Forestluv

There are pros and cons about whether or not to have mitigation restrictions. Yet let's be fair and objective. Death rate frequency is only one metric when considering public health. There could be a virus that has a 0% death rate, yet causes 40% of the population to experience paralysis and blindness. The hospitals become filled with people. Even though everyone survives, there is a major stress on the health care system and there are no beds or doctors available for other illness like strokes, broken bones, cancer treatment etc. The virus has a 0% death rate, yet we would still consider it to have a severe public health impact. What about starving children in Africa? What about abused children? What about the Uyghur people in China? What about. . . What about. . . These issues are not mutually exclusive. Yet one person cannot address every issue simultaneously. If I speak about a health care crisis in a pandemic, it doesn't mean that it is the only social issue. The issues of crappy fast food, cigarettes etc are also social health issues, yet they also have distinctions. Each health care issue has it's own dynamics. For example, crappy fast food has a negative impact on social health. It increases obesity, diabetes and mortality. Yet there is a balance between individual freedom and social good. Most people would agree that we should not allow restaurants to serve Anthrax Burgers, regardless of how delicious they might be - because the social harm would be immediate and severe. Yet where to draw the line with crappy fast food gets trickier, because the health implications are not as immediately severe. Things like cigarettes are totally different. If someone eats McDonald's burgers, it doesn't directly impact the health of another person. Yet if someone is smoking, it impacts people around them. Therefore, it is easier to justify having indoor smoking bans than having burger bans. Similarly, covid is contagious. If someone has covid in public, that puts people around them at risk. Therefore, it is much easier to justify public policies. Yet I do agree with you about proportionality. We should administer our limited resources proportional to harm.

It's relative to how "replicated" is defined. It is impossible to 100% replicate any experiment. To do so, one would need to travel back in time to have the exact same conditions. Today I did an experiment testing the effect of a drug on locomotion of fruit flies. It is impossible to 100% replicate that experiment. There is no way to get every single variable exactly the same. It is impossible to have the flies, food, drug concentration, temperature, humidity, lighting, handling etc. to be exactly the same. There will be some variability of conditions if we try to reproduce the experiment. The question is the level of experimental variability we are willing to accept and the variance within results we are willing to accept. I think the article made good points about how science can be sloppy.

Replication is an issue in improving science, yet keep in mind that "replication" is relative. It is impossible to absolutely replicate an experiment and results. There is a zero percent chance of absolute replication. This raises the issue of what counts as "replicated". What are the thresholds we set? What level of error and variance do we allow between experiments? The article you linked defined "replication" in an partially misleading way. For example, if a drug study shows an increase of joint mobility of 17% and another tries to replicate the experiment and finds a 28% increase in joint mobility, it was technically not replicated - since the second study improved mobility even more. Yet this is misleading because the studies replicated efficacy. Suppose we do a similar drug study 10x and find the following percentage of improvement relative to controls: 12%. 15%, 8%, 22%, 3%, 10%, 7%, 1%, 24%, 19%. Technically, no experiment was "replicated". Yet that is extremely misleading since ALL of the experiments shows improvement over controls. From this perspective, the result is replicated and, taken together, would be very strong evidence that the drug has efficacy. Yet with that said, the article brought up a lot of valid concerns about replication - particularly in the psychological sciences.

It depends on your criteria of what counts as "knowing". If your criteria is 100% certainty, it would be impossible to function in the world. One could spend 100% of their life studying a pencil and still barely scratching the surface of how it works. To function in life, certain assumptions need to be made. For example, when I drive a car I assume that other cars will stop at red lights and stop signs. Without that assumption, I wouldn't be able to drive. At any given intersection, I don't have 100% certainty that other cars will stop for a red light: there is a small possibility a car doesn't stop, runs the red light and injures me. Yet if I let this small uncertainty rule me, I won't be able to drive a car and function. There is a certain degree of trust that goes into they system. One assumption you are making is that there is a significant risk of the vaccine. I'm not saying that's wrong, yet that is a HUGE assumption that will alter how you perceive reality. Imagine if I thought the tree outside my house can harm me. If I assume this to be true, it will alter how I perceive reality and interact with reality. You may think this silly. . . yet what if I asked you "How do you know the tree won't harm me? Do you have any experience studying trees and tree demons? Have you studied botany?". You aren't 100% sure the tree won't attack you. So, what is your threshold level of certainty to not fear the tree? It seems like you have foundational distrust of R&D and clinical studies. You say that the forum lacks critical skills, yet here you are not showing any critical skills. There is evidence-based research and claims that lack evidence or misconstrue evidence. It takes critical thinking skills to differentiate between good evidence-based research and misconstrued evidence. This takes time and effort. It isn't easy. Yet you don't seem willing to engage in critical evaluations - you collectively blow off all studies as "we can do studies for everything and design them so that they confirm what the study designers want". That is very intellectually lazy. You are doing the same thing you criticize others as doing. This is a very simplistic view. It is much more complicated and nuanced. Masks most likely reduce the Ro (contagion) of coronavirus spread, yet clearly don't eliminate it. That brings up naunces like: what variables effect the effectiveness of masks? Which masks are most effective? How does crowding affect mask effectiveness? Ideas like "I don't like wearing a mask, so I won't wear one". "People can make up any study about masks, I won't believe any of it" - is a very simplistic mindset. You are acting as if all perspectives carry equal weight. Some perspectives are more reasonable than others. Plus, there isn't enough time to investigate every claim to 100% certainty. Someone could claim that Bill Gates designed the vaccine for mind control. This isn't just a "different perspective". It's a batshit crazy perspective and it's a waste of one's life to check out every batshit crazy perspective. There is a balance between personal desires and social welfare. Let's say that I love to drink a bottle of vodka while driving on highways. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do it? It feels so GOOD!! Isn't my personal experience king?

In the context of systemic racism, Jackie Robinson is one of the best examples. No way is he a strawman. Perhaps you are not familiar with his story. The other user understands the acknowledgement concept I'm pointing to. You seem to be missing that - therefore you perceive the other person as confused. If I speak Spanish with another person and you can't see Spanish, you would need to create a bizarre story to keep filtering out Spanish. One could say "You are speaking strawman!! He got fooled by your strawman speaking!!". He is annoyed that you can't see Spanish being spoken, because it is so obvious to him. I can see how that would be annoying to someone. You are wearing a lens regarding racial dynamics. That lens is distorting what I'm saying. That is why I am trying to use analogies that bypass those filters of distortion. For example, if someone believed the the letter "R" always means "shark" and they weren't willing to look at this - I wouldn't be able to use "Rs" in my communication. I would need to construct sentences without the letter "R". The other person might misinterpret this and get annoyed. Yet, they can't take a meta view of their own filters. There is a very good example coming up. . . Here is where a lens is distorting and projecting. Core parts of the relationship with your construct is that it is logical and contains elements of sympathy, victimization and disempowerment. That is the lens you are using to perceive what I say and it is distorting what I say. You are adding things in. Therefore, to make the point without this add-in distortion, I need to strip those away. I will try to point to what I'm saying with a highly logical construct that bypasses distortions you are adding in like "he is being sympathetic". Let's put on our logical hats. . . -- I notice a student at my college has a 60% average in his math classes. What is the best path? A) Pretend a 60% is an "A" grade B) Turn a blind eye and pretend we didn't see his failing grade C) acknowledge the problem and address it If our goal is to help train the student success, obviously option "C" is best. Notice how there is ZERO emotion, sympathy etc. here. This is totally logical. -- We have a meeting with the student in an attempt to diagnose the etiology (underlying cause) and create a treatment plan. This is like a doctor diagnosing a problem. To diagnose the situation, we ask about the student's study habits, class attendance and prior history with math. The student studies math 3hrs a day and attends class 98% of the time. So that is unlikely the source. Although there could be issues with their attention level in class and efficiency of study methods. (These traits are at the individual level and are important). . . We also learn that the student came from a low income urban area that had a shitty school system. They didn't even offer algebra!!! The school system didn't have computers and the student couldn't afford a laptop. He only has an iphone and is not familiar with how to use basic computer software like Excel. . . This is obviously a big source of the problem. How can a student learn calculus if he never had basic math courses in high school and didn't have access to a computer? At this point, what is the best course of action? A) Pretend like his shitty school system was awesome and that he took the best math courses in high school B) Pretend like we didn't hear anything he said and turn away C) Acknowledge that he came from a shitty school system and teach him what the other students were taught in high school Again, if our goal is the train the student toward success, option "C" is best. We can now create a 100% evidence-based treatment plan that is sympathy-free. We place the student in Math100, that teaches high-school level math. We give the student a math tutor. We schedule a 1hr. meeting each week in which the student learns basic computer software programs. (Notice how this is 100% sympathy free, 100% victim free). We are logically addressing underlying deficiencies without any sympathy, victim blaming etc. As well notice there is a combination of inputs from both individual AND societal levels. If someone doesn't have a guitar, they are not going to learn how to play a guitar. It doesn't matter how hard they work at playing "air guitar". On the flip side, Someone could have the best guitars and teachers, yet if they don't practice, they won't learn how to play the guitar. It's a combination of both individual and societal. One of the major blocks people have toward systemic thinking are narrow views of causation. Most minds only see one direct input of causation. For example, we could say "He never succeeded because he has a victim mindset". That is one of many inputs of causation. I am acknowledging what you write about that input of causation. I'm not saying it isn't an input. Personal beliefs, hard work etc, are factors. I'm saying it is one input of many factors within a larger system of causation - that includes both individual and societal dynamics. If you keep focusing on a subset of individual factors, it will create a distorted view. It's like you keep saying "Icy roads cause car accidents". I am acknowledging, yes icy roads are ONE factor that can cause car accidents. Yet you are locked into icy roads and seem to think ice is the only cause. Everytime I bring up other causations - like how mud slides, texting, drunk driving and speeding are ALSO inputs to car accidents, you respond "That is a strawman. You aren't addressing that icy roads cause car accidents!".

An ex-girlfriend of mine ended our relationship after the first night at my house. She felt ill the day after and saw a psychic. The psychic told her that she was possessed by energy from an old woman spirit in my house. The psychic removed the entity, but it spooked my ex so bad that she couldn’t even be in my presence. We got along really well together. We shared a sixth sense. And a ghost n my house broke us apart. Sometimes life is bizarre.

Getting april fooled by someone april fooling their own fooling of an april fools joke is so meta. If vaush got april fooled by this thread, it would be a strange loop.

In 40 years the younger generation will be talking about how the old Millennials are out of touch. I'm GenX and can relate to both Boomers and Milennials. Yet two generations is a much bigger gap. Similar to Boomer's I lived part of my adult life when there was no internet, cell phones or computers. In middle school, we had air raid drills with sirens blaring that the Russians were about to bomb us. In high school, It's virtually impossible for Milennials to truly understand what life was like and how it shaped us. However, I grew up after the Vietnam war. My dad was impacted by it. When he describes what it was like, I know it was different - yet I can't fully imagine what it was actually like. Since you are only one generation removed, you can sorta imagine what life was like before the internet because it wasn't so widespread when you were a child. Yet you were only 7 yrs old when the internet arose. And in 40 years, the younger generation will not be able to imagine what it's like to live without the "Nafliton". They won't be able to understand how we are being shaped in a world without the Nafliton.

I try to be aware of insights and stories I create about those insights. For example, "this is real", "that is false" etc. Creating stories and constructs can be helpful in some contexts, yet they can also be troublesome. You describe a profound insight, yet then seem to make up a big story about it. The insight you describe is seen in a simple hand exercise. If I look at my hand and feel it - that is a form of actuality. If I put my hand behind my back and imagine it, that is a very different form of actuality. If I am having a conversation with my friend - that is a form of actuality. If I imagine my friend - that is another form of actuality. Realizing that distinction is a profound insight. It seems so simple and obvious, yet 99% of people regularly conflate the two forms without being aware of it. We could also take that insight and then create an elaborate story about what is true and false, what exists, solipsism etc.

I didn't watch the video. I was fooled by the post. At first glance, I thought Vausch was actually questioning is socialism beliefs and was curious if he was transcending into Tier2.

@Milos Uzelac Religious-inspired creativity can be so amazing. There can be an extra transcendental component to it. . . I spent a full day in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican and was overpowered in awe. I sat for hours mesmerized by the creations. There was an extra essence of spirituality that I can't explain. The closest I can come is being inspired, empowered, devoted, love, praise for god.

I just told a group of students this will be the first year I didn't get fooled. Then I saw this video and got fooled. . .

This is a nuanced topic that includes inputs at both individual and societal levels. Acknowledging barriers can either be empowering or disempowering - depending on how it is approached. In the baseball example I gave, the first thing Branch Rickey did was inform Jackie Robinson of all the barriers and forms of racism he will be exposed to within the major league baseball system. This empowered Jackie because he was better informed and prepared. Together, they could come up with a strategy on how to deal with it. Disempowerment is very different. That would be if coach Rickey told Jackie that he is a victim of a racist system and will never succeed as a professional baseball player. The acknowledgement of barriers and inequities is important. If everyone pretended there was no racism in baseball, Jackie would not have been in an environment to succeed and racial integration would not have begun. Rather, Jackie's coach and teammates all acknowledged the shit Jackie was being exposed to. And expectations are relative to context. Jackie and his family was facing imminent threats of physical harm for simply being black. It's not fair to expect him to be outspoken against white racists. I'm in no position to criticize him for not doing enough when he had 10X the patience and courage that I do. Similarly, I teach at a college. Some students come from wealthy families. These students went to private schools and had private tutors. That is very different than our students that come from poor areas of Chicago and Los Angeles. Their school system sucked and they were more worried about survival than their algebra test. If I don't acknowledge advantages and disadvantages, I would handicap myself as a teacher. If I say "all students are equal" I am blinding myself to some inputs. I've had students from disadvantaged backgrounds that have immense potential. Yet they get "C"s because they are under-prepared due to their life history. As well, I've had students from wealthy backgrounds that may get an "A", yet they aren't intellectually gifted. They had the best resources. Part of empowering students is to acknowledge disadvantages and inform them how to overcome them. For example, I may acknowledge that a student is underprepared in math - NOT that they are stupid or a victim. Rather because they were in a shitty disadvantageous system. This is good, empowering news - because they are now in a better system in which they can address that and catch up. If I pretend like those disadvantages didn't exist, it's not fair to the student - because it suggests it's all their fault, that they are stupid and don't belong in college. . . As well, we can't fix barriers and inequities if we don't acknowledge they exist. That is not at all what I said. As I explained above, I'm talking about acknowledging barriers and disadvantages. As a non-racial example: some of my students have relatively severe dyslexia. Acknowledging this has nothing to do with them "being less". You are adding that in. If we are to be successful, both the student and teacher need to acknowledge this and come up with a strategy. If we pretend like it doesn't exist, it's not fair to the student and disempowers them. Once we acknowledge it, we can come up with a strategy. For example, we can focus on learning methods that don't involve a lot of reading - such as videos, kinesthetic modeling, visual images, etc. That is a very different dynamic to tell the person "Oh, you have dyslexia. You are a victim of genetics, have low intelligence and can't be successful". . . That is not at all what I'm saying. Yet, it's also true that people make up all sorts of self-limiting beliefs and those become barriers as well.

Being pro something does not necessarily mean one is aware of underlying distinctions. Someone can be pro-affirmative action, yet be unaware of many underlying racial dynamics. I could be pro-vegetarian, yet if I say "Vegetarianism is the reverse of drinking gasoline", it would reflect a misunderstanding.

You are missing a distinction. Yes, affirmative action has a racial preference component, yet the intention is to correct for a larger, more severe racial inequity issue. Do you have a better strategy to correct for inequity and exclusion? Not an idealistic view like "just treat everyone the equally". That doesn't work in the real world. Do you have any concrete strategies that are evidence-based and effective that are better than affirmative action? Be mindful if you are reaching for science and statistics to support a pre-conceived agenda. This will distort the science. Intelligence, genetics and race is a highly complex, nuanced issue.

I think Biden deserves some criticism regarding detention facilities on the border, yet it's an improvement over Trump. . . Trump intentionally did child separation and detention as a way to punish asylum seekers and discourage them from seeking asylum. Biden doesn't have an intentional child separation policy and has at least put in some effort to connect families. And there is an infrastructure issue. The border doesn't have sufficient infrastructure to adequately support and process the massive numbers of asylum seekers. And covid has complicated the issue. With that said, I can see criticism that Biden is not acknowledging or prioritizing the border crisis.

And a lot of centrist democrats were ethnocentric. Not quite racist, yet they still had some discomfort with a black president. I think this is one reason Obama picked Biden as his VP. Biden was the quintessential white guy who gave some comfort and permission to vote Obama for the 20% of ethnocentric democrats. There is an important distinction: Constructing laws that disproportionately affect minorities (Nixon) vs Deconstructing laws that disproportionately affect minorities (Obama). These dynamics are related, yet also have some unique components. I would say #1 is closer to the truth, yet not quite. I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans are overt racists. There are many Americans that would be better described as ethnocentric. As well, many Americans are not consciously racist, they have unconscious biases they are not aware of. A lot of Americans are ambivalent with a lot of laws. For example, I'm not that engaged with the abortion issue. It doesn't affect me or most people in my close social circle (we are beyond child-bearing age). I would vote pro-choice - yet it's not an issue I would fight for. I'm not part of any pro-choice groups doing outreach, fighting in courts, developing safer methods etc. I'm more interested in other issues like climate change and neural diversity. Yet that doesn't mean I'm "anti-woman". Similarly, if someone isn't engaged in fighting for diversity, equality and inclusion - that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist, sexist, homophobic etc. They could simply be an average Joe that doesn't get involved with those social issues. Changing laws in the U.S. is a complex, nuanced system. It's not as simple as flicking a switch. It depends on the perspective and what counts as "doing something". I would say the process of being the first black president itself is doing something. For example, Jackie Robinson did an enormous amount for racial integration of sports simply by being the first black player in major league baseball. Jackie Robinson didn't change any laws. He wasn't an outspoken justice warrior. He was mild-mannered. He was a good human being, a hardworking man and a great team player. Even though he didn't directly change any policies, he mere presence had a huge impact on raising the consciousness of white people. Robinson and Obama both had to endure a huge amount of racism - and they did so with dignity and class in a leadership role. This has an impact and is "doing something". It's not just about policy change. And in terms of policy change. . . imagine it from the perspective of the under-represented person. What do you think would have happened if Jackie Robinson was an outspoken critic of racism and tried to drastically change racist policies in baseball? There would have been a huge backlash - in particular because he is black and would look threatening. As well, the entire baseball establishment is against him. Similarly, look how massive the backlash against Obama was - America elected Trump. Obama didn't even make any big racial policy changes and there was still major backlash. Imagine what would have happened if Obama was outspoken and tried to make radical policy changes that white people found threatening. The backlash would be worse. As well, the Republican senate specifically said they would block ALL of Obama's policies. Yet it's not like Obama did "nothing" in terms of policy. Obama was a main force in police reform and legislation for police body cams. Body cams had a big impact with racial disparities in policing. As well, I don't think it's fair to put the burden of D.E.I. on minorities. They already have to carry the burden of discrimination and it's not fair to say "it's your problem, do something about it". I don't think it's fair to raise expectations on Obama because he is black. I would place higher expectations on a white president because they have forms of white priveledge that a black president doesn't have. Look at the difference between Obama and Biden. . . Biden worked under Obama and his staff is mostly from the Obama administration. Notice how differently conservatives perceive Obama vs Biden. . . They still attack Biden, yet very differently than Obama - in part because Biden has privileges that Obama didn't have. For example, conservatives don't say that Biden isn't a "real American", yet they constantly did that with Obama. Conservatives don't paint Biden has some foreign oddity - yet did so constantly with Obama (Birtherism, Obama is a closet Muslim etc.)

@Epikur Yea, McRaven is old-school Blue. Stuff like sacrificing yourself to authority and a team. . . Jocko is much more individual oriented - stuff like setting personal goals and personal achievement. Jocko is more on the orange side than McRaven. I would have loved Jocko in my 20s and 30s.

This is my favorite speech regarding healthy conservative views. I like the way he speaks about work ethic, discipline, dedication, integrity, sacrifice and team work.

Because it degraded into actual drug sourcing. I kept having to hide posts describing how to source drugs. I can't spend all day baby sitting a thread. This thread is on the edge of getting locked as well. I don't have the time to baby sit it. You are missing what I wrote. I said this thread is not about bashing liberals OR conservatives. I have hidden posts bashing liberals AND conservatives. If you have healthy conservative views to share, go for it. Otherwise, don't derail the thread. The thread will end up getting locked if people can't be mature and simply discuss healthy conservative views. @Husseinisdoingfine This thread is about sharing HEALTHY conservative views. Stop posting videos focused on criticizing conservatives. There are plenty of other threads about that. If you don't have any input about healthy conservatism, then move along.

I'd say it's more complex than that. There needs to be awareness and support at the societal level. Drug laws have deep roots within systemic infrastructure. A president can't simply say "I hereby change this drug law". There is a process and there needs to be support. In the 1970s a president trying to decriminalize marijuana would have been marginalized and stigmatized. Someone admitting they smoked weed would be disqualified. Today, Biden could sign an executive order decriminalizing weed at the federal level if he wanted to. There is finally enough support for that. Yet he couldn't get away with decriminalizing psychedelics. There isn't enough public support yet. This brings up distinctions between "racist", "nonracist" and "antiracist". I would consider a "nonracist" as someone that doesn't actively personally engage in racism, yet passively participates in a system with racism and doesn't do anything about it. An "anti-racist" specifically tries to address aspect of racism. For example, a white person might not be personally engaging in racism, yet they work at an institution in which they benefit from institutional racism. For example, the institution might be set up that it is harder for poc to get promoted. An anti-racist would see this, get upset and take action to make the work place more fair. Yet, we need to choose our battles carefully. If I tried to address every racial issue at my institution, it would take 50+ hrs a week. My entire time would be trying to address racial issues. As well, there can be severe backlash in confronting systemic racism. There are situations in which a person could be marginalized, stigmatized or fired for confronting racial inequities. I've seen racial issues at my work that I just don't won't to get involved with. It would be a messy fight and take an enormous amount of time and energy. This mentality has been consistently demonstrated in psychology experiments. Nearly everyone says that they would step in and help someone being harmed. For example, nearly everyone says that if they saw someone in harm on they would step in and try to help. Yet experiments have clearly shown that the vast majority actually exposed to someone being harmed will not want to get involved and will rationalize turning a blind eye and moving on. I suppose we could consider turning a blind eye or not wanting to get involved as a form of "passive racism". Yet there is only so much one person can do.

A video that you describe as "liberals don't give a f about homeless people" is polarizing and inflammatory. That isn't the spirit of this thread. The OP stated he simply wants to discuss healthy conservative views. If you would like to discuss how conservatives views are helpful to homeless people, go for it. Yet we can do it in a way that doesn't focus on bashing liberals. For example, Marcus Aurelius would be considered conservative - he had a lot of healthy views. As well, church groups have some healthy views. I grew up in a catholic environment and there were some healthy views regarding sacrifice to community, helping others, dedication to a higher purpose, selflessness etc.

There have been several posts bashing liberals or conservatives. Once again, the OP clearly stated the thread is a discussion of HEALTHY conservative views. It is not a thread to bash liberals or conservatives. If you don't have any input about healthy conservatives views, move on to another thread.

Having laws that disproportionately impact black people is systemic racism. Powder cocaine and crack have very similar harm profiles to society. However, the laws against crack are much more severe and are enforced much more intensely. These laws were specifically designed by Nixon in the 1970s to target black people. Cocaine users are mostly white and crack users are mostly black. At the time, Nixon could not say "I want to imprison more black people". So to do so, he needed to create laws that disproportionately targeted black people. People in the Nixon administration later admitted this. . . These types of covert laws are imbedded within the system. Even today, police offers make more arrests for crack use and judges give harsh prison sentences (to mostly black people). Yet powder cocaine usage (by mostly white people) is not severely enforce and judges give light sentences like a warning or probation. These police officers and judges might not be intentionally racist, they are just following the racist rules that still exist within the system. It is systemic racism by the common definition. This law was introduced by the Nixon administration to target black people, arrest them and imprison them. It is still part of the legal system. There are mountains of data clearly showing black people are disproportionally targeted by drug laws.

@Epikur This thread is to discuss healthy conservative views, not for inflammatory posts bashing liberals as "not giving a f about homeless people". Please don't derail threads.