• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The political polarization of health outcomes in the USA (from Nature Human Behavior)

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
49,167
51,521
Los Angeles Area
✟1,145,961.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Public health disparities provide an important lens for understanding social and political change in the USA. Using individual-level medical data and death records, this study shows that conservative Americans experienced worsening health and higher mortality than liberals during the 2010s. Here we find evidence consistent with two potential mechanisms. First, demographic realignment within political coalitions brought less healthy individuals into the conservative camp. Yet by the 2020s, demographic change, public policy and COVID-19 do not fully account for the widening gap in mortality rates. Public opinion data are consistent with a second mechanism: declining trust in medical professionals among right-leaning individuals, including lower willingness to seek care, follow clinical advice or believe in medication effectiveness, even for issues unrelated to COVID-19. These patterns suggest that growing ideological divides in health behaviours are leaving conservative Americans increasingly vulnerable to preventable health risks.

By the 2020s, conservatives were dying at significantly higher rates than liberals, with the gap concentrated in internal causes (for example, heart disease, cancer and stroke). The divide since 2020 is substantial: while only 0.2% of ‘very liberal’ respondents died of internal causes between 2020 and 2022, the probability for people who identified as ‘very conservative’ was 1.14 percentage points higher (P = 0.021; 95% confidence interval (CI), (0.18, 2.11)). This gap is not limited to deaths from COVID-19 and is not reducible to demographic or geographic differences between the groups, nor is it a pure function of ageing: previous cohorts’ death patterns in older data did not show a similar correlation between health and ideology before 2010.

We suggest that these growing health gaps are consistent with a mechanism of politically rooted changes in engagement with the health system. Using a large public opinion survey, we find that people on the right, particularly Trump voters and Republicans, express less trust in their personal doctor and are less willing to seek care for non-COVID-19-related health problems18,19. We also find that people on the right with chronic illnesses are more sceptical than people on the left that medicines to treat those illnesses are safe and effective. This political divide in consumption of care may sustain or deepen the health divide that has emerged in recent decades. However, both these findings and those on health outcomes are purely descriptive; more work is needed to uncover causal relationships.

Lay article with quotes from the author.

While the study does not establish causation, the shift is clear: “What we can say is that health outcomes were not correlated with politics as of 2010,” Elder says. “And they are correlated with politics now.”
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Servus

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,972
52,918
Guam
✟5,246,194.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
While the study does not establish causation, the shift is clear: “What we can say is that health outcomes were not correlated with politics as of 2010,” Elder says. “And they are correlated with politics now.”

There's a good way to test this nonsense:

Simply take a conservative who is ill, convince him to become a liberal, then see if he gets better.

Or maybe this is simply AMA propaganda to scare people into becoming liberals?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Servus
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Under the Southern Cross I stand...
Aug 19, 2018
25,906
18,039
73
Bondi
✟443,550.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There's a good way to test this nonsense:

Simply take a conservative who is ill, convince him to become a liberal, then see if he gets better.

Or maybe this is simply AMA propaganda to scare people into becoming liberals?
Whoooosh....

It looks like the op needs explaining to you. It's not your political outlook which is the problem. You don't suddenly get healthier by ticking the box alongside the Democratic nominee. It's that a proportion of strongly right leaning individuals have been convinced that scientific expertise is not to be trusted (gee, I wonder if you know anyone like that). And that fact means that some of them will avoid seeking treatment for whatever ails them.

So your test should be:

Get a lot of sick people who don't trust the medical profession and convince them that it's in their best interest to listen to expert medical advice and then see if they get better.

Spoiler alert: They will.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,972
52,918
Guam
✟5,246,194.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Pommer

Future History Slab Carver
Sep 13, 2008
25,634
15,565
Earth
✟310,538.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
There's a good way to test this nonsense:

Simply take a conservative who is ill, convince him to become a liberal, then see if he gets better.

Or maybe this is simply AMA propaganda to scare people into becoming liberals?
Wow, not even wrong
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,972
52,918
Guam
✟5,246,194.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wow, not even wrong

Well, I'll admit ...

Taking a conservative and trying to convince him to act liberal -- even temporarily for test purposes -- would be like taking a cat and trying to get it to bark.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,760
10,585
✟324,577.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Taking a conservative and trying to convince him to act liberal -- even temporarily for test purposes -- would be like taking a cat and trying to get it to bark
The difference is that the inability of the cat to bark is not diagnostic of foolishness.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,525
5,325
✟400,373.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This thread forms a subset of a more general theme, attacking science is now predominately a right wing or conservative activity.
In the past the left contributed through extreme climate activists and animal liberationists as examples but COVID-19 and AGW has shifted the threats toward scientists by the right.

Here are some examples.

Date and placeScientist or institution targetedConservative/right-wing sourceThreat or crime
July 2007 — Colorado, United StatesEvolutionary-biology professors at the University of Colorado BoulderA Christian anti-evolution extremist, publicly suspected to be Michael KornMore than a dozen threatening letters were delivered to university buildings. Messages stated that Christians should be prepared to take up arms and kill perceived enemies of Christian society. (WIRED)
Approximately 2009–2011 — United StatesClimate scientist Michael E. MannClimate-change deniers and associated conservative networksMann received numerous death threats and threatening emails. An envelope containing white powder, intended to resemble anthrax, was also sent to him; the substance was cornstarch. (The Guardian)
2011 — Canberra, AustraliaClimate scientists at the Australian National University, including scientists involved in public climate-policy discussionsClimate-denial activists during the politically polarised carbon-pricing debate; individual senders were not publicly identifiedScientists received explicit death threats, abusive telephone calls and threats of violence. Security was tightened, and some researchers were moved to more secure accommodation. (The Guardian)
October 2020 — Berlin, GermanyThe Robert Koch Institute, Germany’s national infectious-disease research agencySuspected COVID-denial extremists; the attackers’ identities and affiliations were not conclusively established publiclySeveral attackers threw incendiary devices at the institute, damaging the building. Its computer systems were also subjected to distributed denial-of-service attacks around the same period. (Reuters)
2021 — AustraliaAustralian COVID-19 scientists and public-health researchers speaking to the mediaAnti-vaccine and anti-lockdown conspiracy networks, which had significant overlap with Australian far-right movements; the affiliations of individual senders were usually unknownIn an Australian survey, approximately one in five responding scientists reported death threats or threats of physical or sexual violence. One threat told a scientist it was “time for you to die.” (ABC News)
May–June 2021 — BelgiumVirologist Marc Van Ranst and his familyJürgen Conings, an armed soldier associated with the Belgian far rightConings stole military weapons, threatened Van Ranst and reportedly went to the scientist’s home intending to kill him. Van Ranst and his family were moved to a secure location during a nationwide manhunt. (Reuters)
2022 — Gold Coast, AustraliaA general practitioner and staff administering COVID-19 vaccinesAnti-vaccine activists following false claims that two children had died after vaccinationThe doctor and clinic received death threats after fabricated claims about child vaccine deaths circulated online. Queensland Police investigated the threats. (Irish Examiner)
2023 — AustraliaAustralian climate scientists and Bureau of Meteorology researchersClimate-change deniers and conspiracy networks alleging that the Bureau manipulated historical temperature measurementsScientists received death threats, hate messages and personal attacks during an organised campaign challenging Bureau of Meteorology records. (The Guardian)
June 2023 — Texas, United StatesVaccine scientist Peter HotezAnti-vaccine activists and right-wing online personalitiesHotez reported death threats and the need for security. Activists also appeared outside his home and confronted him after a prominent online campaign demanded that he debate an anti-vaccine activist. (The Washington Post)
October 2024 — United StatesBroadcast meteorologists and atmospheric scientistsRight-wing weather-control conspiracy networks, amplified by prominent conservative political accountsMeteorologists received death threats after rejecting claims that scientists or governments had created or controlled major hurricanes. Some messages explicitly advocated killing meteorologists. (ABC News)
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,972
52,918
Guam
✟5,246,194.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here are some examples.

Don't forget this one:

From AI Overview:

In April 1995, American evangelical fundamentalist Bob Larson attempted to hold a rally at the University of Winnipeg but was shut down and prevented from speaking by massive, vocal student and community protests. The confrontation centered on Larson's provocative rhetoric and history of promoting controversial views.

Larson had heavily promoted the event by stating he was coming to combat "the devil's crowd," which local advocates interpreted as an attack on the LGBTQ+ community, specifically targeting what he referred to as "sodomy". The rally provoked immense pushback, leading to organized demonstrations against homophobia that successfully disrupted the event.

The blockade prevented Larson from delivering his message, an outcome he heavily condemned, prompting a broader public debate regarding free speech, academic institutional boundaries, and the right to protest.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,525
5,325
✟400,373.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Don't forget this one:

From AI Overview:

In April 1995, American evangelical fundamentalist Bob Larson attempted to hold a rally at the University of Winnipeg but was shut down and prevented from speaking by massive, vocal student and community protests. The confrontation centered on Larson's provocative rhetoric and history of promoting controversial views.

Larson had heavily promoted the event by stating he was coming to combat "the devil's crowd," which local advocates interpreted as an attack on the LGBTQ+ community, specifically targeting what he referred to as "sodomy". The rally provoked immense pushback, leading to organized demonstrations against homophobia that successfully disrupted the event.

The blockade prevented Larson from delivering his message, an outcome he heavily condemned, prompting a broader public debate regarding free speech, academic institutional boundaries, and the right to protest.
Whataboutism is alive and well and once again shows your critical thinking skills are non existent.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,972
52,918
Guam
✟5,246,194.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Whataboutism is alive and well and once again shows your critical thinking skills are non existent.

Turnaboutisfairplay is alive and well too, isn't it? ;)
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,525
5,325
✟400,373.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Turnaboutisfairplay is alive and well too, isn't it? ;)
This shows how dumb you are, if you want to show symmetry give examples of scientists threatening to kill Christians or conservatives which at least would provide some credibility to your whataboutism nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,972
52,918
Guam
✟5,246,194.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This shows how dumb you are, if you want to show symmetry give examples of scientists threatening to kill Christians or conservatives which at least would provide some credibility to your whataboutism nonsense.

From AI Overview:

The French Reign of Terror (1793–1794): During this period, radicals heavily influenced by anti-clerical "Age of Reason" philosophies persecuted and executed numerous Christians, including clergymen. Figures with scientific or medical backgrounds who aligned with the anti-Christian fervor included the physician Jean-Paul Marat, who was responsible for instigating mass violence against his perceived enemies.

Throughout history, conflicts have occurred between individuals over differing scientific, philosophical, and religious dogmas. However, the vast majority of historical conflicts between "science" and "Christianity" involved institutions (like the Inquisition) punishing scientists, rather than secular scientists threatening Christians.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,525
5,325
✟400,373.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
From AI Overview:

The French Reign of Terror (1793–1794): During this period, radicals heavily influenced by anti-clerical "Age of Reason" philosophies persecuted and executed numerous Christians, including clergymen. Figures with scientific or medical backgrounds who aligned with the anti-Christian fervor included the physician Jean-Paul Marat, who was responsible for instigating mass violence against his perceived enemies.

Throughout history, conflicts have occurred between individuals over differing scientific, philosophical, and religious dogmas. However, the vast majority of historical conflicts between "science" and "Christianity" involved institutions (like the Inquisition) punishing scientists, rather than secular scientists threatening Christians.
l am going to give you the benefit of the doubt your whataboutism isn't in justifying threats and violence against scientists but your inability of understanding your comments come across that way.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,972
52,918
Guam
✟5,246,194.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
l am going to give you the benefit of the doubt your whataboutism isn't in justifying threats and violence against scientists but your inability of understanding your comments come across that way.

:doh:
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,525
5,325
✟400,373.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your AI overview disagrees with you as would most individuals.

Yes, whataboutism is a fallacious justification for threats and violence.

Why It Is Logically Fallacious​

  • Tu Quoque Fallacy: It relies on the "you too" error. It deflects accusation by pointing out hypocrisy.
  • Red Herring: It shifts focus away from the threat or violence. It introduces an irrelevant topic to distract.
  • Two Wrongs Make a Right: It implies a past wrong excuses a current wrong. This is a known logical error. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Why It Fails as a Justification​

  • Independent Evaluation: An act of violence is judged on its own merits. Another person's bad behavior does not erase the crime.
  • Irrelevant to Law: Courts do not accept third-party wrongdoing as a defense for assault or threats.
  • Moral Asymmetry: Pointing out a separate injustice does not create a moral right to inflict physical harm. [6]
[1] https://www.britannica.com
[2] https://theoutline.com
[3] https://informallogic.ca
[4] https://euvsdisinfo.eu
[5] https://www.themonthly.com.au
[6] https://www.reddit.com
 
Upvote 0