|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 30 2015 05:50 Nyxisto wrote: Maybe freedom of speech wasn't the right term, but the culture behind the American interpretation of it. Without any form of compulsory education or curriculum you'll end up with a lot of kids growing up in an environment where people can teach them nonsense all day and when they're adults they'll do the same.
I know what you're trying to say, and it's true. The people who don't believe in evolution, climate change, vaccines etc., like many communities, are surrounded by like-minded people. So their children get put in an echo chamber and hear these claims non-stop from a young age. Combine that with the anti-intellectual nature of some communities, and you get young people that were indoctrinated into a certain belief and don't have any respect for the academics that would teach them to challenge it.
I dated a woman in college whose family scared the shit out of me. Obama's first election was around the time our relationship was ending (for different reasons entirely), but some of the stuff her family and her friends' families would say without batting an eye made my hair stand on end. Stuff like a 4-year old seeing an Obama advertisement and saying "Silly Obama, the White House is called the White House for a reason!" At the time, I bet my bottom dollar that he didn't make that up on his own. But because his family and friends talk like that, he talks like that. And when he gets old enough to know better, they will have successfully drilled into him that any other community can't be trusted. It's scary.
|
On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote: I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief.
You're definitely right on some aspects but I think you're misinterpreting it.
It's not really a problem of free speech but a problem in where our priorities lie. Religion has this special status (it does in a lot of countries) where you can say things or do things and say "it's my religion" and get away with it when you wouldn't in any other context. Religion is nothing more than a personal opinion and the fact that terrible actions can be protected because of "freedom of religion" is a fucking joke.
Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!"
And, of course, most of these problems come up when talking about a parent's "religious freedom" to teach their children their extremely sheltered, incorrect, religiously fanatical, or downright bigoted beliefs which then set them up for failure when they're adults. Children really aren't protected from what parents DO do (aside from physical abuse), but only what they DON'T do (neglect). Withholding a child from necessary healthcare to make them healthy is considered neglect, yet if you refuse to allow them to get vaccinations which protect them from some of the deadliest diseases known to man, it's perfectly O.K. because of religion (some) or "special exemptions" which boil down to unsubstantiated paranoid beliefs (others). If you don't allow your child to go to school, it's probably neglect as well, but if you don't allow them to go to school and teach them at home, mostly teaching them demonstrably false ideas (Young-Earth Creationism) and little of anything else, then it's perfectly fine because they're your religious beliefs.
This also happens to plenty of kids who do go to school. They either 1) go back home and their parents brainwash them into thinking that all of the stuff that they learn at school is false, 2) their education is just terrible in general and they aren't sufficiently taught things at school, or 3) they live in communities (usually in the Deep South) where it's acceptable for parents and lawmakers to dictate what can and can't be taught at schools and how it is taught (evolution, climate change). Shit just look at some Southern states that require any education of evolution to also be paired with education about "other opinions" like Creationism (which has no fucking place in a science class), or limit/completely remove education about climate change.
I'd say that this is the biggest problem that leads to our anti-intellectual culture. If we actually had protections in place so children were assured the right to learn basic things (like science, how it works, and why things like evolution and the age of Earth aren't really opinionated topics up for debate), then we'd have a lot less problems with bizarre waves of opinion like anti-vaxxers. When kids are forced to think of these things as dualing "opinions" when they're young, it's no wonder our society does this with adults.
And you're right, for some ridiculous idea it's acceptable to debate factual matters as opinion, and it completely blows my mind that we got to this point in the first place.
|
The anti-vaccine stuff generally doesn't fit with the rest of the "anti-science" that everyone here loves to talk about. It's actually very prominent among wealthier types, it appears. It's not "OMG science is bad," but these people think they are actually doing something good for their children. In Los Angeles, for example, there are more private school exemptions than public school ones. It's kind of all over the place.
So I haven't the foggiest idea how religion or free speech made its way in here. Of everyone I know, there is only one religious person who doesn't vaccinate their kids, and it has nothing to do with religion.
|
On January 30 2015 07:13 Introvert wrote: The anti-vaccine stuff generally doesn't fit with the rest of the "anti-science" that everyone here loves to talk about. It's actually very prominent among wealthier types, it appears. It's not "OMG science is bad," but these people think they are actually doing something good for their children. In Los Angeles, for example, there are more private school exemptions than public school ones. It's kind of all over the place.
So I haven't the foggiest idea how religion or free speech made its way in here. Of everyone I know, there is only one religious person who doesn't vaccinate their kids.
Well...
Finally, some Amish may object to vaccinations on religious grounds, though Huntington states that this is a less likely objection than concerns over safety. She notes that Amish who acquire religious exemptions for vaccinations may cite Romans 12:2, “Be not conformed to this world”, as one justification for abstaining. Amish may argue that putting faith in immunizations is like placing faith in man above God, and that vaccination is akin to participating in insurance programs, which Amish typically oppose (“Health Issues”, Huntington, p 186).
Source
and this...
What’s unique about this year's outbreak is that the CDC has finally admitted the spread of this “eliminated” disease is based on religious communities’ philosophical aversion to vaccines and reliance on divine healing through the Word of God. According to the report, 91 percent of the reported cases were in people who were unvaccinated, or didn’t know their vaccination status, and “of those who were unvaccinated, 79 percent had philosophical objections to vaccination.”
These cases began in religious communities, but eventually spread out of them and infected infants who couldn't legally be vaccinated yet. This August, epidemiologists in Texas began investigating the Eagle Mountain International Church in Newark, Texas. The megachurch, which believes in faith healing, had become an open breeding ground for measles after a member of the congregation returned from Indonesia and infected 21 people in and around Newark. It was widely reported that Terri Pearsons, the church’s senior pastor, had encouraged her followers to avoid vaccinations at all costs. The church has defensively denied this claim, which contradicts Pearsons’s continued reservations about vaccines.
Source
and this...
National data do not distinguish between exemption types, said Daniel A. Salmon, a vaccination expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. But in Massachusetts, which he has studied and which does not offer philosophical exemptions, religious exemptions are on the rise. The American Medical Association opposes both types, saying they increase the risk of epidemics.
In many states, just what constitutes ''religious exemption'' is hazy. A study in The American Journal of Public Health in 2000 showed that only 21 of the 47 states had ever denied one. ''A lot of states call their exemptions religious, but anyone who wants it, gets it,'' Mr. Salmon said.
The issue has never come before the Supreme Court, but state laws that have listed exempt faiths -- Christian Science, for example -- have been struck down in courts on the basis of the First Amendment.
Religious exemptions do have public health consequences. The last two American polio outbreaks were in Amish and Mennonite communities in 1979 and in a Christian Science school in Connecticut in 1972. Measles killed 3 students of 125 infected in a Christian Science school in 1985, and a similar-size outbreak among the Amish in 1987 and 1988 killed 2 people. In 1991, 890 cases of rubella, leading to more than a dozen deformed children, hit Amish areas.
Source
Pretty sure we can just lump it into a first amendment problem without deciding how much of the problem is the freedom of speech and how much is freedom of religion.
Now plenty of the problem is people using religion as a legal excuse but having other motivations themselves, but to act like because you only know one religious anti-vaxxer that you can't comprehend how religion plays a role is just ignorant.
|
On January 30 2015 04:51 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 04:24 Doublemint wrote:On January 30 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote: dont see how it's a free speech issue. it's rather distrust/alienation from science and experts at large. a lot of 'independent' research and conspiracies. "it's my right to say stupid things, even if you don't like it/think it's correct/agree with it". that's what makes it, at least to some extent, a free speech issue. if people abuse free speech it's a free speech issue, no? what? this is not about speech but about beliefs and behavior.
it is since you have to tell >insertderogatoryterm< people that what they are doing is not free speech.
:p
|
Where are the CDC stats, I can't find them. The article would have done well to link it.
I actually do think that religion as an excuse is the primary source. The whole NYT article was about that. You had a few people who opposed it for religious reasons providing an out for a whole bunch of other people.
But come on, everyone knows the primary objection involves autism or susceptibility, not God's Will.
On my phone so forgive thr formatting, but more links seem to back up what i said. Less about religion- most wgo refuse are wealthy upper class people who self educate. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/05/08/who-doesnt-vaccinate/#.VMq7iHqtvqB http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0806477#article
Can I have the CDC source plz?
You are letting your personal assumptions leak in again. "There are some religious people who oppose, so that must be a major source!"
|
On January 30 2015 05:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 01:59 Simberto wrote: How is that a big problem?
Isn't pretty much everyone vaccinated against Measles? Americans are a special kind of stupid. Our culture is extremely anti-intellectual and we have (relatively) huge parts of our population that are anti-science, including anti-climate change science (~50%), anti-evolution (~50%), anti-vaccination (~5-10%), anti-nutritional science ("fad diets", pretty big percentage of the population) etc. Of course, this is despite the fact that each of these issues has a pretty resounding scientific consensus. Show nested quote +A lot of the anti-vaccine crowd is well educated. It's healthy skepticism mixed with dis-trust and lifestyle choices. Doctors say there's no risk, people figure out that vaccines are not 100% risk-less and then let fear of the unknown dictate that vaccines should be avoided. It's pretty similar to the anti-GMO logic (welcome to Europe...).
The vast majority of the population is vaccinated. But with the way vaccines work only a small part of the population needs to avoid vaccination for a problem to arise. It's particularly problematic because people who avoid vaccines tend to cluster around each other, for whatever reason. Education doesn't always mean intelligence (although it is a good indicator) and the skepticism of vaccines isn't "healthy". It's paranoid and absurd. I wasn't arguing that the current vaccine avoidance is healthy. Skepticism itself is healthy, and it is something well educated and intelligent people bring to the table. In this case however, skepticism is contributing to people making poor decisions. That differs from raw ignorance and the remedy may need to differ as well. NPR had a story a couple months ago that actually debunking vaccine myths isn't particularly effective.
Debunking vaccine myths can have an unintended effect
Hope that clears up what I meant.
|
On January 30 2015 08:06 Introvert wrote:Where are the CDC stats, I can't find them. The article would have done well to link it. I actually do think that religion as an excuse is the primary source. The whole NYT article was about that. You had a few people who opposed it for religious reasons providing an out for a whole bunch of other people. But come on, everyone knows the primary objection involves autism or susceptibility, not God's Will. On my phone so forgive thr formatting, but more links seem to back up what i said. Less about religion- most wgo refuse are wealthy upper class people who self educate. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/05/08/who-doesnt-vaccinate/#.VMq7iHqtvqBhttp://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0806477#articleCan I have the CDC source plz? You are letting your personal assumptions leak in again. "There are some religious people who oppose, so that must be a major source!"
Like I was saying, whether it's actually people's faith, or them trying to find a loophole for their ignorance we can't pretend like religion/"religious freedom" isn't a major factor.
Sure a majority of the ignorance may be thinking that they don't want to harm their children by giving them a vaccine, but we can't deny they are using religion to get around the law.
And that freedom of speech allowed for the mass dissemination of factually unfounded information.
I know plenty of trustafarian types that don't want to vax their children and some black people that just don't trust the government sticking them with needles. But in most states that wouldn't be enough if it were not for the religious exemption.
|
|
Canada10927 Posts
Well the Amish are a rather extreme example in pretty much any aspect.
|
On January 30 2015 08:37 Falling wrote: Well the Amish are a rather extreme example in pretty much any aspect.
Which is why I included these people.
Eagle Mountain International Church in Newark, Texas. The megachurch, which believes in faith healing, had become an open breeding ground for measles after a member of the congregation returned from Indonesia and infected 21 people in and around Newark. It was widely reported that Terri Pearsons, the church’s senior pastor, had encouraged her followers to avoid vaccinations at all costs. The church has defensively denied this claim, which contradicts Pearsons’s continued reservations about vaccines.
|
As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access. Currently, 6.3 percent of US households don’t have access to broadband under the previous 4Mpbs/1Mbps threshold, while another 13.1 percent don't have access to broadband under the new 25Mbps downstream threshold.
FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler was vehement in his support for the new broadband standard. "When 80 percent of Americans can access 25-3, that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent," Commissioner Wheeler said.
"We are never satisfied with the status quo. We want better. We continue to push the limit, and that is notable when it comes to technology," FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said. "As consumers adopt and demand more from their platforms and devices, the need for broadband will increase, requiring robust networks to be in place in order to keep up. What is crystal clear to me is that the broadband speeds of yesteryear are woefully inadequate today and beyond."
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel wants to increase the minimum broadband standards far past the new 25Mbps download threshold, up to 100Mbps. "We invented the internet. We can do audacious things if we set big goals, and I think our new threshold, frankly, should be 100Mbps. I think anything short of that shortchanges our children, our future, and our new digital economy," Commissioner Rosenworcel said.
Taking his argument against changing the broadband standard into deep space, FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said "the report notes that 4K TV requires 25Mbps, but 4K TV is still relatively new and is not expected to be widely adopted for years to come. While the statute directs us to look at advanced capability, this stretches the concept to an untenable extreme. Some people, for example, believe probably incorrectly that we are on a path to interplanetary teleportation. Should we include the estimated bandwidth for that as well?"
Changing the national broadband standards to 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up is a bold move for the FCC, which has faced opposition from cable providers which are staunchly against this measure, as it essentially removed DSL services from the broadband discussion. While cable and fiber optic services can easily meet the new standards, DSL — which is delivered over telephone lines — generally never reach the new download threshold.
Source
|
Canada10927 Posts
Sure, and there's a legitimate critique to be made within the Word-Faith branch of Christianity- segments within have also irresponsibly forgone medical treatment. Christian Science also should also have similar criticiques levelled against it. But outside those groups, I'm not sure the issue is as widespread as all that. Maybe it is in the States within the church population, but here it seems more the alternative medicine crowd- naturalpaths and suspicions of big pharma and that sort of thing that moves people into the non-vaccine camp.
|
On January 30 2015 09:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access. Currently, 6.3 percent of US households don’t have access to broadband under the previous 4Mpbs/1Mbps threshold, while another 13.1 percent don't have access to broadband under the new 25Mbps downstream threshold.
FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler was vehement in his support for the new broadband standard. "When 80 percent of Americans can access 25-3, that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent," Commissioner Wheeler said.
"We are never satisfied with the status quo. We want better. We continue to push the limit, and that is notable when it comes to technology," FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said. "As consumers adopt and demand more from their platforms and devices, the need for broadband will increase, requiring robust networks to be in place in order to keep up. What is crystal clear to me is that the broadband speeds of yesteryear are woefully inadequate today and beyond."
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel wants to increase the minimum broadband standards far past the new 25Mbps download threshold, up to 100Mbps. "We invented the internet. We can do audacious things if we set big goals, and I think our new threshold, frankly, should be 100Mbps. I think anything short of that shortchanges our children, our future, and our new digital economy," Commissioner Rosenworcel said.
Taking his argument against changing the broadband standard into deep space, FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said "the report notes that 4K TV requires 25Mbps, but 4K TV is still relatively new and is not expected to be widely adopted for years to come. While the statute directs us to look at advanced capability, this stretches the concept to an untenable extreme. Some people, for example, believe probably incorrectly that we are on a path to interplanetary teleportation. Should we include the estimated bandwidth for that as well?"
Changing the national broadband standards to 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up is a bold move for the FCC, which has faced opposition from cable providers which are staunchly against this measure, as it essentially removed DSL services from the broadband discussion. While cable and fiber optic services can easily meet the new standards, DSL — which is delivered over telephone lines — generally never reach the new download threshold. Source This is the FCC commissioner declaring problems with budget 10-1 and 3-1 etc (which is very commonly priced in the 15$/mo range and quite affordable)? Since when is this a political action group instead of a group simply enforcing passed laws. It seems every news story is now the administration state on steroids, the marching beat being that congressional inaction is excuse for the seizure of power.
These guys should sets the new minimum broadcast standards to be 1GB/s, just to show how profoundly silly this whole enterprise has become.
"When 80 percent of Americans can access 25-3, that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent," He's got all the usual tripe, excepting the line about "In a rich country like ours ... in a technologically advanced country like ours ... we shouldn't have to see people in poverty choosing between 25mbps internet and cable tv!!!"
|
On January 30 2015 09:15 Falling wrote: Sure, and there's a legitimate critique to be made within the Word-Faith branch of Christianity- segments within have also irresponsibly forgone medical treatment. Christian Science also should also have similar criticiques levelled against it. But outside those groups, I'm not sure the issue is as widespread as all that. Maybe it is in the States within the church population, but here it seems more the alternative medicine crowd- naturalpaths and suspicions of big pharma and that sort of thing that moves people into the non-vaccine camp.
I guess my previous posts colored the interpretation of what I was saying. I actually agree it's not religious beliefs that motivate the majority of anti-vaxers. My point is that they are still a significant portion and that many of non-religious belief based anti-vaxers use religion as a shield to push their ignorance on their children and surrounding populations.
I didn't mean to imply that the whole anti-vax movement was religiously motivated, just that trying to pretend religion and "religious freedom" had nothing to do with it was silly.
|
There's nothing quite like seeing someone on an internet gaming forum belittle the notion that quality internet access should be available to everyone.
Poor doesn't look like I want it to, so fuck 'em, right?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 30 2015 09:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 09:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access. Currently, 6.3 percent of US households don’t have access to broadband under the previous 4Mpbs/1Mbps threshold, while another 13.1 percent don't have access to broadband under the new 25Mbps downstream threshold.
FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler was vehement in his support for the new broadband standard. "When 80 percent of Americans can access 25-3, that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent," Commissioner Wheeler said.
"We are never satisfied with the status quo. We want better. We continue to push the limit, and that is notable when it comes to technology," FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said. "As consumers adopt and demand more from their platforms and devices, the need for broadband will increase, requiring robust networks to be in place in order to keep up. What is crystal clear to me is that the broadband speeds of yesteryear are woefully inadequate today and beyond."
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel wants to increase the minimum broadband standards far past the new 25Mbps download threshold, up to 100Mbps. "We invented the internet. We can do audacious things if we set big goals, and I think our new threshold, frankly, should be 100Mbps. I think anything short of that shortchanges our children, our future, and our new digital economy," Commissioner Rosenworcel said.
Taking his argument against changing the broadband standard into deep space, FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said "the report notes that 4K TV requires 25Mbps, but 4K TV is still relatively new and is not expected to be widely adopted for years to come. While the statute directs us to look at advanced capability, this stretches the concept to an untenable extreme. Some people, for example, believe probably incorrectly that we are on a path to interplanetary teleportation. Should we include the estimated bandwidth for that as well?"
Changing the national broadband standards to 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up is a bold move for the FCC, which has faced opposition from cable providers which are staunchly against this measure, as it essentially removed DSL services from the broadband discussion. While cable and fiber optic services can easily meet the new standards, DSL — which is delivered over telephone lines — generally never reach the new download threshold. Source This is the FCC commissioner declaring problems with budget 10-1 and 3-1 etc (which is very commonly priced in the 15$/mo range and quite affordable)? Since when is this a political action group instead of a group simply enforcing passed laws. It seems every news story is now the administration state on steroids, the marching beat being that congressional inaction is excuse for the seizure of power. These guys should sets the new minimum broadcast standards to be 1GB/s, just to show how profoundly silly this whole enterprise has become. Show nested quote +"When 80 percent of Americans can access 25-3, that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent," He's got all the usual tripe, excepting the line about "In a rich country like ours ... in a technologically advanced country like ours ... we shouldn't have to see people in poverty choosing between 25mbps internet and cable tv!!!" the FCC mission does contain facilitating technological implementation and progress as well as the overall state of internet access. this is not as big of a problem as you seem to think
in fact it is the same reasoning used to justify pro-corporate decisions because of a recognition of cross-technological competition.
|
Please don't act like internet access isn't a public utility. It's a bit silly for you to come in beating the Big Government drum as if Comcast and Time Warner are small business entrepreneurial heroes battling Uncle Sam's overreach.
It almost makes you think me just took this shit hook, line, and sinker, from some talking idiot, because who in their right mind could come here and complain about it like you did?
|
On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote: I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!"
I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate?
|
The point is not that the government should get to choose which philosophies or value systems our children grow up with, rather that an effectively provided public education should provide children with the tools they need to make their own choices regardless of the family in which they grow up.
|
|
|
|