Skepticism and politics

[wandering peacefully]

We can be skeptics about our religious practices-which is supposed to define your life, your facts, your truth-but not political decisions and not world events. Does our observations and personal experiences blind us from being skeptics in what we see, read, hear, and even what we experience?

COVID is not a political thing, of course. But do people really think about the situation before jumping to conclusions about these things? Not the validity of COVID's existence and certainty not the harm it is doing to people-that's irrelevant. Do you question (as in religion) or do you accept what you are presented with no matter how scientific it is?

I've been a skeptic all my life about things-religion and otherwise-so that's not a new "condition" for me. So, be mindful skepticism (looking into what's questionable) isn't the issue but one's behaviors that could or could not be influenced by skepticism (and beliefs and what we take in as facts).

Do you know what your confirmed biases are?

I know by nature fallacies can be overlooked for Me As Well. Though, psychologically do we ever wonder about things like this or take it as is based on our personal experiences and information we take in as true?

Kind of like asking do believers to question their belief in god. Many say no. They probably feel uncomfortable doing so. Why does this only apply to religion?

Scepticism hopefully applies to all our learned and acquired beliefs. It is especially important to use it on ourselves when we become certain we know all the right answers and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Secret Chief]

For me, there's fun ones such as dogs are better than cats for my definition of 'better', of course.

Why are you still in denial of reality?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Scepticism hopefully applies to all our learned and acquired beliefs. It is especially important to use it on ourselves when we become certain we know all the right answers and everyone else is wrong.

True. Maybe there are some times it's alright not to be skeptical (trying to see both sides). I had a former friend who didn't want to be skeptical of her belief because she said/felt it will make her doubt it. So, if there are 440,000 thousand deaths of COVID and someone has a loved one dying of the illness it would be harder to question the validity than someone who is only around it in a less intimate way. It's the same with things like mental illness where one has to process trauma by going back to their past. Some things are too sensitive to question-but how do you find the balance between that and facts... and does one accept they fear or are in denial (which either is fine-the point is whether one can say it or not).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People are attacking "freedom of choice" people as if they Will kill others not put others at risk.

They are putting others at risk. They ARE killing people. This is a scientific fact.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This was said by Shadow in the other thread (COVID isn't political). People "think" COVID is all political and it is not.

I said COVID (the actual spreading of the illness and seriousness of it) is not political.

The argument around it
-for and against-is political.

I agreed with all of you.

So, what's the hostility?

Christine, cut it.

The way people deny, downplay, and question the established and accepted science behind it because people like Trump politicized it. Taking it seriously or not, Trump politicizing it plays a very significant role in that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They are putting others at risk. They ARE killing people. This is a scientific fact.

Risk doesn't kill. It depends on the person they put at risk when it comes to their health. Kill isn't an appropriate word because it doesn't take into account the "person at risk's" health. High risk would be better. It still gets the point across, it just doesn't condemn the victim to death even after he or she contracted the virus.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Risk doesn't kill. It depends on the person they put at risk when it comes to their health. Kill isn't an appropriate word because it doesn't take into account the "person at risk's" health. High risk would be better. It still gets the point across, it just doesn't condemn the victim to death even after he or she contracted the virus.

You spread a highly contagious virus through negligence to someone who dies from it. You basically killed them.

 

[wandering peacefully]

True. Maybe there are some times it's alright not to be skeptical (trying to see both sides). I had a former friend who didn't want to be skeptical of her belief because she said/felt it will make her doubt it. So, if there are 440,000 thousand deaths of COVID and someone has a loved one dying of the illness it would be harder to question the validity than someone who is only around it in a less intimate way. It's the same with things like mental illness where one has to process trauma by going back to their past. Some things are too sensitive to question-but how do you find the balance between that and facts... and does one accept they fear or are in denial (which either is fine-the point is whether one can say it or not).

I should have said skepticism of our own beliefs, not valid scientifically proven facts. I knew I should have put that in there. But being sceptical is a good tool to employ for many political and religious and other ideas we hold. And when there such divisions as we have currently, not everyone can be correct. So I guess being able to try and understand the different view points instead of just knowing we are in the right becomes important. Except for Scientifically proven facts like Covid is real, not wearing masks enables more spread, traveling on airplanes to visit family for Thanksgiving is dangerous, people are dying of it, vaccines actually do work. Certain things like that which cannot be denied but are anyway, is just not understandable to me and I would fail at seeing the other side. In that case, I would not be sceptical of my views or opinions but only of theirs. It's a good question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Shadow Wolf think about it as being in the ER. If someone has a fever and lung issues from COVID get worse because of their immune system and the other is healthier and have light cold symptoms, the nurses and doctors will look to the person at most risk of dying. Of course, they are both attended to. No one is saying the illness isn't serious in itself. It just affects people different depending on their overall state of health. So, other people put their peer at risk for death but death only occurs when it depends on the overall health of the person who may or may not have developed more severe symptoms of COVID. A lot of times doctors say stay home.

Some illnesses may pass as time and self-care is adhered to. Others are ER immediate emergencies. So far we know, we're just telling people to stay home when they have symptoms and come to the hospital or doctors when they have worsen symptoms. It puts people at risk (**unfortunately**) but kill, no.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You spread a highly contagious virus through negligence to someone who dies from it. You basically killed them.

It depends on their overall health. It's not a plague-so you won't drop dead from catching it. Just people are at more risk than others.

It doesn't mean people shouldn't be precautious of spreading the illness. I just personally feel regardless, it depends on someone's overall health not whether their peer wears or doesn't wear masks (for example). The ill behavior of one person doesn't kill another. It just puts them at risk.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It depends on their overall health. It's not a plague-so you won't drop dead from catching it. Just people are at more risk than others.

You don't know the health of others. And even the young amd healthy have fallen tragically ill and even died from it. It is horribly reckless to assume what someone's chances are based on assumptions about their health.

The ill behavior of one person doesn't kill another. It just puts them at risk.

By that logic drunk drivers don't kill people. They just endanger them.

 

[ChristineM]

You're bringing up something you take personal in a thread that's totally objective. It's literally not about you.

"As i have informed you before, politicians like Trump and Johnson have made it political."

Christine, you couldn't have "informed me before" on this thread unless you are taking something you dislike in another conversation and applying it here. It is literally not personal.

If you would have taken the "I informed you before" it would make more objective sense. Whatever reason you added this has nothing to do with the OP...

So Cut it.

No i am not, i replied to your op, you dont like me contesting your claim so attempt to accuse me of personal attack. I have done nothing but comment on your OP, nothing personal in that. So correct, it is not about me, it is about your OP.

Of course not this thread, "before" did you see that word?

And the second time you have told be to "cut it". I believe that i am allowed to answer public threads, as this one is, if my answer is relevant, which it is. Of course you can rant and rave that i am launching a personal attack, your choice but if you think so then report me for braking forum rules.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You don't know the health of others. And even the young amd healthy have fallen tragically ill and even died from it. It is horribly reckless to assume what someone's chances are based on assumptions about their health.

Yes. It isn't a 100% definitely people will be killed by this. It puts people at a high risk and "it depends" on their overall health.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the seriousness of the illness that can cause death to others. I'm saying that it isn't a definite-so someone's death "could" happen but it depends on the "victim's" overall health.

By that logic drunk drivers don't kill people. They just endanger them.

Drunk drivers put other people at risk of being killed. It's not a definite people will be killed by drunk drivers (not a 100% certainty). People have survived. So it's about high risk not definite certainty.

I'm not sure if I had the virus I would die (analogy). I wouldn't consider the other person a victim of my death because it depends on my overall health not him or her that put me at risk.

Edit. Emotionally, I probably would. As a fact, it depends on my overall health. Emotions aren't always dependent on facts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm. Weird. I didn't get this alert.

No i am not, i replied to your op, you dont like me contesting your claim so attempt to accuse me of personal attack. I have done nothing but comment on your OP, nothing personal in that. So correct, it is not about me, it is about your OP.

You're contesting me not my claim. The reason I know is you directed your first comment at me "I told you before" ... if you would have excluded that, it would make more sense. Also, it seems like your emotions are taken from the other thread and put on to this thread. It has nothing to do with you and how you feel about me and my posts.

Just make sure it's not directed at me and you'd be fine.

Of course not this thread, "before" did you see that word?

And the second time you have told be to "cut it". I believe that i am allowed to answer public threads, as this one is, if my answer is relevant, which it is. Of course you can rant and rave that i am launching a personal attack, your choice but if you think so then report me for braking forum rules.

Not personal attacks and accusations. Someone new to this forum would have got cited already for some of the things you've accused me of.

Outside of that, don't bring your emotions about me in this thread.

I think you said Trump and Johnson made this political. I was saying COVID isn't political but the issues surrounding it: you should wear masks. No you shouldn't. You're not taking this seriously. You're this or that. Is all political.

It doesn't need to be.

 

[ChristineM]

Hm. Weird. I didn't get this alert.



You're contesting me not my claim. The reason I know is you directed your first comment at me "I told you before" ... if you would have excluded that, it would make more sense. Also, it seems like your emotions are taken from the other thread and put on to this thread. It has nothing to do with you and how you feel about me and my posts.

Just make sure it's not directed at me and you'd be fine.



Not personal attacks and accusations. Someone new to this forum would have got cited already for some of the things you've accused me of.

Outside of that, don't bring your emotions about me in this thread.

I think you said Trump and Johnson made this political. I was saying COVID isn't political but the issues surrounding it: you should wear masks. No you shouldn't. You're not taking this seriously. You're this or that. Is all political.

It doesn't need to be.

Point out where i have contested you personally. I have only contested your claim that "COVID is not a political thing, of course.". And you are reading far too much into the facts that i have told you before... We have just had a two day argument on this very phrase. Yes, I have told you before, its a fact.

I have accused you of nothing not warranted by your posts. And I have explained my reason why i think that way. Sorry of you dont think that ignoring advice and transmitting covid to someone and them dying from the disease is not the fault of the deliberately ignorant **** you brigade who passed on the disease. Thats your choice but on a public forum anyone with that attitude is going to get flack from people who actually care about other peoples lives.

And again? What emotions? You are the one trying to make this personal, you are the one dragging emotions into it for no other reason than i contest your op. Get over it

Anyway, its over again, the only solution to get away from your tantrums and personal attacks is return you to the safety if my ignore list

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Point out where i have contested you personally. I have only contested your claim that "COVID is not a political thing, of course.". And you are reading far too much into the facts that i have told you before... We have just had a two day argument on this very phrase. Yes, I have told you before, its a fact.

Christine. No need for this tone of "voice." I've pointed it out to you and the only time you've "got it" was when you apologized to me

(thank you again by the way).


So, I know you're reading it just I don't know if you're taking my constructive citizens seriously.

I never said it was not. If you read my OP it says it is not. Please read it.

In this OP, you only replied I think one or two sentences. So, all the rest of this sounds like it's from the other thread not this one.

Whatever that two day argument was, was not a personal subject related to you and me. It was for whomever wanted to reply to it.

I told you I agreed with you with the facts. I also mentioned COVID was not political.

The argument: mask, no mask. You're a killer. You're not a killer. That is what's political.

What more did you want me to say?

I have accused you of nothing not warranted by your posts. And I have explained my reason why i think that way. Sorry of you dont think that ignoring advice and transmitting covid to someone and them dying from the disease is not the fault of the deliberately ignorant **** you brigade who passed on the disease. Thats your choice but on a public forum anyone with that attitude is going to get flack from people who actually care about other peoples lives.

You're taking this personally.

1. Yes, you have. Thank you for that one apology. I'm sure you aware of your emotions right now, no?

2. Yes. I also agreed with you with the facts. What more did you want?

3. "transmitting covid to someone and them dying from the disease is not the fault of the deliberately ignorant"

Where have I said this? I said people put others at high risk. The virus killing people depends on one's overall health. You're taking this personal.

I don't use the term ignorant in my language only because words like that I don't identify as who I am and how I see people. So, I try not to use terms that conflict with my identity.

And again? What emotions? You are the one trying to make this personal, you are the one dragging emotions into it for no other reason than i contest your op. Get over it

It's in your word choice and sarcasm. I can't see you through the screen and can't hear your tone of voice. You can accept the constructive criticism or reject it but that doesn't invalidate it.

Anyway, its over again, the only solution to get away from your tantrums and personal attacks is return you to the safety if my ignore list

It wasn't supposed to be this way in the OP. If it's not emotion, you would not need to ignore me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Shadow Wolf. I'm just optimistic. If I were thinking the virus killed everyone it "attacks" I'd go crazy. Thank goodness people do get better.