I intended to post this here but couldn't get onto the site so it went up on AMD...of course right after that I was able to get back on here so....here goes.
The recent blogs posted here and elsewhere throughout the web offering various opinions on diverse subjects point out the relative incompetence of most observers including myself to offer any meaningful insight into the debate. Almost none of us have studied, collected or even seen the raw data or the summaries regarding any of the issues we discuss, we don’t even have access to them. The global warming issue is one that the scientific community should be debating while the rest of us watch on with interest and yet here we are posting blogs and writing letters to the editor, expressing our opinions as if we knew anything about the subject. Imagine if the American Medical Society Journal printed every yahoo’s scientific and medical theories, we’d still be basing our medical knowledge on the four humors. Even worse, what if every idiot with an opinion got to sit in the operating theater and express that opinion while the Doctor was performing the operation? “I would have used a bigger knife.” “I THINK the problem isn’t her gall bladder, she just needs to re-energize her cha with these crystals.” “You’re doing it wrong!” "We want topless nurses!"
As a part of a general re-appraisal of our civil rights it is certainly time to re-think the idea that everyone’s opinion is of merit. I’m not talking about censorship or preventing viewpoints from being expressed but rather viewing First amendment rights as a 'collective right', a 'right held in common’. In other words as long as a viewpoint or opinion is expressed by someone, somewhere YOU don’t necessarily have the right to be the one expressing it.
Think of all the energy savings, the trees saved and the bloodshed prevented. Most people don’t think of freedom of speech as being responsible for death and yet example after example can be found. The Spanish American war was largely a result of the Hearst chain of newspapers drumming up support amongst the American people for a war that the U.S. gov’t and the President didn’t want, thousands lost their lives. The present war in Iraq, would it have been possible without FOX news supporting the idea every day? Riots, protests, strikes turning violent. Nearly all involve the misuse of free speech.
Allowing the Jerry Springer audience to offer their take on the various subjects of National and International import does nothing to further either the knowledge base or decision making process. Simply by setting up a ‘clearinghouse of ideas’ of sorts (accessable by a permitting or licensing scheme) through the government or even an independent entity we can eliminate the ‘great unwashed’ masses and tidy up the entire process.
Under the ‘collective right’ theory, we don’t have to listen to every uneducated, unqualified moron’s opinion about a subject. Though to be fair to the uneducated morons everywhere, those opinions would be available somewhere. Instead we would be able to select from the viewpoints and opinions of those in our society much better suited than ourselves to issue such opinions and then pick the one(s) that we agree with. In so doing we would streamline the collective decision making process and return relevance and the intelligence to intelligent debate in our culture.
Blog comments are on but don't make me go collective on you!
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
Blogs by thenewguy295:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Time for a change - Collective right vs individual right |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ragtopcookie

|
Dec 17 @ 12:02PM
|
|
|
well i dont know......but ive been told.......eskmo ----- is mighty cold......does that help any?.....hehehehehe...cookie
|
|
enigmasrook

|
Dec 17 @ 12:08PM
|
|
|
The global warming issue is one that the scientific community should be debating while the rest of us watch on with interest Now there is a thought. Do we debate whether a doctor should perform certain surgeries? No....because we understand he/she spent years in college followed by internships/residencies and have the experience and acquired knowledge to make these calls more than we can. The reason this is going back and forth is because of politics. Not science.
Good blog.
|
|
iam7545

|
Dec 17 @ 12:14PM
|
|
Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a cherry picker! Scientists that are becoming wealthy because of Global Warming will not debate Global Warming - for obvious reasons.
Dr William Grey, Univ of Colo - one of the foremost authorities on hurricanes and climate thinks that the Global Warming doom sayers are nuts. He has challenged anyone to a debate. No one will step forward.
Of course not!
|
|
SallyF

|
Dec 17 @ 12:14PM
|
|
Good blog, newguy---a sense of reason. to be fair to the uneducated morons everywhere, those opinions would be available somewhere. Sometimes it seems that MD is being used for this purpose. JMO
|
|
SallyF

|
Dec 17 @ 12:16PM
|
|
|
oops! Meant to 'quote shade' that middle phrase.
|
|
enigmasrook

|
Dec 17 @ 12:16PM
|
|
|
Al Gore is not a scientist I think that is the point he is making.
|
|
sweetgypsysoul

|
Dec 17 @ 1:04PM
|
|
|
Wishing I could add something profound to the commentary, but lacking substantial credentials, I instead ponder the construction of a more revealing candystriper's costume...
|
|
530Meliss

|
Dec 17 @ 1:18PM
|
|
You watch Jerry Springer? EEEWWWWWWW and then you pontificate that "other" people shouldn't be commenting...
WHO cares... if you don't want to read it... don't.
|
|
travelwoman

|
Dec 17 @ 1:28PM
|
|
Allowing the Jerry Springer audience to offer their take on the various subjects of National and International import does nothing to further either the knowledge base or decision making process.
It's not about "allowing" them. They CAN, just like you can, or I, or anybody else. It is nobody's "right" to allow (or forbid) anybody else to think about stuff, whether they know about that said stuff or not, and to say what he/she thinks.
And there is now really not the slightest risk that any scientist or decision maker etc. would go to MD blogland or Jerry Springer show for forming his/her opinion on anything.
Therefore.... what's your problem with "them" (= basically "us") just talking.... ?Because that's what it is.... just talk.....
Don't need no clearinghouse for that..... or are you kin to Big Brother? .
|
|
travelwoman

|
Dec 17 @ 1:46PM
|
|
PS....
.... and WHO would be the umpire who would decide whose opinion is more valuable than whose else's? ... who would decide that such-and-such has studied more than such-another and that we should therefore listen to him rather than another? Who would run the clearinghouse?
...expressing our opinions as if we knew anything about the subject... ... and who would decide that somebody knows or doesn't know? .
|
|
stormbringer99

|
Dec 17 @ 2:22PM
|
|
Opinions and a** holes and everyone’s got one (well we all know that old saying). I’m as culpable as the next person just by blogging and commenting on blogs. I still believe that the freedom to say it, whatever it is should be cherished. Sifting through the mountains of information out there is a daunting task but still worthwhile to try. Really it’s half the fun learning new and different things and new ways to think about things. Public opinions can eventually change the opinions of the powers that be. If those in charge feel that enough of the public wants a particular thing then policies may change slowly. The weight of each individuals concern is minor but cumulatively they can effect a change, whether that is minor or major change is at the fate of many factors and most of them out of the hands of the individual or even groups. If you don’t at least try you then and only then are you doomed to fail!
|
|
a1computerdoc

|
Dec 17 @ 3:44PM
|
|
|
What you suggest is near socialism. Let the intellectual few decide for the masses. Just because I don't have a doctorate in medicine, I still know that abortion is murder. No thank you, I'll enjoy individual freedom thank you.
|
|
thenewguy295

|
Dec 18 @ 12:10PM
|
|
Wow, it looks like everybody got something different from my blog. One thing that nobody really commented on though was the 'Collective right' theory. This is being pushed forth as a viable theory as to the interpretation of our rights and once one right is tagged with this they all can be...and that was the point that I was really trying to make in a devil's advocate kind of way.
Thanks for the comments.
|
|
thenewguy295

|
Dec 18 @ 12:42PM
|
|
A Devil's advocate piece is designed to provoke thought, debate and awareness. Fighting and name calling aren't debate, logic and reason, an exchange of opposing viewpoints are. There are people and groups really trying to revise the meaning of our rights like this. A rational approach to that seems in order.
|
|
|