So are we saying that if you generally hang out with those that are not of your own race it makes you something less than what you should be?
The logic in this thread, or lack thereof, is mind boggling.
I think many are not arguing this is the case but that the perception may be that someone is an outsider based on who they hang around with, which I think is something we can all agree with. "not black enough" is fuging retarded imo, but perhaps "not fitting in with his black teammates" may be what is going on? I don't know, and frankly, I think this is all overblown and probably irrelevant.
Harvin has always been a headache for many reasons, and I'm not sure I'm ready to buy that he was causing a mutiny because his QB wasn't "black enough."
Rodeo, Philly and you guys that pie this... how did the passengers on the plane know that this man was from a country that has had good success at slowing the progress of this virus? Did they check his passport? His pockets? Talk to him as he's vomiting and dying?
You say that it's "alarmism" but Hatter is exactly right... if you're sitting on this plane with your loved ones, your kids, with this man vomiting with all the stuff that's going on with this, the way the CDC has botched literally everything... and you're not worried???
I don't believe that bullshit for one second.
I'm not saying lose your mind and act crazy, but it's got to run through your head "hey, what's going on here?" "Does this guy have a horrible virus with a 70% mortallity rate?"
I bet all those people on that airplane from Cleveland to Dallas weren't worried about Ebola either... until they were.
Let's be clear here: The passengers on the plane are justified in being alarmed. I don't think that the poster was suggesting the people going through this don't have a right to be alarmed. But there's a difference between experiencing something and reading about it after the fact and spreading alarm over the incident, imo.
Nobody on this board was on that plane, or as far as I can tell, any plane originating from West Africa. It's not like the dude died on a plane and the airport just shrugged its shoulders, nobody cared, and everyone went on their merry way. The body was checked for symptoms of Ebola. As far as we know, none were found. Perhaps Rep. King has other information, but based on what I've read, I think that story is being overblown a bit by posters/media.
I have moral obligation to hate everything MH types(actually kidding here... MH is one of my favorite posters here, hahaha), but I routinely pie his posts. doesn't mean I agree with much at all of what he says, but he's pretty funny.
Does it really matter when ultimately it's going to come down to the people you see as authoritative and the people I see as authoritative aren't necessarily the same people?
You can claim your decision process is better than mine, and I can claim the same, and in the end it'll all come down to the same result.
If you want an extended version of "my dad can beat up your dad" feel free. It'll ultimately just be a rehash of what we've already talked about, though.
Yes, it matters. It matters a great deal. It's not really important if I see someone as an authority; recognized authorities, at least in science, are based on their experience and work in the field and not on gut feelings on meeting the person.
In your very post, you highlight that people you respect are those that " Maybe it's because you've demonstrated knowledge on a subject. Maybe it's because people whom I respect respect you." This is, in some ways, the basis of how we develop experts in fields. However, it'd be foolish of me to assume that I know enough about every subject to know if someone is demonstrating adequate knowledge on it, so luckily, there is a system of sorts to help evaluate that. Peer review.
Because I acknowledge my viewpoint, experiences, and acquintances are heavily shaped both by my world view and my place in life, I acknowledge I can not definitively claim to be an expert in a whole many things, and I also can not claim to have many friends that are an expert in a great many things. I remain critical of claims, and read studies with an attempt to find flaws in methods and analysis, as I think most everything deserves a rigorous personal review, as well, but ultimately I acknowledge that I only know so much Thus, I sometimes lean on the expertise of others to form my opinions, after careful consideration of their writings and rationale.
If instead, I treat every published author I've never met, or that my advisor has never met, as being someone that is irrelevant to forming a personal opinion, I would get nowhere in the world, and would be stuck with only my personal experiences, viewpoint, and biases.
I've seen you debate, Phil, and it's pretty common to see you deny the authority of someone who's cited as an expert on something who's in disagreement with your opinion. And it's not their qualifications that matter in those spots. It's their conclusions.
Let's be real. I could go out and find a hundred online articles supporting corporal punishment. It wouldn't matter to you or anyone else in this thread. You probably wouldn't even read them (maybe quote a section and disagree so it looks like you read all of it; that's pretty common practice here).
You can accuse me and 'my generation' of being the only ones that do that, but in reality pretty much everyone does, including the ones who claim to be completely open minded.
Bottom Line: What I've said all along, you gotta have something more than an internet link for me to value your opinion. I listen to people I know and respect, and those people generally aren't found on a message board.
Do you realize the difference between an online article and an article published by an established journal? Are you aware of the peer review process? Do you care to learn about it, if not?
I try to avoid being an ass these days, although sometimes I fail. To be honest, its something I didn't think about. Its been many years since my wife had to take BC pills, so I haven't thought about them in a while. Once again, my apologies to Cat.
Fwiw, I don't believe that politicians should be deciding what should and shouldn't be available over the counter under any circumstances.
It did seem out of recent character for you to be making light of medical conditions, but I can see how you wouldn't know.
I agree re: politicians. The thing is, because of certain moral codes, a lot of people feel that they shouldn't have to participate in an insurance system that provides coverage for things they morally disagree with, as you know. While it's create it's own issues, this is partly why single payer would be nice: would remove the issue of having to provide / receive insurance for something you morally oppose. if you don't want it, don't get it.