Policy Poll: COVID-Related Posts

[Quagmire]

That's true. However, if I felt like I would be censored for having an opposing view to whoever the moderators are, I'd leave this forum as fast as I found it.

Which is one reason it's usually useful to base your opinions on facts rather than feelings.

 

[sun rise]

Option #4: The policy should allow information outside of the CDC and the WHO, but only from reputable sources (as determined by staff) even if it actively contradicts mainstream medical consensus.

I thought that was already the case. Checking to see if the Mayo Clinic and others like it matched official government guidance is way over the top both in time and effort involved.

There are research reports coming out all the time that change our knowledge. One example is the issue of booster vaccinations. News from Israel, for example, could actively disagree with what the government has officially endorsed.

My druthers would be high quality sources (WHO, Mayo Clinic etc) or peer reviewed journal articles even if reported in the media. One reason is that right now there is controversy about booster shots and that is a valid area for discussion here before there is a final judgement.

Another reason not to be too restrictive is this: An organization I'm a member of has a large number of older people, well into their eighties along with immune compromised people including those undergoing chemo for cancer.

Based on this, our medical consultants have advised precautions beyond CDC guidance because "not a significant source" guidance is too lose for us based on our membership.

And on the other side, someone who is vaccination hesitant should be able to discuss how long "long term" is based on the history of other vaccinations compared to the Covid vaccines. As much as I disagree, skepticism is a reasonable area for discussion.

RF can keep out the vaccine changes DNA, installs nanites into the body etc posts without going too far to suppress discussion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I like option 4, but if pushed, I'd revert to option 2.

WHO and CDC are certainly important sources of information, but there is a lot more out there, since this is still pretty new science. In new science, there are likely to be contradictions -- that's how it works.

So long as staff are diligent in deciding what "reputable source" means (for example bona fide studies conducted in academic or established laboratories -- backed by peer review).

 

[Moonjuice]

It can, however, be dangerous to spread lies, propaganda, and misinformation.

CORRECT! So, who gets to decide what are lies, propaganda and misinformation?

The President of the United States said we needed to stop Covid testing at one point. Remember?
Fauci said masks do not work at one point. Remember that?
He also pretended we didn't fund gain of function research at the very lab in Wuhan, that happens to be in the town the first case of the virus was discovered. At one point, even a mention of the Lab Leak Theory got you banned from FB, Twitter etc. Now, the lab leak theory is the prevailing theory. Turns out, misinformation comes from the government sometimes too.

Here is one of my favorites, from the leader of the U.S. government: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

And now we are pretending that if the U.S. government says it, it can't be lies, propaganda or misinformation?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

#4 sounds reasonable.

 

[Moonjuice]

Which is one reason it's usually useful to base your opinions on facts rather than feelings.

The conflict here is obvious. It's not clear where to find facts that everyone agrees on. Heck, we are in a religious forum where people of the same beliefs argue about the facts all day long.

 

[Quagmire]

CORRECT! So, who gets to decide what are lies, propaganda and misinformation?

Well, somebody has to. So to whatever external qualified staff will be handling that.

I actually have been thinking about proposing the idea of recruiting a few qualified members--- doctors, scientists, (RF has a few) --- informing a committee to help us with anything that we considered over our heads. It's just something that occurred to me this morning, like I said I haven't even proposed to staff yet but I probably will.

The President of the United States said we needed to stop Covid testing at one point. Remember?

Uh huh, and we didn't let that affect our policies one way or the other.

Fauci said masks do not work at one point. Remember that?[/quote,]

Vaguely, but I do know that official are our policy is always been pro-mask. I mean from the very beginning.

He also pretended we didn't fund gain of function research at the very lab in Wuhan, that happens to be in the town the first case of the virus was discovered. At one point, even a mention of the Lab Leak Theory got you banned from FB, Twitter etc. Now, the lab leak theory is the prevailing theory. Turns out, misinformation comes from the government sometimes too.

I've heard that.

Here is one of my favorites, from the leader of the U.S. government: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

And again, prevailing consensus here in RF --- among staff, among members --- has always been that global warming is a real thing.

And now we are pretending that if the U.S. government says it, it can't be lies, propaganda or misinformation?

Who's pretending that?

Or rather, who the hell is pretending that?

Seriously man go back and read your post and my response and you know what you'll see? What stands out to me is it RF is a much better batting record than any of the sources that you were just talking about.

Basically all you've demonstrated just now is that, according to our record, we're more qualified to decide what is and isn't misinformation then the president of the United States or his chief medical advisor.

Thanks for that.

Edit: okay this post got skewed and the system won't let me fix it. My responses are inside the quote. Hopefully you can make heads or tails out of it.

 

[Quagmire]

The conflict here is obvious. It's not clear where to find facts that everyone agrees on. Heck, we are in a religious forum where people of the same beliefs argue about the facts all day long.

That isn't what we were talking about. Not sure what the point of this post was.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Which is one reason it's usually useful to base your opinions on facts rather than feelings.

How do you do that when majority if provaxxers feel the unvax are killing people?

That's not a fact statement but an opinionated one.

 

[Quagmire]

And now we are pretending that if the U.S. government says it, it can't be lies, propaganda or misinformation?

Who's pretending that?

Or rather, who the hell is pretending that?

Seriously man go back and read your post and my response and you know what you'll see? What stands out to me is it RF is a much better batting record than any of the sources that you were just talking about.

Basically all you've demonstrated just now is that, according to our record, we're more qualified to decide what is and isn't misinformation then the president of the United States or his chief medical advisor.

Thanks for that.

 

[Moonjuice]

Well, somebody has to. So to whatever external qualified staff will be handling that.

I actually have been thinking about proposing the idea of recruiting a few qualified members--- doctors, scientists, (RF has a few) --- informing a committee to help us with anything that we considered over our heads. It's just something that occurred to me this morning, like I said I haven't even proposed to staff yet but I probably will.



Uh huh, and we didn't let that affect our policies one way or the other.




Edit: okay this post got skewed in the system won't let me fix it. My responses are inside the quote. Hopefully you can make heads or tails out of it.

Ha! I got it. Just saying, the CDC is a U.S. government institution. We have factual evidence that the US government (or those who work for, represent) has spread misinformation. Not only about Covid, but historically. Now, here on the RF forum, we are deciding if we should block opinions that do not agree with the CDC? Seems like a slippery slope.

 

[Quagmire]

@Moonjuice sorry to break the post up like this but it's the only way the system would let me fix it.

CORRECT! So, who gets to decide what are lies, propaganda and misinformation?

Well, somebody has to. So to whatever we're qualified, staff will be handling that.

I actually have been thinking about proposing the idea of recruiting a few qualified members--- doctors, scientists, (RF has a few) --- informing a committee to help us with anything that we considered over our heads. It's just something that occurred to me this morning, like I said I haven't even proposed to staff yet but I probably will.

The President of the United States said we needed to stop Covid testing at one point. Remember?

Uh huh, and we didn't let that affect our policies one way or the other

 

[Moonjuice]

Ha! I got it. Just saying, the CDC is a U.S. government institution. We have factual evidence that the US government (or those who work for, represent) has spread misinformation. Not only about Covid, but historically. Now, here on the RF forum, we are deciding if we should block opinions that do not agree with the CDC? Seems like a slippery slope.

BTW, I'm not saying I disagree with the CDC. I just think I should we should all be free to disagree without being censored. 'Merica!

 

[Quagmire]

Ha! I got it. Just saying, the CDC is a U.S. government institution. We have factual evidence that the US government (or those who work for, represent) has spread misinformation. Not only about Covid, but historically. Now, here on the RF forum, we are deciding if we should block opinions that do not agree with the CDC? Seems like a slippery slope.

No that isn't what we're deciding. We've been blocking opinions that disagree with the CDC for over a year and a half now.

One if the thimgs we're trying to decide now is whether or not to allow opinions that disagree with the CDC.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The conflict here is obvious. It's not clear where to find facts that everyone agrees on. Heck, we are in a religious forum where people of the same beliefs argue about the facts all day long.

It is not necessary that "facts" be agreed on -- only that they are from reputable sources (I don't take brain surgery advice from my proctologist) -- and that those "facts" have at least been subjected to the peer review process.

 

[Moonjuice]

That isn't what we were talking about. Not sure what the point of this post was.

You said it was best to base your opinions on facts (of course I agree).
I am saying, that is the entire point of having an open discussion... to allow people to determine what are facts and what are not facts. What do we consider reputable sources of information or not. If you decide the "facts" only come from a particular US government institution and anything else should be dismissed...then I have to disagree for the sake of individual freedom. I'd like to be allowed to disagree. Wouldn't you? I'm looking at the principle rather than the virus specifically.

 

[Moonjuice]

It is not necessary that "facts" be agreed on -- only that they are from reputable sources (I don't take brain surgery advice from my proctologist) -- and that those "facts" have at least been subjected to the peer review process.

I'm with you completely.

 

[Quagmire]

You said it was best to base your opinions on facts (of course I agree).
I am saying, that is the entire point of having an open discussion... to allow people to determine what are facts and what are not facts. What do we consider reputable sources of information or not. If you decide the "facts" only come from a particular US government institution and anything else should be dismissed...then I have to disagree for the sake of individual freedom. I'd like to be allowed to disagree. Wouldn't you? I'm looking at the principle rather than the virus specifically.

Look, @Moonjuice? To save time, could you go back and read the options in the op please. Because I really don't think you completely understand what's being proposed here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is not necessary that "facts" be agreed on -- only that they are from reputable sources (I don't take brain surgery advice from my proctologist) -- and that those "facts" have at least been subjected to the peer review process.

If sources aren't directly promoting harm, i.e. don't take the vaccine it will kill you-and has clauses:

1. Opinionated source
2. Not intended to be used as medical advice
3. RF doesn't (legally) endorse opinions of it's members

Members should know not to use social media to confirm anything.

Unless maybe it's a customer service type thing to go with the majority to attract and keep members.

 

[Moonjuice]

Look, @Moonjuice? To save time, could you go back and read the options in the op please. Because I really don't think you completely understand what's being proposed here.

Thanks Quagmire, but I'm not as slow on the uptake as you think. I understand exactly what the point of the post is.