America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

This was mentioned briefly in another thread. I thought it deserved its own thread.

First, the CDC/HHS are calling this ban a "mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process". So, I'll buy that it isn't a ban... more a "suggestion". It is important to note that by calling it a mischaracterization they are implicitly admitting that there was a discussion of word choice.

Most of the words... who cares. Yeah, "banning" transgender from CDC public documents is a d1ck move, but fine...

But "science-based" and "evidence-based"??? seriously? and to replace these with: "CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.” You've got to be kidding me. Since when do "community standards" merit the same weight as science and evidence?

The CDC has all but admitted to it
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/after-firestorm-cdc-director-says-terms-like-science-based-are-not-banned/

"Instead, several sources have tried to clarify that the language changes were merely suggestions to help make the agency’s budget more palatable to some Republicans and ease its passage"

So... they suggest not using words like science based or evidence based because they are afraid it will trigger republicans.

If you every voted for a candidate who won't pass a budget because it uses words like "science based" or "evidence based" you need to stop breeding immediately. There is something deeply wrong with your gene pool

Tail says it’s not true. I say it is. I have to defer to him.

Although you surely jest, it appears that I was right. There was no "ban" on words.
Won't stop people from saying it. Over and over and over.
But. Well, there it is.

Vic,
I'll give you Science-based.
But evidence based?
Without knowing how the evidence was arrived this means nothing in terms of accuracy.
Yet it's one of your support pillars for expressing your outrage.
Why?
Oh yeah.
Trump.

.... huh?

Do you have a different meaning for the word "evidence" than the rest of the world?

Tail trust me in this one. There are always embargoed words. In this case you can keep saying it isn’t true. I disagree.

Yea. CDC and NIH should be the first to go.

Nah man, it'll be cool, some privately held company will take their place.

"Third World countries are for the most part poor and underdeveloped. In these countries, low levels of education, poor infrastructure, improper sanitation and poor access to health care mean living conditions are inferior."

Throw in a few oligarchs controlling our resources and making the majority of governmental policy decisions and I think we might be there. Oh, crap...

Censorship.
Reminds me of George Carlin's "The 7 words you can't say on television" bit.

Evidence derived from faulty means is worthless.
Evidence needs to be qualified or quantified. Or at least it should be.
It's a ridiculous term to ban, and it's ridiculous to be particularly outraged if it is banned.
Because it's meaningless.

Of course, if you have an agenda then of course you're outraged.
As the evidence would suggest...

I was using your MO to argue the point.
Ban vs. embargo etc.
I'm not really disagreeing with you. Stop being victor.

outrage at Trump? what for...

He's trying to dictate how his administration communicates his message, and tailor it to his followers. Nothing new, as dstieger points out.


But here's where Trump is opening himself up for outrage. He and his administration are dictating politically correct and dumbed down terminology for a specific target, a small section of the American public: his people.The greater proportion of Americans can sift through the verbiage and recognize the con. His lack of subtlety, style and persistent and blatant disregard for the truth and for ideals of free press and speech and especially his continued contempt for, and attacks on all the media except Trump/Fox News, is troubling to most Americans.

Trump's strategy is obvious. Sow enough discord and doubt about the media, causing the public to distrust it, that when FACTS are made public that cast him and his administration in negative, fraudulent, criminal and possibly treasonous light, his predictable response that it's "FAKE NEWS" will ring true with his followers.

That is borne out by how his media source continually discredits, diminishes and denigrates the investigations of Trump/Russia connections. There have been two guilty pleas and two other criminal indictments of persons close to the Trump campaign. These are factual evidence that there is a THERE there. Numerous emails between Trump's team and sources connected to Russia and it's stated plan to influence the election exist and have been made public. Trump and his folks have continually lied about all of this until their lies have been exposed, and then the stories change. So it was obvious from day one why Trump attacked the media, especially about Russia: BLAME the messenger, so that when the crap hits the fan, they may not be believable.

Classic strategy to control the message by a master media con artist.

I give other people a little more slack than you tail. You should know better. Maybe you don't. Maybe in this day of "alternative facts" you've gone all in.

Your problem is clear in your first sentence. "Evidence derived from faulty means is worthless."
Evidence derived from faulty means isn't evidence tail. The instance you can prove that the underlying data of any evidence is wrong, it isn't "evidence" any longer. The same way two photos of two separate inauguration crowds changes a claim about crowd size into a lie, not into an "alternative fact".

Remember, this is the CDC we are talking about. They publish scientific papers. When they use the term "evidence-based" it is with very specific intent. They aren't using it in some vague way that a lawyer might.

Years ago i remember the great mythologist, Joseph Cambell tell Bill Moyers in an interview on PBS that town hall buildings eventually replaced churches as the tallest buildings in small towns. His point being that politics overtook religion.
I think we're living at a time when the truth doesn't really matter anymore. But simple faith, core to religion, that remnant of religion, faith, remains. "I don't know why I think this or that, I just know it's true" thinking.
o we choose sides.
And once you've decided on your 'church', facts are pretty irrelevant. The truth is as often as not, annoying. But you keep the faith, it doesn't matter.
It's us against them. Just look at them! Morons.
For instance, If a connection is ever made between Trump and the Russians, Trump supporters are likely to malign the source, not care, or tar and feather Hillary.
If it had been proven that Obama was not born in the US I would probably have said 'so what' or 'change the law'.
I guess my point is nowadays everybody already knows what they think and believe a priori.

And this sort of reasoning is why In-laws throw food at me on Thanksgivings.

Victor ties a 2x4 to his ass so he doesn't fall into TW's chute... Or so I heard...

Fixed it for you drafter.

(FYI, I hear, your azz is so wide (based on science in consideration with community standards and wishes) you're the only one who doesn't need a 2x4 (based on science in consideration with community standards and wishes) to keep from falling in.)

I said faulty means, but that's not the entirety of "evidence" that could be considered useless at some point.

Evidence could simply be incomplete. Or from too small a sampling. Or could simply be irrelevant or misleading.
In any event, it's not the "evidence" itself that is in question. It's the use of the term "evidence based".
It's redundant. I mean, what if you don't insert those words? Does that mean there's no evidence? That it's just a wild guess?

Either way, none of this matters.
Because it's fake news.

You may be right on this tail (not the ridiculous trump derangement crap, because you're still an idiot for trying to claim evidence is anything other than evidence) but I did some more digging, and everything I was able to find indicates that this was more of an internal "we need to sell this to idiots, what words should we avoid" issue than an external "idiots telling people what not to say" thing.

Until further evidence is presented I think this is likely a nothing burger. (your attempt to defend evidence as potentially a word to avoid because it "could simply be incomplete. Or from too small a sampling. Or could simply be irrelevant or misleading." is idiotic however, as all you have done is describe something which is not evidence. At best you have described something a person would classify as "evidence is incomplete, but suggests"... )

Hey...if some groups can " make them up as they go " why shouldn't another group be allowed to embargo a few along the way as well.

I don't recall Vic posting threads when we didn't use "Islamic terrorism" and claimed ISIS wasn't islamic.

Suggested evidence shows

Trump once said "It's freezing outside, where the hell is "global warming??"
And" Just out - the POLAR ICE CAPS are at an all time high, the POLAR BEAR population has never been stronger. Where the hell is global warming?"

Scientists drafting a climate report this past fall— an assessment of climate science, feared that Donald's administration would change or suppress it. Wonder why.

And who can forget his remarks while campaigning about global warming being a Chinese hoax?

His nominee Jim Bridenstine has zero scientific background. He’s a Republican Congressman from Oklahoma and former Navy pilot wIth a long history of denying basic climate science.

Donald announced our withdraw from the Paris climate pact because he says he wants to renegotiate the agreement in a way that treats American workers better.

I see a guy at odds with science.
A bottom line guy.

So to me anyway, this is not about some ban on certain words in a budget proposal. This is a critical issue about trust and our planet. I trust scientists a hell of a lot more than I do politicians and their constituencies . "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position." (skepticalscience.com)

Sorry Donald. You're not pretty enough to be this dumb.

I freaked out when I read that the ban was an administration directive, but was not reassured when it turned out to be an HHS internal one. My fear is reality-based.

Used to be guys like Galileo were persecuted directly by the church.
Now they do it indirectly.

There is even an embargoed word here, it's one that describes a shinny expensive metal often associated with privliage, I'm just saying.

Do they have escargot..??

why do you ask?