2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
"If you don't have a medical degree stfu" is exactly the argument. Without relevant expertise, your opinion on something as important as medical decisions that affect nobody but you and/or your family is not only completely irrelevant, it's dangerous to even be uttered. So, yes. Without a medical degree, stfu.
Are experts ever wrong? Can institutions be corrupted? Do professionals ever self-censor? Does media influence opinion? What is the expert opinion? Don't question anything... It's not hard to find experts with opposing views.
Are experts ever wrong? Can institutions be corrupted? Do professionals ever self-censor? Does media influence opinion? What is the expert opinion? Don't question anything.
Why are you asking me silly questions? If you want to make a point, make it. If you have to make me dance around to try to make it look like you have a point, you don't have a point.
Hardly unprecedented, is it? I'm thinking stuff like being a "slow learner", or PTSD, or probably a host of let's call them "eccentric" behaviours that were described colloquially before they were recognised by the medical community as some sort of diagnosable condition.
“I’m going to see Rupert Murdoch,” the former president continued. “I don’t know if he’s thrilled that I say it … and I’m going to tell him something very simple … don’t put on negative commercials for 21 days and don’t put on … they’re horrible people that come on and lie. I’m going to say, ‘Rupert, please do it this way.'”
Trump predicted that if he gets his way, “we’ll have a victory,” saying of Murdoch, “everyone wants a victory.”
I’m sure there will be a lot of principled conservatives calling out Trump for putting pressure on Fox News to not even have Kamala surrogates on. lol
This is a very good illustration of my point. Those with medical education would know that classical lobotomies are no longer performed. Today, the procedure is called tereotactic neurosurgery. Any type of brain surgery is basically a last resort after medicines have repeatedly failed.
But those uneducated in medicine say things like "doctors and parents might agree to give a kid a lobotomy" as a scare tactic.
No. They wouldn't. And that's the WHOLE POINT.
"We made mistakes in the past, but don't worry, we got it down now."
It was those with medical educations that made the improvements you are referencing. The solutions suggested by the uneducated at that time were not superior to those suggested by the educated at the time. Science and knowledge improve over time, and it's not guesswork. Get it now?
I mean, I get where you're coming from, but challenges to expert opinions should probably come from other experts, not people who think they've invented a perpetual motion machine, or that the Earth is flat, or that snowballs melting is evidence against anthropogenic climate change. The facts that experts aren't infallible doesn't mean that any idiot should be able to scratch his chin and demand that they explain themselves in terms a 5 year old can understand, just so they can scratch their chin again and say "that doesn't make sense to me, experts are just constrained by their training and can't think outside the box, my circle squaring method really does work".
Yes, and?
I find it interesting that you think we should discard the improved practices we have today simply because they are improvements. This is highly illogical. Surely you see that.
The standards of what we consider evidence of effectiveness of treatments changed dramatically (for the better) as a result of lobotomies. You should consider that change before deciding to reject modern evidence.
Gorgo: We don't perform lobotomies anymore because we learned they were bad.
Greg: So how do you know it's not the same with gender affirming care today?
Gorgo: It was medical professionals that decided that lobotomies were bad.
Greg: It was also medical professionals that decided lobotomies were okay.
Gorgo: What's your point?
I mean, I get where you're coming from, but challenges to expert opinions should probably come from other experts, not people who think they've invented a perpetual motion machine, or that the Earth is flat, or that snowballs melting is evidence against anthropogenic climate change. The facts that experts aren't infallible doesn't mean that any idiot should be able to scratch his chin and demand that they explain themselves in terms a 5 year old can understand, just so they can scratch their chi
Quoted because this is very well stated.
Gorgo: We don't perform lobotomies anymore because we learned they were bad.
Greg: So how do you know it's not the same with gender affirming care today?
Gorgo: It was medical professionals that decided that lobotomies were bad.
Greg: It was also medical professionals that decided lobotomies were okay.
Gorgo: What's your point?
This is not an accurate summary of our conversation, and if you continue posting in bad faith like that, I'm just going to add you to the list of other useless forum users on my block list. I do not mind having conversations such as this, but I **very much mind** being misrepresented in bad faith like that. I simply no longer tolerate it.
This is just a dumb question though. How do we know it's not the same with open heart surgery today? Or any other medical procedure you care to name. If you accept that the experts are correct with all the other stuff, you need to identify what it is about gender affirming care that differentiates it before asking that question.
I mean, I get where you're coming from, but challenges to expert opinions should probably come from other experts, not people who think they've invented a perpetual motion machine, or that the Earth is flat, or that snowballs melting is evidence against anthropogenic climate change. The facts that experts aren't infallible doesn't mean that any idiot should be able to scratch his chin and demand that they explain themselves in terms a 5 year old can understand, just so they can scratch their chi
If you listen to experts most of the time, then randomly disagree based on the culture wars of the day, you'll still be wrong a lot when the experts are wrong, and you'll be adding in your own mistakes as well.
how about this for a compromise: we separate families at the border and let the kids get gender reassignment surgery for free
This is not an accurate summary of our conversation, and if you continue posting in bad faith like that, I'm just going to add you to the list of other useless forum users on my block list. I do not mind having conversations such as this, but I **very much mind** being misrepresented in bad faith like that. I simply no longer tolerate it.
Please show me where I'm wrong. Your argument was basically: "We're better at science now," as if we have everything figured out.
This is just a dumb question though. How do we know it's not the same with open heart surgery today? Or any other medical procedure you care to name. If you accept that the experts are correct with all the other stuff, you need to identify what it is about gender affirming care that differentiates it before asking that question.
There are many reasons it's an incredibly stupid question (most stemming from the fact that he is simply uneducated in the topic, which gets to the entire point I'm trying to make). Gender affirming care is not a medical procedure, it's a WHOLE HOST of WIDELY VARYING interventions ranging from laser hair removal to surgery. It's monumentally ignorant to even ask the question.
It's also an incredibly stupid question because I've already answered it. The standard of evidence for what is effective has changed DRAMATICALLY since lobotomies were performed. We have much clearer evidence of the effects of gender affirming care on the person's mental health and even suicide rates.
This is just another example of why people with zero education should literally just shut up and listen.
Please show me where I'm wrong. Your argument was basically "We're better at science now," as if we have it all figured out.
If you can't see how your summary was inaccurate, especially after my latest post, then I will not continue this or any other discussion with you. You are either incapable or unwilling to participate in the conversation honestly.
As a start, please just examine your statement:
"We're better at science now," as if we have it all figured out.
If you are being completely honest and rational, can you not see that the second half does not follow from the first half? Being better now does not mean being perfect now. I, nor anyone else, has ever claimed that science has derived all knowledge. That is a completely different statement from the one I made, and nothing I said implies that.
Please show me where I'm wrong. Your argument was basically "We're better at science now," as if we have everything figured out.
Do you question every single scientific development and advance? If not, why not? Your answer to this question will also give you the answer to your question above.
Hardly unprecedented, is it? I'm thinking stuff like being a "slow learner", or PTSD, or probably a host of let's call them "eccentric" behaviours that were described colloquially before they were recognised by the medical community as some sort of diagnosable condition.
PTSD nor anything else you're describing are not and never were linguistic terms.
Gender's evolution from something describing noun classes to a medical issue is almost certainly unparalleled.
PTSD nor anything else you're describing are not and never were linguistic terms.
Gender's evolution from something describing noun classes to a medical issue is almost certainly unparalleled.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. I didn't realise you meant "linguistic term" as in "a term pertaining to language", I thought you meant a colloquial term that subsequently morphed into a formal diagnosis or something along those lines.
I have no idea what is meant by "linguistic term." PTSD used to just be called "shell shock" or "combat fatigue." They describe the same condition. Are they "linguistic terms?"
I have no idea what is meant by "linguistic term." PTSD used to just be called "shell shock" or "combat fatigue." They describe the same condition. Are they "linguistic terms?"
He means a term relating to grammar or syntax, e.g. "French has 2 genders whereas Russian has 3". I misunderstood it too. I'm guessing that "gender" used to be used purely to describe nouns and not people or animals, or at least that's Luckbox' whole thesis here.
Gorgo: We don't perform lobotomies anymore because we learned they were bad.
Greg: So how do you know it's not the same with gender affirming care today?
Gorgo: It was medical professionals that decided that lobotomies were bad.
Greg: It was also medical professionals that decided lobotomies were okay.
Gorgo: What's your point?
People like you still think lobotomies are good so I'm going to ignore you on medical issues.
