• 0 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Jul 18, 2020


Earlier today on lemmy you were claiming the Earth had no chance? But yeah, China will definitely save the Earth at this rate, the doomerists can cry all they want about how their apocalypse isn’t coming true.

Why would you bother even quoting them then? If they supposedly don’t know anything about science, they are a waste of time so why bother? Also you seem to talk about trust like it is an inherently bad thing. If there was no trust in this world, we would never advance as a species.

Skepticism comes with the territory when you’re talking about science, so you’re complaining about an oxymoron that doesn’t really exist (and an oxymoron that no one actually entertained to begin with), because if there was no skepticism involved, it wouldn’t be science.

I already explained this. “If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.”

But you still cannot understand me. Your conclusions on me being ‘uncritical’ and ‘anti-science’ are way off, seeing as how I have demonstrated that in many other threads before this, such as the climate change threads, so perhaps your process is flawed?

You said ‘trusting the science’, not ‘trusting the liberal science’. If you had said the latter, you would have been right on that occasion. You did not. You saying the former implies you do not trust science at all, and is generally too vague of a statement.

EDIT: I was also well aware you were quoting somebody. You quoted him in a manner which suggested you did not agree with science. That still is a contradiction because you went on to say that liberal science is the issue. Herein lies the issue: is it science that is the problem or is it liberal science?

‘I never said you did! You are the one strawmanning me! My point was that it follows from your way of thinking. If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.’

How does anything of what you claimed I said ‘follow from my way of thinking’ when you clearly cannot understand my way of thinking? Not that my way of thinking is bad, but you can’t infer it properly somehow. How do you arrive at that point where you know me that much?

‘Reading comprehension bro. Why don’t you reread the context of where I put that quote carefully.’

The ‘context’ is that you uttered two incoherent points. The entirety of what you said in that bit is all the context you need. ‘Context’ seems to be a word you like to throw around when losing an argument.

‘So would you trust the eugenicists of the early 20th century? If “science” told you that certain races are worse would you believe them uncritically? I’m not anti-science, you are, because you wouldn’t know what science is if it hit you in the face. Every real Marxist understands historiography, the history of philosophy and the history of science, and knows that the study of these things serves the interests of the ruling class. If science could reveal something disadvantageous to the ruling class, it would never be funded in the first place. REAL science, relies on criticism, and not just an appeal to authority FALLACY which you are invoking. It’s you who doesn’t believe in science.’

So many things to unravel from this trainwreck of a paragraph. Who is arguing ANY of this? This is a straight-up strawman. I have never argued for eugenics, science is not just limited to criticism, and Marxists can study all of the sciences you listed without being ‘anti-marxist’. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are philosophers, I guess they served the ruling class then, guess that means we have to ignore everything they said, which means I guess everything we’ve ever accomplished is history, and you continue to superimpose the western situation onto science as a whole, which includes Chinese science, so I don’t know what else to infer from this other than you are an arrogant western ‘leftist’ who believes in the superiority of the western world over nations like China.

Thanks for completely missing my point. The point was that you shouldn’t rush to conclusions in the field of science, whether it be vaccines or any other field of endeavor in the sciences, because it is unscientific and therefore anti-marxist to do so. You also pretty much undermined your (apparent) point with ‘with the vaccine technology we have today’. Solidifying one of my own points, which is that science is never set in stone. You never know what science is truly capable of. I have never claimed to have a solution to covid, that is for the great scientists of the world who have actual training to figure out, so you are appearing to poison the well on that front.

You don’t seem to have a consistent point of your own, it seems: “trust the science, don’t think critically and do your own research.” and then you followed it up with why we shouldn’t trust ‘liberal science’? So which is it? I also love the presupposition that people who follow science are basically sheep. If that were the case, we couldn’t do literally anything without ‘being a sheep’. That just reeks of Alex Jones-level craziness.

‘Everyone is saying it so it must be true’ that is not good reasoning and is anti-marxist and defeatist no matter how you spin it, because it is unscientific. You can’t just declare ‘it’s never gonna get cured’ because how do you know for sure it can’t be cured? We’ve said the same things about diseases such as polio for example. There should be absolutely no absolutism with declaring diseases ‘uncurable’.

Never gonna happen, western imperialist redditor.

Because the United States and the EU is not worth talking about in the first place?

You’re missing my point. You’re focusing way too much on western countries and not enough on eastern ones and then being surprised at your own conclusion. It’s no wonder why you tried to limit other users from posting much about China.

Why does this even have to be about western countries? They are useless compared to eastern countries when it comes to solving our current crises, and eastern countries are in a position to dictate the terms of world politics, and one of the reasons western countries will be irrelevant is because eastern countries don’t suffer from the same hubris that western countries do. Actually investing in their infrastructure also helps.

And that is why I laugh when some western doomerist screams ‘game over for humanity’ on his article.

They’re probably aware of the Facebook controversies but are interested enough in the rebranding to talk about it. No need to overreact.

How is covid vaccination a ‘money-making scheme’? And why are you equating Sinovac for example with Johnson & Johnson. Sounds like you care more about what’s ‘interesting’ than the actual truth.

What the hell. Not to be overly rude or anything, but I think this writer popped a microdot. I couldn’t read anymore after the anti-vaxxer part, which I couldn’t help but infer that the underlying message was that anti-vaccination is a valid stance because ‘monetary tracking’. Do western writers ever put any thought into what they publish? This is why I cite reports and hard data instead when making claims.

Sorry, but I don’t see this really affecting the balance of power. China and their allies will dominate the political sphere regardless of whether or not we bail on our countries.

Of course there has to be that one American idiot who equates American failures with failures of the entire human species.

The climate change article Rainer Shea cited was from over 2 years ago. It’s safe many reports since then have said that the climate is actually going to be in good shape because of Chinese efforts to combat climate change. Other than that, a great read.