Free speech.

[Katman]

My guess is that our definitions are pretty similar.

Keep guessing.

[Zedder]

Well thats putting out fires with gasoline right there....

So you propose terrorist action (this is the worst as you are proving people like alex jones right that the next wave of terrorists will be right wing white nutters) with misuse of drones and violation of CAA guidelines to assault sleeping toddlers and parents.
Just because they choose not to take an expensive corporate controlled medication that may or may not work.....

I do like that you choose to administer it proeprly though. Being exposed through the mucus membranes of the throat and sinus is where the key receptor cells are that identify invading pathigens and trigger the bodies repsonse systems in the right way. This is way better than injecting a toxic syrup containign additives and preservatives straight into the blood stream which shocks the body.

Pretty sure HDC was joking.

[R650R]

Free speech is fine ... but to be totally free ... there must be the free right to reply.

And be able to accept ... that others may not agree with their stupid conspiracy theories.

Whast even better is if people can engage in rational debate without emotional terms and name calling, classic attack the messenger instantly expooses that people have no counter argument.

[husaberg]

Thanks. seriously.

By the way, I was lying in bed last night and I have invented a newish device.

I am going to take existing drone technology, and I am going to get some vaccines and I am going to fly the drone into fuckwith anti-vaxxers houses and basically cropdust vaccines over the sleeping children. I will also cropdust contraception over the sleeping adults who are clearly unfit to breed.

When I rule you all (and I will) shit's gonna change, yo.

Shirley, we can use put it in the water with the Flouride or in the salt with the iodine.

[Woodman]

Keep guessing.

Na, bored now.....

[Ulsterkiwi]

Well thats putting out fires with gasoline right there....

So you propose terrorist action (this is the worst as you are proving people like alex jones right that the next wave of terrorists will be right wing white nutters) with misuse of drones and violation of CAA guidelines to assault sleeping toddlers and parents.
Just because they choose not to take an expensive corporate controlled medication that may or may not work.....

I do like that you choose to administer it proeprly though. Being exposed through the mucus membranes of the throat and sinus is where the key receptor cells are that identify invading pathigens and trigger the bodies repsonse systems in the right way. This is way better than injecting a toxic syrup containign additives and preservatives straight into the blood stream which shocks the body.

Point of order.
Mucous membranes do not contain receptor cells for the immune system. There are distinct areas of lymphatic tissue which are the site of immune response you refer to. The tonsils would be an example. Peyers patches in the gut. Langerhans cells in the skin and MALTs in the lung.
Also, vaccines are rarely if ever injected IV. They are either subcutaneous or intramuscular. In that environment they would encounter macrophages and dendritic cells, part of the immune system, long before a mucous membrane, probably a series of lymph nodes as well with their white cell population.
Even if they were introduced IV the bloodstream is responsible for the rapid transport of white blood cells, you know, the ones that mount immune response. So T and B lymphocytes, Natural Killer cells and a pretty potent monocyte population can acquire the immunity from there in the right circumstances.
Where you are correct is that passing through the Liver more quickly will allow the other stuff to be processed and excreted more rapidly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

That was an interesting read, written by an academic.

I am not unaware that academia is about pushing the boundaries, change, expansion of knowledge and trying to improve the lot of humanity, be that through developing new medicine or technology, rethinking how we live in our societies or writing new literature or producing other works of art. It so happens that in the context of politics those aspirations are categorised as leftist or liberal while those who want things to remain as they are, without change or challenge are right leaning or conservative. The article you linked to alludes to just that.

Academia is neither right nor wrong, it is what it is, questioning why things are the way they are. To bring the judgment of something's value or place in society back to whether it is left or right is a bit reductionist for my liking.

I guess the thing which sets academia apart is the constant call for critique, argue for whatever you want but does the evidence support it? Stereotypically (and again the article alludes to that idea) conservatives want things to remain as they are because "that's how its always been done". Where does that get us? Someone on here had the story of the five monkeys in their signature. While a bit of a giggle, the story also has a very real point to make.

As I referred to earlier in the thread without "leftie" thinking/freedom of speech, we would still have slavery, women could not vote, there would be no birth control, rape within marriage would be ok, education would only ever be available to the wealthy and government agencies would have no accountability to the public/taxpayers who make their existence possible, to name but a few things.

Also remember that its not academia or even a conservative line of thinking that is at fault here. These are ideas and ideas are held by people and people are flawed so any system of thinking will be limited by the people who operationalise that thinking. Communism has its pluses. Under communist thinking we are all equal. I like that idea. Certainly in terms of our worth to society. We all have our roles, skills, talents and abilities so in that respect we are of course all different but noone is more important than the other. The USSR however clearly demonstrated that some were more equal than others and the limits of any equality were very constrained. So the fault was not in the idea but with the people who were in power.
The counter to that is of course the good ol US of A, the land of the free, defender of liberty. Ever been to Jackson? Queens? LA? Lots of people there who would say the right has not done too much good for them. Does that make all conservative ideology "bad", I don't think so.

So yes, lots of academics have ideas that are classed as being leftist. So what?

Needless to say I find "leftie" thinking to be exactly the opposite, constrained by contortions just like yours, required to prove everyone is equal and full of castigation for a "right" they think are cheating them of their "share".

A "right" by the way, that has nothing to do with your interpretation of "conservitive".

So your whole premise is somewhat fraught. As is most socialist dogma, having retreated to the few last bastions where the benefits of actual production remain divorced from it's cause.

[HenryDorsetCase]

awww, everybody has to hate somebody right?

lawyers hate everybody. Its the rule

[HenryDorsetCase]

Well thats putting out fires with gasoline right there....

So you propose terrorist action (this is the worst as you are proving people like alex jones right that the next wave of terrorists will be right wing white nutters) with misuse of drones and violation of CAA guidelines to assault sleeping toddlers and parents.
Just because they choose not to take an expensive corporate controlled medication that may or may not work.....

I do like that you choose to administer it proeprly though. Being exposed through the mucus membranes of the throat and sinus is where the key receptor cells are that identify invading pathigens and trigger the bodies repsonse systems in the right way. This is way better than injecting a toxic syrup containign additives and preservatives straight into the blood stream which shocks the body.

I dont know who Alex Jones is and am too lazy to google. But, like Richard M Nixon and Donald J Trump, if the President does it, its not illegal. and I will be your President for life in this scenario.

I put it to you that right wing white nutters are the biggest threat to civil society. They've taken over America for starters. Dont forget that until the World Trade Centre the biggest body count in Mrka was the Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh - the quintessential right wing white nutbar.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Point of order.
Mucous membranes do not contain receptor cells for the immune system. There are distinct areas of lymphatic tissue which are the site of immune response you refer to. The tonsils would be an example. Peyers patches in the gut. Langerhans cells in the skin and MALTs in the lung.
Also, vaccines are rarely if ever injected IV. They are either subcutaneous or intramuscular. In that environment they would encounter macrophages and dendritic cells, part of the immune system, long before a mucous membrane, probably a series of lymph nodes as well with their white cell population.
Even if they were introduced IV the bloodstream is responsible for the rapid transport of white blood cells, you know, the ones that mount immune response. So T and B lymphocytes, Natural Killer cells and a pretty potent monocyte population can acquire the immunity from there in the right circumstances.
Where you are correct is that passing through the Liver more quickly will allow the other stuff to be processed and excreted more rapidly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDSOIspSTP4

[Ulsterkiwi]

Needless to say I find "leftie" thinking to be exactly the opposite, constrained by contortions just like yours, required to prove everyone is equal and full of castigation for a "right" they think are cheating them of their "share".

A "right" by the way, that has nothing to do with your interpretation of "conservitive".

So your whole premise is somewhat fraught. As is most socialist dogma, having retreated to the few last bastions where the benefits of actual production remain divorced from it's cause.

I am finding it hard to follow your thinking. I wasn't feeling obliged to prove everyone is equal, I said I liked the idea that all members of society while being different were of equal value.
I am also a bit confused as to your meaning when you talk of "right". In one sentence it seems you mean the political right in another it seems to be about rights such as human rights. I didn't enter into any discussion of rights so am not sure what you want to say there.
I do not believe I was coming from a perspective of socialist dogma. A) because I am not a socialist B) I was trying to say that neither side of the spectrum has things absolutely sorted. I prefer a pragmatic approach taking the best of what each has to offer and depending on the time and the context what will work best for a society will change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FJRider]

Whast even better is if people can engage in rational debate without emotional terms and name calling, classic attack the messenger instantly expooses that people have no counter argument.

But ...but ... free speech is saying what you like ... emotions,feelings, and beliefs ...are all mixed in.

And some just have a passion for debate ... regardless of the topic.

Isn't that the basis of free speech ...???

You can learn from debates ... if actual facts are divulged. Not just theories, beliefs, and opinions.

[Ulsterkiwi]

But ...but ... free speech is saying what you like ... emotions,feelings, and beliefs ...are all mixed in.

And some just have a passion for debate ... regardless of the topic.

Isn't that the basis of free speech ...???

You can learn from debates ... if actual facts are divulged. Not just theories, beliefs, and opinions.

You have a point. In debate, passion for the point you are making can be useful. It's a limitation if that passion means you cannot see when the argument is lost.

Debate for its own sake is i believe healthy. My old dad always told me not to believe something just because someone told me it was so. He encouraged me to work things out for myself. To know WHY I held something to be the case. I would suggest it's a good discipline to have. Convince yourself and then if it's important to you, you can convince others, or at least make your case.

I guess that is why I like what I do. My job is to teach others in such a way that they question and critique as well. My aspiration is when I am done, my students are more skilled and knowledgeable than me. inherently that means what I hold to be true may have to change if new knowledge and evidence changes the scene.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

I am finding it hard to follow your thinking. I wasn't feeling obliged to prove everyone is equal, I said I liked the idea that all members of society while being different were of equal value.
I am also a bit confused as to your meaning when you talk of "right". In one sentence it seems you mean the political right in another it seems to be about rights such as human rights. I didn't enter into any discussion of rights so am not sure what you want to say there.
I do not believe I was coming from a perspective of socialist dogma. A) because I am not a socialist B) I was trying to say that neither side of the spectrum has things absolutely sorted. I prefer a pragmatic approach taking the best of what each has to offer and depending on the time and the context what will work best for a society will change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also made no mention of human rights, as you discussed the political left so I referred to the political right.

And of course you didn't believe your comments were socialist dogma, if you recognised that you may asked to recognise the failures such polity entails.

Pragmatic for who? The left want the benefits produced by the right, the right tend to be pretty much self sufficient.

[Katman]

I'm reminded of the saying that the left and the right are just two sides of the same being.

Maybe we need to start focusing on the middle.