Author
|
Topic: Nutrition (Read 13646 times)
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
I am not convinced that you are reading and comprehending my question. You're still talking about simple cause and effect, when my question is about the degree of improvement. Here it is again; please read carefully every word, and if there is anything that is unclear to you, please ask so that I can explain it:
Do you have any evidence of the extent to which implementing the surveillance state you want to implement (tracking all people's purchases) would improve our scientific understanding of nutrition?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 03, 2017, 05:38:59 pm by Julie.chan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
Zanthius, you aren't properly reading my question. You are answering a question I never asked, repeatedly. You need to carefully read the question and understand it. Once you understand it, you can answer it properly, and it is a very easy question. I am more than happy to help you understand it, but I need to know what part of the sentence is confusing you to help you. So the question, again, is:
Do you have any evidence of the extent to which implementing the surveillance state you want to implement (tracking all people's purchases) would improve our scientific understanding of nutrition?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Zanthius, you aren't properly reading my question. You are answering a question I never asked, repeatedly. You need to carefully read the question and understand it. Once you understand it, you can answer it properly, and it is a very easy question. I am more than happy to help you understand it, but I need to know what part of the sentence is confusing you to help you. So the question, again, is:
Show me at least that you have a basic understanding of what the word evidence means. The part of the sentence that confuses me is just the word evidence.
You're still talking about simple cause and effect, when my question is about the degree of improvement
Okay. You are not asking me if I have any evidence to prove that the spaceship is working? You are asking me if I have any evidence to prove that the spaceship goes faster than a car.
Yes. I have been arguing all the time, that if the spaceship works at all, it will definitely go faster than a car. Cars are not moving very fast compared to spaceships.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 03, 2017, 06:08:55 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
No. If we were talking about a space ship, I would be asking you if you have any evidence of how fast the space ship is moving, or more aptly, how much faster it would be if an additional rocket were added to it.
"Evidence" means facts which supports an assertion. If I was asking for evidence of the speed of a space ship, an example of evidence might be a table of time since launch and corresponding displacement. For the speed difference of a new rocket, you would also need a table showing the same thing with the new rocket attached, or at the very least you would need to have some prior examples to extrapolate from where fitting an additional rocket made a ship faster.
Do you understand the question now?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 03, 2017, 06:19:06 pm by Julie.chan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
Do you have any evidence of the extent to which implementing the surveillance state you want to implement (tracking all people's purchases) would improve our scientific understanding of nutrition?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
Don't get caught up in an analogy. You should understand the question now.
Do you have any evidence of the extent to which implementing the surveillance state you want to implement (tracking all people's purchases) would improve our scientific understanding of nutrition?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Don't get caught up in an analogy. You should understand the question now.
The difficult part with your question is still the "evidence" part, and not evidence of how fast it moves. Evidence that it won't explode while trying to escape Earth's gravity field. Several space rockets have exploded. So, if you went to a guy in NASA, and asked him he has any evidence that the next space launch is going to be a success, what do you think he would say? He might say no, but if NASA didn't believe they would succeed, they would never invest so much in their projects.
If something has never been tried before, you can't really ask for evidence that it is going to work. The next time you are going to fly, try to ask the aircraft pilot if he has any evidence that you are going to survive the flight. If he says yes, he is intellectually dishonest.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 03, 2017, 07:14:20 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
I'm trying to establish clearly on what grounds we are going to engage in this discussion. Please just answer the question.
Do you have any evidence of the extent to which implementing the surveillance state you want to implement (tracking all people's purchases) would improve our scientific understanding of nutrition?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
Thank you. With that established, I can give my argument.
Since you have no evidence of the extent what you are proposing will improve scientific understanding, we have no idea what benefit would result. It could be huge. It could be mediocre. It could be small. It could be incremental. So what we are weighing against erosion of essential civil liberties is the hope that science might advance forward, and we have no idea how much.
That is not an acceptable trade-off. Civil liberties are far more important than any scientific advancement, let alone the meager possibility of such. In the case of privacy, if the government or any entity is able to watch everything you buy, it can get to know far more about you than it is acceptable for it to know.
For example, with this information, a government could easily infer your nationalistic leanings or lack thereof. They could note that you are not buying enough state sponsored nationalistic merchanise, and have you sent to a gulag to prevent you from poisoning other citizens' minds, but officially they would accuse you of some sort of crime, perhaps found out about through mass surveillance, or (as in North Korea) you would just disappear and become an unperson.
In the more short-term, if the government can track every purchase you make, that makes it easy for them to track your movement, albeit not as easy as if you are carrying a cell phone.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Since you have no evidence of the extent what you are proposing will improve scientific understanding, we have no idea what benefit would result. It could be huge. It could be mediocre. It could be small. It could be incremental. So what we are weighing against erosion of essential civil liberties is the hope that science might advance forward, and we have no idea how much.
That is not how I perceive it at all. If it works, I definitely perceive the benefits to be huge, since it analyzes tons of things and millions of people. It would be like millions of randomized controlled trials, and the results would converge towards one trend/correlation for each food-health correlation, not diverge and generate confusion like we have seen with the nutritional studies.
That is not an acceptable trade-off. Civil liberties are far more important than any scientific advancement, let alone the meager possibility of such. In the case of privacy, if the government or any entity is able to watch everything you buy, it can get to know far more about you than it is acceptable for it to know.
What do you think I am proposing? For a government agency to collect information about what you are buying? No, I am proposing that information that is already collected about what you are buying is sent to YOUR OWN account, not to a government agency.
Actually, there is no way to prevent grocery shops from collecting information about what we are buying now, unless we go back to a cash based society. The grocery shop just needs to store each receipt and correlate it to the bank account that was used to pay the bill. For example, at 09:45 03.07.2017, a receipt of 23.54 USD was registered in a grocery shop. They just correlate this to a bill they received of 23.54 USD from the same time/day from the payment terminal in the specific grocery shop. Grocery shops are doing this right now. They just aren't sending me information about what I am buying. My proposal is that they start to send this information to me, and that we make rules which makes it illegal for them to give this information to someone else.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/08/supermarkets-get-your-data
Another thing, is that grocery shops increasingly are using cameras to avoid theft. They might very well also take a picture of each customer, while they are paying the bill. I don' think it is going to be possible to deny grocery shops from using cameras. They have very good reasons to have them, because of theft prevention.
What we need is not for all grocery shops to get rid of their cameras, and go back to a cash based society. We need to have laws and supervision of the companies and government institutions that collect information about us, since it is more or less impossible to stop them from collecting information about us.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 08:53:54 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
