virusrex comments

Yeah, but we continue to get a stream of "educated guesses" that are presented as proven scientific consensus, which cannot be questioned even when we present evidence against it.

You never present any evidence, just systematically call the consensus wrong, that has absolutely no value, scientists on the other hand continously correct and improve the consensus because they do present the evidence.

Including the example that you brought, that was improved thanks to scientists that presented evidence and improved the understanding (and surprisingly without being censored, something that you have said it is impossible).

Did they cut funding for this research?

Is this the only research that could be useful?

There are plenty of examples being reported, this could be just another one.

https://www.statnews.com/2025/03/17/trump-cuts-columbia-university-nih-cancels-diabetes-prevention-program-study/

https://www.breastcancer.org/news/nih-funding-freeze-tnbc-drug-research

If they are cutting fund for chronic diseases (that were supposed to become a priority) it is much more likely that they will do the same for infectious diseases that the government already announced will be abandoned.

Of course they go straight after tTrump in this article.

Since it has been proved that countless examples of research have been cut and that profits for companies are the only thing being untouched this is justified. The people on charge of the research are the ones complaining. That is why they are complaining, because their research that could save lives is being affected. It is irrational to think people should be silent about really valuable efforts being cancelled with the lame excuse of doing something that do not need those cancellations.

And stop attacking Elon, he’s just exposing the hidden

Actually he is doing the hiding, first trying to misrepresent his cuts with obvious mistakes, then hiding the information so people would not find out those mistakes again.

As I pointed out lies not "false" but lies.

What lies? the article clearly, explicitly says the number of climbers was even higher before the pandemic, you are "pointing out" something the article is saying in the first place, no lies, just you not reading the article and thinking they are hiding something that it is clearly written there.

This article was written before all the anti tourists propaganda.

An long before you wrote your comments, so you are once again just repeating what it says, no lies found anywhere.

So if the "cost" were a problem, why wasn't this done back in 2007~2017 when far more people were climbing the mountain? you know when 300,000 plus each year and a peak of 430,000!

Who knows? the own article say that this number is now considered excessive even when before it was higher, it may just be that now the people responsible can say so.

Although climber numbers continue to be eclipsed by pre-pandemic levels, "200,000 hikers is still huge", Natsuko Sodeyama, a Shizuoka Prefecture official, told AFP.

Nah, sounds like just one more excuse to attack Trump.

The arguments are clear enough, so much that you could not argue anything against them. You not believing something well documented is irrelevant. Trump is making the US terribly weak internationally and elevating the risk of outbreaks causing another pandemic at the same time.

Anyway, his admin is mainly cutting useless grants. 

No, is cutting out all an everything scientific that contradicted him or that lowers the chances of companies making huge profits. Research like this is not useless as the article clearly explains, but for Trump that has no relevance as long as he can claim it was a waste, the same as the "transgender" mice fiasco.

It's not enough to deter influencers and other such morons.

That is fine, since the purpose of the fee is not to stop everybody from climbing, just offset the costs and reduce the total number of people visiting to more manageable numbers.

Foreign visitors won’t have to pay as it will be included on their tour group package when they book their tour.

That still means they have to pay, the tours are not going to absorb the fee, so visitors will have now options that are pricier.

I remember a time when the medical consensus was that margarine was the healthy alternative.

Yet you opportunely forgot that this was always presented as an educated guess since margarine had less saturated fats, at a time where the importance of trans fats was not known. You also keep forgetting that scientists and scientific evidence is what corrected this.

Instead of talking about Trump's canceling grants, why not talk about the fact that the rest of the world is only providing 10% of the funding?

Because this situation developed precisely because the US used this (and many other things) as a tool to demonstrate soft power. The US did this to further its own agenda very successfully, and the abrupt cancellation hurt both parts, the US that now is seen as resource poor, unreliable, volatile, and the different programs that trusted that nobody would be irrational enough to simply stop funding that benefits the whole world.

Now countries realize the US was never as reliable as it wanted to present itself, and eventually programs and activities will be continued with funds from other sources. But the huge loss of reputation and name of the US (not to count brains that are already leaving the country) is something that will take much more time and resources to be reversed (if)

They were overall

The examples are clear on the opposite, successful, popular and profitable, the opposite of what you claimed.

If I were wrong then Oger would t be changing business course

How many movies have been developed in the opposite direction? is this one? you are the one making this claim, but fail to produce any evidence.

Not at all

You accepted the examples are successful and brought back Disney to the black, this proves they are what is profitable, so you disproved yourself.

You know how this is clear? the moment you fail to produce any argument or evidence of the opposite.

Im talking about overall, 2-3 movies doesn’t mean the company is not in the red, blood red!

These movies are the period where you claimed Disney was doing terribly bad, the examples are clear in their success, so they prove this is the direction Disney can continue to be profitable.

What source says Disney is in the red? and specially that this comes because it makes hugely popular movies?

I mean, even their streaming service became profitable

https://fortune.com/2024/08/07/disney-streaming-profit-inflation-theme-park/

Just the same year when they releases these and other "awoken" movies.

Not claim, stock sales dropped

Not because of very popular "awoken" movies, as you claimed, that was wrong.

Iger is lying??????

Iger did not claim the movies I put as examples were unpopular as you did.

Which they weren’t in the end,

They were, even you said so at 3:57 when you accepted the company is seeing success thanks to these movies.

Disney has been free falling for a long time and that needs to be corrected or they’ll continue to lose customers.

Something they corrected by releasing these very "awoken" movies.

You just proved the opposite of what you claimed.

That's very true, but the real problem is this fanatics treats science as absolute of which it's not.

As the references clearly prove all was very false, and there is zero requirement to treat science as absolute, it simply is the best available tool to find out what is real, with evidence and validated methods that prove things.

Fanatics would be those that without any evidence simply believe science must be wrong just because they don't want to believe the conclusions (or it is beneficial for them to ignore them), not a single piece of evidence or actual arguments, which is why the scientific conclusions remain valid.

And alienated the rest of the 98% of Americans

Not according to the success they had, thus proving your point is mistaken.

Disney learned from abysmal sales

The examples I gave had very good sales, and they promote diversity, equity and inclusion. So your point was refuted.

Not when they alienated the majority of Americans

The examples I gave did not, which is why they were so successful.

it doesn’t matter what you say or claim

So it does not matter when you claim arbitrary numbers of people supposedly alienated.

Disney was struggling

Except it was not, as proved.

Iger realized he needed to change

To stop having lots of successful movies? you are making no sense.

I don’t

It was very easy to prove you tried (very unsuccesfully) to do it.

Your whole point depended on "awoken" movies being unpopular, yet these movies were both "awoken" and very popular and made lots of money. They prove the opposite of what you tried to use them.

Pushing an opposite ideology or making movies that no one wanted to see, hear or watch, that’s changing now for the better.

The movies that "nobody wanted to see" actually were extremely successful and they promoted diversity, equity and inclusion. They proved the opposite of what you are claiming.

No, quite the opposite.

These very successful movies all promote diversity equity and inclusion, so yes, they prove the opposite of your point.

Yes, even the ones that were horrible

That would mean you understand that they are extremely "awoken" as you called them, and they were also extremely successful.

I do not.

Of course you do, when you say they represent going in the opposite direction when they are clearly, explicitly supporing diversity, equity and inclusion as positive values that should be promoted.

That’s what I was saying, they are awoken no more

How are movies that promote diversity, equity and inclusion "awoken no more"? if anything the success proves the opposite of your point.

Have you even seen any of these examples? because you have a completely wrong idea about the kind of movies they are.

Quite an amateurish attempt at trying to muddy the waters

On the contrary it is a very simple argument that clearly debunks your misrepresentation

Climate scientists and the organisations that employ them are not exactly innocent when it comes to manipulating data and models to influence public policy through fearmongering

Yes they are, the scientific consensus of the whole world is clear and explicit, and for rational people having correct and precise information is no motive for fear, that is an irrational reaction of people with antiscientific bias that feel fear when personal beliefs are demonstrated as mistaken.

Blatant examples include the Climategate emails,

Example of antiscientific propaganda groups trying to twist reality and failing completely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.

Mann's hockey stick

The one proved to be correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stickgraph(global_temperature)

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph

Al Gore's propaganda flick

So, which scientific authority are you imagining Al Gore has?

and the annual COP talkfests attended by scientists and activists alike that release the latest predictions of doom based on flawed models using data collected around heat islands to exaggerate natural changes.

Again, models that have been proved precise and correct, and if anything just too modest for the actual observed changes that are always on the drastic side.

And they're doing it on the public dollar for the most part. If they really want the money for their research, perhaps they can appeal to foundations and the like?

Just because 1 percenters see their profits reduced when they are made take responsibility of their decision that does not make the scientific proof of those negative effects less beneficial for the population in general. Scientific research is one of the most profitable things governments can use money, specially when it can justify measures that prevent uncountable losses because of climate change.

In comparison letting companies destroy the environment by hiding the evidence of how they do it is a terribly bad investment.

LOL! You've fallen for the "climate emergency" doom-mongering hook, line and sinker, eh? Good on ya.

On one side the scientific community of the world can show evidence of the climate change crisis, on the other nameless people on the internet say those are lies based on "Just trust me bro". No contest here.

I think the way Disney is going, no one will watch their movies

How is Disney going? From the recent ones Alien Romulus, Inside out 2, Deadpool & Wolverine or even Moana 2 seem to be quite successful and lots of people have watched them. And most are clearly on the side supporting diversity, equity and inclusion.

This is no different to the pharmaceutical industry.

In the US, not as a general rule.

Not "off topic", just pointing out blatant hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? here the obvious problem is that science explicitly gets in the way of companies that profit a lot from destroying the environment, so silencing the science to let those companies profit soar is completely unacceptable. If the same thing applies to pharmaceutical companies (for example selling treatments that do not benefit the patients) that would be also unacceptable.

The actual situation is people with a deep antiscientific bias, so when profits are opposed to the science then they oppose the science even if that means destroying the environment, and when profits are NOT opposed to the science (like selling effective treatments) then the same people oppose the profits and the science.

Rational people would support the science in both cases, even if that means controlling companies and not letting them get as much profit as they wish. The current US government is doing the opposite, always being in the side of profits, even if that means hiding the science.

no, its Japan forseeing for any childish tantrums from the middle kingdom!!

And choosing between ignoring the tantrums or making China happy, the choice it made is obvious.

Such as...

If you reach a point where you think killing children is the only way to deal with something, it may be better to examine your moral scale.

Otherwise it would be transparently clear that this is not an acceptable way to do anything.

Taiwan would be justified in rescinding their support for the expo and not making any exposition at all, it would probably save a lot of money by doing this and by this point it is obvious the expo needs much more presenting countries than the other way around.

Good point.

Every industry is subject to the same type of cuts.

Without justification, specially when research has been proved to be a huge economic stimulus and this specific field an absolute priority according to the global scientific consensus.

Protecting polluters by hiding the science is not productive nor desirable, except for the ones that are prioritize profits above acting responsibly.

How do you know that she had no clear purpose?

Of course I don't but usually this is clearly reported in the article, but not in this case, this would clearly explain why the police think is necessary to investigate if the woman can or not be held criminally responsible. This conclusion makes sense and it is completely possible.

This is specially relevant as a reply of the initial comment, that assumed the lack of charges was gender related, on the absence of a reported motive (or trying to escape), this seems a much more logical explanation.

Have those lawyers with names and credentials presented the authorities with the documentation that proves those people were in the US legally?

So you are accepting that you made a claim by willingly ignoring the evidence already presented, and that you keep doing it just so you can ignore the argument they present?

You understand this means you are also accepting you are discussing from an invalid position and doing it on purpose, right? not exactly something that can lead others to give you any trust, and since your argument against the evidence provided depends completely on trust...

The whole point is that the Trump government is making the accusation the only part needed to sentence the accused, and that they refuse to give any opportunity for the defense to present any kind of evidence and arguments that debunks the accusation, neither the accused or their lawyers are giving their day in court. You are just explaining why this is wrong and why the reasons you are giving as an excuse would obviously not have any relevance.

You have to imagine that they weren't given the opportunity to present documents to have THAT argument

No need to imagine anything, I already provided an example where lawyers with names and credentials demonstrate this is clearly happening, once again nameless people on the internet saying this is a lie are not even remotely comparable as an argument.

Some people seem to think the public sector owes them a living, but if their skills are that important, the private sector will pick them up.

Their skills, their work can be objectively be proved important, specially to stop companies from shifting their environmental costs into the public. The problem is a system where the companies can openly influence the politicians so they can silence the science to pretend nothing bad will happen, complicated when a large segment of the population is not scientifically literate enough to notice when this is happening.

"Significant elements of Project 2025 have already been implemented, despite Donald Trump disavowing any knowledge of it," Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland told AFP, vowing continued protests and legal action. "This is being carried out in a completely lawless and irresponsible manner."

Progress at around 40% and going on smoothly, as expected from an absolute priority of the government.

https://www.project2025.observer/

They're the ones being deported legally.

Without due process, meaning nobody do know, and against a court order, which means it is done illegaly.

US law governs in this case; not an imaginary set of "human rights".

US law is in accordance to human rights, they are not independent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States

The Federal Government has, through a ratified constitution, guaranteed unalienable rights to its citizens and (to some degree) non-citizens. 

Trying to say that the law is independent of human rights only evidence lack of knowledge about them.

That legal standard does not apply to the case at hand.

The US constitution says it does, lawyers say it does, nameless people on the internet saying otherwise are not exactly an argument for the contrary.

Spot on.

Still a false accusation, easily proved the moment you can't provide a link where this can be proved.

Just your opinion.

An opinion based on the article as described and against which you have not been able to use any argument to demonstrate it is not a real possibility. Just baselessly claim so.

And such conclusion falls under the fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.

You are still deeply confused about fallacies even when you use them so frequently. For the incredulity fallacy to apply I would have to say this is the only possibility that could be true, in my comment I clearly said this is something that could be happening, and that it would be likely according to how the article read, I never said this is the only possibility that could be considered.

Nothing clear without any evidence supporting such claim, so that opinion falls under the fallacy of False Attribution.

I clearly gave the arguments to support the claim, you only repeatedly pretend not being able to read the comment, it can easily be copy-pasted to demonstrate your claim is wrong.

Breaking into an apartment without any clear purpose, waiting for the police without escaping are terribly obvious things that indicate someone acting irrationally. If you did not even read the article you are in no position to call others opinion unsubstantiated.

See? just claiming there is no basis for the comment does not work when the basis is there for anybody to read.

Nothing so unusual about this case to start fantasizing how the perpetrator was "not acting rationally" and will clearly be "deemed mentally unfit to be held criminally responsible.".

No fantasy at all, when no purpose for the break-in is given the situation is completely different from reports where the intruder have clear purpose like stealing something. Since the police explicitly said the are still considering if the intruder can or not be criminally responsible this means there is motive for this, and lack of mental capacity is a common motive, even if you ignored it.

 Japan, the standard for being held not responsible because of mental defect is very defined and is rarely admitted by a court, according to Japanese legal scholars.

Which in no way means the police can make this determination without investigating first, which is exactly what they said they would do.

Yes...and if there were some that weren't...they had no documents to prove they were in the US legally. I have documents to prove I'm in Japan legally...do you?

When people are not given the right to present those documents then your argument completely fails, that is the whole point of getting people into court, so they can have a chance or arguing and presenting them instead of everything being done at the sole consideration of an agent that says you did not present anything so on the plane you go.

I'm not the one affiliated with a gang now labeled as a terrorist organization and being deported, so my human rights are alive and well.

The part where the human rights is important is when you are accused of being in a gang and you are given due process so you can demonstrate the accusation is false.

Without human rights the simple accusation is enough to put people on a plane elsewhere. Pretending this is correct or desirable only weakens your (and everybody's') rights.

Which is not the case here. Just jumping to conclusions without evidence.

It is completely the case here, in my comment there is even how it is the case, a description against which you could not make even one single argument, just again a baseless accusation that you could not defend with arguments.

And presumably you are not mentally unfit; accidents do happen.

Which of course is no argument to prove the same kind of situation happened in the event of the article, walking on a wrong apartment is an occurrence that is solved immediately by leaving.