Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Chad Kimball Courts Controversy | |
| Last Edit: lordofspeech 04:00 am EST 11/18/20 | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 03:58 am EST 11/18/20 | |
| In reply to: Chad Kimball Courts Controversy - JereNYC 01:31 pm EST 11/17/20 | |
|
|
|
| There are differing perspectives, at least two that are quite opposed: the Fauci/WHO/Ferguson/mainstream-media narrative from April, and the more holistic perspective exemplified by Doctor Scott Atlas and the doctors subscribing to the Great Barrington Declaration. Neither side has incontrovertible scientific proof, although they each don’t understand or respect the other. Kimball has every right to make a stand, even one that may have him be cancelled in and by the media, which the article suggests is happening. The popular view is not always the true one (cf., Ibsen’s “Enemy of the People, wherein a protagonist stands up for a radically unpopular scientific thesis which turns out to be true, or Brecht’s “Galileo” or Howard Sackler’s “Semmelweis”). |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Chad Kimball Courts Controversy | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:14 pm EST 11/18/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Chad Kimball Courts Controversy - lordofspeech 03:58 am EST 11/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| Can you remind me the scene in "Enemy of the People" where it turns out that wealthy climate change deniers are funding a fringe theory that actively imperils the health of the entire community? Somehow, I missed that when I last read the play. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Chad Kimball Courts Controversy | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:03 pm EST 11/18/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Chad Kimball Courts Controversy - lordofspeech 03:58 am EST 11/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| I often think about An Enemy of the People and "The majority is never right" when I happen to be part of the majority. But there is a difference between the majority narrative vs. the minority belief here and the majority vs. minority narratives in the two plays you cite (one of them based on fact) that deal with the spread of disease. The difference is that the majority in this case is saying "Take precautions. We must do more to prevent the spread of disease," vs. the minority saying, "Doing less will be better. Let nature take its course. Everything is pretty OK and we don't need to make hard choices." In this case, the president and Altman are more like Peter Stockmann than they are like Thomas. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Chad Kimball Courts Controversy | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:12 am EST 11/18/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Chad Kimball Courts Controversy - lordofspeech 03:58 am EST 11/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| This is not the right forum for discussing either science or politics and I am going to resist the temptation as much as I would like to jump in with both feet. I would just point out that what Kimball did was not an espousal of a "differing perspective" or "mak[ing] a stand . .. for a radically unpopular scientific thesis" but a statement of intention to violate the law in a way that has been deemed a danger, with an at least implicit incitement of others to follow him down that path. That's intolerable in a society governed by the rule of law. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| This! ^^^^ (nm) | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 01:40 am EST 11/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Chad Kimball Courts Controversy - ryhog 10:12 am EST 11/18/20 | |
|
|
|
| ksajhdfdkjas | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.016087 seconds.