HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Shermann » Journal
Page: 1

Shermann

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Feb 22, 2020, 12:55 PM
Number of posts: 4,926

Journal Archives

Nobody self-identifies as being anti-science

I don't believe I've ever heard anybody fess up to being anti-science. Any yet, so may are. Why is this?

Those who follow the scientific method will gravitate to hypotheses and theories which best fit all available sound evidence. As new evidence arrives, they will move to new positions accordingly. Using this logical framework, they will actively work to maximize the true things they believe and minimize the false things they believe. It's not about absolute guarantees which are a rare commodity.

Stated this way, it seems untenable to follow any incompatible paths to truth. Any yet there are so many who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, the risks associated with getting vaccinated exceed those of getting infected, and anthropogenic climate change is a hoax.

I can only conclude that the anti-science types simply don't understand the scientific method, or they fully understand it but have a hidden agenda which has corrupted them.

The mentality of armed combatants

As I see it, there are generally five characterizations of people caught in armed encounters outside of a battlefield:

1) The "Stone Cold Killer" - This one uses unjustified deadly force right from the start.

2) The "Initial Aggressor" - The initial aggressor is one who initiates conflict without the intent to kill whereupon the situation escalates. They then employ deadly force without ever demonstrating a willingness to abandon the conflict.

3) The "Vigilante" - The vigilante may genuinely believe they have the moral high ground, however they use deadly force in an unjustified way. This could result from shirking a duty to retreat, from responding disproportionately to danger, or from unknowingly coming to the aid of an initial aggressor.

4) The "Good Trouble Maker" - The good trouble maker does not seem to technically violate gun laws. However, they purposefully take actions that greatly increase the chance of a conflict. This is done without rising to the level of being an "initial aggressor", rather they make themselves into a "honey pot" to lure the initial aggression from others. The wrong place at the wrong time becomes the right place at the right time.

5) The "Self Defender" - The self defender employs the justified use of deadly force.

1, 2, and 3 are illegal, while 4 and 5 are not. 4, however, pushes the envelope.

I think Rittenhouse is probably closest to 4, but touches on 3 a bit. In any event, juries likely won't be sympathetic to either type.

Here's what the unvaccinated can expect from taking Ivermectin to treat Covid

Joe Rogan and Aaron Rodgers famously took Ivermectin to treat their Covid infections instead of proactively getting vaccinated.

In terms of probability, here are the likely outcomes from taking the various therapeutics:

Ivermectin: survival likely
Hydroxychloroquine: survival likely
Monoclonal antibodies: survival likely
Remdesivir: survival likely
Zinc: survival likely
Vitamin C: survival likely
Vitamin D: survival likely
Drink bleach: survival likely (this is really going to suck though)
Take nothing: survival likely

Even if you have every risk factor possible, I don't know that the probability of death ever reaches 50%. That's not to downplay the risk, however.

Now Joe Rogan has attributed his recovery to his treatments. This is an example of a survivorship bias fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Sanjay Gupta was on Rogan's show recently and didn't call him out on this.

The difference between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Rodgers

Mr. Rogers: Wants you to be his neighbor
Mr. Rodgers: Back off, woke mob!

Mr. Rogers: Learns science from Bill Nye the Science Guy
Mr. Rodgers: Learns science from Joe Rogan

Mr. Rogers: Believes periods of losing produce the greatest strivings toward a new winning
Mr. Rodgers: That's sounds like a loser talking!

Mr. Rogers: Believes real strength has to do with helping others
Mr. Rodgers: Believes real strength comes from lifting weights

Choose your doom on your next flight!

Which of these two enemies one may encounter on a plane makes for the least shitty trip?

Republicans really do believe that government can't solve problems

That's why they focus on manufactured issues like caravans, abortion, and CRT. It's hard to really tell if anything got done. They strayed into dangerous territory with the promises of a free border wall and great health care, and you see how that all turned out.

Contrast that with Biden's ambitious and testable Build Back Better Framework.

Interestingly, right-wingers tend to be big big supporters of the military. I've asked them why the military doesn't count as a government program which solves problems (this gets crickets). So how exactly is an aspiring right-winger to know which are the "good" government programs and which are the "bad" ones? Well you see, they generally can't work this out themselves with any sort of consistent conservative logic. They must wait for the relevant talking point to be developed by Those Who Decide Such Things.

Pet Sematary 2019 SPOILERS

Amazon has this in 4K for $2 so I was tempted to watch it last night. I am generally not a fan of reboots. I've read the book and seen the 1989 original. The runtime is about the same as the 1989 version. It tracks very closely for the first half or so, almost boringly so. There is a twist and then it diverges a bit. So there are some aspects there to keep it interesting.

The pacing feels a bit quicker than the original at first. Many elements are cut out like the dispute between Louis and Amy's parents and the nanny. Pascal is dialed back quite a bit.

It looks good, but is a bit dark and dreary and doesn't benefit much from the 4K resolution.

The reveal about Amy's sister is less dramatic, as is the death of the child on the highway. The sister is reimagined as mostly being thumping sounds coming from upstairs (and a bizarre scene involving a dumbwaiter?)

John Lithgow was solid, but I preferred Fred Gwynne as Jud. There was that important question and conversation about burying people that didn't make it into this version. Why cut that? Jud gets drugged in this version which seemed unnecessary.

There is a bit more time for the undead monsters at the end. It's no small task to turn these adorable children into fearsome ghouls.
In King's nightmarish vision, the resurrected are quite creepy and know things they shouldn't know. This aspect is lost in both movies. Both have them flash between cute and corrupted. This version also imparts the daughter with an upgraded brawling ability.

What would it be like living with a child who was raised from the dead? There are these moments between the father and the daughter which end up being mostly wasted opportunities to explore that more deeply. There is some creepiness here, but it just isn't King-sized.

So it's a mixed bag. The original was probably the best of the King movie adaptations, so the reboot seems mostly pointless.
Go to Page: 1