- Thread starter
- #4,121
elocomotive
A useful idiot.
"His body, his choice." Well, except for, you know, the new heart that he needs to live, which is, in fact, not his.
And how can you be so vehemently anti-vax that you'll literally die over it, but you're OK with science giving you someone else's heart?
I'll give you a great example of this because I experienced it with a person I know. They got a new pair of running shoes that were "zero drop" shoes - shoes where the toes and heels are level to better mimic how we run barefoot. Within a couple weeks, this person broke their foot with the new shoes. A normal person would probably conclude that the shoes were not supportive and facilitated an injury. This person concluded that it was years of "improper footware" that led to the injury.
The long answer is that lots of people build sets of rules they use evidence haphazardly to fit within the scheme they've created rather than being open-minded to the evidence and leaving open the possibility of changing their mind or modifying their rules somewhat to allow for new data. I think part of this stems from the fact that it's much harder to acknowledge flaws in ourselves and do the hard work to improve them. A quick and easy schema that explains away our own deficiencies instead is much preferable to most and demands almost nothing from us.