Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
...but would you see it through the smoke?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Politics Disneyland Closure: Another six months?
- Thread starter George Lucas on a Bench
- Start date
This thread contains political discussion related to the original thread topic
There will never be a uniform policy in the US and you know why? Because the US was founded on the basic principle of state rights. Yes, there are certain fundamental constitutional items and certain things required to allow for travel and trade between states that have to occur on the federal level, but everything else is supposed to be left up to the individual states. This was done with purpose and for a reason to help ensure there are proper checks and balances at every level and no one part of the government ever gets too much power, as absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
It was true all along.
It has been amusing watching Youtubers and the like get extra creative in how they insert Disney into their content lately.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
You’ve read Hobbes and Locke?
...I bet you have
This thread was started with a whining, thinly veiled political agenda...it will be moved or shut down for politics soon.
I’m ending my part in it right now.
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
You’ve read Hobbes and Locke?
...I bet you have
This thread was started with a whining, thinly veiled political agenda...it will be moved or shut down for politics soon.
I’m ending my part in it right now.
Assumption of a social contract with multiple levels of governance subsuming natural rights is the question, but at what point does which entity assume the preeminent role? That's where the 10th Amendment applicability rears its ugly head in diametric opposition to philosophy.
No, I am simply reminding you of American History as taught in elementary school (something a lot of people ignore and forget) and I don't know why the OP started the thread, but it is honest and true that the US can't have a uniform policy.You’ve read Hobbes and Locke?
...I bet you have
This thread was started with a whining, thinly veiled political agenda...it will be moved or shut down for politics soon.
I’m ending my part in it right now.
el_super
Well-Known Member
The US Army was founded in 1775. There's definitely some things the founders thought would be better served in a unified effort.
Tamandua
Well-Known Member
Let me ask the "stay closed" crowd: Do you think it would be reasonable to allow people with proven immunity to resume normal life? That was a point of debate early on, and was even depicted in the movie Contagion where immune citizens had an ID allowing them to go into public places and resume normal activities. I'm sure there would be a lot of challenges in implementing such a system, but the reality is that there are tens of millions of people in this country, and an estimated 8 million or so in California alone, who have been infected and recovered. Have we not reached a point where it's crazy to keep all these people locked down even if you do think that covid is very serious? A lot of people here consider this disease serious enough to warrant the shutdowns despite the extremely low mortality rate, so for the sake of argument let's assume that's the case. Why are we continuing to hurt ourselves by treating immune citizens, who by this point in California are estimated at over 20% of the population, like sick people?
BuzzedPotatoHead89
Well-Known Member
Really depends on how strictly you apply the definition of federalism during the time of a public health emergency (as currently ordered by the U.S. government). We also have a separation of powers with some powers vested in the federal government.
Regardless I think I’m taking this discussion down a rabbit hole though, especially since I suspect you and I actually do agree on the topic at hand that it’s really not feasible to keep the park closed in perpetuity.
Askimosita
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
I just want to add something. As I have said before, I am a scientist. I have my graduate degree in physiology, where I had to train in immunology, anatomy, cardiology, etc etc. I work with scientists and guess what? We don’t all agree on this COVID stuff. You know why? It’s not because my friend is smarter than me or vice versus. It’s because behind every scientist, lawyer, politician, teacher, etc etc. is a human. And each human has gone through their own experiences to shape who they are and what their strongest focuses are on. Someone that has lost a family of 5 to COVID will undoubtably have fear of anything opening if it means, God forbid, someone else they love lose their life to this disease. Someone that had owned a business for 50 years on Katella Ave., that maybe experienced the disease mildly, will pray that they can have the foot traffic to get their livelihoods back. Even scientists in their publications may hold a bias in fitting the data to their thesis and their conclusions. A fellow scientist that conducts the same exact test and gets the same numbers can put a twist on the conclusion to fit their own thesis. Because science is a fluid thing and the numbers represent a lot and can be interpreted differently. It’s a series of theories of representing the world that constantly gets proven or disproven and we change our views based on that.
So just because someone comes on here with the numbers they fixate on doesn’t mean it’s “misinformation” or a conspiracy theory. It’s data all the same. In the same way that you may focus in different data. It’s what we focus on that shows we are all human with our own biases. Some of us want the parks to open, some of us hope they are closed. I just ask that there be a little more respect here, and I’m sorry if I hurt anyone by being disrespectful myself.
So just because someone comes on here with the numbers they fixate on doesn’t mean it’s “misinformation” or a conspiracy theory. It’s data all the same. In the same way that you may focus in different data. It’s what we focus on that shows we are all human with our own biases. Some of us want the parks to open, some of us hope they are closed. I just ask that there be a little more respect here, and I’m sorry if I hurt anyone by being disrespectful myself.
VJ
Well-Known Member
i agree with this
el_super
Well-Known Member
Yes and No. While I generally can agree with the sentiment and the desire to find common ground, not all data should be respected the same, and it would be dangerous to think that only personal biases differentiate good data and bad data. There is "data" that proves that the world is flat. That man never walked on the moon. That vaccines cause autism. Yesterday from two different sources I saw two conspiracies related to Disneyland: one that Newsom and Disney were conspiring to open the parks before the public schools in order to cash in on parents desperate to dump their children somewhere, and another attributing the long term closure of Disneyland to some cleanup effort tied into Jeffrey Epstein. Should we legitimize all of these conspiracies?
There is misinformation posted here. There are crazy conspiracy theories posted here. The end result of trying to normalize or legitimize all this bad data is a loss of trust in science, which ultimately we see playing out now as resistance to good public health policy resulting. Resistance resulting in extended closures and additional deaths.
Askimosita
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
I am not sure if you are using the word “data” correctly here. Data = facts. Where you use “data” is where I would use “theories”.
I trust Data
Askimosita
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Speaking of which, have you seen Picard? I haven’t yet and didn’t know if I should start.
chadwpalm
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
This reminds me of a post I made on Instagram a few years ago. It was a picture of Data and my caption was, "My engineering statistics professor said that as an engineer I will someday be working with Data. I’m pretty excited."
el_super
Well-Known Member
Yeah I would agree... but the misinformation we are seeing here is occurring where people are denying or manipulating data to fit their "theory." That's what is dangerous.
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
Disneyland closed for another 6 months? Hopefully no. Hopefully we're in a better place (one where we've at least been given the guidelines and okay to open it) before then. But with the way counties keep bouncing back and forth between colors, I don't have my hopes up. Probably too many folks demanding to be let into Starbucks without their mask on for it to happen any time soon.
Askimosita
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Denying is dangerous, yes. But gathering data and applying it to one’s theory...That’s everyday life. Like I said, scientists do that daily. Gathering data and fitting it to one’s theory. That is what furthers our scientific knowledge and what we claim as scientific fact before something comes along and changes that theory again. That is different than a conspiracy, which defined by the Oxford dictionary is: “a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.“ I would agree that the scenario that you mentioned in the post prior, of the Epstein/ Newsom/ Disneyland school thing is a conspiracy theory. I admit I have not seen this pushed around. But I would disagree that using certain factual numbers as a basis for argument is a conspiracy theory, though.
But ironically, I have seen data in these posts be called conspiracies. Numbers and facts based on analysis and observations. Which is actually more dangerous than selectively ignoring information because in calling real numbers “conspiracies”, one is pushing a narrative of something wrong and incorrect rather than acknowledging the truth in the data and disagreeing with its application or the weight of its application when presented with other numbers. This is a form of “denying data” that you tout as being dangerous.
I agree, It is dangerous how unabashedly blind one can be to certain data but embrace others. I’m sure that’s a sentiment you would agree with. But that goes for the other side as well, in just remarking something is misinformation or a “conspiracy theory” rather than recognizing the truth in it and just disagreeing with its weight or application.
In science, the way we can firmly call something incorrect is if new research disproves the previous theory or fits the theory better. So nothing can be called misinformation affirmatively anyway until multiple studies prove otherwise to replace the current theory made from our data.
Nirya
Well-Known Member
No offense, but it would be incredibly easy for the US to implement a uniform health policy, especially since governing has moved increasingly towards federalism since the founding of the Constitution (which, since you brought up elementary school American history, you'll remember was the second federal government implemented in the US after everyone realized the Articles of Confderation, which gave the states all of the power, was actually incredibly bad). The federal government has a lot of power thanks to broad readings of Article 1, including the interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and those broad powers have extended to the presidency as well.