Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 883 posts

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#861

Post by mike00632 »

refurb wrote: post #733
mike00632 wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mention COVID. You're focusing on COVID vaccines because that is the anti-vax cause at the moment. It's the case with ALL vaccines that they don't provide 100% protection. They are still incredibly useful for preventing infection, reducing the severity of disease and preventing further transmission. Btw, vaccines work by clearing infection quickly, not preventing infection. The virus infects you and begins t…

Ok, but how is that relevant to my point which was about Covid?

You suggested that the COVID vaccine was somehow bad for being like every other vaccine. I'm suggesting that you need to learn about vaccines and get vaccinated.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#862

Post by mike00632 »

mizzack wrote: post #734
mike00632 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean in the United States. Monkeypox isn't a MSM disease worldwide. And you should perhaps look at the case trends in countries where children have started going back to school.

And France. And Spain. And the UK. Basically everywhere that it wasn't previously endemic it's 95%+ MSM cases. It isn't 100%, nor is it only sexually transmitted. But burying our heads in the sand to overlook obvious facts and preventing messaging to at-risk communities out of sensitivity is contributing to _why_ there are cases in kids at schools.

[flagged]

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#863

Post by mike00632 »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #815
mike00632 wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you're trying to censor information by dismissing the left/right hand hypothesis as "unrealistically stretched". To put it another way: the way you feel about studying handedness being linked to COVID is the way I feel about studying an assumed link between race and "intelligence". It's not "otherwise interesting" at all. It's ignorant at best.

But if you did notice a subgroup/IQ correlation would you ignore it? Because I wouldn't ignore a handedness/sickness correlation. You can't fix what you don't measure and investigate.

You're ASSUMING that race could be linked to "intelligence", that it's important to study, just like I was ASSUMING that handedness might have something to do with spreading COVID. There is clear bias introduced by what we think is important to measure.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#864

Post by mike00632 »

nomel wrote: post #787
mike00632 wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study of racial differences is famous for being bad science.

Unless it can help improve treatments: https://nyulangone.org/news/popular-hypertension-drugs-linke...

This isn't an effort that the Right can use to proclaim racial superiority. Understand the difference?

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#865

Post by mike00632 »

VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #805
mike00632 wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if we devoted a tremendous amount of resources to studying whether being left or right handed increased your chances of transmitting COVID. Then millions of people online start citing scientific papers saying that right handed people spread COVID more often. Then some left handed people attack right handed people (similar to how Asian Americans are being brutalized in public during the pandemic). The point is…

You could also become some kind of “hate researcher” if you wanted to. Pick a group of people you don’t like(ethnic, socio, political, whatever), and start hammering out publications on their IQ, epidemiology, sociopolitical beliefs, etc. Maybe do a bit of P-hacking to make the deleterious stuff really pop out. Eventually you’ll have a nice corpus of literature out there framing your target group as stupid, disease r…

Yes, exactly. Then you could write popular opinion books about the studies which flesh out the conclusion. Then it could be a motivating tool for an entire political party. You could go on tour to promote your "controversial" books. People will say that the facts must be heard and both sides should be represented.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#866

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #804
LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban A hijab is an extreme religious symbol, so it makes sense that it would be overrepresented in a ban of religious symbols. That's like an American calling a law racist because its impact is coincidentally not racially balanced.

The intent of the law was obviously to get rid of hijabs. That's the context, and nobody really disputes that, even though the text of the law doesn't explicitly target any particular religion. I'm not sure I'd call it an extreme symbol, exactly, but I'm not a fan of the culture behind sexist cultural policies like that, where women are treated radically differently from men.

Are hijabs focused on beyond what would be expected from the fact that they are extreme - they cover the user blocking identification, they prevent socialization, they stigmatize the wearer, and unlike some symbols (ex: a Sikh turban) they're forced upon the wearers by non-wearers - they signify the wearer is a possession who must be kept "clean" for her purchaser.

It's reasonable that hijabs would have been the straw that broke the electoral camel's back, and the focus of most of the enforcement, while the law is a general law without undue focus on hijabs. Hijabs are regressive in a way yarmulkas are not.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#867

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

mike00632 wrote: post #858
LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do children who exhibit behaviors that the doctors and parents stereotype as opposite-sex benefit from having their natural development blocked with and/or overwhelmed with opposite-sex hormones? Most parents are fine with gender non-conforming children (in the parent's mind of course - the kid is just being themselves). It's not a panic for them to ask why modifying their child's body to match their toy choice i…

1. Many parents are not fine with trans children. By suggesting that trans children are welcome you are ignoring the very real problems that the Conservative monsters are currently inflicting on them. 2. They benefit from having extra time to make a decision. When you (unnaturally, via the force of law) block children from receiving medical care then you cause them to develop sex characteristics that don't belong to…

Most parents are fine with "gender nonconformity". They're not fine with their children being told that they need drugs and surgeries. Read the stories about trans kids. People are reacting to stereotypes like how the child dresses or which toys they play with and they're saying which sex the child should be molded to resemble. Accepting parents let any sex play with any toy without scheduling an intervention.

> develop sex characteristics that don't belong to them

They do belong to them. They're the only working sex organs that child can ever have. Anything else is a non-functional at best.

> extra time to make a decision

This in untrue. puberty blockers can only work safely to delay puberty until the regular time so that it dovetails with other processes. When you delay proper pubertal changes you can never restart the process which cripples a child for life mentally and physically.

> you are doing to these children much worse than

I'm telling the truth. Wild hormonal interventions and genital mutilation surgeries are not healthcare, even if they're performed by people in lab coats.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#868

Post by puffoflogic »

remarkEon wrote: post #401
puffoflogic wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not allowed to talk about those any more.

Which is a weird phenomenon in and of itself right? The amount of political violence pre-internet is just an order of magnitude higher than today’s. Most young people (millennials, Gen Z) are completely unaware - unless you studied this stuff - that e.g. the Senate building was bombed in 1983 by a bunch of leftists upset over the US’s involvement in Lebanon. This is to say, I’m skeptical of the argument that the inte…

> that e.g. the Senate building was bombed in 1983 by a bunch of leftists upset over the US’s involvement in Lebanon.

This has to be fascist propaganda because we know for a fact that Jan 6 was the first time the Capitol was ever attacked.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#869

Post by dkonofalski »

al_mandi wrote: post #772
dkonofalski wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes the presupposition that god exists and is real which, as is the entire point of this thread, relies on a belief without evidence. You can't use the actions of a "god" as evidence for the existence of that god without evidence of those actions.

Did you watch the lecture before claiming presupposition without evidence?

I'm not about to watch a 50 minute video to find out something that I already know. The entire premise of a biblical/textual god is based on the idea that there is no evidence and that's why "belief" and "faith" are required. Unless you have specific evidence, the initial statement stands.

Re: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”

#870

Post by dkonofalski »

benhoyt wrote: post #786
dkonofalski wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Bart Ehrman, a New Testament historian who is well known for his critical eye on this stuff He is not known for any such thing. Ehrman's claims are all on the historical chain of evidence for the books, not whether the books are true accounts. I'm very familiar with his work. In fact, in his book "How Jesus Became God", he suggests that there's no evidence at all, historically speaking, that Jesus ever even claimed…

> Quoting a book as evidence that the book is true is tautological. I wasn't arguing that the books were true. I do believe that, but you'll note my reply above simply tries to show that your bold claim that "the earliest known manuscripts of any biblical text post-dates Jesus by 300 years" is widely discredited. I didn't "admit there were no eyewitnesses" at all -- my response wasn't related to that. Overall it seem…

Yes, you did admit that there were no eyewitnesses. You stated:

>Other scholars date the NT books from between 70 and 90 AD.

Jesus lived to be 35 years old. Even if you take the most supportive version of this statement, the earliest NT book was written over 35 years after Jesus' supposed death and there's no evidence to support the idea that they were written between those dates. Even the Wikipedia link that you sent says that there's no evidence for it:

>The New Oxford Annotated Bible states, "Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and teaching."

Post reply on HN