Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

Re:Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable? by dang on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @01:43PM (#25201510)

What you've done in this subthread breaks the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to them, no matter how right you are or feel you are about a topic? Note these:

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

There's always a bit of wiggle room but the line from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25198407 (a fine HN comment) to "abortion is genocide" definitely intersects the outer boundary of the rules.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25198407.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable? by bjt2n3904 on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @07:00PM (#25204466)

With all due respect, I think you have read something I did not intend in this comment. Abortion is not necessarily genocide, but Iceland's specific application of it to those with Down's Syndrome is the textbook definition of eugenics.

I can clearly see how an unqualified "abortion is genocide" would be an unrelated controversy, but within the context, my point was to illustrate that a naive understanding of science as something that consumes data and produces a better society is also scientific illiteracy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable? by dang on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @07:56PM (#25204819)

I was making more superficial points: (1) changing the subject to abortion already breaks the site guideline against generic flamewar tangents, and (2) a bomb-throwing word like 'genocide' is a flame multiplier that breaks the guidelines even further. Nothing good can come of this in an internet thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]