FTL is becoming anti-science

[Scott in Winnipeg]

True. That's why being peer reviewed and having your work repeasted is a manner of controlling for those mistkaes correct?

I think you need to repeast your work and correct your miskaes.   

(just teasing)

Ouch, spellcheck needed LOL

[Cognitive Dissident]

FTL is anti-TYRANNY.  When science is abused for tyrannical purposes, it is reasonable to rebel.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

FTL is anti-TYRANNY.  When science is abused for tyrannical purposes, it is reasonable to rebel.

You mean like preventing disease?  Preventing disease is tyrannical! 

[Scott in Winnipeg]

FTL is anti-TYRANNY.  When science is abused for tyrannical purposes, it is reasonable to rebel.

Sure, rebel against the people doing the tyranny, not the legit tools they use. By your logic, FTL should rebel against guns since the state uses them to enfoce tyranny on people.

[Cognitive Dissident]

FTL is anti-TYRANNY.  When science is abused for tyrannical purposes, it is reasonable to rebel.

You mean like preventing disease?  Preventing disease is tyrannical! 

Like harassing people who are not convinced.

FTL is anti-TYRANNY.  When science is abused for tyrannical purposes, it is reasonable to rebel.

Sure, rebel against the people doing the tyranny, not the legit tools they use. By your logic, FTL should rebel against guns since the state uses them to enfoce tyranny on people.

Science is "legit."  Abusing science and claiming science when it's not are not "legit."  I have no problem with people rebelling against the state.  People get to have an opinion.

More to the point, abuse of "science" is not new.  The Roman Catholic Church, for example had "science" which was wrong, and called people who spoke out "heretics."  Many scientific advances were laughed at and doubted by "scientists" in the past, in that context and others.  This is how the damage is done by people claiming to have the "science" on their side, and calling others "cynics" or "deniers."

Even if the unbelievers are WRONG, like, say flat earthers...they have a right to their wrong opinion, and you don't have a right to persecute them for it.

[Rillion]

Science is "legit."  Abusing science and claiming science when it's not are not "legit."  I have no problem with people rebelling against the state.  People get to have an opinion.

More to the point, abuse of "science" is not new.  The Roman Catholic Church, for example had "science" which was wrong, and called people who spoke out "heretics."  Many scientific advances were laughed at and doubted by "scientists" in the past, in that context and others.  This is how the damage is done by people claiming to have the "science" on their side, and calling others "cynics" or "deniers."

Even if the unbelievers are WRONG, like, say flat earthers...they have a right to their wrong opinion, and you don't have a right to persecute them for it.

What counts as "persecution"?   Mocking someone for believing something absurd?  If so, I claim the right to "persecute" as much as I want.  I haven't seen any flat earthers being dragged off to the gulags lately. 

[Cognitive Dissident]

Science is "legit."  Abusing science and claiming science when it's not are not "legit."  I have no problem with people rebelling against the state.  People get to have an opinion.

More to the point, abuse of "science" is not new.  The Roman Catholic Church, for example had "science" which was wrong, and called people who spoke out "heretics."  Many scientific advances were laughed at and doubted by "scientists" in the past, in that context and others.  This is how the damage is done by people claiming to have the "science" on their side, and calling others "cynics" or "deniers."

Even if the unbelievers are WRONG, like, say flat earthers...they have a right to their wrong opinion, and you don't have a right to persecute them for it.

What counts as "persecution"?   Mocking someone for believing something absurd?  If so, I claim the right to "persecute" as much as I want.  I haven't seen any flat earthers being dragged off to the gulags lately.  

Look it up.  The reference to flat earthers was to point out that it doesn't matter whether someone's wrong or right--he can have an opinion.  I think I was clear.

[Cognitive Dissident]

It's shit like this:

Soros: Climate financing dispute could wreck talks

COPENHAGEN – The $10 billion a year proposed by rich nations to help the poor adapt to climate change is "not sufficient" and the gap between what's offered and what's needed could wreck the Copenhagen climate conference, American billionaire George Soros said Thursday.

...snip...

"It is possible to substantially increase the amount available to fight global warming in the developing world," he said. "All that is lacking is the political will. Unfortunately the political will will be difficult to gather because of the mere fact that it requires congressional approval in the United States."

I suppose he could dig into his pocket and convince his friends to do the same.

[Scott in Winnipeg]

Even if the unbelievers are WRONG, like, say flat earthers...they have a right to their wrong opinion, and you don't have a right to persecute them for it.

Incorrect, I do have the right to (since I can open my mouth and speak or type words) and I will point out their error if I care enough about a certain subject.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Even if the unbelievers are WRONG, like, say flat earthers...they have a right to their wrong opinion, and you don't have a right to persecute them for it.

Incorrect, I do have the right to (since I can open my mouth and speak or type words) and I will point out their error if I care enough about a certain subject.

Voicing your opinion, just like them voicing their opinion, is not persecution.

[Rillion]

Voicing your opinion, just like them voicing their opinion, is not persecution.

Okay, apparently you weren't as clear as you thought, so please clarify-- what counts as persecution? 

[AL the Inconspicuous]

[...]  That's why being peer reviewed and having your work [repeated] is a manner of controlling for those [mistakes] correct?  [...]

History is filled with examples of the "best minds" of every society being waaay off on very important things, and using state / church violence to enforce their folly on others.  Scientists are not immune to groupthink - especially when their institutions are funded and regulated by a single self-serving power monopoly, and especially when the difference between being labelled a "genius" / "hero" or a "quack" / "killer" depends on following the party line.  Being a climatologist and not pushing global warming means voting against your own job security and your self-esteem, as well as those of your colleagues, who would ostracise you, knowing that if the sky wasn't falling they'd be stuck teaching 7th grade science instead!

This is why the free marketplace must be the final phase of any review process (ex. whether the benefits of getting a flu-shot is worth the costs and the risks involved), but the use of blunt government force makes this test impossible, and thus makes the whole review process unscientific.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Voicing your opinion, just like them voicing their opinion, is not persecution.

Okay, apparently you weren't as clear as you thought, so please clarify-- what counts as persecution?  

No, apparently you are being belligerent.  What part of look it up didn't you understand?  Do I have to provide you a link to Merriam Webster's web site?

[Rillion]

Voicing your opinion, just like them voicing their opinion, is not persecution.

Okay, apparently you weren't as clear as you thought, so please clarify-- what counts as persecution?  

No, apparently you are being belligerent.  What part of look it up didn't you understand?  Do I have to provide you a link to Merriam Webster's web site?

Main Entry: per·se·cute
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-si-ˌkyüt\

1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief.

Gee, that clears things up!

Not.

What counts as "suffering" to you?  Hurt feelings?  Bodily harm?  Loss of business?  You act as if this should be obvious, but it obviously isn't.   People use the word "persecution" in all sorts of ways, some more valid than others, so clarification is needed every time somebody chooses to hurl it out.  Don't get all butthurt when somebody isn't quite sure what you  mean by it. 

[Cognitive Dissident]

You see, it's this playing dumb at some times and playing smartass at others that makes you the cunt you are.  Yes, that's exactly the definition I had in mind.  Given the context of "not having a right" on a message system discussing libertarianism do you honestly think I'm referring to harsh fucking language?  I most certainly am not.

addendum: libertarian -> libertarianism