# Moon



## zouzoum (Apr 17, 2014)

........


----------



## Brother_Steve (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## Pointwithinacircle (Apr 17, 2014)

Yep, and one of them was a Mason.


----------



## MarkR (Apr 18, 2014)

Not recently.


----------



## RyanC (Apr 18, 2014)

zouzoum said:


> Has man landed on the moon ???
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


More than once, and as stated one was a mason who claimed it for the Grand Lodge of Texas.


----------



## zouzoum (Apr 18, 2014)

So now I have to believe that because is a mason who landed ?

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Pointwithinacircle (Apr 18, 2014)

Actually, you don't have to believe anything that you do not want to believe.  One of the principles upon which Masonry is founded is Liberty, which at it's core is the right of each man to believe what he wants to believe.  The greater mystery to me is why a man would choose such a belief.


----------



## zouzoum (Apr 18, 2014)

Pointwithinacircle said:


> Actually, you don't have to believe anything that you do not want to believe.  One of the principles upon which Masonry is founded is Liberty, which at it's core is the right of each man to believe what he wants to believe.  The greater mystery to me is why a man would choose such a belief.



All what I wanted from this post is an answer from a scientific point of view about landing on the moon.. and I agree about liberty but I am asking for facts not fpr mistery stuff

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Brother_Steve (Apr 18, 2014)

zouzoum said:


> All what I wanted from this post is an answer from a scientific point of view about landing on the moon.. and I agree about liberty but I am asking for facts not fpr mistery stuff


We usually deal with Anti-masonic sentiment here however this is my first encounter with an Anti-Moon landing _ist_?

As for proof, the rocks that were brought back have mineral content that is not found on this planet. However the composition is such that it has resulted in the accepted theory that the moon was broken off from our planet in a violent collision and not an object that coalesced on its own when our planet was formed.


----------



## ej6267 (Apr 18, 2014)

zouzoum said:


> All what I wanted from this post is an answer from a scientific point of view about landing on the moon.. and I agree about liberty but I am asking for facts not fpr mistery stuff
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App



The facts are already out there and have been for decades. At the risk of presumption, may I ask if you are suggesting that we didn't land on the moon? If so, I'm afraid no amount of evidence or facts will convince. In the words of the late Sen. Moynihan, you are entitled to your opinions, not your own facts.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## MarkR (Apr 19, 2014)

You're not asking for facts, because as was stated above, the facts are freely available.  The "evidence" proposed by those who don't believe the moon landing happened has all been debunked, such as on the show Myth Busters.  You clearly have rejected the evidence and want to reject any further statements by any of us.  So, like I do in dealing with anti-Masons, since I know that nothing I say or show you will change your mind, I'll simply say "very well, believe what you will."


----------



## RyanC (Apr 19, 2014)

I think you want just a yes or no of it happened. The answer is yes, we did land a man on the Moon.


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Apr 19, 2014)

Haha! To think somebody wakes up in the morning and thinks to themselves that they've got nothing better to do with their lives than sign up to a freemason discussion board to troll about the moon landing. It takes all kinds, folks!


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## zouzoum (Apr 19, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> Haha! To think somebody wakes up in the morning and thinks to themselves that they've got nothing better to do with their lives than sign up to a freemason discussion board to troll about the moon landing. It takes all kinds, folks!
> 
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App



We have to be tolerant 

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Apr 19, 2014)

I should be tolerant of people, but I don't "have" to be. And I'm not tolerant of ignorance. I have about as much patience toward this as I do 9/11 truthers, flat earth theorists, and anti-vaccination nuts. 

What's weird about all this is that as Freemasons, who are consistently victims of conspiracy nuts, you'd think we'd be more hesitant to believe other conspiracies. Unless, I guess, you are a freemason who actually believes we are in charge of the world and run all the banks.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## zouzoum (Apr 19, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> I should be tolerant of people, but I don't "have" to be. And I'm not tolerant of ignorance. I have about as much patience toward this as I do 9/11 truthers, flat earth theorists, and anti-vaccination nuts.
> 
> What's weird about all this is that as Freemasons, who are consistently victims of conspiracy nuts, you'd think we'd be more hesitant to believe other conspiracies. Unless, I guess, you are a freemason who actually believes we are in charge of the world and run all the banks.
> 
> ...



Dont just make assumptions about me to defend ur point .. it was just a question and u r giving it more than it should have ...just relax bro 

Sent from my GT-I9500 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Apr 19, 2014)

Grrrrrr.  ;-)


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Apr 19, 2014)

zouzoum said:


> So now I have to believe that because is a mason who landed ?



You may _believe _anything you like. People believe all kinds of foolish things, but most of them don't choose Masonic discussion forums to air those foolish beliefs. Why are _you _here?


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Apr 19, 2014)

zouzoum said:


> We have to be tolerant


Tolerant of what? The crackpot notion that the moon landings were all an elaborate ruse? I disagree. Such notions deserve all the derision that can be heaped upon them. Now, the fools who actually believe such notions? It might be argued that they deserve some kind of tolerance, but I'd say that pity is more appropriate.


----------



## vangoedenaam (Apr 20, 2014)

It always surprises me when people have ideas that are foreign to me. It fills me with sweet wonder and amazement. I try not to judge as i dont want to be judged myself. I might well hold ideas very foreign to other people. 

I am interested to find out where ppl get their ideas and willing to present them with a different view, but in the end, its their choice to adopt or ignore it. And vice versa of course.

All the above applies for me, even if ideas seem weird, silly, abnormal or just plain wrong. Dont get annoyed or worked up, just wonder. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## rebis (Apr 23, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> I have about as much patience toward this as I do 9/11 truthers, flat earth theorists, and anti-vaccination nuts.
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App



I question certain aspects of the official 9/11 story as do many brothers that I know.
I also chose not to vaccinate...am I a "nut"?






Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## RyanC (Apr 23, 2014)

rebis said:


> I question certain aspects of the official 9/11 story as do many brothers that I know.
> I also chose not to vaccinate...am I a "nut"
> 
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App



As someone who was down at ground zero I can't stand the 'truther' BS, go to youtub and watch truthers debunk, I also find it funny when a Doctor lies about a study he did on vaccines gets caught and than has his lic. taken from him and than people still believe him. So yes if you fit into that I think your nuts, but I mean that I the brotherly way.


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Apr 23, 2014)

What Ryan said.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Brother_Steve (Apr 23, 2014)

Should I link to YT to the trololol vid to cap this off?


----------



## dfreybur (Apr 23, 2014)

rebis said:


> I also chose not to vaccinate...am I a "nut"?



Not vaccinating is a definite departure from reason.  Every commercial vaccination carries a lower risk than the existing exposure changes.

There are vaccinations I might chose to decline.  Optional military ones where I'm not among those being deployed I have a history of accepting.  Experimental ones I've never had the chance but I would be very likely to decline.  But a scheduled commercial vaccination?  I know the numbers and it's a slam dunk.


----------



## dfreybur (Apr 23, 2014)

zouzoum said:


> We have to be tolerant



Tolerant of insanity?  Why do we need to be tolerant of insanity?  We need to be kind in the face of illness.  Do not confuse kindness with tolerance.  Do not confuse accurate judgment of insanity with tolerance.  Praying for the mental healing of the insanity does not equal tolerating insanity.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Apr 23, 2014)

rebis said:


> I question certain aspects of the official 9/11 story as do many brothers that I know.
> I also chose not to vaccinate...am I a "nut"?



"Nut"? No, not for asking questions. Foolish, yes, when it comes to your decision on vaccinations. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that getting vaccinated is the better choice.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Apr 23, 2014)

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always  been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread  winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the  false notion that  democracy means that 'My ignorance is just as good  as your knowledge.'... I believe that every human being with a physically normal brain can learn a great deal and can be surprisingly intellectual. I believe that what we badly need is social approval of learning and social rewards for learning. We can all be members of the intellectual elite...".  --Isaac Asimov (Newsweek, January 21, 1980)


----------



## BryanMaloney (Apr 23, 2014)

zouzoum said:


> All what I wanted from this post is an answer from a scientific point of view about landing on the moon.. and I agree about liberty but I am asking for facts not fpr mistery stuff



Aberdeen is part of the industrialized world (although I know a few folks from south of there who might dispute that). There is plenty of scientific material available at these things called "libraries".


----------



## admarcus1 (Apr 23, 2014)

I don't think one is a nut for questioning the official 9/11 story, I will just respectfully disagree. Vaccination is a different issue. The anti-vax movement, however, has deadly real life consequences. We have seen the resurgence of diseases that had been eradicated in this country, all because people persist in believing the work of a single researcher who's results have never been replicated and who's former collaborators have cut ties with after realizing that he falsified data. Sadly, we live in a time when people will listen to medical advice from celebrities but not the overwhelming medical and epidemiological consensus, based on actual empirical evidence, not anecdotes. As a result, children die of whooping cough and measles. When you do not vaccinate, you not only put your children at risk, but all the children they come in contact with, all because of the fear of a public health boon that is safer than almost every over the counter medication you can buy. It is not a pharmaceutical company conspiracy (and, as a medical researcher, I have my strong criticisms of them in other areas), it is science. 

I know this was an off topic rant, but children are dying or becoming disabled because of the persistence of scientific illiteracy and conspiratorial thinking. It's not a matter of faith, politics, or opinion, but the logical interpretation of empirical evidence through a process of peer review. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## ej6267 (Apr 23, 2014)

Seeing the way this thread is going restores my faith in humanity. I, too, have felt anxious about what I perceive as an anti-intellectual tendency in this country, but the level of critical thinking I am seeing here means that the progress made (and also exemplified by our gentle Craft) has not been laid low by the ruthless hand of ignorance.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## nfasson (Apr 23, 2014)

It's just disconcerting that this pseudoscience nonsense gets more press than the truth, or worse gets touted as the counterpoint to actual proven science.



Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## rebis (Apr 23, 2014)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Foolish, yes, when it comes to your decision on vaccinations. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that getting vaccinated is the better choice.




http://www.nvic.org/


----------



## rebis (Apr 24, 2014)

So when people of equal intellect are presented the same evidence will they all always arrive at the same consensus?
Take city counsel members or supreme court judges as an example...even though they all are presented the same evidence do they all conclude or judge the case in the same manner? Should the dissenting voices be labeled and categorized as foolish for perceiving or interpreting evidence differently?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Apr 24, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> I don't think one is a nut for questioning the official 9/11 story, I will just respectfully disagree. Vaccination is a different issue.



Funny thing, that. Anti-vaxxers tend to have a remarkably high level of truthers and birthers among them. Makes one wonder about the truther and birther mind...


----------



## BryanMaloney (Apr 24, 2014)

rebis said:


> http://www.nvic.org/



Point being? Let's ban EVERYTHING, since everything has some risk associated with it! THE SKY IS FALLING. 9/11 IZ UH KUNSPIRASEE! DONT VAKSINATE!


----------



## dfreybur (Apr 24, 2014)

rebis said:


> So when people of equal intellect are presented the same evidence will they all always arrive at the same consensus?



That's the difference between science and politics.  In science truth beats fiction.  The process is rough and tumble and sees setbacks, but as the evidence accumulates truth dominates.  Your example of city counsels and supreme courts either shows ignorance of how science works or is a deliberate strategy to oppose the forces of reason.  Be cautious of who you emulate.



> Should the dissenting voices be labeled and categorized as foolish for perceiving or interpreting evidence differently?



The evidence of science comes with error bars that are different for different fields.  If someone denies the atomic theory of chemistry then they are foolish.  The error bars on the atomic theory of chemistry are so small I have never touched a lab instrument capable of filling in another digit is its accuracy.  If someone denies this decade's cosmological theory of the big bang then they have been reading the science and watching it morph constantly.  The error bars on cosmology are enormous.

The evidence about vaccination is far closer to to that of chemistry than of cosmology.  So yes, they should be categorized as foolish.  The anti-vaccine movement is already costing lives so it is literally killing people.


----------



## admarcus1 (Apr 24, 2014)

rebis said:


> So when people of equal intellect are presented the same evidence will they all always arrive at the same consensus?
> Take city counsel members or supreme court judges as an example...even though they all are presented the same evidence do they all conclude or judge the case in the same manner? Should the dissenting voices be labeled and categorized as foolish for perceiving or interpreting evidence differently?



This is why the courts are notoriously terrible at deciding questions of science, and they should not be decided there.  That is why cigarette companies were successfully for many years denying the link between cigarettes and cancer, heart disease, etc.  Courts are adversarial - each side puts an "expert" on the stand.  All you need to do is find one person with academic credential who is willing to say what you want said, and that is considered evidence.  Science is not adversarial, but collaborative.  A study comes out suggesting a link between smoking and cancer, epidemiologists look at the incidence rates between exposed and unexposed population, physicians look at it from a clinical standpoint, biologists look for the plausible biological process, and through peer review, the wheat is separated from the chaff.  The cigarette companies kept winning in court, but everyone knew the truth.

The same process was gone through for the link between vaccines and autism.  This time, no correlation between exposure and disease were found, no biological process by which it could happen has been identified.  Even without the evidence of fraud, its a scientific slam dunk.  

The scientific method is a wonderful thing.  It admits uncertainty, and therefore demands repeatability, and evaluation by those who understand the science and the mathematical rules of probability.  Mistakes are made, and then corrected.  Unfortunately, too many people fail to understand how science works.  This is further exacerbated by the media which wrongly believes that their job is to be stenographers, repeating every claim with equal credulity.  

If I say the Earth is flat, I can easily argue that I've see supports that.  Wherever I've been, it has looked flat to me.  People have claimed otherwise, and shown photographs that depict the Earth as a sphere, but those could be faked.  They claim that the way radio waves works proves it, but I don't believe that.  What I have experienced, and what most people have experienced firsthand is a flat Earth.  I have seen the evidence, and that is my opinion after reviewing it.  That is an opinion.  And it is wrong.  Opinions, if not supported by the facts, can be wrong.  That doesn't mean you don't have a right to them.  You have an absolute right to be wrong, and if it makes you happy to be wrong, that's fine too.  I wish you well.  When your wrongness results in the resurgence of deadly diseases with major consequences for the public health, then we have a problem.  Then I have a moral obligation to broadcast as loudly as I can how dangerously wrong you are.


----------



## rebis (Apr 24, 2014)

Alright brothers, fair enough. Let us approach one aspect of this matter in a more deductive manner. After all it is only through the faculties of deductive and inductive reasoning that one uncovers truths...per my good friend Rene Descartes.

Fact 1: Viruses, attach themselves to cells, consuming them and spreading to other cells once the original host cells are consumed.
Fact 2: The innovative idea behind vaccines is that if a small dose of the live virus is introduced into the organism, the T4 and red blood cells will successfully 
           overcome it and next time a real exposure occurs they will in turn remember how they fought the first battle and win.
Fact3: The vaccine flacon contains the live virus. If you look at the original date of manufacture and the expiration date on the flacon you will see that the 
          difference is of months and even years.

Question: Keeping fact 1 mentioned above in mind, how is the virus kept alive for that lengthy period of time? What kind of cells would be required to keep feeding the virus for such elongated periods of time without exhaustion?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Apr 25, 2014)

rebis said:


> Fact 1: Viruses, attach themselves to cells, consuming them and spreading to other cells once the original host cells are consumed.
> Fact 2: The innovative idea behind vaccines is that if a small dose of the live virus is introduced into the organism, the T4 and red blood cells will successfully
> overcome it and next time a real exposure occurs they will in turn remember how they fought the first battle and win.
> Fact3: The vaccine flacon contains the live virus. If you look at the original date of manufacture and the expiration date on the flacon you will see that the
> ...



You've never studied any biology at all in your entire life, I take it.

1: Vaccines also exist for bacterial diseases, NOT JUST VIRAL.
2: The VAST MAJORITY of vaccines are not live vaccines. They are either subunit or "inactive" (dead) vaccines. The "live" pathogen is usually not necessary for successful vaccination. THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR MANY DECADES AND CAN VERY EASILY BE FOUND IN ANY NON-CRACKPOT SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON VACCINES.
3: MOST VACCINES DO NOT CONTAIN LIVE ANYTHING, and some viruses and bacteria can be dormant for YEARS. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE FED!

Do not make decisions about medicine if you are so fundamentally ignorant of such basic medical concepts.

Deduction is garbage in, garbage out. You start with pure garbage as your premises. You get pure garbage as your conclusions.


----------



## admarcus1 (Apr 25, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> You've never studied any biology at all in your entire life, I take it.
> 
> 1: Vaccines also exist for bacterial diseases, NOT JUST VIRAL.
> 2: The VAST MAJORITY of vaccines are not live vaccines. They are either subunit or "inactive" (dead) vaccines. The "live" pathogen is usually not necessary for successful vaccination. THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR MANY DECADES AND CAN VERY EASILY BE FOUND IN ANY NON-CRACKPOT SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON VACCINES.
> ...



One must acknowledge that the MMR vaccine (the one most identified as the culprit by anti-vaxxers when it comes to autism) is a live vaccine.  Live, weakened measles, mumps, and rubella virus is injected.  It infects some cells which then produce antibodies to the three viruses, destroying them, with the wonderful additional benefit of rendering the injectee immune to the non-weakened virus.  Is there a risk to the use of these live viruses?  Of course.  There is nothing in medicine, or in life, that is risk free.  The CDC website enumerates those risks quite clearly (and they are small).  I suppose a reasonable parent may not consider those risks acceptable.  Just as state and local governments may consider the risk of having unvaccinated children in the school to be an unacceptable risk to other students.  Many pediatricians will not accept children in their practices who don't get vaccinated because of the risk they pose to other patients.  Its all about risk, but it must be based on empirical evidence.

As for the following:  "After all it is only through the faculties of deductive and inductive reasoning that one uncovers truths...per my good friend Rene Descartes."

That is a great quote, and it is the BEGINNING of science.  This is where science and philosophy part ways.  Reasoning, whether deductive and inductive, is not enough.  Reasoning is used to generate hypotheses about how the world works (or really how some small part of the world works).  Science then requires that you collect empirical data to see if your hypothesis can be supported.  If it cannot (as in the link between vaccines and autism), then the hypothesis must be discarded.  Reason can then be used to try and determine where the hypothesis went wrong, and develop to new and better hypotheses.  In fact, much of what scientist do every day is try to figure out why what they thought would work, didn't.


----------



## Brother_Steve (Apr 25, 2014)

I think we need to circumscribe ourselves, have the weekend and come back fresh.

While the education is great, it sometimes gets buried in the voice of the reader instead of the voice of the writer. Well thought out replies can be misinterpreted and the thread goes to the moon...:29:


----------



## admarcus1 (Apr 25, 2014)

Brother_Steve said:


> I think we need to circumscribe ourselves, have the weekend and come back fresh.
> 
> While the education is great, it sometimes gets buried in the voice of the reader instead of the voice of the writer. Well thought out replies can be misinterpreted and the thread goes to the moon...:29:




Wise words, Brother.  I hope you all have a great weekend.  For any of you Massachusetts Masons in the greater Boston area, the Fifth District Blood Drive is this Saturday at 8 am at the Newtonville Masonic Apartments, 460 Newtonville Ave, Newtonville, MA. A hot breakfast will be served*.  *


----------



## BryanMaloney (Apr 25, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> As for the following:  "After all it is only through the faculties of deductive and inductive reasoning that one uncovers truths...per my good friend Rene Descartes."
> 
> That is a great quote, and it is the BEGINNING of science.




It's not even the beginning of science. Observation is the beginning of science. Deduction comes after observation. The observation comes first and all deductions (and inductions) must be checked against observations.



> Reasoning is used to generate hypotheses about how the world works (or really how some small part of the world works).



And even then, the reasoning cannot begin until something has been observed about which one reasons.


----------



## coachn (Apr 25, 2014)

zouzoum said:


> We have to be tolerant
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


No.  We are asked to be tolerant.  It is still a choice though.  At least, at this point in time.

Furthermore, we should exercise tolerance discriminately, just as other options such as "Acceptance; Resistance; Rejection".


----------



## rebis (Apr 25, 2014)

I was obviously referring to live viral vaccines. Which is clearly inferred by the words live and virus. 

Going on about dead viruses and bacterial viruses is a divergent tangent. 

I am not getting much love on this thread so I am going to move on.

I suggest reviewing you degree proficiencies.

Good day gentlemen.



Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## admarcus1 (Apr 25, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> It's not even the beginning of science. Observation is the beginning of science. Deduction comes after observation. The observation comes first and all deductions (and inductions) must be checked against observations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite right, Brother. I stand corrected.  My job involves study design and data analysis.  I can get so focused on my own part of the process that it is easy to forget all the work that is done upstream, and that the hypotheses we are asked to investigate don't just come out of nowhere.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Apr 25, 2014)

rebis said:


> I am not getting much love on this thread so I am going to move on.



Espousing anti-scientific conspiracy "theory" tends to not get much love among rational people, at best, one can get a bit of pity.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Apr 25, 2014)

Just for "fun":

http://www.computerforum.com/165903-proof-freemasons-cia-engineered-swine-flu.html
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/06/conspiracy-monday-masonic-vaccines-and.html


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Apr 25, 2014)

Don't lodge meetings get more spirited than this? Id say this has been pretty tame considering. Haven't brothers been known to argue and bicker every once and while? I've even been in a few fists fights with my biological brother, but we still love each other.

If you aren't willing to defend your position then don't play the game. There is just way too much scientific data and consensus for this to even be a rational argument. Even anti-vaccination queen Jenny McCarthy is back peddling on her stance. No one here is saying that vaccinations don't come with risks, but no one can deny their efficacy.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Apr 25, 2014)

rebis said:


> http://www.nvic.org/


Yeah. _Those _are thecrackpots we're talking about. No supporting science. Lots of ignorant and fearful groupthink. Lots of needlessly sick people.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Apr 25, 2014)

rebis said:


> So when people of equal intellect are presented the same evidence will they all always arrive at the same consensus?
> Take city counsel members or supreme court judges as an example...even though they all are presented the same evidence do they all conclude or judge the case in the same manner? Should the dissenting voices be labeled and categorized as foolish for perceiving or interpreting evidence differently?



In cases where the evidence is abundant and incontrovertible, as in the case of the efficacy of vaccination for common contagious diseases, there can be only one rational conclusion. Making another conclusion is, to say the least, foolish. We are not talking about a matter of "perception" or opinion here, so stop trying to conflate cases like this with those that genuinely do allow for differences of opinion.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Apr 25, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> I suppose a reasonable parent may not consider those risks acceptable...



When the risks presented by failing to be vaccinated are far, far greater, refusing to accept the risks of vaccination is _anything _but reasonable.


----------



## admarcus1 (Apr 25, 2014)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> When the risks presented by failing to be vaccinated are far, far greater, refusing to accept the risks of vaccination is _anything _but reasonable.



I suppose I was trying to be charitable.  It can be difficult to intuitively evaluate competing risks.  To give just two examples, people tend to have a greater fear of flying in an airplane that driving in their car, despite the fact that the risk of death in a car accident is far higher.  When it comes to the risks of smoking, people are much more concerned about lung cancer than heart disease, even though smoking-related deaths do to excess heart disease far outnumbers lung cancer deaths.  People tend to focus on the most visible, immediate risks.  The damage done by measles, whooping cough, polio, etc is to most people today, history.  Rash and high fever in your child is real and immediate to people.  I do not defend the decision to forgo vaccination, but I understand it.  That is why discussions such as this one are important.  People need to be educated on this issue.  Unfortunately, the media does a very poor job of this, presenting every opinion as equally valid.

And yes, the moon landing was real.  If you like a good fake space mission conspiracy story, though, check out the movie Capricorn One.  It is great 70s fun, with the added bonus of OJ Simpson in a dramatic role.  Also with Elliot Gould and Telly Savalas.


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Apr 25, 2014)

If the space suit don't fit, you must aquit.

Sorry.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Apr 26, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> I suppose I was trying to be charitable.  It can be difficult to intuitively evaluate competing risks..



And that, as others have already observed here, is the saddest thing; that far too many people allow things other than reason to cloud there judgement. There's a word for that. The word is "superstition". Yes, I am aware that superstition and "faith" are pretty much interchangeable in many contexts, so let's confine the context to "where irrational beliefs present a real risk of physical harm to self or others". Belief in power of salvation through Holy Communion (for example) then, is faith. Belief in the power of salvation through the handling of venomous snakes, no so much. 

Superstitious people live in fear and ignorance, which sucks all by itself, but worse, such people are all too easy to manipulate. I am forever at a loss to explain why otherwise reasonable people will latch on to some nut-ball notion or theory and refuse, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, to let go. I suppose the "cognitive dissonance" thing goes a long way towards explaining it, but not completely, not to my satisfaction at least. At any rate, the phenomenon is as troubling as it is fascinating, for reasons not the least of which is that such people are still allowed to vote and hold public office.


----------

