victor809
8 years ago
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

DrafterX
8 years ago
So, we're just suppose to have faith in da budget..?? 😕
teedubbya
8 years ago
Tail says it’s not true. I say it is. I have to defer to him.
victor809
8 years ago

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

teedubbya wrote:



Does he live closer to the CDC? I hear that's what makes all the difference.
tailgater
8 years ago

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

teedubbya wrote:



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.


Mr. Jones
8 years ago
Just buy "vitamins" and tinctures and massive jars of "who knows what" At GNC @ THE MALL....

TO CURE ANYTHING...

NONE OF THOSE HAVE BEEN TESTED BY THE FDC OR THE CDC ....so they can say any word they want like :
"Cures", "totally natural" ,"safe, "transgenderbuttplugapproved" and you will be consuming HEAVEY METALS, ARSENIC, CADMIUM, URANIUM, BARIUM,
LEAD...DIRECT harvested WASTE BYPRODUCTS FROM UNREGULATED CHINESE FACTORIES.
tailgater
8 years ago

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.







victor809
8 years ago

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.


tailgater wrote:



If you note, I point out that they state it is not a "ban" just a "suggestion".

....

....


... a suggestion.

... a suggestion that we not use terms "science based" or "evidence based" because it will trigger the republican congressmen.

F%cking idiots.
victor809
8 years ago

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.







tailgater wrote:




.... huh?

Do you have a different meaning for the word "evidence" than the rest of the world?
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
8 years ago
Well, to be fair, they can't just flat out say we're going to have a meeting on "how to sell budget proposals to Trump" because he would rage tweet about it.

teedubbya
8 years ago
Tail trust me in this one. There are always embargoed words. In this case you can keep saying it isn’t true. I disagree.
jjanecka
8 years ago
I feel like we need to just disband these agencies. You know, trim the burecratic fat so to speak.
teedubbya
8 years ago
Yea. CDC and NIH should be the first to go.
victor809
8 years ago

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

teedubbya wrote:



What the heck. May as well go all-in on becoming a 3rd world country.
jjanecka
8 years ago
Nah man, it'll be cool, some privately held company will take their place.
teedubbya
8 years ago
Lol. Yea right.
Phil222
8 years ago
"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...[gonzo]
delta1
8 years ago
When he first took office, didn't Trump pull stuff from the EPA and USDA websites about climate change and global warming and issued a list of words to avoid while offering alternatives words?
Seems close to the embargo line, right?
cacman
8 years ago
Censorship.
Reminds me of George Carlin's "The 7 words you can't say on television" bit.
tailgater
8 years ago

If you note, I point out that they state it is not a "ban" just a "suggestion".

....

....


... a suggestion.

... a suggestion that we not use terms "science based" or "evidence based" because it will trigger the republican congressmen.

F%cking idiots.

victor809 wrote:



If you note, I was conversing with TW.
Perhaps you could guess my next "suggestion"...

Users browsing this topic