Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bill Maher is interesting, but he did say that women breast feeding in public is disgusting. I personally have mixed feelings about that, in your car okay, in a restaurant bathroom okay, in a private booth in a restaurant okay, in the mother's room in most stores okay, in line at the checkout not okay. Geeze, I was 16 and happily scanning baby items(just started my job and was stuck at front register before electronics) when I looked at the customer and noticed something awry. One of her breasts was hanging out for the world to see while her infant clung to the side like a chimp hangs on to its mother.

It was disturbing, but enough to make me agree with Maher for a second. Until I heard him speak and my douche meter went off the charts/

Bromsy wrote:He's always rubbed me the wrong way. I don't care if you are greedy, or a crook, just don't be so damn smug all the time.

For me he's either a douche (most of Religulous) or hilarious (certain episodes of Politically Incorrect).

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between healthy, informed skepticism and a conspiratorial mindset that will believe everything and nothing.

I also wouldn't put it entirely on the the head of America, as if Americans are the only ones guilty of such silliness.

There's just as much craziness out there in the rest of the developed world (and in the developing world there's even more).

It's just that US is the place where the craziness has drifted into the mainstream, nonsense like the birther movement has gotten mainstream media coverage, and had senior Republicans dance around the edges of it.

Hopefully it's just one piece of silliness that'll go away and nothing that stupid will ever come into the mainstream from the fringes of conspiracy land again, but with the general quality of political debate, I'm not so sure.



But more importantly than all of that, Bill Maher is a complete douche.

Along with a lot of other long proven ideas, some American "skeptics" are also too "intelligence impaired" to believe bin Laden is dead, but his "buddies" in Al Qaeda are admitting it.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/06/6596223-never-mind-the-head-on-the-pike

Never mind the head on the pike
By Laura Conaway
-
Fri May 6, 2011 9:03 AM EDT

Al Qaeda has admitted what the deathers may never: Osama bin Laden is dead. "We stress that the blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is precious to us and to all Muslims and will not go in vain," the group said, in a new statement. "We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries. . . Soon, God willing, their happiness will turn to sadness. Their blood will be mingled with their tears."

Terrorist posturing notwithstanding, this one's almost over, former Naval intelligence officer Malcolm Nance told us last night. Al Qaeda had already been swept aside in the pro-democracy Arab Spring. Now, with the death of bin Laden, al Qaeda unravels into history. "Will they actually carry out operations? Quite possible," Mr. Nance said. "Will they be successful? In some occasions, they might be. But do they have a future in the Muslim world? Not anymore."

Maher's article is an example of the "netural story line." He presents something that everyone agrees on ("skepticism for the sake of skepticism is wrong"), then angles it as a political jab against Republicans.

If what he said was true, why doesn't it apply to his own position on vaccinations? No, it's not that "skepticism is bad", it's that "bad skepticism is bad."

What is "bad skepticism"? Apparently it's being on the wrong side, politically. Deny climate change? Bad skeptic. Deny Obama's birth certificate? Bad skeptic. But deny the usefulness of vaccines? That's good skepticism.

On the idea of Maher being a crook, see this. The Onion stole Maher's joke, went back in time six months, and published it. Fiends!

If they were wizards, their only spell would be casting doubt.

Man, that guy is badass at playing with words.

Bill Maher may be a douche, but I have to admit, he's right on this one. Sometimes I give people scientific research as evidence, and they'll just say it was manipulated because it was funded by the government.

dogma wrote:

Bromsy wrote:He's always rubbed me the wrong way. I don't care if you are greedy, or a crook, just don't be so damn smug all the time.

For me he's either a douche (most of Religulous) or hilarious (certain episodes of Politically Incorrect).

I used to feel that way but it seems that over the last few years he's almost entirely the former and rarely the latter.

Maher's views on vaccines are also relatively nuanced, and at least in the article linked to, relate more to the idea that perhaps they aren't stricly necessary. Which, for flu shots, is an arugable position.

Ahtman wrote:
I used to feel that way but it seems that over the last few years he's almost entirely the former and rarely the latter.

Honestly, the last thing of his I saw was Religulous, so I very well miht agree if I were given more exposure to him.

Though he often has Cornell West on his current show, and Cornell West is always hilarious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
What is "bad skepticism"? Apparently it's being on the wrong side, politically. Deny climate change? Bad skeptic. Deny Obama's birth certificate? Bad skeptic. But deny the usefulness of vaccines? That's good skepticism.

I don't see why that isn't a legitimate argument. Leaving politics aside, because I doubt that is the common thread here (many Republicans are also skeptical of vaccination), bad skepticism plainly exists (magnets, how do they work?) and disagreement over contentious issues is naturally going to prompt this type of public claim (and often times it will be legitimate, see: string theory).

Global Warming/Climate Change is a weird element there though, and probably deserves special consideration. Its so deeply political that people really do either agree, or disagree, with it according to knee-jerk judgments. I mean, I've seen people claim that the statistics for average annual, global ,temperature were politcally motivated because they were reported in Celsius, and therefore indicative of the Democrat's intention to turn us into a European state.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
I used to feel that way but it seems that over the last few years he's almost entirely the former and rarely the latter.

Honestly, the last thing of his I saw was Religulous, so I very well miht agree if I were given more exposure to him.

Though he often has Cornell West on his current show, and Cornell West is always hilarious.

In all fairness I haven't been able to see the show in the last year or two so it may be better than it was for a while there. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic about Cornell West or not.

Ahtman wrote:I used to feel that way but it seems that over the last few years he's almost entirely the former and rarely the latter.

He should join Dakka Dakka and hang out in off-topic political threads...

dogma wrote:I don't see why that isn't a legitimate argument. Leaving politics aside, because I doubt that is the common thread here (many Republicans are also skeptical of vaccination), bad skepticism plainly exists (magnets, how do they work?) and disagreement over contentious issues is naturally going to prompt this type of public claim (and often times it will be legitimate, see: string theory).

I agree that bad skepticism exists, and so does good skepticism. But it's not a legitimate argument in this case because Maher isn't saying "skeptics of climate change are bad people," he's demeaning all skepticism:

Worse than the people who volunteer too much information, though, are the ones who constantly demand more of it. The people who, no matter the quality or quantity of evidence presented to them, say it isn’t enough.

As evidenced by his position on vaccines, this isn't what he really believes:

I agree with my critics who say there are far more qualified people than me -- its just that mainstream media rarely interviews doctors and scientists who present an alternative point of view. There is a movement to stop people from asking any questions about vaccines -- they're a miracle, that's it, debate over. I don't think its that simple, and neither do millions of other people.

There are millions of vaccines test cases. Legions of doctors willing to point out that vaccines work and the side effects are known. Scientific testing is clear on the issue. The "movement to stop people from asking any questions" is because those questions are stupid, easily answered, and don't add anything to the debate. (note: there are some vaccines that could use more testing, but this doesn't appear to be his point, he's not picking out specifics, he's making a general statement about vaccinations).

It is this type of questioning that he wants to deny to global warming skeptics (lets put aside birthers for the moment, because their position has been almost entirely discredited). There is most definitely "a movement to stop people from asking any questions about [anthroprogenic global warming]," because it is the belief that those questions aren't helpful and have already been answered.

So again, this is an example of the "neutral story line." A commentator puts out a neutral idea that sounds good (e.g. skepticism is bad) and accuses the other side of violating this neutral idea. But when the "neutral story line" is applied to his own statements (or some position his own side), now it isn't a valid comparison.

And just because...

But they don’t – and won’t. Because that’s what happens when you fancy yourself a “skeptic.” The Greek philosopher, Pyrrho (the O.G. of skepticism), argued that, “happiness comes from suspending judgment because certainty of knowledge is impossible.” He lived around 300 BC. If you still hold onto that philosophy today – when certainty of knowledge is possible – you’re not a skeptic. You’re an a#$h#$@.

This statement is completely misunderstanding Pyrrho's philosophy, and is an absurd statement to make. Certainty of knowledge is not possible, even today. He's making the same mistake as the gnostics.

Anyway, as has been said, Mahar is a douche, and should be ignored.

I'm very skeptical about osama being killed in this raid. That's not because I'm a birther or a global warming denier (I'm neither) but because the "facts" have shifted and changed so much, that and the lack of an attempt to show some visual evidence of the deed. That's not to say I'm 110% certain they did not kill him on sunday, I don't know what to believe but I’m very skeptical of the official narrative.

In religulus when people press maher for his beliefs he claims he preaches the gospel of "I don't know" and that all he has to sell is doubt and now he's apparently pro certainty and anti skepticism, that's very convenient. He mocks religious people for their blind faith yet asks others to have blind faith in the obama administration's take on what happened. Again, I'm as left as they come, I'm in no way religious and I enjoyed both religulus and maher's show but there's plenty of times where I dissagree with him and his grand standing daddy knows best lecturing.

Polonius wrote:Maher's views on vaccines are also relatively nuanced, and at least in the article linked to, relate more to the idea that perhaps they aren't stricly necessary. Which, for flu shots, is an arugable position.

But not for everything else. A lot of parents, believing the idiotic douchebaggery of the people saying vaccines are always bad, have instead let their kids contract mumps, measels, rubella, etc, thus debilitating hteir children for life.

The number of Measels cases in the UK jumped up about 2500% (from 56 to 1348 cases) in 1998-2008, because a large number of people stopped vaccinating their children. Yay for these mislead little bastards who keep advocating not vaccinating children. Good job you worthless turds.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Maher's views on vaccines are also relatively nuanced, and at least in the article linked to, relate more to the idea that perhaps they aren't stricly necessary. Which, for flu shots, is an arugable position.

But not for everything else. A lot of parents, believing the idiotic douchebaggery of the people saying vaccines are always bad, have instead let their kids contract mumps, measels, rubella, etc, thus debilitating hteir children for life.

The number of Measels cases in the UK jumped up about 2500% (from 56 to 1348 cases) in 1998-2008, because a large number of people stopped vaccinating their children. Yay for these mislead little bastards who keep advocating not vaccinating children. Good job you worthless turds.

That and it helps the disease develope a resistance to the vaccines and that can harm the children who do get vaccinated, morons.

"But vaccines lead to Autism.", well maybe your kid really isn't autistic or maybe, just maybe people are better at diagnosing it. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Autism was just the new black for saying "We don't know what's wrong with them.".

Meh, it's a sensitive subject for me. So is homeopathy and other trash.

When I get to the point where I have to stop myself from actively wishing they'd die a horrible suffering death from the diseases they convince people to NOT treat through their snake oil douchebaggery, I think it's probably too sensitive a subject for me to cover here...

which would be fine, except Maher's article didn't talk about children's vacciines (at least not that I saw). He was walking about the flu shot, which has a lot more dissenters within the medical community.

Melissia wrote:So is homeopathy and other trash.

Whoa, lets not go off on homeopathy. I rely too heavily on the placebo effect that homeopathic products give me.

If my AirBorne stops working because of this...

Polonius wrote:which would be fine, except Maher's article didn't talk about children's vacciines (at least not that I saw). He was walking about the flu shot, which has a lot more dissenters within the medical community.

What's wrong with the flu shot now?

I'm skeptical of the skeptic system..

halonachos wrote:

Polonius wrote:which would be fine, except Maher's article didn't talk about children's vacciines (at least not that I saw). He was walking about the flu shot, which has a lot more dissenters within the medical community.

What's wrong with the flu shot now?

Relative ineffectiveness, mass repeated usage carries dangers, the flu isn't a disease that we can eradicate, it's not fatal, etc.

What the hell do you mean the flu isn't fatal?

this is the average flu, not the occasional big killer
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

Frazzled wrote:What the hell do you mean the flu isn't fatal?

this is the average flu, not the occasional big killer
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

I've had the flu like six times. If it was fatal I'd be dead. It can be fatal and primarily to people 65 or old whose immune systems aren't capable of dealing with the run on effects (the article you cited posited that 90% of influenza deaths occur to that age group). An illness that can result in death is not always a "terminal illness". Chicken pox isn't terminal for instance.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What the hell do you mean the flu isn't fatal?

this is the average flu, not the occasional big killer
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

I've had the flu like six times. If it was fatal I'd be dead. It can be fatal and primarily to people 65 or old whose immune systems aren't capable of dealing with the run on effects (the article you cited posited that 90% of influenza deaths occur to that age group). An illness that can result in death is not always a "terminal illness". Chicken pox isn't terminal for instance.

So in other words you stuck your foot in your mouth and are now backtracking. Excellent.
And of course we're leaving off those fun ones like the Spanish Flu which was most lethal to healthy adults and ran up to 5% mortality.

biccat wrote:Maher's article is an example of the "netural story line." He presents something that everyone agrees on ("skepticism for the sake of skepticism is wrong"), then angles it as a political jab against Republicans.

If what he said was true, why doesn't it apply to his own position on vaccinations? No, it's not that "skepticism is bad", it's that "bad skepticism is bad."

What is "bad skepticism"? Apparently it's being on the wrong side, politically. Deny climate change? Bad skeptic. Deny Obama's birth certificate? Bad skeptic. But deny the usefulness of vaccines? That's good skepticism.

On the idea of Maher being a crook, see this. The Onion stole Maher's joke, went back in time six months, and published it. Fiends!

+1 You are only skeptical, unreasonable, and need to change when you don't believe the things that Bill Maher believes in. He's a hack.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Maher's views on vaccines are also relatively nuanced, and at least in the article linked to, relate more to the idea that perhaps they aren't stricly necessary. Which, for flu shots, is an arugable position.

But not for everything else. A lot of parents, believing the idiotic douchebaggery of the people saying vaccines are always bad, have instead let their kids contract mumps, measels, rubella, etc, thus debilitating hteir children for life.

The number of Measels cases in the UK jumped up about 2500% (from 56 to 1348 cases) in 1998-2008, because a large number of people stopped vaccinating their children. Yay for these mislead little bastards who keep advocating not vaccinating children. Good job you worthless turds.

That and it helps the disease develope a resistance to the vaccines and that can harm the children who do get vaccinated, morons.

"But vaccines lead to Autism.", well maybe your kid really isn't autistic or maybe, just maybe people are better at diagnosing it. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Autism was just the new black for saying "We don't know what's wrong with them.".

Ars Technica article on a study finding that the modern rates aren't significantly different from previous rates, there were simply a greater number of undiagnosed cases/people who didn't meet the contemporary description of it.

Most/all of the anti-vaccine arguments revolve around a chemical containing mercury, that hasn't been used in vaccines in over a decade, wasn't used in every vaccine then, and isn't actually harmful to humans.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What the hell do you mean the flu isn't fatal?

this is the average flu, not the occasional big killer
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

I've had the flu like six times. If it was fatal I'd be dead. It can be fatal and primarily to people 65 or old whose immune systems aren't capable of dealing with the run on effects (the article you cited posited that 90% of influenza deaths occur to that age group). An illness that can result in death is not always a "terminal illness". Chicken pox isn't terminal for instance.

So in other words you stuck your foot in your mouth and are now backtracking. Excellent.
And of course we're leaving off those fun ones like the Spanish Flu which was most lethal to healthy adults and ran up to 5% mortality.

Ok fraz. Everything that has ever killed anyone ever is "fatal". Spoons, bagels, trains, colds, acne, the sun, water, bird feathers, Beetles albums, everything. I'm glad we had this talk. You're always worth talking to.

Well Shuma, I mean if a disease can kill someone its kind of fatal. Now it may not be terminal, difference in usual mortality rates and the prognosis of the individual patient, but it can be fatal.

AIDs itself isn't a terminal illness and no one has ever truly died of AIDs, but the diseases they contracted thanks to a weakened immune system were fatal, and in most cases, terminal for them.

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between healthy, informed skepticism and a conspiratorial mindset that will believe everything and nothing.

This is true. Scepticism, and the ability to question things you are told is entirely healthy, but there are various people who do not question in order to raise healthy debate or learn anything, they question merely as a means to obfuscate and delay things which are not to their liking. People who deny climate change and evolution or those demanding Obama produce his birth certificate, or claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by George Bush. They aren't searching for the truth, they seek only to win some sort of ground for their own ideology and beliefs, just so the world can revolve around them and reality can appear to bend to their needs. Climate change deniers largely want to brush off any guilt and worry about their current activity so they have no reason to change their behaviour. Creationists merely want to bend history/science to fit their view of the world. Birthers want to find any reason they can to attack Obama and remove him from office because the democratic process didn't go their way.

As for vaccinations. That's a complicated one and there's a lot of scaremongering that has made people frightened beyond reason to vaccinate their children. But the anti-vax mob deny reality and repeated findings of science and find heroes in the likes of the massively discredited Andrew Wakefield. But you see, autism is most likely genetic and out of your hands but people don't want to hear that. People find it very comforting (if that's the right word) to know that there is a means of control and something tangible to blame when it goes wrong. Thus vaccinations are to blame. If they were to accept the truth then they somehow they may feel responsible for their child's autism or they feel powerless to prevent it. The fear of vaccinations gives them something to latch onto, if they don't give their kid vaccinations then they are not to blame if their child is autistic. The way that Andrew Wakefield has become some sort of hero for these people is very peculiar, the more evidence found to discredit him the more that those remaining close ranks claiming that 'the man' is just trying to silence him. It's an almost cult-like mentality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I've had the flu like six times. If it was fatal I'd be dead. It can be fatal and primarily to people 65 or old whose immune systems aren't capable of dealing with the run on effects (the article you cited posited that 90% of influenza deaths occur to that age group). An illness that can result in death is not always a "terminal illness". Chicken pox isn't terminal for instance.

Six times, you sure? I might have had it once/twice and I'm 26. I may have never had it at all. Flu is pretty serious, don't confuse it with a bad cold, I've had plenty of those. True influenza confines you to bed for days.