Jump to content

ScienceNostalgia101

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ScienceNostalgia101

  • Rank
    Atom

Recent Profile Visitors

3186 profile views
  1. Again, they were more okay with IVF, even though it also destroys embryos. Wouldn't the popularity of ESCR be about equal to that of IVF, rather than at some sort of middle ground between IVF and abortion, if they believed life began at conception?
  2. That's not what I was saying. At all. (And if that's how you interpreted it, why didn't you say so the previous time?) But two of the deadliest new contagions of the 21st century both came out of China. You mention swine flu and that it killed relatively fewer people. As well, wasn't it compared to ordinary influenza in its tendency to finish off the elderly while sparing the young? Coronavirus was deadlier for the elderly but claimed young lives as well. It's almost as if a secretive government not accountable to its citizens has less incentive to crack down on unhygen
  3. I wanted to use as broad a term as possible, because although Christianity seems to contribute to the most noticeable share of the opposition, I wouldn't want to diminish the role of other religions either. Islam in particular originates from the same Old Testament, is comparably popular on a global scale with potential for future influx on a local one, and has a track record of opposing some of the same things Christianity has historically opposed, like homosexuality, extramarital sex, etc. (Well, the latter until recently, as the Trump era has exposed.) Now, to whatever extent di
  4. For years, I've been angry at religion over its opposition to ESCR (embryonic stem cell research). So angry at it, I threw leftism under the bus just to see of that'd help prop up anti-theism's reputation. So angry at it, I used to blame religion for everything from homophobia to the election of Donald Trump, without actually stopping to ask myself if religion's even at fault for the aspect of it that got me angry at it in the first place. See, one of its detractors' favourite talking points is "if it were really about cures, they'd tell us specifically what disease they're going to cu
  5. Which is why I suggested the travel restrictions be indefinite. This isn't the first new contagion coming out of China, and most likely, it won't be the last. Testing and tracing is the ideal, but there are questions around how enforceable that is, especially among a nationality as worshipping of capitalism as Americans. As well, even if it turns out it's more enforceable than we thought, if the virus was already spreading before it was detected, doesn't that mean some sufferers will already have been sentenced to death by its presence in their bodies long before testing and tracin
  6. I think most jurisdictions go easier on the users than the dealers because the image of someone making big bucks, no matter what risks they're facing, evokes less sympathy than a suffering drug addict. Even so, in the United States, it makes little difference; you go to prison, for using OR dealing or just about any crime unrelated to drugs at all, no one's going to want to hire you when you get out. In Norway, it makes little difference; you go to prison, the system will rehabilitate you. I'm not sure what countries are enough of a middle ground along the "deterrence vs. rehabilitation" spect
  7. That's why I said "a few towns" in which I've taught, rather than only one. If it were just my hometown obviously it could be dismissed as a one-off. I've noticed it in multiple towns, each of which routinely re-elect some of the same representatives who helped legalized gay marriage in Canada. EDIT: But you don't have to take my word for it. Just look at how split so-called "homophobes" are among each other on what kind of a problem they have with homosexuality. Religious homophobes (the kind you hear on TV) will say it goes against the Bible. Masculinity-worshipping homophobes (t
  8. That's good to know, at least you're consistent on giving the benefit of a doubt. But too often many if not most opt to jump the gun, or worse, claim it doesn't matter if they get someone's motives wrong, only which side of the issue they're on. I don't claim to know the etymology of "alright mate;" I guess it's mostly a European and/or Australian thing? But I don't think it's derived from "mating" any more than the word "roommates." It's pretty obvious there's other explanations of that etymology than that one. But "gay" and "faggot" have less room for interpretation. Individuals
  9. If Europe also had mandatory quarantine on travellers from China, the disease wouldn't have gotten into Europe either, and all of this could have been prevented.
  10. Catastrophe doesn't care for borders, but the virus can't cross them unless a person does. If China doesn't clean up their act, why can't other countries co-ordinate on quarantining travellers from there before letting them into the country, as a precaution against any other new contagions China's unique blend of secrecy and censorship allows to fester? Doesn't everyone else's right to survive take priority over their desire to travel?
  11. While the subject has come up a couple of times on this board, it came to mind especially lately as this site seems especially convinced of the social sciences' integrity despite some infamous polling failures in recent years. One thing that has always bothered me about the gay marriage debate is that people who call everything they dislike gay, and everyone they dislike a faggot, but support gay marriage (ie. the vast majority of people in a few towns in which I taught; though I'm sure most of you can think of such towns) are given the benefit of a doubt on being more homophobic t
  12. Britain and America at least speak for their citizens. The CCP only speaks for the predecessors from their own party who seized power violently decades ago, not the citizens of their own country who were kept just as in the dark (and then some, since then) about this disease until now.
  13. For someone who supposedly has a problem with my "assertions without evidence," you sure love to insinuate ones of your own. Expecting people to value integrity if the world will incentivize the exact opposite of integrity is only going to result in the people who value integrity the most being unable to compete with those who value it the least. At best, it will be a short-lived symbolic victory, as people who value integrity will be squashed too early to make any significant difference. At worst, it will be a deterrent against any integrity on the part of others.
  14. Well, yeah. This isn't the first troublesome result to come out of letting countries like China and Russia into the UN. Start over. Have alliances between actual free countries, untainted by the influence of tyrants. If we're not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, why are we expected to negotiate with the geopolitical equivalent thereof?
  15. A bit off the mark, but closer than most have come. The "maturing" of the organization is "maturing" it into an institution which values its connections with China over calling China out. Even if you give the WHO the benefit of a doubt on COVID-19, there's a much more clear-cut case of it for SARS. Enough is enough. Let the rest of the world represent its PEOPLE, and let the governments that only appointed themselves have no say in shit they were only going to lie about anyway. Alternatively, have 2-week quarantines of all travellers from China indefinitely until/unless
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.