Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on July 17, 2018, 10:47:38 AM

The banning of public speakers and creation of "safe-spaces" is the next step to society wide censorship.*snip* Why should someone else get to decide what ideas I can and cannot hear? You should be allowed to say what you like (provided it is not illegal) and you will be ridiculed if what you say is stupid.

I definitely agree that any space restricting or censoring any legal exchange of ideas, is problematic; if for no other reason than it creates the same type of environment stifling growth. It just seems the ridiculing has ceased, or doesn't have the same effect.

Quote

I think the issue that you refer to is actually due to the internet.c Quacks have always existed, and they have always been rightly ridiculed. Before the internet, that was the end of it. Now they can find each other too easily, organise in to groups, and spew their nonsense to a wider audience.

Ironic that the internet gives them more access to information and evidence than ever before in human history, and instead they use it to spread their ignorance.

The internet definitely hasn't helped the situation. I'm just not convinced it's the only problem. Society has been to slow recognize how much media in general has crept into our lives. I think the main issue is with the "Branding" of information. This is more my issue than anything, I don't care how bad I personally think your opinion or idea is; I care about how it's delivered. There is so much opinion behind every news station that it's hard to decipher any facts.

Most great advancements turn into the next destructive force for humanity.

Quote from: aleksej996 on July 17, 2018, 01:44:11 PM

If there are any consequences to spreading misinformation should exist, they should be verbal, not physical, not material.
You can tell them they are wrong, you can walk away from them, you can deny to associate with them.
Doing anything that physically or materially harms them would be unethical and unwise.

I don't think there needs to be consequences for solely spreading misinformation. It's more when this is done with a malicious intent to deceive. Also if a professional is speaking to something in that capacity, or in giving the impression of such, they should be held liable if proven they were negligent in any way.

Any punitive measures would have to be proportionate to the offence. I can't imagine a lot of verbal warnings having any effect on someone who lets facts escape them.

Quote from: guybrushthreepwood on July 18, 2018, 09:32:21 AM

I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I don't think people should just blindly accept whatever their government tells them is ok either and vaccinations or any sort of medications usually come with side effects. I'm sure the people who first called out thalidomide were debunked as crazy conspiracy theorists, but that was a immunotherapy drug that went bad and with disastrous consequences. Some of the current vaccinations do have harmful elements in them (even if they're just trace amounts) and we might not ever know what sort of damage they may or may not do or may find out about them at some point (remember, we were told cigarettes didn't cause cancer), but on the flip side the benefits may outweigh any potential negatives, but again, I wouldn't just debunk or try silence anyone who is against or critical of vaccines or points out the potential harmful effects of some of them (though the people who think the gov are actively trying to poison you are probably going too far into chemtrail craziness). Again, I'm, not anti-vax, but I am overly critical of any medications and their potential side effects or possible long-term damage of their use that may or may not be know yet.

As for crisis actors, now that is a crazy conspiracy theory Cheesy

.

I get the feeling you're not anti-vax, Wink

That's just good practice to question things and do your research. There's nothing wrong with being overly critical if in the end you can still look at and react to the information objectively.

Again I disagree with silencing any doubters especially in scientific/research communities. I just expect standards; and I don't think that's to much to ask for. I can't stand when someone wants to present evidence, and it's a 1 off result out of 1000, so obviously it's the only result that matters because it fits the narrative. Another beauty is looking at the most basic data and ignoring key parts of the data to again fit the narrative.