It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
toxicTom: You should try to contact your embassy, they probably would know what you should do and what (paperwork) it takes.
Well, that's where it gets sorta funny. I'm a citizen of more than one country, but I'm neither a resident, nor do I have any family in either country, so I'd be in the exact same situation over there.

In general, very good advice, though. :) Thanks.
low rated
avatar
rojimboo: I explained why there's a huge difference in those cases, right after the bit you decided to quote only.
I was mainly trying to not reply to every bit, save time....also I felt that bit seemingly contradicted your prior posts about people not needing to use their critical thinking, and didn't want to point that out/come off the wrong way by saying such.

(I didn't know how to word it the best way, in other words)

avatar
rojimboo: There you go again, assuming that
a) people have common sense
They do(by that I meant critical thinking and checking what one reads)....most are just too lazy to use it, but many still have the capacity to do so.

avatar
rojimboo: b) there is such a well-established concept such as common sense
There is(see above on point A).

avatar
rojimboo: c) people have the time and ability to verify/check the science behind the claim
good number of people have plenty of time now(being mostly locked down and all), though.

Also google/bing/duckduckgo are things, and people likely know some good trustworthy alternative(yet official) sources or someone more knowledgeable to verify such with.

avatar
rojimboo: I'm saying all of those things are wrong, for most people. Which is why it's perfectly ok to defer to experts in complex matters, if you just do a tiny bit of source critique initially and consider who the source is.
This is a somewhat reasonable stance(what you posted here in this bit).

I still think people should check and verify with other sources(good ones) when/if they can, though......we shouldn't encourage people not using their critical thinking skills, in general, after all.

avatar
rojimboo: Guy who looks at a solar eclipse with a naked eye? <----------- don't take medical advice from this man
Honestly asking: What if he is knowledgeable otherwise?

In such cases i'd say "consider the source" in such cases, and check what they said more thoroughly......but not discount anything they said entirely(well with some exceptions, of course).

===========================================================

avatar
JaqFrost: Well, that's where it gets sorta funny. I'm a citizen of more than one country, but I'm neither a resident, nor do I have any family in either country, so I'd be in the exact same situation over there.

In general, very good advice, though. :) Thanks.
If you want some humor that relates to your situation in a touching/heart felt way, watch The Terminal with Tom Hanks.....it's about a foreign national trapped in an airport when his country locks itself down and "disables" his travel documents(and those of most others from his country). :)
Post edited March 25, 2020 by GameRager
https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/coronavirus/2020/03/incels-celebrating-lockdown-casual-sex-chad-stacy-4chan-reddit

LOL.
low rated
avatar
GameRager: I was mainly trying to not reply to every bit, save time....also I felt that bit seemingly contradicted your prior posts about people not needing to use their critical thinking, and didn't want to point that out/come off the wrong way by saying such.
I'm not sure if you understand. I'm saying even if you blindly believed a scientist's claim that was also peer reviewed, you'd still likely be fine and almost certainly correct, because of the scientific method. The peers did the work for you - they criticised, evaluated and tried to throw the claim to shreds unsuccesfully, so you wouldn't have to bother. You can't do that as a religious fanatic, and expect to be right, well, about anything really.

avatar
GameRager: They do(by that I meant critical thinking and checking what one reads)....most are just too lazy to use it, but many still have the capacity to do so.
...
There is(see above on point A).
...
good number of people have plenty of time now(being mostly locked down and all), though.

Also google/bing/duckduckgo are things, and people likely know some good trustworthy alternative(yet official) sources or someone more knowledgeable to verify such with.
What do you think common sense is, how is it defined, and how does it manifest in people? You mention critical thinking and source critique I guess - is that really what is usually meant by common sense, or is common sense supposed to be something more akin to instinct instead of learned behaviour?

Common sense to me is, as someone else mentioned, completely useless in unintuitive matters or indeed in anything too complex. And covid19 and the response of the world to it, is anything but simple.

avatar
GameRager: I still think people should check and verify with other sources(good ones) when/if they can, though......we shouldn't encourage people not using their critical thinking skills, in general, after all.
Do you see anyone arguing against this? If anything more can be done in this regard. But the whole point is that once you've done your incredibly rudimentary 'check and verification' of complex science with 'other good sources' whatever that means, it's completely fine to defer to the experts. And you don't really need to go even that far if you just do some basic source critique.

avatar
rojimboo: Guy who looks at a solar eclipse with a naked eye? <----------- don't take medical advice from this man
avatar
GameRager: Honestly asking: What if he is knowledgeable otherwise?

In such cases i'd say "consider the source" in such cases, and check what they said more thoroughly......but not discount anything they said entirely(well with some exceptions, of course).
Why would it matter if he is knowlegeable about gardening, when he's giving out life and death medical information during a pandemic? With the power to influence millions?

(Though, given his history, and his position, he can safely be ignored not only in this matter, but most. That's called critical thinking and source critique.)
This bit(and the terminology used) make me want to toss all that person's articles into an incinerator/shredder(i.e. as nothing but trash not worth taking seriously) :

"But on Reddit, 4chan, and misogynistic online forums, incels have been celebrating the fact that attractive people are about to be stuck inside – living their lives just like incels, and crucially, unable to have casual sex. "

Lol....casual sex is CRUCIAL? Really?

I guess it's true: One DOES need the basics to live: Eating/drinking/sleeping/casual sex. *rolleyes*
Post edited March 25, 2020 by GameRager
avatar
rojimboo: I'm saying even if you blindly believed a scientist's claim that was also peer reviewed, you'd still likely be fine and almost certainly correct, because of the scientific method. The peers did the work for you - they criticised, evaluated and tried to throw the claim to shreds unsuccesfully, so you wouldn't have to bother.
Note the bolding.

As it's not 100% certain(just likely) I would still encourage people to bother and verify things(in general)....not put their brains on auto-pilot.

avatar
rojimboo: You mention critical thinking and source critique I guess - is that really what is usually meant by common sense, or is common sense supposed to be something more akin to instinct instead of learned behaviour?
That's what I meant for the most part when mentioning common sense before. That is what I meant in some recent/prior posts.

avatar
rojimboo: Do you see anyone arguing against this?
Some posting here seemed to come off as saying such(I forget who[besides yourself, that is]...would have to look back). Some posts read(to me) as "trust only official sources and trust them blindly".

If I was wrong i'd welcome being corrected if I misread something anyone wrote.

avatar
rojimboo: If anything more can be done in this regard. But the whole point is that once you've done your incredibly rudimentary 'check and verification' of complex science with 'other good sources' whatever that means, it's completely fine to defer to the experts.
If one does their homework first, though, I agree.

avatar
rojimboo: IWhy would it matter if he is knowlegeable about gardening, when he's giving out life and death medical information during a pandemic? With the power to influence millions?
I meant if they have relevant/on topic knowledge that is valid/helpful.

avatar
rojimboo: (Though, given his history, and his position, he can safely be ignored not only in this matter, but most. That's called critical thinking and source critique.)
Imo it's called being foolish....shutting down/dismissing EVERYTHING someone says is(imo) a foolish thing to do in many cases....just because someone says something "dumb"/not useful doesn't mean everything they say is "dumb"/not useful or will be "dumb"/not useful.

(To me doing so is almost as bad as those who blindly accept anything someone they trust/like says)
Post edited March 25, 2020 by GameRager
avatar
GameRager: This bit(and the terminology used) make me want to toss all that person's articles into an incinerator/shredder(i.e. as nothing but trash not worth taking seriously) :

"But on Reddit, 4chan, and misogynistic online forums, incels have been celebrating the fact that attractive people are about to be stuck inside – living their lives just like incels, and crucially, unable to have casual sex. "

Lol....casual sex is CRUCIAL? Really?

I guess it's true: One DOES need the basics to live: Eating/drinking/sleeping/casual sex. *rolleyes*
No, the sex part is crucial for the schadenfreude of the incels, they focus on that aspect since they think so much about sex themselves.
avatar
morolf: No, the sex part is crucial for the schadenfreude of the incels, they focus on that aspect since they think so much about sex themselves.
Thanks for clearing that up.

That said, I find that article and it's writer very cringe....almost as cringe as some they talk about.
low rated
avatar
GameRager: As it's not 100% certain(just likely) I would still encourage people to bother and verify things(in general)....not put their brains on auto-pilot.
I wonder what you think is 100% certain? Examples?

You realise gravity and tectonic plates are merely 'theories' still? They are well established theories that nobody has been able to refute for years and years, but even they are not 100% certain.

Nevermind something as recent as this pandemic, and what society's response to it should be like. You take the best available research at the time and work with it, given the time constraints. Ignoring the science, and listening to politicians who do not defer to the experts will result in tragedy.

avatar
GameRager: Some posting here seemed to come off as saying such(I forget who[besides yourself, that is]...would have to look back). Some posts read(to me) as "trust only official sources and trust them blindly".
You're far too generic and abstract, focus on specifics. For example, people questioned the Imperial college study because it was done by some experts in some university, and were basically saying people shouldn't believe them blindly and do some own research. Exactly what this means is beyond me. Maybe you can enlighten me? How would you disprove them, giving your limited resources and capability? What kind of research would cast doubt on their findings, and what kind of source critique and critical thinking did you apply on the ones who are refuting the study? I think that whole process would be wholly lacking, for most people, given that their only tools are google (and for a tiny fraction maybe google scholar), and the thought that you could truly 'verify and check' their findings is devoid of reality. That's my point - it's completely fine to defer to the experts in this instance, even if it were 'blindly' as many put it - that's just how it works.

avatar
GameRager: I meant if they have relevant/on topic knowledge that is valid/helpful.
How could you ever trust his word on the matter, after being so criminally ignorant and negligent in the first place?

avatar
GameRager: Imo it's called being foolish....shutting down/dismissing EVERYTHING someone says is(imo) a foolish thing to do in many cases....just because someone says something "dumb"/not useful doesn't mean everything they say is "dumb"/not useful or will be "dumb"/not useful.

(To me doing so is almost as bad as those who blindly accept anything someone they trust/like says)
I think you read far too much into what you thought I said. I said that guy has been so wrong on so many things on so many occassions, I said I would not trust him to say anything accurate anymore about anything.

Gross incompetence, especially during a crisis.
low rated
Please note I skipped some bits and stuck to answering some things only(mainly to save time, and because my mind is on other things & I need to focus on more important things atm)...that said, some replies:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------

avatar
rojimboo: I wonder what you think is 100% certain? Examples?
This entire bit(plus snipped bits)....you seem to be possibly be missing the point I was trying to make.

Also just because nothing is 100% certain that still doesn't invalidate what I said/the point I was trying to make.

avatar
rojimboo: That's my point - it's completely fine to defer to the experts in this instance, even if it were 'blindly' as many put it - that's just how it works.
Your point is a bad one, then(imo). But we can agree to disagree on that.

avatar
rojimboo: How could you ever trust his word on the matter, after being so criminally ignorant and negligent in the first place?
Who said they were that way? Or is telling someone it's a good idea to stare at an eclipse what you mean with this?

That asked/said: It's because most people aren't 100% wrong on everything and people can(and should) still use their brains with the info they're told by such people.

avatar
rojimboo: I think you read far too much into what you thought I said. I said that guy has been so wrong on so many things on so many occassions, I said I would not trust him to say anything accurate anymore about anything.

Gross incompetence, especially during a crisis.
Again, which guy?
Post edited March 25, 2020 by GameRager
low rated
avatar
GameRager: This entire bit(plus snipped bits)....you seem to be possibly be missing the point I was trying to make.
Which was what? In your own words?

avatar
GameRager: Also just because nothing is 100% certain that still doesn't invalidate what I said/the point I was trying to make.
That was your entire point that you were making - likely =/= 100% certain. So yes, it does invalidate what you were saying.

avatar
GameRager: Your point is a bad one, then(imo). But we can agree to disagree on that.
Ah, the classic and generic 'it's bad'. Didn't see that coming.

avatar
GameRager: Who said they were that way? Or is telling someone it's a good idea to stare at an eclipse what you mean with this?
...
Again, which guy?
Ah ok, whoosh it went over your head. Maybe if you followed the trail from the chloroquine guy to the solar eclipse guy to gross incompetence guy to world leader guy, you might guess as to whom I'm referring.

But it doesn't really matter, as he is not solely the incompetent one on the whole leadership stage in the covid-19 response. He might be the worst one though.

Anyways, I think we've exhausted and eeked out any interesting conversation to be had between us on this topic. Far more important things to discuss, by far more interesting people than us.

All I'm gonna say is, 'your points are bad'.
low rated
I wanted to reply with(mainly) a few questions on people you brought up in this post, so here we go:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

avatar
rojimboo: Maybe if you followed the trail from the chloroquine guy to the solar eclipse guy to gross incompetence guy to world leader guy, you might guess as to whom I'm referring.
I don't follow every bit of news on this....so it might help if you just said their name so I would know and could possibly reply to such.

avatar
rojimboo: But it doesn't really matter, as he is not solely the incompetent one on the whole leadership stage in the covid-19 response.
Dunno who you mean(as said above)....I agree many of them dropped the ball, though.

(For example: The US congress is bickering on cash aid to citizens and has gone though afaik 2 votes already, and pushed a third vote back till tomorrow)

avatar
rojimboo: Far more important things to discuss, by far more interesting people than us.
True enough
-------------------------------------------------------------------

All that said, I hope you and yours are staying safe and healthy during all this, and everyone else here as well....have a good one, all.

=====================================================

(Also to everyone else: If anyone else knows who Ro was talking about and he forgets to/doesn't clarify i'd like to know who he likely meant with the bits I quoted)
Post edited March 25, 2020 by GameRager
The government here just shut down pretty much everything, even marriages are only allowed to have 5 people max (couple, celebrant, 2 witnesses).
There's news about a new/old virus in China.

Hantavirus. One person died from it today.

Seems like the immune system of people is weaker because of covid-19, and there's a possibility of old viruses infecting people easier then before.
avatar
GameRager: This bit(and the terminology used) make me want to toss all that person's articles into an incinerator/shredder(i.e. as nothing but trash not worth taking seriously) :

"But on Reddit, 4chan, and misogynistic online forums, incels have been celebrating the fact that attractive people are about to be stuck inside – living their lives just like incels, and crucially, unable to have casual sex. "

Lol....casual sex is CRUCIAL? Really?

I guess it's true: One DOES need the basics to live: Eating/drinking/sleeping/casual sex. *rolleyes*
avatar
morolf: No, the sex part is crucial for the schadenfreude of the incels, they focus on that aspect since they think so much about sex themselves.
Well, casual sex between strangers is a public health issue, that's a reality. STD's are mutating more often and becoming more resistant to anti-biotics because of it.
Post edited March 25, 2020 by Crosmando