whatabout
ALWAYS Trump
Just like your posts are always trying to throw crap at dems and try to create scandals where there are none to be found.
You have no room to talk when it comes to being partisan.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
whatabout
ALWAYS Trump
All CDC guidance is with approval of the Democratic Party officials.
Hilarious, after a 4 year period where no government scientist could talk to the press without a POTUS seal of approval, and every publication from every department was edited to remove any reference to climate change.
Now, turn on your TV and there they are, scientists, no longer being prepped megaphones for a micromanaging dictator-wannabe.
Just like your posts are always trying to throw crap at dems and try to create scandals where there are none to be found.
You have no room to talk when it comes to being partisan.
Lmao “scientists” with labs shutdown due to negligence; tests that were never operational; data that’s still worthless to this day; software for vaccine rollout states refuse to use. Yeah. Scientists....Hilarious, after a 4 year period where no government scientist could talk to the press without a POTUS seal of approval, and every publication from every department was edited to remove any reference to climate change.
Now, turn on your TV and there they are, scientists, no longer being prepped megaphones for a micromanaging dictator-wannabe.
Which brings me back to my original point, we have the Congress we deserve. Americans like getting stuff without paying for it especially when it comes to government. It will take leadership like we haven't seen in quite a while to get us back to change that. And there's no guarantee that will happen.Actually just the opposite. Covid relief is “tucked away” into a Democratic spending wish list. There is no democratic process at work with this bill.
No, it was a specific and appropriate response to a specific claim that scientist's are under control and guidance of the democratic party.Yabutt
there is nothing more flat earther than you defending the cdc. anyone with any sense should take everything coming out of the cdc with skeptism. scientists bwahahahahah. there should be hearings, but instead they'll likely be budget increases for cdc and total disregard for the agency's ineptitude.No, it was a specific and appropriate response to a specific claim that scientist's are under control and guidance of the democratic party.
Why do I bother, though? Does one really hope to change flat Earth believers?
"whatabout" and "partisan" are different
one requires a bare minimum of intellect
the other is proof of lack thereof
Relatively honest compared to Trump no longer is.whatabout
ALWAYS Trump
I think that we can all agree that the only apolitical party in the whole pandemic journey of 2020 was President Donald Trump.links to me "defending" the CDC, please?
I pointed out what their job is, to offer guidance, rather than the ridiculous notion that they are there to parse out freedoms.
I made no analysis of whether they are well-run or not, spend money wisely or not, could do things better than they do, or not.
If I offered such analysis, I think you'd agree with that analysis.
I have a much higher opinion of the NIH, Fauci, et al., however. I don't think we can make blanket statements about what "scientists" are "all" like, though I would offer up that most, even in academia, are traditionally pretty apolitical.
your quote: "The CDC gives recommendations for safe behavior, made on the basis of current science. Period."links to me "defending" the CDC, please?
I pointed out what their job is, to offer guidance, rather than the ridiculous notion that they are there to parse out freedoms.
I made no analysis of whether they are well-run or not, spend money wisely or not, could do things better than they do, or not.
If I offered such analysis, I think you'd agree with that analysis.
I have a much higher opinion of the NIH, Fauci, et al., however. I don't think we can make blanket statements about what "scientists" are "all" like, though I would offer up that most, even in academia, are traditionally pretty apolitical.
Not one of your better takes. It's not "junk" science just because you don't like it. It's not even "junk" science just because it might turn out later to be incorrect.your quote: "The CDC gives recommendations for safe behavior, made on the basis of current science. Period."
if you replaced current with junk we'd agree
The term "junk science" refers to inaccurate data and the analysis of data that is used to skew opinions or push an agenda. Masks. Schools. Junk science.Not one of your better takes. It's not "junk" science just because you don't like it. It's not even "junk" science just because it might turn out later to be incorrect.
The term "junk science" can be used to refer to a lot of things that pass for actual science, but either way, it's not fair to use the phrase in this context. The CDC makes its recommendations based on actual science, not junk science.The term "junk science" refers to inaccurate data and the analysis of data that is used to skew opinions or push an agenda.
Disagree. Their recommendations on certain topics were agenda based. Predicated on inaccurate data etc. junk scienceThe term "junk science" can be used to refer to a lot of things that pass for actual science, but either way, it's not fair to use the phrase in this context. The CDC makes its recommendations based on actual science, not junk science.
Now, whether or not you think their recommendations are reasonable in light of said science is a different matter. That's really a policy question that people will naturally disagree on. But to throw around the phrase "junk science" is to say that the underlying science itself is somehow fraudulent, and that's baloney.
Your accusation may or may not be true, but even if it is, my point stands. The process for making recommendations is not science, junk or otherwise, and it is unfair to throw that phrase around. It undermines the legitimacy of actual science, which you shouldn't want to do, even if you disagree with the CDC as to where that science leads us.Disagree. Their recommendations on certain topics were agenda based
Then you’re getting into semantics as to the meaning of junk science. If you use the definition I pulled it fits the cdc’s actions in several areas from conflating data, to making politically motivated recommendations.Your accusation may or may not be true, but even if it is, my point stands. The process for making recommendations is not science, junk or otherwise, and it is unfair to throw that phrase around. It undermines the legitimacy of actual science, which you shouldn't want to do, even if you disagree with the CDC as to where that science leads us.
It's more than semantics. You need to distinguish between actually doing science and making policy recommendations on the basis of said science. If the underlying science itself is fraudulent, then by all means, call it junk science. But when you use the phrase to attack the policy-making part of the equation, you are dangerously undermining the value of the underlying science itself. Throwing around the "junk science" accusation has real world effects.Then you’re getting into semantics as to the meaning of junk science. If you use the definition I pulled it fits the cdc’s actions in several areas from conflating data, to making politically motivated recommendations.
Again semantics. You are adding fraudulent and falsifying. The term I quoted in the definition is inaccurate. Not fraudulent or falsified.It's more than semantics. You need to distinguish between actually doing science and making policy recommendations on the basis of said science. If the underlying science itself is fraudulent, then by all means, call it junk science. But when you use the phrase to attack the policy-making part of the equation, you are dangerously undermining the value of the underlying science itself. Throwing around the "junk science" accusation has real world effects.
Can you provide any examples of the researchers cited by the CDC falsifying data or analysis in order to reach a specific conclusion? If yes, then those specific studies could be called "junk science." If not, then it would be better to drop the phrase, and stick to criticizing the CDC's deliberative process, rather than overbroadly attacking the "science."
Click your heels three times and repeat:
"Not everything is about Donald Trump ... not EVERYthing is about Donald Trump ... NOT everything is about Donald Trump"
Now - look around.
What do you see?
Did you make it back to Kansas?
Former President Trump's name isn't mentioned in my post?
Click your heels three times and repeat:
"Not everything is about Donald Trump ... not EVERYthing is about Donald Trump ... NOT everything is about Donald Trump"
Now - look around.
What do you see?
Did you make it back to Kansas?
Again, more than semantics. I was giving you credit for limiting your definition to inaccurate data and being used to push an agenda. I didn't realize you were including as junk science simply inaccurate data. No one reasonable would use the term in such a way. Data can be inaccurate for a number of reasons, such as faulty equipment, mistakes in measurement or record-keeping, etc., none of which should ever be lumped in with "junk science." When you do lump all these things together, you act to undermine the validity of actual science.Again semantics. You are adding fraudulent and falsifying. The term I quoted in the definition is inaccurate. Not fraudulent or falsified.
Dangerous is the list of F ups associated with them
It’s all subject to opinion and again semantics. Hell a perfect example is their testing double masks on mannequins and making a determination based on same as opposed to actual humans. My own dr shared that with me.Again, more than semantics. I was giving you credit for limiting your definition to inaccurate data and being used to push an agenda. I didn't realize you were including as junk science simply inaccurate data. No one reasonable would use the term in such a way. Data can be inaccurate for a number of reasons, such as faulty equipment, mistakes in measurement or record-keeping, etc., none of which should ever be lumped in with "junk science." When you do lump all these things together, you act to undermine the validity of actual science.
Now you're conflating the research with the policy-making process again. This is the exact thing I am trying to warn about. By using the phrase "junk science" over-broadly, you are confusing many different parts of the process, some of which are entirely unrelated to each other, and dismissing all of them because of perceived faults at one end.Its not only inaccurate data. It’s faulty methodology resulting in inaccurate data then making all encompassing politically motivated recommendations. It’s all subject to opinion and again semantics. Hell a perfect example is their testing double masks on mannequins and making a determination based on same as opposed to actual humans.
Again it's semantics re your definition of junk science. you want (require) the scientific process be separated from the policy recommendation. That's not the case: inaccurate data and the analysis of data that is used to push an agenda is junk science.Now you're conflating the research with the policy-making process again. This is the exact thing I am trying to warn about. By using the phrase "junk science" over-broadly, you are confusing many different parts of the process, some of which are entirely unrelated to each other, and dismissing all of them because of perceived faults at one end.
Again, I asked if you could provide any examples of faulty research cited by the CDC. Not the recommendations, but the research itself. Provide some examples of the actual researchers engaging in "faulty methodology resulting in inaccurate data then making all encompassing politically motivated recommendations." Can you?
That's not the case: inaccurate data and the analysis of data that is used to push an agenda is junk science.
The example you cite is literally incompatible with the point you think you are making. Yet again, your problem is with the supposed pushing of an agenda, but you are inaccurately extending that criticism to cover the data itself.okay great so maybe this is true. the results are accurate. on a dummy. so their analysis of this data on a dummy is used to push an agenda: masks.
No, it was a specific and appropriate response to a specific claim that scientist's are under control and guidance of the democratic party.
Why do I bother, though? Does one really hope to change flat Earth believers?
I thought I was plain. By lumping everything together as "junk science," you are undermining the part that you say "in and of itself is fine." The part you actually have a complaint with isn't even science, junk or otherwise. It's simply the interpretation of science for purposes of policy-making."the analysis of data that is used to push an agenda."
Data - double masks used on dummies is more beneficial than single masks on dummies. That in and of itself is fine.
Adding we recommend you wear two masks: agenda. because in truth we have no idea how beneficial it is on humans. analyzing the data to push an agenda.
use plain english. i'm watching an unbelievable champions league game at the moment so don't i don't want to focus too much
that's where we're engaging in semantics. the interpretation of data to further CERTAIN policy making is junk science. using dummies instead of humans to ensure a result that furthers an agenda is junk scienceI thought I was plain. By lumping everything together as "junk science," you are undermining the part that you say "in and of itself is fine." The part you actually have a complaint with isn't even science, junk or otherwise. It's simply the interpretation of science for purposes of policy-making.
What I'm really saying is when you are criticizing bad policy-makers, don't accuse them of doing bad science when they aren't even doing science at all, because by doing so, you inadvertently lower faith in the science itself, which isn't actually at fault.
I have explained multiple times why it's more important than semantics. Do you honestly not understand what I'm saying, or do you simply think it's a stupid point?that's where we're engaging in semantics. the interpretation of data to further CERTAIN policy making is junk science. using dummies instead of humans to ensure a result that furthers an agenda is junk science
we're just disconnected. I suspect we disagree as to the meaning of junk science. think when you litigate. whatever industry you're litigating against will have loads of commissioned studies. how rollovers occur for instance. largely junk science from the industry. they analyze data to push an agenda. The cdc has had honest mistakes, negligent mistakes, and engaged in junk science imo to push an agenda. As to the latter how do we know if policy is good when the predicate for same is sulliedI have explained multiple times why it's more important than semantics. Do you honestly not understand what I'm saying, or do you simply think it's a stupid point?
No, on that point, we connect. I'm with you there. I'm trying to stress the importance of not conflating bad policy with bad science. Bad policy often comes from good science, but by dismissing it as "junk science," you undermine good science. It's a dangerous habit to get into. So, I'm really not trying to argue semantics here; just trying to offer what I think is an important caution about using a loaded phrase to glibly.we're just disconnected. think when you litigate. whatever industry you're litigating against will have loads of commissioned studies. how rollovers occur for instance. largely junk science from the industry. they analyze data to push an agenda.
Read my edit.No, on that point, we connect. I'm with you there. I'm trying to stress the importance of not conflating bad policy with bad science. Bad policy often comes from good science, but by dismissing it as "junk science," you undermine good science. It's a dangerous habit to get into. So, I'm really not trying to argue semantics here; just trying to offer what I think is an important caution about using a loaded phrase to glibly.
Upon reading your edit, I still think there is some space between us on how and when to apply this distinction, but the fact that we both recognize the distinction exists is good enough for me. Cheers.Read my edit.
Cheers back at yaUpon reading your edit, I still think there is some space between us on how and when to apply this distinction, but the fact that we both recognize the distinction exists is good enough for me. Cheers.
Yes, but he said no one reasonable, so you must be wrong...🙄It’s all subject to opinion and again semantics. Hell a perfect example is their testing double masks on mannequins and making a determination based on same as opposed to actual humans. My own dr shared that with me.
No, it was a specific and appropriate response to a specific claim that scientist's are under control and guidance of the democratic party.
Why do I bother, though? Does one really hope to change flat Earth believers?