Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of BRK.A | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search BRK.A
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of BRK.A | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search BRK.A


Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (48) |
Author: Umm 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 12641 
Subject: Re: Climate Change +Inflation Great for Insurance
Date: 05/11/2024 12:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 38
"Fact: We have valid climate statistics from 1 to 2 full meteorological cycles (roughly a century long) out of thousands of cycles, yet you pretend to know what was transpiring 56 million years previously and hyperbolically say that's repeating."

You should look up what the word "fact" means. You misrepresenting what is going on scientifically isn't a fact. It is a joke.


"And those "on the other side" are told to go away. Their thoughts should not be read. Or should be withdrawn."

That is a gross mischaracterization.

It is more along the lines of if you are going to participate you should bring intellectual honesty as well as at least a basic knowledge of the topics involved, especially if you are going to be strident in your views. Any person participating in any conversation owes at least that much (intellectual honesty and basic knowledge) to the other participants.

Otherwise you are not really engaging in the conversation, you are just peeing in the pool and making it harder for more knowledgeable and more intellectually honest people to even have a conversation.

It is like this, let's say you have a rare brain disorder that doctors are unsure about. You and your doctor work to get word out into the greater medical community to see if anyone has any ideas. A meeting is called where world class brain surgeons and researchers are going to get together to discuss your problem and try and find solutions. However there is a bunch of other people who are interested in coming to the meeting. There is a pediatrician who makes YouTube videos about injecting disinfectant into people's skulls to solve depression, he wants his voice heard. At least he is a doctor right? Then there are the new age spiritual gurus who think your problem can be solved by meditation and crystals. They think the brain surgeons are just part of the medical industry looking to cause and profit over continued health problems and not solve them. Then there are some religious people who think your problems can be solved by dedicating your life to Jesus.

All of these people want to be invited to the meeting where your rare brain disorder is going to be discussed. So when that meeting is held, the world class brain surgeons and researchers from John Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, Stanford, and other world class institutions start to discuss your problem and their voices immediately get drowned out by all of the cranks who are pushing for meditation or prayer as the solution. Then the meeting gets sidetracked while everyone argues about injecting disinfectant in the brain. There is no collaboration and valuable discussion. It is a bunch of cranks peeing in the pool making harder for any real discussion between educated and intellectually honest people to take place.

If you had the brain disorder, would you want the YouTube guy and the new age crystal nuts there polluting the conversation with nonsense? Or would you want to hear the discussions of the experts who have dedicated a majority of their lives studying the brain using rigorous scientific methods and not let them get lost in the commotion? Your life is on the line. Are you going to go with the YouTube guy?

My point is we (collectively) have somehow started to think that all opinions are equal and valid and deserve equal footing with other opinions. The YouTube guy's opinions are somehow just as valid as the person who has studied and educated themselves in the field. Then put in long hours putting together hypotheses, testing and modelling those hypotheses against real world data, publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals. But also demonstrating intellectual honesty by adjusting their hypothesis to valid criticism from peers.

To your point, I don't think all of the cranks and nuts should be shut up. I just think that any sane rational person would recognize them for who they are and ignore them. Any rational and sane person wouldn't want them in any substantive discussion because they wouldn't add anything of value and would only distract and take away from real substantive discussions. The fact that so many people think that their nuttiness is a valid opinion and deserves to be heard and widely discussed is insanity and makes me sad for the future. Especially here on this board. I know that there are quite a few posters here who have backgrounds as engineers, professionals in medical related fields, researchers, and other type professions that require rigorous thinking who thought and yet still posted positively about that video. posters who really should have known better despite climate science not being in their circle of competence. That really saddens me.

"This is Political Correctness. A kind term for insanity. In its ugliest form."

I have pretty much found that anyone using the term "political correctness" is just a person who is looking to shamefully play the victim in order to have their ignorance, irrationality, and ugliness be given equal footing with others simply because they know it cannot stand there on its own.

Is it politically correct to want to marginalize and ignore people who think other humans are inferior due to the amount of pigmentation in their skin? Sure. I also think it is smart and rational for intelligent people to do just that. Why waste time on such nonsense?

Is it politically correct to want to marginalize and ignore people who think all opinions are valid no matter what the credentials of the people giving them? Sure, if you want to make that argument I can accept it is politically correct. I also think it is smart and rational.

People who fail at getting others to accept their arguments on their merits (because the arguments have no merit) resort to whining about political correctness. Put more bluntly, Charlie Munger didn't whine about political correctness. I am pretty sure he would have called anyone trying to defend nonsense by making the "Politically correct" slander to be a fool.

I am sorry thst you think it is insane to only want to listen to experts when you have a rare brain disorder. What would really be insane is litening to the YouTube nuts and new age crystal people over the experts.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (48) |


Announcements
Berkshire Hathaway FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of BRK.A | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds