How much should a “threat” be scientifically verified before limiting our freedoms?

[OddBeMe]

Like “terrorism”, drugs, etc. Or abortion. There’s no science that says abortion is a threat to people. Period.

Lots of evidence

None! Just how people feel about it!

[abc3643]

There's a military standard on this.

MIL-STD-882:

MIL-STD-882E, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STANDARD PRACTICE: SYSTEM SAFETY (11-MAY-2012)., This system safety standard practice identifies the Department of Defense (DoD) Systems Engineering (SE) approach to eliminating hazards, where possible, and minimizing risks where those hazards cannot be eliminated. DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02 defines the risk acceptance authorities. This Standard covers hazards as they apply to systems / products / equipment / infrastructure (including both hardware and software) throughout design, development, test, production, use, and disposal. When this Standard is required in a solicitation or contract but no specific task is identified, only Sections 3 and 4 are mandatory. The definitions in 3.2 and all of Section 4 delineate the minimum mandatory definitions and requirements for an acceptable system safety effort for any DoD system.

You can download that standard for free at:
http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/download.php?spec=MIL-STD-882E.041682.pdf

From the Foreward:

“This system safety standard practice is a key element of Systems Engineering (SE) that provides a standard, generic method for the identification, classification, and mitigation of hazards.”

The money in this standard is the "Risk Assessment Matrix".

Here is a modified version indicating key components and how these decisions are made - you'll want to open this image to make it bigger:

Basically, the upper right is the hazard assessment matrix.

This is a good viewer for this slide:

https://studylib.net/doc/8296059/mil-std-882-hazard-risk-matrix

Here's the idea:

For any threat that is an evaluation of effects if the threat expresses itself. I'll call this "damage". For instance, if a Category 5 Hurricane hits Miami, then the "damage" is that at least 1000 people will die and cost $25B to repair. However, if a Category 7 hurricane hits Miami, 100000 people will die and will cost over $500B to repair.

At the same time, there is also the likelihood of the threat occurring. A Category 5 hurricane hitting Miami is not common, but could occur. A Category 7 hurricane is very remote.

So, you have this table in which one axis is the likelihood and the other is the damages.

And you sort of multiply them together... (This comes from utility theory in philosophy.)

The more frequent a threat, the more you need to deal with it.
Similarly, the more severe the damages, the more you need to deal with it.

Now, if you look at the diagram, to me, anything that is red or orange warrants action including limiting freedoms until the threat subsides.

[OddBeMe]

Like a pandemic that kills 1 million Americans.

[Tenebrae_mentis]

(Let me preface this by saying I'm not stating my own opinion on abortion, just talking about it generally.)

Well that depends on your definition of "people." That's the core of the issue. Pro-life people believe that a fetus is a human person. So from their perspective, abortion is the literal murder of a human being. It is scientifically verified that if you kill something, it will die.

So, the issue of abortion is not a scientific one. It is a philosophical one. What are the minimum requirements to be a "person?" And what exactly constitutes "harm?" One could make the argument that it is harmful to force someone to have a child they don't want or that it is harmful to force a child to grow up in a home where they were unwanted.

Off the topic of abortion and to the question of terrorism, that's another case where science isn't exactly relevant. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. History is written by the victors and whether someone is a hero or a villain really depends on which side you're on.

Finally, to the topic of drugs. It's scientifically verified that drugs have an effect on your body. That's the entire point of them, right? Some of those effects are positive and some are negative. In the case of many illegal drugs, they carry a lot of negatives while also being addictive. Addiction can make it difficult to get or keep a job, which then leads to poverty. High poverty rates also correlate to high crime rates. (I'm fully prepared for someone to twist those words.) There is good reason for many drugs to be illegal. It could also be argued that many legal drugs (like prescription medications) should be more tightly regulated.

[OddBeMe]

Sure but the fda is ok with fetynal being prescribed. I’d think the drug war could be better fought scientifically. Handing out prescriptions of non deadly doses of cocaine, say.

And on abortion, there’s no scientific consensus on when a fetus becomes a person. So how much freedom are you will in fro surrender based on non- science?

Liberals could say gunpowder is an illegal substance and ban all guns. Boom.

[OddBeMe]

*willing to surrender

[Tenebrae_mentis]

Like I said, there are for sure some prescribed medications that probably should be more tightly regulated. You're absolutely right that some prescription drugs are handed out like candy and really shouldn't be. And sure, allowing prescriptions of small doses of recreational drugs may be a good way to fight the war on drugs. It reduces damage by keeping it controlled and keeps money away from criminal organizations, since it would now be bought legitimately. Also, it would be taxable, which could be good. It would be better if people just stopped doing drugs, but damage-control is the next best thing.

Correct. There's no scientific consensus on when something is a "person" and there never will be. That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. How much freedom are we willing to surrender based on non-science? Well, let me ask you, how much freedom are you unwilling to surrender based on science? You mentioned guns. Statistically, nations without guns have far, far fewer crime rates and murders. For example, in 2021, only one person in Japan died from gun violence. In comparison, nearly 49,000 people died from gun violence in America the same year.

Things aren't as simple as "science shows this, so we should do this." It would be nice if it was, but the vast majority of people simply aren't geared that way. They base their behavior on personal belief and/or personal interest. That's one of our human characteristics. Our inherent bias.

[OddBeMe]

No scientist says “there never will be”. But you don’t take away rights if it’s not proven.

[Tenebrae_mentis]

I mean... Yes. We do. When you attempt to use to apply science to something that isn't scientific. An idea can't be measured. It's not a physical thing or "real" thing and for that exact reason it can also never be "proven." You can't scientifically prove that you are a person because there is no way to measure it. And if you can't prove that you're a person, are you entitled to any rights at all?

[OddBeMe]

You are getting to the meat. Religion. Religious beliefs are why abortion amendment got overturned. Period. Not science…which should be behind every legislation.

[monorprise]

@tenebrae_mentis How does one qualify harm without respect to the choices causing it?

If one choose to drive recklessly and crashes their car injuring themselfs, did the car harm them or did they harm themselfs?

Did their act of harming themselfs entitled them to harm anther to avoid the future harm that naturally follows from said choice?

Likewise if it is defined that sex exist in nature for the propose of making babies, is the harm of being forced to carry or even raise such a baby you choose to make in such sex not the harm you have done to yourself?

Thus it really does come down to the question of when the right to human life begins.

The scientific definition is already agreed that human life begins at conception when your unique DNA is first formed. Thereafter you simply require food and shelter as you require in various forms until the day you die.

[Venera314]

"There’s no science that says abortion is a threat to people."

Well, actually it's a threat to the unborn, and they're people. Yes, I know, atheistic types don't believe that "foetuses" are human, or even alive, and therefore have no rights. Strange how you felt the need to include this particular example, when you could have used so many others. An obsession of yours?

[OddBeMe]

So many assumptions that don’t pass scientific muster here…

Religionists…

[Venera314]

"Assumptions that don't pass scientific muster..."
Well, I don't care. Science is a method, a tool used to determine the validity of a claim about the physical aspect of reality that we are all familiar with, and which therefore cannot deal with philosophical propositions. Atheists tend to worship it instead of God (you know, that which was responsible for this reality existing in the first place), and no, I'm not a "religionist", just someone who isn't gullible enough to fall for the lies that constantly stream from the telescreen!

[Venera314]

Are you obsessed with the subject of abortion though? I know you're an extreme left-wing Marxist who believes in the supremacy of the state, and that you're an atheist (that much is obvious).

[TrueConfection]

You're a moron. "Abortion is not a threat to people." I guess you didn't think of the person being aborted.

[holdem4884]

My views on abortion are conservative than average but it's a difficult issue and your statement completely lacks the nuance this topic requires.

I do agree that a viable fetus should have rights of it's own but when does a fetus become a person?

If you claim at the "moment of conception" that's not an answer because there is no such defining moment.

When exactly is a fetus formed? It's not nearly as straightforward as you might think.

If you're going with the God argument, good luck. At least 10-25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, but figure could be as high as 50%. The vast majority of which go undetected, many times a women will think her period was late when she was actually pregnant.

So if all pregnancies involve fetuses and they are all people. God created a system which has killed more babies than anything or anyone in history without any rivel in sight. I don't believe that, it makes no sense.

[TrueConfection]

@holdem4884 I'm not going to debate the issue with you. But, let me ask you a question.
Would you declare a person dead if their heart was beating and they had brain activity, but were unable to feed themselves?

[holdem4884]

Would you declare a 3 m/o baby dead because it was unable to feed itself? Of course not.

The answer to your spurious question is implied by my earlier statement above:

"I do agree that a viable fetus should have rights of it's own"

Every fetus and baby needs to be fed, nurtured, and cared for to live.

It's difficult to have an exact position on this issue that is well thought out and morally and logically consistent.

I have a feeling you aren't willing to get into a debate because your position is not consistent but you have no desire to challenge and possibly refine your beliefs

[holdem4884]

To be clear, I have a nuanced position. I don't at all buy into the "it's just a women's choice" b. s. but that should be obvious from my first comment.

[Levin]

Whether those threats can be scientifically accounted for, they can certainly be quantified.

For the most part, the things you mentioned aren't a great deal of threat to anyone.

Statistically, the likelihood of being caught up in terrorism is extremely low.

Drugs, well if you don't dabble in them, extremely low.

Abortion, well, that is a bit debatable in terms of 'lost souls', but it doesn't affect you or me directly, one could say.

Another big example, covid. Well, we knew that younger people had basically more chance of drowning, possibly of being eaten by a shark. Well, maybe not the last bit, but still. We knew this from the start. Even jab advocates would talk about the statistics and the unlikelihood of being personally affected as young people.

So what gives? People gave way to emotionalism and sensationalism, lost all their senses. They become hysterical.

And guess what? The $cience supported the madness. And not reason, one iota.

Our freedoms were raped. And no one cared. And it was in the name of science...

[williambolt447]

Science Is A Liar Sometimes Buddy

[OddBeMe]

Covid is actually a better example. Like the vaccines. Dammit! I should have thought of that.

[OddBeMe]

@williambolt447 true science never lies. It can be wrong. Because…. humans.

[Venera314]

"Science" never lies because it's a methodology, a tool we use to figure out how things work and why, but "scientists" lie ALL the time!

[williambolt447]

@Venera314 people can manipulate the results of the tools, or use the tools in deceptive ways

[OddBeMe]

@williambolt447 @venera314
Ok you’re both right. People can and have done that. And have been caught. By science.

If there’s a better way of knowing the truth…feel free to tell me. I’ll wait.

[williambolt447]

Logical Fallacy. I never said Science was bad, just that it can be manipulated.

[Venera314]

And I never said that science didn't work, or that it wasn't reliable, or effective, or that the alternatives on offer (if there are any) are better.
It is, however, often misused.

[Levin]

Science can be doctored and manipulated to fit any narrative one wishes to take. The same applies to statistics. The fact that people don't realise this is sad. For they thought they were following the science as if it was some kind of religion. Also known as, scientism.

[OddBeMe]

@Levin Your political emotions are clouding you. Yeah a paper might be published that’s complete BS. But consumes sports it out. Science is deeply competitive. It’s actually pure capitalism, in a way.

[OddBeMe]

*consenus

[Levin]

There is a difference between science and scientism. Unfortunately most scientists, institutions and individuals are operating on the basis of their personal philosophy, ie, scientism, the new religion of the masses.

[OddBeMe]

Humans are human. So the best thing about science is the facts take out the human part of it. Which scares a lot of people.

So we have religionists scared of science on one extreme and “scientism” on the other. Both are wrong. There are no authorities but facts.

A big problem tho is that we can’t agree on facts since trump and his blond lapdog coined alt facts.

[Levin]

I see where you're coming from but institutions pick the facts that suit them. The world is multifaceted and not so black and white.

[OddBeMe]

In science it’s pretty black and white as to what’s agreed upon by consensus and what’s not.

[holdem4884]

@Levin You said, "Science Is A Liar" and then accused others of logical fallacies they haven't committed.

Science cannot lie as doing such takes the volition of a mind.

"Unfortunately most scientists, institutions and individuals are operating on the basis of their personal philosophy, ie, scientism"

That's a patently false claim, baseless, completely devoid of reason, logic, and is lacking any type of argument or evidence in support.

After your blanket statement above, you make another broad claim undermining the first, "The world is multifaceted and not so black and white." - That's true

[RolandCuthbert]

It is such a politicized subject, it is really hard to discuss. The vaccine approval process was streamlined and expedited under Trump. But the conversation around vaccine has become insane.

Trump got booed by his own supporters for talking about the vaccine. But then you have trump supporters here who tout his "masterful" direction in operation "warp speed".

It is just insanity times crazy taken to the fruitcake power.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eA306aNtvmk

[Jamie05rhs]

"There's no science that says abortion is a threat to people.". Ha!
Bruh... Aren't you aware that that is the whole POINT of abortion? Eliminating a tiny person? (Because the woman doesn't want to be a mother.)

[goaded]

The real question is: when does a fetus become a person?

Most people would agree, I think, that baby about to be born is. A fertilised egg is not. There could be a reasonable debate about where to draw the line, if people could be reasonable about it.

Nobody carries a fetus for 8 months then decides to abort it on a whim. If a soon-to-be-born baby is fatally unhealthy, it becomes an end of life decision, and the mother is the obvious next of kin.

[OddBeMe]

@goaded we might have some good info if a proper debate were had. Like technically I don’t have an issue with the 20 week ban.
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp2268

[goaded]

I can see that for abortions with no extenuating circumstances, but I'd argue that there should be medical exceptions allowed. It also sounds unnecessary, because anyone who's known they're pregnant for months wants to have a baby.

[TrueConfection]

@OddBeMe Look at you calling for back up. 😂

[goaded]

What did the snowflake who's blocked me say?

[Paul_in_Indy]

…except for the people it kills. You can categorize the unborn as “not people” and make it all seem OK. …but you can’t dismiss those who believe differently based upon your categorization. Do not pretend that abortion is a “non-issue” because you have explained it away to yourself.

[Leopard23]

Well if you are waiting for a threat to be scientifically verified it may be too late to do anything about it. Covid is a good example, how long did the US government wait to shut down air travel.

Abortion is only a threat to the people if there is a significant fall in the birth rate.

[williambolt447]

There has been a significant fall in the birth rate.

[Venera314]

Abortion is a threat to people full stop! You're literally killing the next generation.

[jshm2]

So called "scientifically verified" is mostly puffery and bullshit. It doesn't mean what you think it does

It just declares processes\product production used a known method. Homeopathic medicine is made with scientifically verified ingredients.

It's one reason there is very little science in politics. As you can bullshit with confidence in politics, but you can fool people completely with science.

[NostalgiaSenpi]

They're going to do abortions regardless of others feelings or legality. Its far better to just allow there to be the possibility of legal abortion so they are able to get adequate medical care. No one's personal sovereignty should be encroached upon for a life that can't exist without being inside of her. Instead, if you're against it, you shouldn't associate with people who preform or have it done. Nothing short of people being annihilated en masse should there be something like that.

[OddBeMe]

It’d be better to educate children on sex earlier and then the issue might be moot for most of them.

[Anonymous]

Terrorism is only a threat to the extent it harms people. In that sense it is really the crime of physical harm that is the problem not the motivation behind it.

As such the charge of "terrorism" only makes sense in defining an criminal organization that has harmed people and works to do so again.

As for abortion its rather difficult not to see the harm in the intentional taking of a innocent human life.

[Anonymous]

Scientists should be kept far away from a position of moral authority. It is "scientific" to wipe out humanity to "save the planet," but it is not ethical.

If you are worried about getting sick, stay home. It is quite literally that simple.

[Anonymous]

It all depends on whether you trust that the rich and powerful have your best interests in mind, because they have the money and influence to buy scientific results.

[OddBeMe]

We give the rich and powerful access via dark money. But we care more about abortion laws.

[Guy13]

killing is self-evident and science is not required.

[OddBeMe]

“Killing” requires a person dies.
Prove a fetus is a person.
Boom.

[NaultD]

A vigilant continues effort.

Life isn't that easy with black and white answers. We learn as we go and do things over and over again as fast as we discover new things.

[williambolt447]

Our freedoms should never really be limited that much but they could be limited slightly like people can't do 1 or 2 specific things but it should be TEMPORARY not like the war on terror bs where they can sexually molest people every time they go through security check

[gorydetails]

By whom? The same “science” that told you to wear masks for 3 years?

[goaded]

You know they work, right? At least the proper N95/FFP2 ones, and all of them help.

[gorydetails]

@goaded nope. They don’t. The Cochrane analysis showed this.

[Dіldophobe]

@goaded published this year again:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885521/
"
We obtained the following results:

Medical or surgical masks

Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.

N95/P2 respirators

Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu‐like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well‐reported; discomfort was mentioned.
"

[williambolt447]

the covid regulations dumb shit has been debunked and homw come in africa nobody got a vaccine and they dont got a covid crisis but we do in a 1st world world

[goaded]

That's not exactly what it says, joel.

[Dіldophobe]

@goaded repeated:

Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people)...

Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many...

[goaded]

@Dіldophobe "Adherence with interventions was low in many studies." (In other words, the trials didn't show a significant improvement of masks and hand washing where most people didn't wear masks or wash their hands over nobody wearing masks or washing their hands.) Also note the repeated use of the phrase "very low‐certainty evidence".

[williambolt447]

@Dіldophobe the black plague killed a lot of people and what do you think created that? why wouldn't the elites and nwo use a disease to take away our freedoms. and liberals were claiming the cia invented aids and ebola and now there backtracking and saying nope nope there is no conpsiracy this time on this one

[Dіldophobe]

@williambolt447 exactly. It's silly to think anyone still falls for covid mask mandates LOL.

[williambolt447]

@Dіldophobe its like liberals are onto something and are smart and expose propaganda but then over time they fall for propaganda ironically

[goaded]

@williambolt447 "liberals were claiming the cia invented aids and ebola" Oh ffs.

[williambolt447]

@goaded they literally did and that is right. the cia also put drugs in the poor communities to hurt black people and poor people. they wanted the black crime rate to go up

[gorydetails]

This is when goaded gaslights you that you didn’t read what you read. He’s so upset his life has been a lie and has invested so much of his personality into COVID and Ukraine that anything that contradicts that short circuits his brain.

[williambolt447]

covid and ukraine are literally two dumb ass distractions. ukranain people aren't dumb, dont twist my words, there smarter than this guy for sure.

[gorydetails]

@williambolt447 read what I wrote, bro. Simmer down

[OddBeMe]

@Dіldophobe Brown Univ Doctor: “This [Cochran study] doesn’t necessarily mean masks don’t protect individuals. But it could mean that the way they’re used at the population level is not effective. We need more randomized trials to understand why.”

[Dіldophobe]

Probably because masks don't save you from a car crash.

[OddBeMe]

@Dіldophobe yet why do surgeons where them?

[Dіldophobe]

I don't know the trans moth neil degrasse tyson hasn't told me "this is why surgeons wear surgical masks, and this is how they protect you from car crashes, and therefore if no people died in car crashes then the covid death count would drop in half."

[gorydetails]

www.cochrane.org/.../WOUNDS_disposable-surgical-face-masks-preventing-surgical-wound-infection-clean-surgery

Overall, we found very few studies and identified no new trials for this latest update. We analysed a total of 2106 participants from the three studies we found. All three studies showed that wearing a face mask during surgery neither increases nor decreases the number of wound infections occurring after surgery. We conclude that there is no clear evidence that wearing disposable face masks affects the likelihood of wound infections developing after surgery

[OddBeMe]

@Dіldophobe I don’t understand a thing in your last diatribe.

Surgeons were masks because coughing or breathing on patients is bad. Covid is an airborne virus. As the CDC and NIH and everyone else said, masks aren’t a cure-all. Neither are vaxxes. But not doing either “seems” to kill people.

[OddBeMe]

Wear…lol. Not werewolf

[Dargil]

Out freedoms should not be limited by government. I know you have a list of whatabouts but I go by the Constitution.

[OddBeMe]

The constitution literally limits citizens. You can’t stop me from using free speech for instance.

[Dargil]

But it also limits government.

[LiamJHayden]

Perhaps when the survival of society or the species is threatened.

Unfortunately, the totalitarian elements in society would then brand lots of different things as being the aforementioned.

[kinggeorge007]

Depends. If it's falling under some predefined category, you don't need a lot of evidence. But if it doesn't, you'll need more evidence than that.

[OddBeMe]

What category doesn’t require evidence?

[kinggeorge007]

I didn't say it doesn't require evidence, I said it didn't need a lot of evidence.

Predefined categoríes like hitting someone or life threats aren't need much of evidence to prove they are actual threats. Because they are pretty straight forward. If you can just prove they actually did it, that's your threat proven.

On the other hand, as exampled by the OP, abortion will need much more evidence to scientifically prove that's a threat to someone. Because it's not a predefined category.

Proving something for the first time needs a lot of effort. Afterwards it can base in the first decision and move fast forward. That's how the legal system works. They refer to older cases to make sure arguments are already established to move forward fast, otherwise you have to prove it from the ground.

[OddBeMe]

Actually the more “life threatening” the better evidence you need. Much like abortion. We’re all arguing about where life begins. Or where a person begins. Heady stuff.

[Juxtapose]

Frankly I don't think much of anything besides certain annihilation should impose on our rights.

[shortster]

Never, our freedoms aren't up for sale. It is the responsibility of government to protect freedoms not take them away.

[PatriceONeal]

Except when those people are killed inside their mothers womb. Denying science to kill babies is probably the low point of humanity.

[Alex8736]

In a liberal's warped mind everything is a threat to them if you agree to disagree with them

[boobliker]

only you can make that choice

[msc545]

Feelings count. Data counts a lot more.