[ SECRET POST #2718 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2718 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Mayim Bialik]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.
[Pacific Rim]











Notes:

Might be another 12 am day. Response time will be slow, sorry.

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 016 secrets from Secret Submission Post #388.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - this is getting spammy now ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ariakas]

Being pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine isn't based on "belief" or "political orientation", which is a point you seem to be intentionally glossing over (or at least have yet to reply to the several people making it on that count).

You're right, there is no reason for her to stop "believing in the issue" because you think it's stupid or smart, the reason for her to stop "believing" is that there is literally no credible scientific evidence that vaccines are harmful. You're trotting out a red herring with this "belief" and "view" nonsense. No, it is not unreasonable to expect that a scientist should not be anti-vaccination based on said lack of evidence, and fall for fear-mongering, selfishness, and pseudoscience.

You're falsely equating this with political and religious views, when this is neither a political nor a religious issue - it's a scientific one. And she's wrong. Utterly, staggeringly, wrong. And no, someone with her level of education has no reason to be this wrong. You're also falsely equating this with meaningful dissent over a scientific controversy, which this isn't either. Vaccines are in no way controversial in the scientific community. This is not a "value" judgement.

[tabaqui]

THIS, jayzus.

[ariakas]

your profanity

Where is the profanity in my comment?

italics

I italicized part of one line amongst several paragraphs, for emphasis.

hyperbole

What hyperbole? Which of my statements was hyperbolic?

Are you confusing me with someone else, or just dodging here, seriously? Now you're saying you're not referring to her "views" on vaccines, but rather the notion that a PhD "needs to be a certain way", in general, but the issue at hand is her "views" on vaccines. Nothing else. Why would you immediately ask the OP - who specifically addresses her anti-vaccination stance, which they are disappointed in because of said scientific education - a complete non sequitur, then, about "subjective expectations"? This issue is neither subjective nor unreasonable. It is not about religion, politics, or evidence-based scientific controversy, all of which you've equated it to here.

Sure, my tone is firm, here, but it should be. "It's just (my/their) opinion", "you can't 'attack' someone for their views", "you shouldn't stifle dissent/controversy!" is exactly the kind of language the anti-science movement uses (and quite successfully) to sway the uneducated about issues like vaccines and climate change now, the link between cigarette smoking and cancer historically, etc. As someone with a scientific education I won't let those arguments pass unchallenged and give rise to more misinformation, or the tolerance of misinformation.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you, thank you and thank you! Well said!

[diet_poison]

I would like to add to this that the statement "she should believe this because she has a Ph D in science" is 100% valid when it comes to a stance on an issue that's scientifically very clear-cut, especially where the well-being of other people is involved.

[ariakas]

Lol so I swore once somewhere else and calling anti-vax views "utterly, staggeringly wrong" - which is true, they are, and they've literally results in the preventable deaths of hundreds of children - is "hyperbolic" enough to offend you. Seriously?

Come on dude that's beyond tone policing and right on into the hypersensitivity SWAT brigade. Settle down. I know I've been less than civil to some users in the past but I'm being perfectly civil to you. I just disagree with you.

I really don't think posting what could be construed as a message in support of anti-vaccination views was the right place to start a "conversation about the expectations place upon smart and educated people" but I think you've figured that out for yourself by now. Worse, you were absolutely conflating "beliefs" and "views" with scientific evidence, and that's what I objected to, honestly - it really is the tried and true tactic of the anti-science contingent, in everything from Big Pharma conspiracy theories to "intelligent design". If that was a mistake on your part or not what you meant, fair enough, but it is what you said.

There are a lot of valuable conversations to have about our views as a society of people who hold PhDs (like ID proponents trotting people with advanced degrees in things that have nothing to do with life's origins as an implied argument from authority) and how irrational they can be when it comes to their children in spite of their education, but this probably wasn't the place to make it nor the way to make it.

[ariakas]

See if you'd said that to start with I think you could have stopped this entire cascade of replies from the very start. It really, really wasn't clear at all that that's what you were trying to say.

Nah, I don't think you're coming across as anti-vax in the slightest, just using some the arguments the anti-science crowd often does which understandably puts people on edge.

Like I said in my comment below, I fully get the "PhD isn't worthless" thing - I'm sure she does know her shit when it comes to neuroscience. But immunology? Probably not. This is also why you see more and more support for ID amongst scientists the further you get from a relevant degree that has anything to do with biology or biochemistry or genetics. It doesn't invalidate an engineer's degree to imagine that fossils were placed underground by Satan, it just... well, it's proof positive that academics are as stupid as the rest of us when it comes to cherished beliefs.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone might think you're anti-vax because you've gone out of your way to defend someone who is while using the language and tactics anti-vaxers use. Gosh.

[(Anonymous)]

you f-bombed in another post

God forbid someone be emotional (perhaps even ANGRY!) about something that KILLS PEOPLE.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't disagree with your idea that it is unreasonable to expect all PhDs to have identical views on everything merely because they have doctorates.

However, it seems clear that most, if not all, of the people here are speaking specifically about Bialik's belief in anti-vaccination, given her PhD in a science field. This is what the secret OP already indicated by stating that Bialik's degree in neuroscience seemed to conflict with her anti-vaccine standpoint. I don't see where the secret contradicts your idea that "a scientist should want her kids vaccinated because vaccination is a sound science that has saved probably billions of lives."

In fact, the only other belief/view that I've seen you use to support your protest about the subjective expectations placed upon educated & intelligent people regards religion, and as the other OP already pointed out, a belief in God(s) is not mutually exclusive with intelligence - all the intelligence in the world won't help you prove or disprove the existence of a god. If you've heard people saying that (to you or to others), then they're obviously wrong...but as far as I've seen, no one here has been making that claim. At this point, it seems as if you're either taking that supposed accusation too personally or being purposefully obtuse about responding to the people who've disagreed with you.

(And I don't always agree with ariakas, but I didn't see anything objectionable in the profanity/italics of the comment above.)

[ariakas]

(Lol what profanity, seriously? I do swear a lot but I'm just not finding it in that comment.)

[(Anonymous)]

(same anon ^)

I saw you'd responded elsewhere saying that you were distracted at work while doing this, and that you agreed with the difference between judging a belief in religion versus a belief in anti-vaccination (gah, it takes me so long to type a comment that I'm already late with the discussion by the time I've finished), so I apologize if I was a bit overly harsh here! I don't think you should be excoriated...! You do have a good general point. =)

[(Anonymous)]

purposefully obtuse That option.

[(Anonymous)]

Well said, thank you. I was trying to put my finger on why stella_down's reasonable sounding argument didn't feel right, but you nailed it.

[diet_poison]

this. this whole comment.

I mostly agree with you.

[(Anonymous)]

But this isn't true "literally no credible scientific evidence that vaccines are harmful". No, they don't cause autism. But there are absolutely people who have adverse reactions to them, sometimes severe adverse reactions. Yes, the number is small, but it does exist. I do absolutely think most people should get vaccinated, but there are some that have compromised immune systems or allergies that make it not a good idea.

Almost anything can be harmful to someone.

Re: I mostly agree with you.

[ariakas]

You're right, thank you for that correction - I should have said no credible evidence in way she "believes" them to be.

Like you say, water and sunlight can be harmful to those with bad reactions to them.

Re: I mostly agree with you.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you.

I, too, don't believe that everyone should avoid vaccinations.

However, in my case, my younger brother had a severe allergic reaction to the live pertussis vaccine (this was back in 1983. The current vaccine is not live anymore BECAUSE of this), and he's one of the "lucky" ones who lived.

He needs 24-hour care. He cannot speak or use sign language (he has no fine motor skills). He cannot dress himself. He can't even wipe his own behind.

I'm not taking the chance if I ever have children, because there is provable, documented history. Even if the vaccine isn't live anymore, the risk is too great.

Yes, it's just my personal anecdote, but saying that no one has ever been hurt by a vaccine is false.

Re: I mostly agree with you.

[(Anonymous)]

You need to step away from the computer, seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you that you'd reply to someone sharing their horrific story with 'this is making me lol so hard'? What the hell.

(but oops there's ~profanity~ in this so you'll ignore it~)