Comments by "Moon Shoes" (@moonshoes11) on "Valuetainment" channel.

Free thinkers doesn’t mean you get to make up your own reality, or your own science. Not to cut through the nuance, but that’s the end all. Epistemology is key. Opposition to the consensus of medical science coming from (not medical science) is a problem. And before you attack me, consider whether his audience understands and accepts the scientific theory of evolution. You either get it, or you don’t.
3
Peterson is a charlatan. These two are both pseudo science junkies. Neither are authorities on immunology.
1
@frigginsweet80 The next game stop?
1
@adidaz0018 Some people don’t want to be told not to drink and drive. People that actively work against the greater good are a menace to society. Your right to swing your fist ends before you hit my nose. But rejecting medical science based only on incredulity and ignorance is literally an argument from ignorance. And it doesn’t excuse anyone from spreading misinformation.
1
@adidaz0018 It isn’t about utopia. And it isn’t about expecting people to do the right thing. We all know people still drink and drive, but we also know that efforts are successful in reducing incident of DUI’s. It seems your argument is that if we cannot achieve 100% we shouldn’t even bother. My argument is that whether or not we reach 100% isn’t relevant when we’re discussing best measures. And it isn’t relevant when discussing whether pushing pseudo science and misinformation. I guess since a small percentage of people steal, we shouldn’t bother having laws against it. I guess since hospitals can’t save everyone, they shouldn’t bother treating anyone, by your logic. You can choose not to participate in society. But be careful when society decides it won’t participate with you.
1
@stylicho Consider, sober people can also cause accidents. It’s about measuring and reducing risks, reducing suffering and death. It’s a fair analogy.
1
@artcarrasco9 I’m sure you believe that.
1
@Del0s32 I think part of the problem are the methods people use when considering sides. Take the evolution versus creationism argument. Despite the overwhelming evidence in support of the scientific theory, versus a complete lack of evidence for “mysterious ways”, people show motivations other than critical thing, like appealing to emotions. Science happens to be our most reliable method. Whatever objections someone applies to science can generally be applied to whatever less reliable method they’re using to form an opposing position. Leaving science still more reliable. So when people take a position in opposition to the consensus of medical science, it’s more likely a result of confirmation bias than critical thinking. My humble opinion.
1
@Del0s32 Look for Rebecca Watson on YouTube, discussing Jon Stewart and Joe Rogan.
1