just when you thought you knew what stupid was

[CalG]

Common sense expressed years ago...

 

[MoMower]

I read that Orange spray on tan kills it... :confused3:

Whisky!

 

[rswyan]

Common sense expressed years ago...

Full Context there is pretty important ...

Nuremberg Code - Wikipedia

 

[MoMower]

Actually, there isn't".

Lol....

 

[MoMower]

I see your point, but I think they usually have a “medical expert“ on their staff giving them “expert” information.
For example, our Governor, the esteemed & honorable Governor Tom Wolf has the esteemed & honorable doctor Rachel Levine on his staff (I hear she is actually a pediatric psychiatrist)
Even with this “heavyweight epidemiologist“ of his staff, he is still arbitrary and capricious. :laughing:

Finest epidemic managers there is, they both deserve a long walk off a short pier.

 

[RSR]

Common sense expressed years ago...

Do you know what the Nuremberg code is?

It's a set of guiding principles for performing research on human subjects, to protect them from abuse, which was developed after the **** war crimes trials. It forms the basis for all modern day research involving human subjects, as is based on 10 principles.

The full text can be found here:

Library of Congress (.gov) › ...PDF
Web results
Trials of War Criminals before Nuernberg, Nuremberg Military Tribunals under ...

To save reading through 1,000 pages, skip to page 181, which outlines the 10 principles.

Note, there is no "Article 6 section 3" as you have stated.

There is a point number 6, but no additional discussion of face masks.

You are unwittingly spreading false information.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

 

[MoMower]

So why was the state of Wisconsin mandating the wearing of masks on teleconferences? The placebo effect. To make other people feel better about masks. If it makes you feel better, wear them.

Virtue signalers unite!

 

[CalG]

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

You imply "I believe", Where do you get such notions?

I encourage YOU to think for yourself. As I do ;-)

 

[RSR]

Lol....

As I mentioned in my post, this is hard for individuals to believe, which is understandable in today's climate. But, to try to convince you, there are two things to think about.

1) I am directly involved in scientific research. I can honestly, and with a clear conscience, say that never in my 20+ years of education and work in the field, have I ever seen any decision made that could even slightly be interpreted as being motivated by political agendas. This may be different in social science fields (I don't know as I'm not involved in them), but within engineering? Never once.

2) Ok, you don't know me, and maybe don't trust me. Fine. Let's look at the motivations. As a scientist/researcher, you are entirely judged and evaluated on the science that you perform, and are held to a very high standard on the ethical nature of your work. To be compromised by any political agenda would immediately discredit you and your work, and make you an instant pariah in the field. I don't know anyone that would find that an acceptable risk.

This is actually one of the discussions in the scientific community that has revolved around Fauci and his involvement with the white house. Namely, have his efforts to walk a narrow line where he focuses on the science, but has to do so without angering the white house, compromised his ethics and his credibility?

Every researcher continually evaluates and asks themselves if they have compromised their ethics to safeguard against any improprieties from undue influence.

 

[RSR]

You imply "I believe", Where do you get such notions?

I encourage YOU to think for yourself. As I do ;-)

Well, you are the one posting false and incorrect information, and holding it up as truth.

 

[CalG]

There was once a time that I recall that an idea could be considered on it's own merits. Regardless of who might or might not have expressed the thought.
"Unknown" and Anonymous being two of my favorite authors. Somehow consideration has slipped from common usage.

Dissolved? Swept away?

This little bit expresses more fully:

Want to know how I know brainwashing is real?

••330 million people in the US and there are only two sides to almost every issue.
••Either most people don't think for themselves and simply "pick a side" as their opinion, or the media exaggerates the extreme parts of each side as a tool of division.
••Actually, I think both are probably true. If we were thinking for ourselves, there would at least be maybe 5-10 sides to every issue, with carefully thought-out, nuanced differences in the middle.
••It's why when you say something outside of the two sides paradigm, most people assume you're on the "opposing" side...or that you're a crazy conspiracy theorist and mock or ignore you...

[end quote]

It is you holding moral values on expression, not I.

eta
Try not to be distracted by some unknown person's hand written annotation. Such things are not important.

 

[Industrial Toys]

Too true.

My sister isn't internet savy. We were having a discussion about the COVID Boogeyman, and I wanted to add some data to the argument using Google. I found myself rejecting the first few numbers I found in favour of some that were worse. I realized what I was doing, and simply put my Googler away. I mean it's what we do, as we don't have any data ourselves!

 

[RSR]

There was once a time that I recall that an idea could be considered on it's own merits. Regardless of who might or might not have expressed the thought.
"Unknown" and Anonymous being two of my favorite authors. Somehow consideration has slipped from common usage.

Dissolved? Swept away?

This little bit expresses more fully:

Want to know how I know brainwashing is real?

••330 million people in the US and there are only two sides to almost every issue.
••Either most people don't think for themselves and simply "pick a side" as their opinion, or the media exaggerates the extreme parts of each side as a tool of division.
••Actually, I think both are probably true. If we were thinking for ourselves, there would at least be maybe 5-10 sides to every issue, with carefully thought-out, nuanced differences in the middle.
••It's why when you say something outside of the two sides paradigm, most people assume you're on the "opposing" side...or that you're a crazy conspiracy theorist and mock or ignore you...

[end quote]

It is you holding moral values on expression, not I.

eta
Try not to be distracted by some unknown person's hand written annotation. Such things are not important.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I encourage discussion of the facts, and analysis from different viewpoints.

My point of contention is you posted something that is a complete falsehood, masquerading as truth.

The Nuremberg code does consist of the first paragraph. The second paragraph added on is completely made up.

Your words were "Common sense expressed years ago ..."

That's the point. It wasn't expressed years ago. Somebody made it up, and then tried to give it legitimacy by falsely equating it with the Nuremburg code (a real thing focused on a completely different issue).

It is the definition of a falsehood.

I'm fine with debate, but let's debate things that are based on fact, not an internet meme on social media that is a blatant lie.

 

[k0ua]

I will tell you what I think stupid is: The idea that to make your police department "reformed" you need to cut the budget to that police department. If you want more officer training, and you want to "weed out" possible less than desirable officers, you will need to attract new and better people. And the way you do that is by doing just the opposite of these big city mayors/governors/police commissioners are doing. you need to inject MORE money into policing not LESS. I don't care what color you are or what letter of political party you put after your name, everyone wants to feel safer in their home and in public. And that is NOT happening with this idiotic, moronic, harebrained, and just plain stupid plan to de-fund the police. Last night 60 911 calls in Portland were answered, but not serviced. The reason? Due to the Riots, not enough officers left to work these calls. Why has the state police pulled back? no reason to keep arresting rioters if the moron district attorney won't prosecute them. So they said "to heck" with it and pulled out. Let it burn. The emotional part of me says, why not, they brought this upon themselves at the ballot box. But the rational part of me says, No one deserves this kind of anarchy. I am just shaking my head. (side to side that is.. )

 

[Industrial Toys]

People trying to burn down Police Stations (in Portland) with the Officers inside, while engaged in "Peaceful Protest". "Summer of Love" and all that!


More stupid still, is the media at large not reporting such events!

 

[/pine]

...I'm fine with debate, but let's debate things that are based on fact, not an internet meme on social media that is a blatant lie....

The only thing about absolute fact(s) there is to debate is cause and effect...The more you gain from life experience the more you will learn that where there is smoke there is fire...and not all viable information is disseminated via social media and Internet memes....the older and wiser you get the more you will realize this.
...In all of science; studies, experiments, laboratory tests etc. are not a omniscient of anything and can only be judged as factual by the limits of the input and the revealed data...there is an old saying: garbage in garbage out... (GIGO)...and right now there is literally so little known about the COVID virus...claiming anything about it (or preventing its spread) as absolute fact...is basically a "blatant lie"...only time will tell...!

Without using live (human) specimens and live virus there will always be a margin of error in any type of testing, experiments etc...whether it is for vaccines or masks or distancing or whatever etc...and there is no way to emulate real life scenarios for applicable testing...which widens all margins...

 

[two_bit_score]

As I mentioned in my post, this is hard for individuals to believe, which is understandable in today's climate. But, to try to convince you, there are two things to think about.

1) I am directly involved in scientific research. I can honestly, and with a clear conscience, say that never in my 20+ years of education and work in the field, have I ever seen any decision made that could even slightly be interpreted as being motivated by political agendas. This may be different in social science fields (I don't know as I'm not involved in them), but within engineering? Never once.

2) Ok, you don't know me, and maybe don't trust me. Fine. Let's look at the motivations. As a scientist/researcher, you are entirely judged and evaluated on the science that you perform, and are held to a very high standard on the ethical nature of your work. To be compromised by any political agenda would immediately discredit you and your work, and make you an instant pariah in the field. I don't know anyone that would find that an acceptable risk.

This is actually one of the discussions in the scientific community that has revolved around Fauci and his involvement with the white house. Namely, have his efforts to walk a narrow line where he focuses on the science, but has to do so without angering the white house, compromised his ethics and his credibility?

Every researcher continually evaluates and asks themselves if they have compromised their ethics to safeguard against any improprieties from undue influence.

Well, it’s great to have an actual scientist to advise us. Please put your credentials out here for full evaluation and to establish your legitimacy.



TBS

 

[Jstpssng]

I will tell you what I think stupid is: The idea that to make your police department "reformed" you need to cut the budget to that police department. If you want more officer training, and you want to "weed out" possible less than desirable officers, you will need to attract new and better people. And the way you do that is by doing just the opposite of these big city mayors/governors/police commissioners are doing. you need to inject MORE money into policing not LESS. I don't care what color you are or what letter of political party you put after your name, everyone wants to feel safer in their home and in public. And that is NOT happening with this idiotic, moronic, harebrained, and just plain stupid plan to de-fund the police. Last night 60 911 calls in Portland were answered, but not serviced. The reason? Due to the Riots, not enough officers left to work these calls. Why has the state police pulled back? no reason to keep arresting rioters if the moron district attorney won't prosecute them. So they said "to heck" with it and pulled out. Let it burn. The emotional part of me says, why not, they brought this upon themselves at the ballot box. But the rational part of me says, No one deserves this kind of anarchy. I am just shaking my head. (side to side that is.. )

I've never claimed to be very smart, and have been scratching my head for the last couple of months trying to figure out what eliminating police departments will accomplish. I guess that we are depending on everybody being perfect, law abiding citizens without those evil police departments around forcing us to steal, pillage, and assault our neighbors.

/end sarcasm font.

 

[/pine]

...Every researcher continually evaluates and asks themselves if they have compromised their ethics to safeguard against any improprieties from undue influence...

So you're entirely ignorant of the AGW/global warming debate facts?
Either you are incredibly naive or simply can't see the forest for the trees...!

 

[Industrial Toys]

My VERY BEST Guess. Do whatever it takes to create crime and anarchy, defund the police. THEN, when society is in flames and ruin, invoke TOTAL CONTROL by whatever means you like. You think there is Police Brutality now?