iNow

I thought Christians were supposed to be kind and not so completely rude, arrogant, or dismissive of basic decency. Jesus is crying right now due to your behavior.

Which ecology? Also, why do you continue evading my question to you?

Whatever. Please answer the question. As I’m not here to act like an insufferable jerk as you seem to be, I’ll gladly answer any question you pose. However, right now, I’m not at all clear what you’d like answered. If you read back, I actual DID answer your question asking about equilibrium. Please, sir. What question have you asked that you feel I’ve ignored? So, let’s be human toward each other for a moment. Answer my question regarding quarantine supposedly leading to higher incidence of covid... I raised the idea to my toddler who (despite you suggesting was incapable of understanding how to operate a doorknob) said that idea was obviously dumb, and I agree. Why do you assert otherwise?

You’re nowhere even close, but if breaking it is your goal then it’s obviously time to leave, whether voluntarily or not.

Whether in ecology or elsewhere, equilibrium is a balanced state toward which nearly all systems tend... the position of least possible energy expenditure. Now... Without making me feel like I’m trying to interpret a fortune cookie, will you kindly please elaborate on why you thought this was the best possible response to: ”Suggestions that quarantine leads to increased spread of covid are self-evidently ridiculous to the point of absurdity and insanity?”

It’s fascinating to me that I’ve seen this exact argument being made by others elsewhere on social media... That quarantine makes more people sick from covid. It’s so manifestly absurd that it’s hard to understand why people believe it, yet it’s coming up so consistently that it’s not hard to recognize it’s being intentionally fed from somewhere as disinformation to specific audiences.

Someone should’ve told that to my kids. What the AF are you talking about?

Don’t overcomplicate it. It’s nonsequitur to suggest: Bananas are yellow because dogs bark. Or, soil is nutrient rich because the mail gets delivered at lunchtime. That’s really it. One does not logically follow the other.

In my own thinking, that’s irrelevant to whether or not I engage.

The point is that these two maps represent the exact same election yet tell vastly different stories about it. One of those stories is much more accurate than the other. An electoral map rendered in a traditional style shows county-by-county data from the 2016 presidential election. (Jetpack.AI) An electoral map by Karim Douieb shows voting by population rather than strictly by geography. In place of vast swaths of red or blue, the map reveals the mixed nature of voting patterns. (Jetpack.AI)

I’m sympathetic to the point you’re making, but you are wrong. These exchanges DO lead to changes in thinking. They’re obviously not effective in achieving that 100% of the time, but they are effective at least some of the time. Our challenges also often plant the seeds of doubt which may later grow and sprout. The brain is a wonderful calculator and it will often chew on logical inconsistencies in the background when we’re not even aware of them. It seeks ways for things to make sense and to align. Perhaps the participant isn’t convinced by our replies today, but maybe 3 or 7 or 19 years from now while singing in the shower or tying their shoelaces or chopping wood there will be an epiphany moment and the gears of the clock will suddenly stop grinding and will start clicking cleanly and without slips. That “Aha! Of course!!” eureka moment can come at any time. And... Even if the participant isn’t convinced, there are often silent readers paying attention from the sidelines weighing their own doubts... thirsting to be convinced one way or the other and relying on what they see in threads like these to help make sense of it all... to see who’s arguments are nonsense and which are convincing... here specifically to quench their desire to be swayed. Then finally... even if NONE of that were true, it is still vital IMO to stand up and defend what is valid and what is true for its own sake... to challenge fictions and push for rational reasonable thinking wherever we can. We push back on principle to stop the spread of misinformation and that matters for its own sake, even if the person with whom we’re posting shows no willingness to listen. And I’d wager a sizable amount of coin that you agree with me regarding these points. x-posted with Halc who made similar points from a more personal perspective

It’s all so clear to me now. You’re Alanis Morissette!! 😂

When I drop a rock into a puddle, why is the wave that reaches the edge bigger than the rock?

Ah. Ok. Really glad you cleared that all up for us. Yep.

Or China is lying about their numbers. Or just wore masks because they’re not as stupid as the average Trump voter. You think people staying away from each other makes the virus spread more quickly. There’s a word for that. It’s dumb.

You’re speaking of a time when a perfect fictional garden might have existed, one that was so magical it didn’t require tools or tending, and you have the audacity to suggest I’m saying senseless things? Fascinating

And if dragons were real, I could ride my unicorn beside them until we land in Narnia.

It’s quite arrogant of you to pretend you know what derives pleasure for people working in labs, and more so to pretend that the things which bring you pleasure are somehow superior to the things which derive pleasure for others. Didn’t Jesus say something about the importance of humility and not judging other people?

This overlaps with another criticism I have with the idea, namely: the ability to predict/forecast which regions are stable and safe is rapidly shrinking as climate change rapidly advances. Just because a region is meteorologically inactive/less volatile today doesn’t mean it will remain so tomorrow.

It does. It says you’re badly misinformed and unwilling to substitute evidence for your misguided and confirmation biased preconceptions.

So, anecdotes inherently tainted and diminished by human bias and quite likely to be unreproduceable?

Please elaborate on what you mean by liberal in that post

What about the shipping industry? Does your proposal to ban automobiles account for commerce and movement of large amounts of goods across large distances and to locations not serviced by rail?

Is that the same inclination that stirs you to continue posting here on a science forum?