Should different viewpoints be analyzed and potentially criticized in the Health forum?

[trotsky]

Poll question: Should different viewpoints be analyzed and potentially criticized in the Health forum?

Since there is such an active attempt to call out individuals as "ruining" this forum, what should be the proper way "differing viewpoints" should be treated? Is every viewpoint when it comes to Health information equally valid? For example, if someone promotes drinking their own urine (and lots of people do), can that viewpoint be met with criticism, or should it be tolerated with no contrary dialog? Since the other polls have been binary, I'll make mine Yes or No too.

[HamdenRice]

1. The point isn't what should be criticized but how

Ridiculous, non-logical strings of posts that consist of nothing but insults, heckling, and distraction, carried out be a very few implacable "squatters" here, who organize their "attacks" from the Skeptics group is what's ruining this forum.

It's not disagreement or criticism, it's the incivility with which the disagreements is expressed that has ruined this forum. In fact, the self-appointed "skeptical" "scientific" critics often spout anti-scientific blather.

The point is whether various points of view are subjected to analysis or insults.

[varkam]

2. So, I can post about a study that shows a lack of association between vaccines and autism...

and I *won't* be called a shill or a republican? I see...

[HamdenRice]

4. I have a better question

If someone posts questioning the safety of a vaccine, advocating cost-benefit analysis for particular vaccines or even suggesting the mercury-autism correlation, would you refrain from calling that person's position anti-vaccine?

Or are you not able to understand that they are different positions? Do you think that every scientist and public health official who wants to do cost-benefit analysis of a vaccine is an "anti-vax loon"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x22470

:rofl:

[varkam]

5. You didn't answer my question.

And, for many here, it isn't merely questioning the safety of a vaccine. It is already a foregone conclusion that the vaccines aren't safe and so it is rationalized that any scientific study coming to a different conclusion has been fixed.

Do you think that every scientist and public health official who wants to do cost-benefit analysis of a vaccine is an "anti-vax loon"?

You really are misconstruing positions of groups like GR and NVIC - you "skeptic" you.

In short, fail. You're free to try again, though.

Oh, and I'd really like it if you could try to answer my question.

[HamdenRice]

6. "for many here" -- ah yes, they are always the problem. The unidentified "many here"

I linked to your own post, in which you lumped together yet another vague group of people as "anti-vaxx loons." Yet most of what I read here is either positing cost-benefit analysis, or positing that there may be an as yet undiscovered statistical correlation between mercury and autism that would corroborate anecdotal evidence.

The answer is obvious: you, personally, are a very big part of the problem. You don't use reason, logic or facts -- just invective -- to lump together everyone who disagrees with you as loons.

QED

Don't make it so easy next time!


:rofl:

[varkam]

7. And you still didn't answer my question. Shocking.

Who did I lump together? People with Bob Dylan avatars? Okay, let me be more clear so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities, Hammy. Some people with Bob Dylan avatars are anti-vaxxers but not all people with Bob Dylan avatars are anti-vaxxers.

The answer is obvious: you, personally, are a very big part of the problem. You don't use reason, logic or facts -- just invective -- to lump together everyone who disagrees with you as loons.

Obviously - I should just unquestioningly accept that there is a massive world-wide conspiracy to fix all the data so that the studies on the subject show that there is no correlation. That is obviously a very reasonable hypothesis, especially in light of the studies that have been done the world over by different labs with different researchers with different methodologies that show no such connection. Obviously I should still be cheering for us to shovel more research money into the pit so that we can sate the CT crowd, all the while potentially fruitful research into other causes goes unfunded. Why didn't I see it before?

And, if I recall correctly, I have yet to get a single post of mine deleted for personal attacks.

Can you say the same? You'll pardon me if I don't take your criticism of my style of argument very seriously.

Are you going to answer my question now?

[HamdenRice]

8. Sure

If it will balm your hurt "feewings," you should be able to "post about a study that shows a lack of association between vaccines and autism... without being called a shill or a republican."

But if you lump together everyone who disagrees with you as a "loon," then don't be surprised that you will be insulted back. That's your stock in trade, and you can't expect people to simply absorb insults without stooping to your level.

If you want things to change on this forum, you need to be the change you want. Frankly, given your track record, I don't see that happening.

[varkam]

9. You think too highly of yourself, Hammy.

If it will balm your hurt "feewings," you should be able to "post about a study that shows a lack of association between vaccines and autism... without being called a shill or a republican."

Honestly, you're just a good way to unwind. Now, maybe I would be hurt if I actually cared what you thought of me, but I really don't.

And maybe you're using "should" in an idealistic sense (i.e. "Drugs should be affordable"). In that case, I agree entirely. That's the way things should be...but they're not.

If you want things to change on this forum, you need to be the change you want. Frankly, given your track record, I don't see that happening.

As I posted previously, it's pretty funny that you should say that, since I have yet to have a single posted deleted for attacking anyone. Even funnier coming from you.

[HamdenRice]

11. Completely non-responsive

I linked to your OP in which you lumped "many" who disagree with you as "loons." Then you wonder about the way disagreement is expressed here.

QED

[varkam]

12. "Completely non-responsive." Couldn't have said it better myself.

It seems funny to me that you're only chastising one side for their snarkiness in this thing, and seemingly give a free pass to the folks on the other. Also funny that the folks you're calling out are the same ones that you've had beefs with in A/A, R/T, and the Skeptic's group.

They say time heals all wounds. I guess it doesn't.

[HamdenRice]

15. How clever. Would you like to reconcile your linked OP and your poutrage? nt

[varkam]

17. I'm not sure how my OP has anything to do with what seems to be your vendetta.

:shrug:

I mean, this thing of yours has been going on for far longer than when I posted that. Further note that I posted it in the Skeptics forum, not in GD or here in the Health lounge - lest anyone's delicate sensibilities be offended, as that was not my intent. See, if I *really* wanted to stir up some shit, I would have posted it right here.

[HamdenRice]

18. vendetta?

Pointing out the contradiction between this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x22470

and your position in this thread is not a vendetta. But your dishonestly calling it a vendetta is, once again, a form of hypocrisy for someone complaining about insults and the tone of discussion.

:rofl:

Gosh, this sometimes just gets too easy!

[varkam]

19. I'm not saying that, specifically, was a vendetta.

But what I was saying is that you seem to only be critical of certain posters for engaging in assholery while giving others a pass. I merely noted that the same posters you are critical of are the same ones that you have had a beef with for a while now - which gives the appearance of a vendetta ("seems to be"). See, if you were really interested in changing things, it seems to me that you would be calling out both sides on their assholery. What's the definition of hypocrisy, again?

And, as I posted before (repeating myself is fun!) I did not intend to offend any of the perceived targets of my OP as, if I had, I would have posted it somewhere that they could be presumed to read it. I'm guessing that many of them don't often visit the Skeptics group (well, unless they want to troll, that is).

[HamdenRice]

20. Fortunately, there is at least one objective statistical study

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=41556&mesg_id=41840

It's not "both sides."

[varkam]

21. If that's your idea of an "objective statistical study"...

I'm going to have to say that you don't seem to know what any of those words mean. For instance, the words "objective" and "study" would seem to indicate disinterest - but the OP is not a disinterested party. "Statistical" usually involves things like...you know...statistics.

[HamdenRice]

22. Oh, I forgot. You have no sense of humor.

My bad.

[varkam]

23. Suddenly, about 80% of what you post makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Okay, so you're saying I need to take what you say even less seriously than I do now? That's going to be hard to do as the bar is already laying on the floor, but I'll give it my best Hammy.

[trotsky]

10. Compare deleted posts, Hammy.

And if you think all certain posters do is call names, then alert on them and the posts will be deleted. If, in your opinion, certain posters are ruining this forum with their attacks and invective, then all their posts will be deleted and they'll be forced to either clean up their act or give up posting here - thus solving the problem, right?

[varkam]

13. Apparently Hammy thinks we all need to be TSed. Then all will be right with the world again.

But then who will he have to play with?

[HamdenRice]

14. "then alert on them "

That's your schtick. Then you can whine, "look how many of your posts are deleted"!

:rofl:

Unless you really go off the deep end, I generally don't alert on your confused rambling. I realize you alert on virtually every post that could possibly be construed as critical of you -- plus you use the Skeptics forum and pms to rally the alert troops -- so of course the people you've defined as your "enemies" get more posts deleted.

Your world is very small. To me, life is too short to spend such energy on such incredibly trivial behavior.

[varkam]

16. Even if your paranoia was accurate...

that would assume that moderators are influenced by how many alerts they receive on a given post. They're not. If a post is a rule violation, it's a rule violation regardless of whether or not it has gotten one, ten, or twenty alerts.

But, for the record, I have never gotten a single PM telling me to alert on one of your posts, and using the groups to rally the troops is verboten.

Of course, that's just what you'd expect me to say if I were actually in on it! Bwahahaha!

[trotsky]

24. Posts aren't deleted if rules aren't violated.

I know this is a sore spot with you, primarily because your stack of deleted posts dwarfs those of relatively civilized DUers like myself. If a post is critical of me, I can alert on it as much as I'd like, or even rally a hundred people to alert on it, but that won't get it deleted. Are you having a tough time understanding the DU Rules?

You seem to be a little overboard with the paranoia, Hammy. Chill out and realize that ultimately we really aren't your enemies, even though you try really hard to make us out to be.

[MrMonk]

30. Aw, c'mon.

"To me, life is too short to spend such energy on such incredibly trivial behavior."
Then why are you spending so much energy on it?

[Why Syzygy]

26. Since pharmaceuticals

are all manufactured, they would fit the broader category of products that may fail to provide safety and efficacy. I wouldn't want someone so married to Hyundai that I wouldn't be aware of a potential life threatening situation.

"Discovery" always brings along factions of believers and non-believers. If you don't think the brakes are going to fail, do not alter your driving habits.

[varkam]

27. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. eom

[Why Syzygy]

28. Neither am I.

It happens :shrug:

[varkam]

29. Lol! Indeed it does.

I get that way after a long day, too.

[trotsky]

3. So you would agree that saying such things as

"Go Democrats!" when making a point, or calling someone a "Merckenary" is out of line?

[Why Syzygy]

25. I've been active

in a sub-group which is moderated in such a way that pow-wow sessions with intent to filibuster another forum are LOCKED. Are you saying that not all sub-groups are moderated the same way?

edit: btw. Alert button. The thread which gave me an opportunity to DISCUSS wtf is going on here contained some heckling when first approached. The moderators were attentive and cleaned it up so productive dialog could follow. However, I do not care to police DU looking for disturbances, so I depend on other members to help keep this place in line with the community standards set by Admin.