Glf:Misc Notes

Abortion

If you believe that being vegan and pro-choice is morally inconsistent, then logically, you should believe that being vegan and pro life is morally consistent. So, by your own logic, if you’re pro life you should be vegan to be morally consistent.

CSS

Multi-column Lists

https://codepen.io/devbproto/pen/ZbjxpJ

To be incorporated

Dairy, Milk

https://www.thoughtco.com/milk-and-human-health-127681

Animal Experimentation Sources

Sources

• https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Humane_Movement

Logic

Z

JD Mumma

I try to follow principles I refer to as Zetetic skepticism, which usually leads me to tend to not hold a position on many topics.

I find accurate/sound and inaccurate/fallacious claims/arguments on both sides of the vaccine argument, and I find some topics can be easily influenced by industry manipulation (e.g. science for sale, astroturfing...)

While many people claim to be "skeptical" I often find their skepticism is often clouded by overt or hidden biases that are most often unconscious.

Zetetic skepticism: A process of inquiring by applying genuine skepticism principles and thus intending to avoid pseudo-skepticism.

Marcello Truzzi (1935-2003) characterized "true" skepticism as: 1) Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established 2) No burden-of-proof to take an agnostic position 3) Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognizing its incompleteness 4) Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication 5) Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing 6) Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found

1. (rare) Seeking; proceeding by inquiry http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/zetetic

Daniel Rodger - As you can see from some of the comments so far... Like many issues, the debates on this topic has typically been a narrowed-down mix of convergent thinking, myopic perspectives, confirmation bias, eristic rhetoric, Dunning-Krugger effect, fallacious arguments... FROM BOTH 'SIDES'.

e.g. INTELLECTUAL ARROGANCE - 'I know I'm 100% right, so you and people who believe what you believe must be wrong!'

DUNNING-KRUGER - 'I read a few articles and watched a documentary, so I'm pretty much an expert now and thus I'm righteously justified to communicate like I'm an expert'

DIVISIVE TRIBALISM - 'My side/tribe is 100% correct and if you do/ don't take condone all vaccines, then you're the enemy.'

CONFIRMATION BIAS - 'I read/heard/watched something that matched what I already believe, so it must be true.'

NARROW MINDEDNESS - 'I just seek out, look at, and agree with those things that help me fight for my side.'

MORALIZING & DEMEANING LABELING - 'Those stupid anti-vaxers/anti-vaxers are so clueless'

DEMONIZING & DEMIGODING - 'Vaccines are the work of greedy/avarice corporations' or 'Vaccines are from inerrant corporations that are only focused on curing humanity of diseases'

FALSE DILEMMA (aka black or white thinking which is often driven by the need for social acceptance/tribalism) - 'There are only two sides to this topic and therefore one side must be 100% correct and the other side 100% incorrect, so I have to pick THE one side/tribe.'