Unity.

[Hammster]

What happens when you greatly reduce the amount of virus you breathe in if you happen to walk into a cloud of virus droplets someone sneezed or coughed or laughed out?

From a large amount to a far smaller amount

What do you think that difference in the amount of initial virus laden droplets causes in the outcome of the exposure in terms of how ill you get?

2 people, let's say twin brothers in equal health, being exposed to the same cloud of droplets, one with a mask and one without?

How much of the coronavirus does it take to make you sick? - STAT
(while this link is from April, and I posted it here in CF way back about then, it's not just a momentary idea someone dreamed up in April 2020, but a long understood result that is generally true)

Or here's one I'd not seen yet at that time:
One More Reason to Wear a Mask: You’ll Get Less Sick From COVID-19

Even your totally unimpressive cloth or surgical mask will screen/block out most droplets, moist droplets that are vastly larger than virus particles.

And getting exposed to a smaller amount of virus matters -- and is often the difference between a mild illness and a severe illness according to more than a few researchers and doctors.

Meaning that masks that often don't prevent spread...do help to prevent deaths.

So, if I were you, I'd not worry if someone thinks I'm in a "cult", and I'd wear a mask anyway in the situations recommended, which is anywhere indoors with non-household members and outdoors if you can't maintain 6 feet or more distance (but I personally recommend instead 15 feet, and at times we ought to just keep them on outdoors in social areas like crowded sidewalks and so on in the winter anyway, because we can't consistently maintain that 10 or 15 feet).

So if I post opposing data, will you unify with me?

 

[durangodawood]

So if I post opposing data, will you unify with me?

If its from a reputable source like UCSF and not some right wing blog, then I'll take it seriously.

 

[Taodeching]

Biden has called for unity. What are we to unify around, and why?

The unity he wants is akin to a communist one, there can be no unity to a thief

 

[Halbhh]

So if I post opposing data, will you unify with me?

Hey heh, that's not what "unity" means to me, that you have to agree about subject x.

Actually, if there is good data to show the doctors seeing milder cases where masks were worn are just wrong to conclude the old understanding is correct...

Then, honestly, I'd be happy to see it. Really. This is merely a science type question, and it's fun when there is new information.

 

[Hammster]

If its from a reputable source like UCSF and not some right wing blog, then I'll take it seriously.

I asked for unity.

 

[durangodawood]

I asked for unity.

The person who's wrong should change their mind, then we get unity. That person could be me!

But when we stake our personal identity upon various notions, then the disincentive to adjust to reality becomes quite high.

 

[Pommer]

I asked for unity.

Right up there with: ”Be reasonable, see it my way.”

 

[durangodawood]

I'm sensing again philosophical postmodernism creeping into the "conservative" mindset here.

This is todays conservative: there is no reality.... just points of view. Truth is my truth.

 

[SummerMadness]

All I see are a collection of poor arguments masquerading as reasoned discussion. With regards to science, the unity of reality is accepting the scientific method as an approach to demonstrate the validity of an argument. You can both use the scientific method to make an argument, but there is a point when you've reached empiricism that can't be denied. That's how we operated until recently, unifying on the same reality does not mean agreeing on every subject.

For instance, the scientific consensus is that climate change is driven by the actions of humans. How you address the issue will be different based on ideology, interests, beliefs, etc., and that's how you have a debate. Right now, we have people simply denying facts.

 

[Speedwell]

I asked for unity.

And the only unity you offer is that we all repent and believe the Gospel (and accept the literal inerrancy of scripture in order to bring us into line with your political agenda.)

 

[FireDragon76]

Lol. It is. So much for that unity.

I value dissent in truth more than agreement with lies. Nobody is suggesting we should compromise on truth. That is the sort of thing that Trump insisted upon, and it's as wrong now as it was a week ago.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure how agreement on a common set of facts, or around science, is supposed to produce social or political unity.

Appeal to a common self-interest shared broadly by a political body. Facts absolutely matter in such discourse.

 

[Hammster]

And the only unity you offer is that we all repent and believe the Gospel (and accept the literal inerrancy of scripture in order to bring us into line with your political agenda.)

Sure. It’s the truth and more folks spend eternity in heaven. Win-win.

 

[FireDragon76]

Agreed.

FWIW, I think at least some Republicans are people that Democrats can work with (in fact I think more than a few Republican politicians are eager to be rid of Trumpism). The issue is that they've spent four years being bullied by Trump and his minions (VP Mike Pence is an example, but there are others), and the Religious Right has been instrumental in paving the groundwork for enabling that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sure. It’s the truth and more folks spend eternity in heaven. Win-win.

Please empirically demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that your Gospel is the truth... demonstrate it through the use of clear, indisputable facts, and not spurious reasoning.

You can't. That's why there's billions of people that aren't Christians. They simply are not persuaded by the limited evidence presented to them.

 

[Hammster]

Please empirically demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that your Gospel is the truth... demonstrate it through the use of clear, indisputable facts, and not spurious reasoning.

You can't. That's why there's billions of people that aren't Christians. They simply are not persuaded by the limited evidence presented to them.

How will you determine that it’s true?

 

[FireDragon76]

How will you determine that it’s true?

I can't. It's not incumbent on me to do so. It's incumbent on those making extraordinary claims to offer extraordinary proofs.

I have no direct access to many of the central claims of Christianity. They are unverifiable. Furthermore, it seems unreasonable to me to place faith in its tenets, when I have been given so few, relatively poor pragmatic justifications for doing so.

Sure. It’s the truth and more folks spend eternity in heaven. Win-win.

Let's put it this way.. I'm relatively certain that Evangelical Christianity is false in one or more of its critical central tenets. I simply don't believe that Christianity is some special pass-card to "heaven".

 

[Hammster]

Let's put it this way.. I'm relatively certain that Evangelical Christianity is false in one or more of its critical central tenets. I simply don't believe that Christianity is some special pass-card to "heaven".

How do you know what’s true?

 

[FireDragon76]

How do you determine what’s true?

Pragmatically, what serves life and human flourishing. That which deepens our humanity and leads to peace and happiness. I have complete confidence in these principles, having observed them as true in my own experience. I have no such confidence in the dogmas of Christianity.

 

[Hammster]

Pragmatically, what serves life and human flourishing. That which deepens our humanity and leads to peace and happiness. I have complete confidence in these principles, having observed them as true in my own experience. I have no such confidence in the dogmas of Christianity.

So truth is what you can observe?