JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Thanks for the link, that's interesting. But keep in mind that anyone can write on Slate, so it's not necessarily a credible source.
You could say the same thing about Wikipedia (which is much more true than for Slate). Or, "anyone can become a scientist and publish in a peer reviewed journal" so those aren't credible sources either.

People can submit articles to Slate, but they will not necessarily be printed. The magic is in the editing. Slate has very high standards, careful editors who screen the content, and they post corrections to mistakes.
http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/support/2001/10/faq.html

I've found Slate to be remarkably credible as far as online content goes. They're not anti-vegan, and their science articles are generally very good. I'd rank it higher than an average Wikipedia article (some articles are locked from editing and have much higher standards, depending on popularity, so the quality of Wikipedia varies considerably from article to article).

EquALLity wrote:I don't think Trump would be better than Stein. :P
They're about the same on Vaccines. Trump is better on Nuclear and GMO. Trump, unlike Stein, also has a grasp on economics (one of the only things he knows, but just another thing Stein is a moron about); that's second only to political experience in running a country.

Of course, Hillary beats all of them.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:You could say the same thing about Wikipedia (which is much more true than for Slate).
Yeah, but Wikipedia is often edited by experts and regulated from bias due to the amount of people editing it who are experts.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Or, "anyone can become a scientist and publish in a peer reviewed journal" so those aren't credible sources either.
That's completely different. Anyone can become a scientist, but it requires a lot of studying, and publishing in a peer reviewed journal has a very high standard of evidence.
brimstoneSalad wrote:People can submit articles to Slate, but they will not necessarily be printed. The magic is in the editing. Slate has very high standards, careful editors who screen the content, and they post corrections to mistakes.
http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/ ... 0/faq.html
That link says nothing about Slate's standards.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I've found Slate to be remarkably credible as far as online content goes. They're not anti-vegan, and their science articles are generally very good. I'd rank it higher than an average Wikipedia article (some articles are locked from editing and have much higher standards, depending on popularity, so the quality of Wikipedia varies considerably from article to article).
Ok, but that's just an anecdote.
brimstoneSalad wrote:They're about the same on Vaccines. Trump is better on Nuclear and GMO. Trump, unlike Stein, also has a grasp on economics (one of the only things he knows, but just another thing Stein is a moron about); that's second only to political experience in running a country.

Of course, Hillary beats all of them.
Did you watch the video? They're not the same on vaccines. The distinction is that Jill Stein says she is essentially agnostic on vaccines, but is leaning towards supporting them (she said she "isn't aware of evidence" that vaccines cause autism, changing her tweet from flat out saying there is no evidence), while Trump advocates for delays in vaccinations and says he has personal experience with a kid becoming autistic from vaccination. That is a big difference.

We don't have evidence Trump supports GMOs (the only info we have is a tweet saying GMOs made people in Iowa stupid and that's why he wasn't doing well in polls there). He'd probably support labeling as it's a populist position (the same as Bernie does, just supporting labeling), and he is pro-nuclear energy but denies climate change.

I think Hillary Clinton definitely beats Trump and Jill Stein, but of course, I think Bernie is better than all of them.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by EquALLity »

After doing a search, I found that Bernie's website says this:
Bernie supports allowing states to require labels on foods containing “genetically modified organisms” (GMOs) based on the consumer’s right-to-know, but does not believe that GMOs are necessarily bad.
That's the same position Clinton has. Trump is actually the worst on that as he probably supports labeling and has tweeted GMOs make people stupid.

To be fair, the source of that is his reddit tweet, and that site is managed by Bernie's volunteers, and Bernie has made statements suggesting he thinks GMOs are debatable in terms of health risk. I guess it's not clear what he believes, but you can't count that as bad against Bernie while ignoring that Trump outright tweeted that GMOs make people stupid (which is worse).
He did delete the tweet, but the fact that he made it in the first place shows he thinks GMOs are bad. He probably deleted it because it's not very good politically to call the people in a state you're running in stupid. :P
At a Thursday campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton, who worked for the law firm that represents Monsanto in the 1980s, said she supported GMOs in general but is “against what’s a movement right now in the Congress, which is to preempt state decision-making regarding GMOs,” referencing what anti-GMO activists have dubbed the DARK Act—Denying Americans the Right to Know. Instead of disallowing state-level labeling measures—as the bill now working its way through Congress would—Clinton said she’s in favor of “efforts to try to move toward labeling and to try to encourage companies to use technology like bar codes and other techniques online.” Clinton’s idea would allow concerned customers to learn more about the food they’re buying and how it was grown.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Yeah, but Wikipedia is often edited by experts and regulated from bias due to the amount of people editing it who are experts.
Sometimes, and sometimes by non-experts who think they're experts and who have been on Wikipedia so long that they can control the content and write in their biases so nobody can fix them.

The Editors at Slate have total control, and are experienced journalists with substantial integrity as far as I've seen. I've seen more substantial problems on Wikipedia. Have I read every article on Slate, or every article on Wikipedia? No. But I've read enough to make an inductive conclusion reasonable.
EquALLity wrote:That's completely different. Anyone can become a scientist, but it requires a lot of studying, and publishing in a peer reviewed journal has a very high standard of evidence.
Disappointingly, that's not always the case.

https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/3x32b4/adam_ruins_everything_published_the_script_for/
I think this is a short clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29v6rNFjlLI

A number of doctors and critics have published bullshit studies on purpose to prove that these journals will accept anything and don't even read the submissions. The same is not true of Slate.

Many of these Journals charge heavy fees for publication, and have no editorial standards (or very poor ones). They make money from publishing this shit as paid by the writers, not the other way around.

Remember those terrible meta analyses that were published in Annals?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p32.shtml
EquALLity wrote:That link says nothing about Slate's standards.
[...]
Ok, but that's just an anecdote.
It explains the submission process. It's not just enter text in a form and press submit, then it shows up. It has to be read by professional human editors and approved. Slate doesn't just publish anything. And chances are most emails are completely ignored for unsolicited articles. It's not Wikipedia, or some blog site.

It's owned by Washington Post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_%28magazine%29

I'm sure if you search hard enough, you can find an error or a bad article, but their track record is very good. I find errors in Wikipedia, and whole studies in peer reviewed journals that are deeply flawed.

Everything in the space of credibility is essentially anecdotal; it's all based on track record and inductive reasoning.
We can expect an article from Slate to be good, because based on available evidence of other Slate articles and a lack of bad ones, they have high journalistic standards.

Hell, I tried to find something bad just now by searching for "plant intelligence slate". Look what I found:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/11/intelligent_plants_plants_attract_wasps_can_hear_themselves_eaten_alive.html
The New Yorker recently brought the unusual debate about plant “intelligence” to popular attention, and regardless of its merits, the science of how plants ward off threats is rich and fascinating. University Missouri researchers have offered an especially eerie example.
They're talking about a piece in the New Yorker by Michael Pollan (which could be better informed, but wasn't the worst article on Plant "intelligence" I've seen by far), and they put "intelligence" in quotations in the description.

EquALLity wrote: Did you watch the video? They're not the same on vaccines. The distinction is that Jill Stein says she is essentially agnostic on vaccines, but is leaning towards supporting them (she said she "isn't aware of evidence" that vaccines cause autism, changing her tweet from flat out saying there is no evidence), while Trump advocates for delays in vaccinations and says he has personal experience with a kid becoming autistic from vaccination. That is a big difference.
That's really not a big difference, I don't see a meaningful gradation here. They're both pandering to the anti-vaxxers. Stein also has much less of an excuse to believe that garbage because she's supposed to be a doctor.

Trump is still in favor of vaccinations, he thinks they're given too early and too many of them at once.
Referring to his and his wife Melania’s 22-month-old son Baron, Trump continued: “What we’ve done with Baron, we’ve taken him on a very slow process. He gets one shot at a time then we wait a few months and give him another shot, the old-fashioned way. But today they pump the children with so much at a very young age. We do it on a very, very conservative level.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/ ... ald-trump/

He vaccinated his own children, If Trump is really anti-vaxx, then so is Jill Stein. They're promoting the same garbage about the science and government being corrupt on this issue, and failing to confidently assert the safety of vaccines.

Trump is just much less politically subtle.
EquALLity wrote: We don't have evidence Trump supports GMOs (the only info we have is a tweet saying GMOs made people in Iowa stupid and that's why he wasn't doing well in polls there).
In a very rare move for him, the tweet was deleted, suggesting it was a mistake, or a bad joke that he actually regretted because he doesn't want to set himself at odds with his conservative base who are substantially farmers and (for good reason) support GMO.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-deletes-tweet-iowa-voters
EquALLity wrote: He'd probably support labeling as it's a populist position (the same as Bernie does, just supporting labeling),
If he did, he would have said so by now. Trump is far from coy with his outlandish conspiracy claims. Consider the personality you're talking about here. There's no evidence he opposes GMOs, and even some that he's afraid to be branded that way and realizes it would be bad politics for him.

Jill Stein actually wants a moratorium on GMO. Not just labeling, but banning it entirely, from the whole country including imports.
She's far FAR worse on GMO than Sanders was. That would be disastrous. It would mean billions of dollars and many years of animal testing, despite all evidence already saying they're safe -- she wants more and more testing, until SHE is satisfied they're safe, and if the current science doesn't satisfy her, her positions are essentially unfalsifiable which means we can say goodbye to modern agriculture (she wants a moratorium on pesticide too, which means she would force all farms to convert to Organic and ban modern agriculture). Collapse of our economy, mass starvation, fun stuff like that.

She's one of the most dangerous people on the planet, bar none. And she could be the reason Trump is ultimately elected since she's stealing votes and support from Hillary.
EquALLity wrote: and he is pro-nuclear energy but denies climate change.
We already discussed this though; it doesn't matter if somebody accepts climate change if that person rejects the solutions to it. Trump is accidentally better for climate change. I don't care if he supports Nuclear power because he thinks the glow is a pot of leprechaun gold. The bottom line is the consequence.
EquALLity wrote: I think Hillary Clinton definitely beats Trump and Jill Stein, but of course, I think Bernie is better than all of them.
But will you at least admit that Jill Stein is one politician who is worse than Trump?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote:After doing a search, I found that Bernie's website says this:
Bernie supports allowing states to require labels on foods containing “genetically modified organisms” (GMOs) based on the consumer’s right-to-know, but does not believe that GMOs are necessarily bad.
That's the same position Clinton has.
Clinton is very pro-GMO. Explicitly supporting the technology, and having worked with GM technology and its adoption in developing countries.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/29/video-hilary-clinton-endorses-gmos-solution-focused-crop-biotechnology/

EquALLity wrote:Trump is actually the worst on that as he probably supports labeling and has tweeted GMOs make people stupid.
There's no reason to believe that from a deleted tweet when he as remained uncharacteristically silent on the matter.
EquALLity wrote:To be fair, the source of that is his reddit tweet, and that site is managed by Bernie's volunteers, and Bernie has made statements suggesting he thinks GMOs are debatable in terms of health risk. I guess it's not clear what he believes, but you can't count that as bad against Bernie while ignoring that Trump outright tweeted that GMOs make people stupid (which is worse).
I think we can, since he never took back the claim. Sanders is at least as bad on GMO as Trump is on Vaccines (in thinking they may be dangerous), and probably worse.
The same statement you use to evidence the neutrality of Sanders to GMO could apply to Trump on vaccines.
You can also say, "Trump does not believe that Vaccines are necessarily bad" and he just has questions about them and the research, and thinks there are just too many at once. That has basically been his message. He rejects the science proving they're safe and good just as Sanders rejects the science on GMO. He's trying to pander without losing the other side by making overt claims against vaccination.

Also, Trump blamed the BAD tweet on an intern (maybe, maybe not) and retracted it, while Sanders bad comments were straight from his own mouth and never retracted. Meanwhile for the "good", we know that this arguably neutral (not even good) statement on GMO for Bernie was from an intern. Sanders has neither retracted his statements nor said anything positive about GMO to counteract the negative.

Sander is better on Vaccines than Trump. Sanders actually seems good on vaccines. That is to his credit. But that only balances him with trump compared to the GMO issue.


At a Thursday campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton, who worked for the law firm that represents Monsanto in the 1980s, said she supported GMOs in general but is “against what’s a movement right now in the Congress, which is to preempt state decision-making regarding GMOs,” referencing what anti-GMO activists have dubbed the DARK Act—Denying Americans the Right to Know. Instead of disallowing state-level labeling measures—as the bill now working its way through Congress would—Clinton said she’s in favor of “efforts to try to move toward labeling and to try to encourage companies to use technology like bar codes and other techniques online.” Clinton’s idea would allow concerned customers to learn more about the food they’re buying and how it was grown.
Look into that a bit; it's VERY smart politics. It's not labeling on the package, it's providing an online resource, so it doesn't fear monger and scare people by showing it on the package, but for people who really want to go out of their ways to know, they can go online (by the way, they already have the option to just call the company to find out, which they don't exercise). It's a great compromise that shuts up the Anti-GMO lobby because they can now access the information easily, without pushing this information on most people and confusing or scaring them.

There's something to be said for the PR of providing the information in a subtle way to silence opponents with transparency, while not giving them the labeling victory to bully companies and farmers into abandoning GMO for fear of consumer reaction.
User avatar
Insert name here
Full Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 6:03 pm
Location: Insert location here.

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by Insert name here »

EquALLity wrote:He directly correlates vaccines to autism and even says he has a personal experience with a child who became autistic due to vaccines. He says vaccines look like they're for horses, not a beautiful child, and that parents should space out vaccines. It's disgusting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHKlRik26RM

He's more anti-vax then Jill Stein.
At the very least I think that most of us can agree that neither of them are preferable candidates, but for different reasons. I don't know which I would choose over the other, but I suppose it doesn't matter, seeing as the choice is not between Trump and Stein.
Insert signature here.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by EquALLity »

Insert name here wrote:
EquALLity wrote:He directly correlates vaccines to autism and even says he has a personal experience with a child who became autistic due to vaccines. He says vaccines look like they're for horses, not a beautiful child, and that parents should space out vaccines. It's disgusting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHKlRik26RM

He's more anti-vax then Jill Stein.
At the very least I think that most of us can agree that neither of them are preferable candidates, but for different reasons. I don't know which I would choose over the other, but I suppose it doesn't matter, seeing as the choice is not between Trump and Stein.
Definitely, but I think Stein would be better.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
miniboes
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Netherlands

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by miniboes »

EquALLity wrote:Definitely, but I think Stein would be better.
I am a member of the Dutch Green Party equivalent, but only because there is no other party that is concerned about climate change but is also willing to use nuclear energy. In the USA, for all the flaws she has, you have a pro-nuclear (or, at least, not anti-nuclear), pro-environment candidate. This is the most important issue of our time. For that sole reason, I don't think Jill Stein would be better.

Edit: woops. I just realised you were saying you prefer stein over trump, not Hillary. Don't mind me.
Last edited by miniboes on Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Definitely, but I think Stein would be better.
While I don't agree with it, I can at least understand the opinion that Sanders is better than Trump based on a very charitable interpretation of his policies. Saying Stein is better than Trump too seems more like a personal thing against Trump than an objective look at the issues. I know you hate him, and I can understand why, I'd even rather have Stein at a dinner party, but at a certain point you have to recognize that her policies would be so destructive it would be better to have Trump in office even with all of his flaws and idiocy.

A moratorium on GMO and pesticides is worse than all of the "build a wall" nonsense. Stein's irrationality is against technology and agriculture, rather than against people. It makes it easier to forgive her as a human being, but the harm to humanity if she ever holds power would be far greater.
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Re: JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz »

brimstoneSalad wrote:They're about the same on Vaccines. Trump is better on Nuclear and GMO. Trump, unlike Stein, also has a grasp on economics (one of the only things he knows, but just another thing Stein is a moron about); that's second only to political experience in running a country.

Of course, Hillary beats all of them.
Are you a Mental Man? They are not the same on Vaccine! Jill Stein is Pro-Vaccine but thinks financial interests should not regulate them, Trump is a fool man who thinks vaccine causes autism! How can you say Hillary is better? She was Anti-Vaccine in 2008! She will just say anything to get you to vote for her!!!
Barack Obama wrote:Hillary Clinton will say anything and change nothing.
Trump believes that Climate Change is a conspiracy made by the Chinese! How can you say things like that and be more pro-science than somebody who has fought all their life for an Environment.

Hillary believes that Weed should be illegal! How can you say things like that and be more pro-science than somebody who fights for my right to 4/20 blaze it?!

And don't you talk to me about Economics because Jill Stein is the best at it! She will crush capitalism and instate a new institution of Socialism which will make the country benefit just as it has done in Scandinavian countries! Hillary and Trump are Capitalist SCUM. They are the puppets of the bourgeois. Jill is not. She fights for the people.

Jill Stein will win this election. Hillary and Trump may have the media, television, radios, newspapers and big corporations on their side, but Jill has dank memes, and they are something more powerful altogether.
Post Reply