“shall issue” and “may issue”. Do you know the subtle differences?
Shall = compulsory
May = permissive
but....I AM a lawyer. I haven't spent the time to read the opinion, but I have heard that Roe was decided on a shaky legal foundation. I will examine it. I fundamentally believe, however, that people are being schizophrenic on the substance of the issue.
I am OVER generalizing here, but:
The Left = pro-vaxx mandates, pro-choice
The Right = anti-vaxx mandates, pro-life
At the end of the day, in one case they're saying "your body, your choice" and then in the next breath "your body, not your choice." In both cases, the other side could say, "well, it's not just your life, what you do is affecting others' lives, too." At the end of the day, however, the very first life affected is the individual's. Let's just be consistent with our theories.
Well, I thought you were a purveyor of kimchi and gochugaru 😉 but seriously yes my comment was a bit obtuse, but I'm sure there are a few people who take see words may and shall and just believe it is a bit of a semantic argument when it really means a lot in this context.
As to Roe v. Wade, that is where my comment from Heather Heying comes from as the argument made by Roe v. Wade was improper, so it's somewhat outside of just a pro-life/pro-choice argument.
I usually want to be careful of playing the hypocrite argument, but I do find it strange how much of the nuance is removed from both arguments. I think the adamant nature of believing everyone needs a vaccine without providing context highlights the failures of such a parochial viewpoint.
Yes, the nuance is removed, and the devil is always in the details. I looked on Heather's substack per the link you provided for her analysis of the decision, but didn't see it.
Nice write up. I have some science background, including biochemistry from 45 years ago, so when I read current papers, it's apparent that the amount of detail knowledge has increased ten fold, perhaps more. So I understand a fair bit, but there's times I scan the detail, and read what seemingly knowledgeable people, like you, Malone, and others are able to translate in to more lay terminology. So then it's a question of whose technical savvy do I trust or respect? As well as what are my persisting biases which lead me to certain voices.
The reality I perceive is mostly people spouting other's opinions and memes, rather than original thought, or critical thinking, which essentially you are suggesting we should all be doing. Otherwise we're just running our pre-existing perspective into a limbic reinforcement loop, leading to rabid fans of whatever lunacy we buy into.
It's certainly difficult because a lot of this stuff are things I am learning as I go along. It's one of the reasons I prefer to stay around pharmacology since it's things that I both enjoy but also am fairly knowledgeable about. Immunology, not so much and so it's hard to figure out how much information I need to know. It's usually why I have to go down some rabbit hole where I end up with a few dozen papers open, and even then I still struggle to parse the information. And even if I do, it's a matter of finding a way to write it where you don't lose all of the information. It's one of the reasons I struggle with some of the writing that may come off a bit technical, because at what point would it be considered enough information for the layperson to understand everything?
When it comes down to it, I always try to at least be open that I will get things wrong and will always welcome corrections. For others, it's a bit difficult but if people write about articles see if you can find those articles for yourself and are able to say, "hey, does this information seem the same? Is it interpreted properly? Or is information being left out intentionally?" You may be surprised how many people don't make it past the title or the abstract. If it's too technical still, I usually preface the information with a, "I can't figure it out myself, so I will be slightly skeptical." It is difficult to try that for everyone, but having a bit of a trust, but verify approach is generally a good idea.
And your last point is exactly something what we should be careful of. I think people are far too easily swayed by the cult of personality rather than information, and when people begin to spout other people's opinions can they really claim them to be their own? I really just want more people to stand back and really see if they have their own thoughts and opinions.
Yeah. I always try to remember that we are herd animals, and don't want to be out of the herd, so we discern where the herd is going, whether it be parsing information or listening to music, or taking melatonin
I'm usually careful to argue that others are sheep, but I do want to remind people that those who are "on your side" don't always have your best intentions, or they may just be wrong sometimes and you should point it out. That usually doesn't happen though. We usually argue that our opponents are sheep while we are autonomous critical thinkers, and that's when people become easily led astray.
Well I suppose use it sparingly and wisely? I do find the "I'm not an expert" argument kind of moot when we argue that appeals to authority are ones which we shouldn't be engaging in. It's not the credentials, it's the ideas. Credentials only serve to better disseminate one's thoughts and ideas, but if the information is wrong it's wrong irrespective of the credentials.
You know, I always find it funny because at what level would we consider someone an idiot? I usually want to be careful in assuming the intelligence of others because it puts your intellect on watch as well, and sometimes you'll find that one idiot is another's savant.
I always think of that comment about imagining how dumb the average person is, and remember that half of the people out there are even dumber. I usually remark (albeit sometimes sarcastically) that people should be careful in assuming they exist in the upper half. I think I usually get some look indicating I ruined the joke...
In general, I think we need to find far more humility and understand where our faults lie, the limits of our knowledge, and to not be so hasty in judging other's intellect from their behaviors. It's usually not that someone is an idiot, but what do they appear to be stupid about? Although, sometimes it is easier just to call someone an idiot and move on.
Idiots are the people so demoralized/normalized that they do not have the ability or inclination to see reality or facts that conflict with their psychological conditioning sometimes called a world view.
Some would call them zombies, not necessarily incorrectly. Drones, perhaps.
We waste far too much time/effort with these types.
There is nothing to be gained with these 'people.'
It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence and a lot more to do with honesty.
Perhaps the best way to explain it would be with these idiots, it is counter-productive to discuss anything essentially 100% of the time.
A matter of definitions perhaps, but even the lowest intelligence people I interacted with on a daily/weekly basis made it into young adulthood, unlike many of their higher rated peers, and all had redeeming values, often exclusively so.
I simply don't see "low intelligence" as the negative factor many do.
Many of our problems certainly could stand some "dumbing down."
The name sounds familiar, but I can't put a face to it.
The use of misinformation is an intentional obfuscation. I generally consider it a way to immediately direct someone's attention by stating "this claim coming up, do not believe it!". It's a way of telling people to turn off their critical thinking and consume the information as is.
I avoid a lot of the discussion on Roe v. Wade because it seems a bit difficult to look at things from an unbiased perspective that isn't purely emotionally driven. One of the reasons why I wanted to write this post is that a lot of the ad hominem attacks is just an indication that people would rather engage in mudslinging instead of open discourse.
“shall issue” and “may issue”. Do you know the subtle differences?
Shall = compulsory
May = permissive
but....I AM a lawyer. I haven't spent the time to read the opinion, but I have heard that Roe was decided on a shaky legal foundation. I will examine it. I fundamentally believe, however, that people are being schizophrenic on the substance of the issue.
I am OVER generalizing here, but:
The Left = pro-vaxx mandates, pro-choice
The Right = anti-vaxx mandates, pro-life
At the end of the day, in one case they're saying "your body, your choice" and then in the next breath "your body, not your choice." In both cases, the other side could say, "well, it's not just your life, what you do is affecting others' lives, too." At the end of the day, however, the very first life affected is the individual's. Let's just be consistent with our theories.
Well, I thought you were a purveyor of kimchi and gochugaru 😉 but seriously yes my comment was a bit obtuse, but I'm sure there are a few people who take see words may and shall and just believe it is a bit of a semantic argument when it really means a lot in this context.
As to Roe v. Wade, that is where my comment from Heather Heying comes from as the argument made by Roe v. Wade was improper, so it's somewhat outside of just a pro-life/pro-choice argument.
I usually want to be careful of playing the hypocrite argument, but I do find it strange how much of the nuance is removed from both arguments. I think the adamant nature of believing everyone needs a vaccine without providing context highlights the failures of such a parochial viewpoint.
I own a kimchi manufacturing company now.
JK :)
Yes, the nuance is removed, and the devil is always in the details. I looked on Heather's substack per the link you provided for her analysis of the decision, but didn't see it.
Apologies! I linked to Heather's Substack to reference Heather but it comes from this livestream:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usP2D_qGUZs
I believe it was somewhere past the halfway mark. She discusses it right at the end of the Roe v. Wade topic.
Thanks!!
Nice write up. I have some science background, including biochemistry from 45 years ago, so when I read current papers, it's apparent that the amount of detail knowledge has increased ten fold, perhaps more. So I understand a fair bit, but there's times I scan the detail, and read what seemingly knowledgeable people, like you, Malone, and others are able to translate in to more lay terminology. So then it's a question of whose technical savvy do I trust or respect? As well as what are my persisting biases which lead me to certain voices.
The reality I perceive is mostly people spouting other's opinions and memes, rather than original thought, or critical thinking, which essentially you are suggesting we should all be doing. Otherwise we're just running our pre-existing perspective into a limbic reinforcement loop, leading to rabid fans of whatever lunacy we buy into.
It's certainly difficult because a lot of this stuff are things I am learning as I go along. It's one of the reasons I prefer to stay around pharmacology since it's things that I both enjoy but also am fairly knowledgeable about. Immunology, not so much and so it's hard to figure out how much information I need to know. It's usually why I have to go down some rabbit hole where I end up with a few dozen papers open, and even then I still struggle to parse the information. And even if I do, it's a matter of finding a way to write it where you don't lose all of the information. It's one of the reasons I struggle with some of the writing that may come off a bit technical, because at what point would it be considered enough information for the layperson to understand everything?
When it comes down to it, I always try to at least be open that I will get things wrong and will always welcome corrections. For others, it's a bit difficult but if people write about articles see if you can find those articles for yourself and are able to say, "hey, does this information seem the same? Is it interpreted properly? Or is information being left out intentionally?" You may be surprised how many people don't make it past the title or the abstract. If it's too technical still, I usually preface the information with a, "I can't figure it out myself, so I will be slightly skeptical." It is difficult to try that for everyone, but having a bit of a trust, but verify approach is generally a good idea.
And your last point is exactly something what we should be careful of. I think people are far too easily swayed by the cult of personality rather than information, and when people begin to spout other people's opinions can they really claim them to be their own? I really just want more people to stand back and really see if they have their own thoughts and opinions.
Yeah. I always try to remember that we are herd animals, and don't want to be out of the herd, so we discern where the herd is going, whether it be parsing information or listening to music, or taking melatonin
I'm usually careful to argue that others are sheep, but I do want to remind people that those who are "on your side" don't always have your best intentions, or they may just be wrong sometimes and you should point it out. That usually doesn't happen though. We usually argue that our opponents are sheep while we are autonomous critical thinkers, and that's when people become easily led astray.
Excellent!
" he always came back with the same argument: I’m not an expert- as if that somehow obfuscates the lack of technical details in his argument"
--Modern Discontent
Great comment, I'm letting everyone know right now, I'm using this and "I am not an expert!"
Nor, did I sleep in a .......... last night, it was a drunken stupor I slept in (whiskey).
Well I suppose use it sparingly and wisely? I do find the "I'm not an expert" argument kind of moot when we argue that appeals to authority are ones which we shouldn't be engaging in. It's not the credentials, it's the ideas. Credentials only serve to better disseminate one's thoughts and ideas, but if the information is wrong it's wrong irrespective of the credentials.
Also, sometimes we are "discussing" things with idiots!
Easier to claim "I'm not an expert" than to explain something in a pointless waste of time!
You know, I always find it funny because at what level would we consider someone an idiot? I usually want to be careful in assuming the intelligence of others because it puts your intellect on watch as well, and sometimes you'll find that one idiot is another's savant.
I always think of that comment about imagining how dumb the average person is, and remember that half of the people out there are even dumber. I usually remark (albeit sometimes sarcastically) that people should be careful in assuming they exist in the upper half. I think I usually get some look indicating I ruined the joke...
In general, I think we need to find far more humility and understand where our faults lie, the limits of our knowledge, and to not be so hasty in judging other's intellect from their behaviors. It's usually not that someone is an idiot, but what do they appear to be stupid about? Although, sometimes it is easier just to call someone an idiot and move on.
Idiots are the people so demoralized/normalized that they do not have the ability or inclination to see reality or facts that conflict with their psychological conditioning sometimes called a world view.
Some would call them zombies, not necessarily incorrectly. Drones, perhaps.
We waste far too much time/effort with these types.
There is nothing to be gained with these 'people.'
It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence and a lot more to do with honesty.
Perhaps the best way to explain it would be with these idiots, it is counter-productive to discuss anything essentially 100% of the time.
A matter of definitions perhaps, but even the lowest intelligence people I interacted with on a daily/weekly basis made it into young adulthood, unlike many of their higher rated peers, and all had redeeming values, often exclusively so.
I simply don't see "low intelligence" as the negative factor many do.
Many of our problems certainly could stand some "dumbing down."
Very well said!
The name sounds familiar, but I can't put a face to it.
The use of misinformation is an intentional obfuscation. I generally consider it a way to immediately direct someone's attention by stating "this claim coming up, do not believe it!". It's a way of telling people to turn off their critical thinking and consume the information as is.
I avoid a lot of the discussion on Roe v. Wade because it seems a bit difficult to look at things from an unbiased perspective that isn't purely emotionally driven. One of the reasons why I wanted to write this post is that a lot of the ad hominem attacks is just an indication that people would rather engage in mudslinging instead of open discourse.