Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Expert on ethics heard from
Comments
-
I think there's plenty of reason for concern about this. I don't know anything about Schmidt specifically, and he's certainly just one voice among thousands of other public health experts. But the more instances you see of "wokeness" or any kind of political sentiments pervading itself into the opinions of people whose responsibilities should be focused explicitly on science and facts is troubling. That his opinion was deemed significant enough to be published in the NYT raises red flags for me.HHusky said:I am completely panicked that one of the multiple opinions referenced in this article differs from mine. There ought to be a law!
It's all part of the same trend. Just like when hundreds of public health professionals signed on to a declaration that essentially said "protesting for racial injustice supersedes pandemic protocols", this kind of overstep is grossly inappropriate. But my concern isn't that public health professionals, and the "science" community at large is going to be hi-jacked by wokeness or any other political operatives that drive decisions that would otherwise be reckless. My concern is that at a time when so much of the country needs to be able to defer to these professionals, they're doing a great of damaging their own credibility through their own actions. Separation of science and politics is something the left rightly advocates for. But dumping that mantra when it's politically convenient is a big fucking problem. -
Welcome to Slow Joe commie light. It'll only get worse.GreenRiverGatorz said:Jesus fucking Christ. I'm not sure how anyone could, in good conscience, make a serious argument for prioritizing any one group over another with rationale that wasn't explicitly based on health factors.
-
I'm no fan of "wokeness" and I think it's a pretty stupid statement too. That said, preferring essential workers to the elderly is a no brainer in my opinion, so I basically agree with his conclusion.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I think there's plenty of reason for concern about this. I don't know anything about Schmidt specifically, and he's certainly just one voice among thousands of other public health experts. But the more instances you see of "wokeness" or any kind of political sentiments pervading itself into the opinions of people whose responsibilities should be focused explicitly on science and facts is troubling. That his opinion was deemed significant enough to be published in the NYT raises red flags for me.HHusky said:I am completely panicked that one of the multiple opinions referenced in this article differs from mine. There ought to be a law!
It's all part of the same trend. Just like when hundreds of public health professionals signed on to a declaration that essentially said "protesting for racial injustice supersedes pandemic protocols", this kind of overstep is grossly inappropriate. But my concern isn't that public health professionals, and the "science" community at large is going to be hi-jacked by wokeness or any other political operatives that drive decisions that would otherwise be reckless. My concern is that at a time when so much of the country needs to be able to defer to these professionals, they're doing a great of damaging their own credibility through their own actions. Separation of science and politics is something the left rightly advocates for. But dumping that mantra when it's politically convenient is a big fucking problem. -
The conclusion isn't the problem. The rationale that "they should get priority because of racial injustice" is the issue. If a politician wants to argue that, well, that's their job.HHusky said:
I'm no fan of "wokeness" and I think it's a pretty stupid statement too. That said, preferring essential workers to the elderly is a no brainer in my opinion, so I basically agree with his conclusion.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I think there's plenty of reason for concern about this. I don't know anything about Schmidt specifically, and he's certainly just one voice among thousands of other public health experts. But the more instances you see of "wokeness" or any kind of political sentiments pervading itself into the opinions of people whose responsibilities should be focused explicitly on science and facts is troubling. That his opinion was deemed significant enough to be published in the NYT raises red flags for me.HHusky said:I am completely panicked that one of the multiple opinions referenced in this article differs from mine. There ought to be a law!
It's all part of the same trend. Just like when hundreds of public health professionals signed on to a declaration that essentially said "protesting for racial injustice supersedes pandemic protocols", this kind of overstep is grossly inappropriate. But my concern isn't that public health professionals, and the "science" community at large is going to be hi-jacked by wokeness or any other political operatives that drive decisions that would otherwise be reckless. My concern is that at a time when so much of the country needs to be able to defer to these professionals, they're doing a great of damaging their own credibility through their own actions. Separation of science and politics is something the left rightly advocates for. But dumping that mantra when it's politically convenient is a big fucking problem. -
I don't like the statement. However, in general, the elderly do already have more advantages to protect themselves from contracting Covid. It was stupid for him to use "whiteness" as short hand for advantages.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The conclusion isn't the problem. The rationale that "they should get priority because of racial injustice" is the issue. If a politician wants to argue that, well, that's their job.HHusky said:
I'm no fan of "wokeness" and I think it's a pretty stupid statement too. That said, preferring essential workers to the elderly is a no brainer in my opinion, so I basically agree with his conclusion.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I think there's plenty of reason for concern about this. I don't know anything about Schmidt specifically, and he's certainly just one voice among thousands of other public health experts. But the more instances you see of "wokeness" or any kind of political sentiments pervading itself into the opinions of people whose responsibilities should be focused explicitly on science and facts is troubling. That his opinion was deemed significant enough to be published in the NYT raises red flags for me.HHusky said:I am completely panicked that one of the multiple opinions referenced in this article differs from mine. There ought to be a law!
It's all part of the same trend. Just like when hundreds of public health professionals signed on to a declaration that essentially said "protesting for racial injustice supersedes pandemic protocols", this kind of overstep is grossly inappropriate. But my concern isn't that public health professionals, and the "science" community at large is going to be hi-jacked by wokeness or any other political operatives that drive decisions that would otherwise be reckless. My concern is that at a time when so much of the country needs to be able to defer to these professionals, they're doing a great of damaging their own credibility through their own actions. Separation of science and politics is something the left rightly advocates for. But dumping that mantra when it's politically convenient is a big fucking problem. -
Wow, you’re learningHHusky said:
I don't like the statement. However, in general, the elderly do already have more advantages to protect themselves from contracting Covid. It was stupid for him to use "whiteness" as short hand for advantages.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The conclusion isn't the problem. The rationale that "they should get priority because of racial injustice" is the issue. If a politician wants to argue that, well, that's their job.HHusky said:
I'm no fan of "wokeness" and I think it's a pretty stupid statement too. That said, preferring essential workers to the elderly is a no brainer in my opinion, so I basically agree with his conclusion.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I think there's plenty of reason for concern about this. I don't know anything about Schmidt specifically, and he's certainly just one voice among thousands of other public health experts. But the more instances you see of "wokeness" or any kind of political sentiments pervading itself into the opinions of people whose responsibilities should be focused explicitly on science and facts is troubling. That his opinion was deemed significant enough to be published in the NYT raises red flags for me.HHusky said:I am completely panicked that one of the multiple opinions referenced in this article differs from mine. There ought to be a law!
It's all part of the same trend. Just like when hundreds of public health professionals signed on to a declaration that essentially said "protesting for racial injustice supersedes pandemic protocols", this kind of overstep is grossly inappropriate. But my concern isn't that public health professionals, and the "science" community at large is going to be hi-jacked by wokeness or any other political operatives that drive decisions that would otherwise be reckless. My concern is that at a time when so much of the country needs to be able to defer to these professionals, they're doing a great of damaging their own credibility through their own actions. Separation of science and politics is something the left rightly advocates for. But dumping that mantra when it's politically convenient is a big fucking problem. -
That's not the point doofus. High end academia is infected with this racist drivel. You make bad jokes and deflect.HHusky said:I am completely panicked that one of the multiple opinions referenced in this article differs from mine. There ought to be a law!
-
Today is the day the CDC was going to get together and vote to see who gets in line first to get pricked.
that is what I like about this pandemic - science and data has determined 9 months of doing nothing to contain the virus and now that they can do something (maybe) it breaks down to lets have an election.
Dumb asses -
Yeah that's it, people are just mad because someone has a different opinion.HHusky said:I am completely panicked that one of the multiple opinions referenced in this article differs from mine. There ought to be a law!
-
Separation of science and politics is something the left rightly advocates for. But dumping that mantra when it's politically convenient is a big fucking problem.
Too fucking late on that one. Having you been following the whole issue of trans-sexualism and there being more than two genders?
