the 20th century proved that world doesn't exist, either. So: We live in a world where there's lots of BS, much of it deliberately malicious, and in a world where authority figures will misuse authority over "truth", sometimes deliberately and blatantly to further their own power. Now what? What is the best strategy for maximizing good and minimizing harm in the world we actually live in?
kobalsky 4y ago
I can go to the sources, read studies and ask for opinions on stuff I don't know about. What I cannot do is read a deleted message. I'm more scared of those eager to use their well oiled delete and ban buttons, than someone spewing bullshit.
worksonmine 4y ago
I know you're just making a straw-man, but can you be sure no vaccine will ever have a component that causes cancer? Even if you can be sure what's the benefit of suppressing those claims rather than just ask for evidence that supports the claim? It's not that difficult.
- steeve 4y ago
  It's been shown than a sufficiently high number of people won't care about evidence, no matter how hard it's been displayed. Then you get Jan 6th.

Do you think saying "vaccines cause cancer" is fair game then? Where do you draw the line?

by steeve 4y ago

Do you think saying "vaccines cause cancer" is fair game then? Where do you draw the line?

What do you mean by fair game? Is that true? Probably not. Should people be censored and prevented from talking about that? Absolutely fecking not. We have enough examples of medical misinformation coming from the most reputable sources to doubt their ability to impartially make decisions about what should and shouldn't be "fair game".

steeve 4y ago
So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?
- somenameforme 4y ago
  There's a fun story related to that quote. It's a quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the same Supreme Court Justice also well known for his "two generations of imbeciles" quote in a ruling in defense of eugenics. The quote comes from the case Schenck v United States [1]. Holmes envisioned the quote as a reasonable metaphor for why Mr. Schenck must be imprisoned for spreading such dangerous, provocative, and utterly unacceptable speech. That speech? Scheck was handing out fliers encouraging people to refuse to comply with the military draft. So yes, I do think it's important we allow people to discuss this "fire in the crowded theater" because if the present somehow doesn't show you where the alternative leads, then merely look to the past - there are illustrations aplenty. Schenck lost and was convicted under the Espionage Act. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
- evandale 4y ago
  Yes, if people want to discuss fire in a crowded movie theatre they are free to do that. That doesn't mean they can jump out of their seat, scream "fire", and urge everyone to evacuate the theatre. I could see consequences for doing that, but calmly asking "does anyone smell smoke?" seems harmless.
  - steeve 4y ago
    So you _do_ draw a line.
    - evandale 4y ago
      Yes and that line is drawn at an action, not a word. People can talk about whatever they want and there isn't a line I would draw anywhere that said "you can't talk about that". People can _talk_ about whatever they want.
      - steeve 4y ago
        You're playing with words. Let's go there. Perhaps I'm discussing the fire loud enough for people to hear. How do you differentiate between "word" and "action"?

DrThunder 4y ago

You don't draw the line. Some of you have a real problem understanding the entire meaning of free speech. If you just think a few steps ahead you'll understand that if you "draw the line" then someone has to be the arbiter of truth. That arbiter will not always be on your side as we've seen over and over throughout history. If you see someone touting a blatant lie you only need o refute it with actual evidence. Suppression of this stuff will do nothing but cause you to look like you're trying to hide evidence for some nefarious reason. You do not get to play mother to an entire nation of people and decide what they are allowed to see and not see. Grow up, act like an adult and realize you're going to hear things that aren't true and things you don't agree with. This is how civil discussion takes place.

steeve 4y ago
"Some of you": nice. You do sound like someone who never had to decide anything in their life and thinks only theoretically, disregarding reality. Absolute free speech is dividing by zero, basically.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  why are you moving goalposts? parent did not say you are free to yell fire in a crowded theater
  - steeve 4y ago
    How am I moving goalpost? Parent is living in a fantasy world where pure argumentation replaces BS. I'm guessing Jan 6 and COVID proved that world doesn't exist.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      There's an alternate fantasy world where authorities never wrongly decide what truth is. I'm guessing the 20th century proved that world doesn't exist, either. So: We live in a world where there's lots of BS, much of it deliberately malicious, and in a world where authority figures will misuse authority over "truth", sometimes deliberately and blatantly to further their own power. Now what? What is the best strategy for maximizing good and minimizing harm in the world we actually live in?

kobalsky 4y ago

I can go to the sources, read studies and ask for opinions on stuff I don't know about. What I cannot do is read a deleted message. I'm more scared of those eager to use their well oiled delete and ban buttons, than someone spewing bullshit.

worksonmine 4y ago

I know you're just making a straw-man, but can you be sure no vaccine will ever have a component that causes cancer? Even if you can be sure what's the benefit of suppressing those claims rather than just ask for evidence that supports the claim? It's not that difficult.

steeve 4y ago
It's been shown than a sufficiently high number of people won't care about evidence, no matter how hard it's been displayed. Then you get Jan 6th.