I like to picture Jesus in a Tuxedo T-shirt, 'cause it says, ‘I wanna be formal, but I’m here to party, too.’

You know, Jesus did grow up. You don’t always have to call him baby. It’s a bit odd and off putting to pray to a baby.

And if you’re a fan of quotation marks you could call it a “2"x4”."

So ignore all non-significant results? What’s to say those methods result in findings closer to the truth than the methods with no significant results.

The issue is that so many seemingly legitimate methods produce different findings with the same data.

9 of the teams reaching a different conclusion is a pretty large group. Nearly a third of the teams, using what I assume are legitimate methods, disagree with the findings of the other 20 teams.

Sure, not all teams disagree, but a lot do. So the issue is whether or not the current research paradigm correctly answers “subjective” questions such as these.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s where the money should come from too. I just meant where else is the money going to come from in the current US healthcare system.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a country where that’s the case right now. I think it is still a very good thing to donate blood, despite having for-profit/privatized healthcare.

Fair enough. If that’s the philosophy you want to live by, then who am I to say otherwise.

Personally, I’d rather help people the best I can in the world I live in.

But where does the money come from? It sucks that in the US it has to come from the patient, but that’s the world we live in right now. I think it’s worth doing all the good you can with the tools available at the moment. Even if it’s not perfect.

I’m just assuming you’re in the US. Sorry if that’s not the case and your country has a different situation.

That’s a terrible reason. You would rather a patient in need not have blood available than be charged for it?

There is definitely price gouging in blood. But it also requires testing, transportation, and storage before it can be used. The money for all that has to come from somewhere (unfortunately in the US it’s usually the patient).

Tom Hanks sent one of his kids to one of these institutions.

You’re right, SATA isn’t going anywhere for a very long time. If you have a need for 4+ TB of total storage there is nothing at all wrong using HDDs or 2.5" SSDs.

Biden: ‘If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black’

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html

Up the RA!

Thanks for your response. Free speech is a nuanced topic and I appreciate well though out discussions about it.

I agree, It’s very hard to decide on a case by case basis what is and isn’t tolerable. That’s the main reason why I questions arguments for limiting speech–how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?

I think your example of speech advocating for women to not have the right to vote is a good subject to consider.

I agree, arguing that women shouldn’t have the right to vote is beyond rediciulous and in a vacuum, it would be reasonable to consider that speech intolerable. But on the other hand, wasn’t it freedom of speech that gave women the power to gain suffrage in the first place?

You mention drawing the distinction for intolerable speech at speech that limits the freedom of others. In an abstract sense I think that’s reasonable, but in practice I’m not so sure. Anti-suffragists often argued that granting women the right to vote infringed on their freedom. That’s obviously a morally wrong argument, but who should be allowed to decide that?

Thank you for your thought out and well written response. You bring up important points to consider.

To be honest, I don’t have any answers to where the limit of tolerable speech should be that aren’t arbitrary or contradictory. There’s a lot of nuance in this topic that I feel gets lost in most discussions.

For example, in a vacuum I agree that Nazi propaganda should not be tolerated or protected speech. Especially clear and immediate advocation for the physical harm of people. But on the other hand, there have been times in history where advocating for violence has resulted in overall positive social change (such as the American and Haitian revolutions). Does the distinction of tolerability get drawn at advocating for the violent extermination of a political regime vs a group of people? How do you make a distinction between the two that is satisfactory for any situation, past, present, and future?

If you take Nazi propaganda in insolation I think every reasonable person would support banning it (including myself). With the advantage of hindsight I think there are lots of topics/beliefs where that would be reasonable and appropriate. Where it gets concerning is making rules that stop intolerable speech now, yet won’t squash positive (but subversive) new ideas that aren’t part of the social conciousness yet. If history is any indicator we all have beliefs that will be considered intolerable in the future. Do you have to draw that line on a case by case basis? And if so, who should have the authority to do that?

Maybe I’m being unintentionally obtuse, but if there can’t be rules made that are equally valid in hindsight and future unknown situations, it’s better to err on the side of unrestricted speech. I don’t want to unintentionally prevent future posivitve changes out of fear of Nazis and other hate-groups.

I don’t understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.

I suppose it makes sense for somebody unable to express their belief system to also be unable to consider more than one viewpoint.

Who gets to decide what thoughts, beliefs, and groups are allowed to be tolerated?

Is there a quantifiable threshold for what is and what is not tolerable?

Does that threshold change over time?