That's not Science, that's Religion

in #science8 years ago (edited)

I ran into this article. Now I could talk about how vaccines aren't safe, I could talk about medical ethics and the Nuremberg code, I could even talk about conflicts of interest by having ex pharmasutical and Monsanto employees in public office or how big pharmasutical companies and agricultural companies like Monsanto donate to politicians. I'm not going to go into any of that in this post. None of it. Instead I'm going to talk about something very simple.

If you are practicing medicine and are not concerned with safety you are a danger to your patients and should not be practicing medicine.

If you are practicing science and do not want to be criticized or questioned you are not practicing SCIENCE but rather RELIGION and should start a church rather than continue to claim to be practicing science.

quote1

I am all for patient choice. In fact I believe it should be the patient that makes a choice as to the risks to take with their health. But they need to make an informed choice. Which requires studies into how safe any given procedure might be and the risks involved. The moment you care more about making profit than you do about giving your patients an informed choice then you are no longer practicing medicine OR science. The moment you are more worried about getting elected than you do about giving patients an informed choice you are no longer allowing medicine OR science. This vaccine thing has crossed the line beyond "Do vaccines work?" into "Can we practice medicine or science without government or corporate approval?" And let's not forget this isn't about safety anymore, this is about power. This is about not preventing those in power from aquiring more power. This is about compromising people's health for the sake of profits and votes.

quote2

It doesn't matter if you think vaccines work or don't work at this point. The fact of the matter is if you can't QUESTION whether they work or not should be of concern to anyone who dares to claim they even care about science. The fact that they don't want to have safety studies should be of serious concern to anyone who cares about their health or health of others. If you can't question the answers given by the authority it is not science! If you can't question it then it's a religion! Vaccination is a religion! Statism is a religion.

quote3

A deity does not need to be supernatural or superhuman. Buddha was neither superhuman nor supernatural. Buddha was a man yet he became deified and a religion formed around him: Buddhism. And even HE encouraged people to question. But the thing with deities is we DON'T question them. That's what worship and reverence IS! It is the focus of one's attention, the reverence for and deferment to, and most importantly, and most importantly one does not question their deity. One might ask why God does something but they don't question God's authority TO do something. If one questions a deity's authority then that results in a lack of worship, hence TO worship is not to question. Get it? To revere without question is not science, it's faith!

quote4

The argument is often made that the laymen is too uneducated to possibly engage in scientific discourse. I would argue that the scientific method be applied to this assumption. If one assumes one is too uneducated then knock down their argument and educate them. If one can't then educate oneself. Simple experimentation and rational debate. A degree does NOT mean one is beyond question. Neither does a political office. This is an assumption that is also made in academia: "Oh he has a degree and therefore what could you possibly know to question him on the matter?" And from there we get academic institutions and medical institutions that are "beyond question." And that's how we got into this mess in the first place. No one is above question. No one. We need to make this crystal clear and we need to remove the stigma around the asking of questions.

quote5

There is an assumption that an academic authority is beyond question because it has been tested and criticized to get where it is. What one fails to realize is the questions never end. Answering them may be delegated but the questions never end. And to try and silence them is to abandon science itself. Politician, kings and priests would have us have FAITH in them and not question their authority. So let me ask should a medicine be allowed because the king or God declares it so or it be accepted because it has been tested to work and is considered safe by those who would use it and have been informed of the possible risks? In short should we have an authority dictate terms to us or should we decide for ourselves?

If a deity would compel you to worship them are they worthy of your worship? If they would disregard your well being and safety are they worthy to hold authority over you? What is life without freedom? If we are so picky about our Gods why then are we not equally so about the mortals that would attempt to rule us? If we would fight fierce battles over choosing not to worship any God or be particular about worshiping a particular God or even multiple Gods and Goddesses, why oh why do we allow mortal rulers to be dictated to us? And why would anyone stand to not be informed of their health safety risks or their rights to pursue such knowledge? If the state is your God then what kind of God requires to pursue power over the well being of his worshipers? And if the state is your God and does pursue power despite your well being WHY do you worship it?

Science is never settled. If it can't be questioned it isn't science it's religion. If your doctor doesn't care if it's safe do you really want them practicing medicine on you? If you can't be fully informed how effectively can you give consent or make health decisions for yourself? If any health or state personal try to silence your ability to ask questions about your health review the previous questions.

Sort:  

I caught this post last night but, hadn't the time to respond so I just resteemed it instead. I have come back today to leave my comment and seen that it has been flagged, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I ask that you don't get discouraged by this, because the comments are testimony to the value of your post and to Steemit. I expect you have made a fair few followers from this post alone, including myself.

As for the post.. It's great to see something like this on here. I have found it rather ironic that the big bang theory and evolutionary theory require just as much faith to believe in as creationism, yet advocates of the former find it acceptable to ridicule those who adhere to latter.

Modern science has become a cult, whereby to speak in contradiction to the agreed upon theories is to commit career suicide and make yourself a target for humiliation. Science and politics have become one and the same, and it is no longer about questions, which was the initial principle that science was founded upon.

A truly exceptional piece and I am eager to see what your next post brings. Have a great day.

Your post was thought provoking to say the least. I would like to attempt to comment on your final paragraph:

Science is never settled. If it can't be questioned it isn't science it's religion. If your doctor doesn't care if it's safe do you really want them practicing medicine on you? If you can't be fully informed how effectively can you give consent or make health decisions for yourself? If any health or state personal try to silence your ability to ask questions about your health review the previous questions.

I quit the medical profession because “informed decision” and “choice” has been essentially removed from both the patient as well as the physician. The ability to “silence” both the patient and physician is currently in place. Treatment of the patient is now solely based on “mandatory” options which cannot be deviated from.

These options are directed by the insurance companies and the government through the Value Based Payment Model.

Medical providers are now subject to a fee for service (FFS) delivery system where they are paid for each service separately (e.g., office visit, test, or procedures.)

The Quality Payment Program called Macra and Mips basically enslave providers in the medical profession and remove their decision making. It is impossible for a medical provider to practice out of that circle of control because they would simply be unable to remain licensed or at least maintain their present salary.

If the patient chooses to decline an ordered vaccine or medical test, that ultimately costs the physician and his employer the hospital system he or she is affiliated with money. That action ultimately can place the patient in a position where the physician can “dismiss them from the practice” because they are not following medical advice.

The following TED Talk is enlightening on the problem of Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment

you mean to say that doctors aren't forced to take this oath

and actually follow by it

1
2

They probably take the oath due to tradition but, unfortunately regulations stand in the way.

well goodwill and wisdom I suppose, I would argue that is better than regulations, self regulation trumps everything. You can't make people do anything either way. At least when they aren't concerned with their health. The problem is regulations are playing on people's fear and on the other end of the spectrum people are preying on people's lack of understanding for the sake of their own wants and needs. so I guess oaths are good as long as you hold by it.

What if all the medical professionals stopped dealing with the endless slew of bullshit and the threats of less pay and started treating the patients as real human beings. Taking their needs into account. Sure a hospital here and there would be needed for emergencies. But "A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" so rather than spending millions on research and pills, why not educate everyone on well-being and nutritional balances, benefits of exercise, the links between the mind and the body and so on. Why is it almost impossible to find a good education. Either there are bureaucracies waiting to drain you or some ideologies waiting to paint you as evil. The media is no help either, rehashing old stories and bringing in more exaggerations thus widening the divide.

You and I have like views regarding the healthcare system for sure. As I said in my introduction post the healthcare system was entirely different 20+ years ago and because of all the "bullshit" as you say. I quit my job far from retirement age. Better no income from the "control group" than to go to work every day and be unhappy with the healthcare I was was forced to provide to my patients.
As for the media, that is another profession that has gone down the tubes. Instead of doing their job of accurate investigative reporting they are told what to say and they comply.

Great article blindsite!

You are so right. I have often said that the people who won't accept ANY criticism of vaccines have a religion that they don't even recognize.

The science is NEVER settled!

Upvoted and Resteemed!
p.s. spell the tag 'vaccines'

most people don't question vaccine safety because its been proven many times to be safe. its kinda like i don't question that the earth is round... because its been proven that its round. if you get on google and search "vaccines not safe" and then click the first article that agrees with your preconceived opinion and ignore the other 500000000 that disagree there's a good chance you are wrong. If they were dangerous and scientists knew, don't you think someone would have blown the whistle by now? the study's are out there readily available for you to look at. The issue here is not that people don't question vaccines, its that people wont accept the answers when they don't align with their current beliefs.

If vaccines are so safe why are professional doctors and nurses questioning them? Why aren't high ranking politicians that champion vaccines for the general public getting their own vaccines? You say the studies are out: Please cite these studies. Over what duration of time were they and who funded them? Were they double blind studies?

" If they were dangerous and scientists knew, don't you think someone would have blown the whistle by now?"

No, quite the contrary, in fact data that showed the risks of vaccines were destroyed because it would endanger profit margins. Yes there have been doctors blowing the whistle, they're called anti-vax activists and largely ridiculed and often put their careers on the line just to do so. Yes there are doctors out there that are against vaccines.

"most people don't question vaccine safety because its been proven many times to be safe. " So every time a new vaccine comes out it's "safe", hmmm I wonder if we replaced the word "vaccine" with "drug" and that same sentence would work. "Most people don't question drug safety because it's been proven many times to be safe." Tell that to the fentynal victims that are hopelessly addicted or dead. Yes every new drug is safe alright. See what I mean by faith not science? Aluminum is a known neurotoxin, so is mercury, both can be found in vaccines. Nevermind all the animal and human DNA, fermaldehyde and other noxious chemicals. Have you looked at a vaccine ingredient list lately?

"The issue here is not that people don't question vaccines, its that people wont accept the answers when they don't align with their current beliefs."

Let's assume for the same of argument vaccines could be made 100% safe. All the adjuvents taken out, no foreign DNA, no nothing. That STILL doesn't entitle the state to mandate a medical procedure. Mandated medicine of any kind is a violation of the Nuremburg code pure and simple. It's a violation of your medical freedoms. Even if you were giving out bubble gum, that would not entitle you to lock someone up or forcibly shove a stick of bubble gum down their throat against their will.

This is not a case of cognitive dissonence or confirmation bias. There are many highly rational and logical people opposed to vaccines and real evidence to support vaccines do in fact do harm. Do you think a doctor with a PhD just wakes up and says "I think I'd rather go against the mainstream position that vaccines are safe thus endangering my career and reputation."? Do you think anyone would do that without real valid evidence to support that? I mean come on.

Hi whitezombie.
Vaccine Safety has been questioned and shown lacking in ALL of these 50 Scientific Studies.
That's a LOT of scientists, plus the journals accepted and published these studies.
Maybe you don't question vaccine safety, but LOTS & LOTS of scientists do.
I am considering doing a series of posts that goes through each of these scientific studies, one by one.
http://vaccinesafetycommission.org/studies.html

50 Studies the AAP Avoided to Mention

There is a robust, worldwide body of published science from highly esteemed scientists questioning the safety of many different aspects of vaccines-how come we never hear from them? The majority of the most compelling science has been published since 2010. Below find 50 such studies to consider, sorted chronologically, and note that these studies only represent a portion of the published work implicating vaccinations in a wide variety of negative health outcomes.

soooo you want your kids 50 vaccines because they are safe, I might be overboard, but 50 per year is a bit, much don't you think? There are even vaccines for the flu, because it's worthless to do that with 50000 strands? So logic again, where is it. are we born with needles in our asses? Are you saying you can build a body without taking anabolic "medications" , cheesus are you saying people have proven fifteen hundred million times that vaccines are good for you, why aren't we eating them anyways? I'm missing out on my vaccine shot since the air is filed with aluminum. Ever wonder about that ? :D why is there aluminum in the ground, did it grow out of it, are there metal trees around, since when, who proved what? where is your case,.

The issue here is you are being forced to do something! like you have been with your disbelief :D I was going to say science is religion at this point with people going around and repeating the same stuff. But it's true ok mate, still just a opinion.

@j3dy ...yeaaaah -slowly backs away-

sure -plays dungeons and dragons- next time I will hold you with the same disregard :) -rolls the dice-

ouch.. right in the feels. in regard to the aluminum you were talking about... its probably coming from your hat.

yeah those microwaves have fried your brains, would you like a hat? at least I'm recycling :D

Cheers mate you win I'm going to get back in my pod so I can vaccinate some more people later in time :D they need to be immune to stupidity and learn to smell it from far away

I'd like to hear your thoughts on another topic, one that I do actually care about and that is the leftist disconnect from reality.

give me an example of "the leftist disconnect from reality"

https://steemit.com/millenials/@schattenjaeger/my-rant-on-the-millenial-left-language-warning

here I was 20 days ago it seems then a wild pink eyeglasses appears and what do you know he wasn't even there, to say anything, wanted a talk, but couldn't speak, played the philosopher and the victim and acted like nothing was out of the ordinary.

I did scare him I agree :D

https://steemit.com/millenials/@j3dy/re-bacchist-re-stevescoins-re-schattenjaeger-re-stevescoins-re-schattenjaeger-my-rant-on-the-millenial-left-language-warning-20170219t174041018z

I guess people speaking out on topics gets to me. Especially if they have a predisposition to defend their "beliefs" and sadly we all do that. We are always right. Most of the time people can't stop and rarely do they think for themselves.

btw about hummmerica and health "care" :D:D:D:D
https://steemit.com/life/@brianphobos/personal-obamacare-experience-revisited-prepare-to-be-triggered-into-a-rage

About charity and "service"

https://steemit.com/life/@gardenofeden/feeding-people-is-unlawful-in-the-us-we-don-t-comply

so as you can see what we think is going on and what really is are different.

Btw I hear Canadian health care is shit too so people go to get their treatments in the us because of better professionals and the ability to not be stalled for months.

i dont really want to go through all those posts dood. i can assure you im aware of the flaws of the left though as well as the flaws of the right. im in a weird place right now it terms of where i stand on a political level. i used to like anarcho communism but have since moved away from that. im kind of in political no mans land lol. if you want to actually ask a question or something go for it but im not going to read through all those posts... i already told the guy below id read through the metric fuck ton of his lol. Health care here is pretty good i find... its all i know though so im prob a bit bias. the wait times can suck sometimes but i think its a fair trade for knowing that ill be able to get medical attention no matter what.

Whose job is it to calculate the risks to the patient? Informed choice is part of being a free individual.

@baah no i dont care to source one. you can find them on your own. i don't care to argue with you about it buddy lol. I love the whole I spent an hour watching youtube videos and now im a doctor thing you got going though. never change lol.

easy now champ.... jesus christ lol

A lot of those sites you linked seem prettttty sketchy. ill look through a few anyway. ill get back to you.

its like this... i dont think there is a big conspiracy by the CDC ect ect. I still trust scientists. one if your links was a wordpress blog so yeah man im sorry but that's a red flag in my book. to be deadly honest yes i am kind of trolling you not because im a shill (LMFAO) but because i find anti vaxxers funny for the same reason i find flat earthers funny. i will honestly read through some of that stuff you posted though i give you my word.. hell maybe you will even change my mind... doubt it but maybe. so just take a few breaths now and relax.

If vaccines are so bad if and the evidence is so undeniable why don't the majority of doctors and scientists agree with you already? I would change my opinion in a heart beat if more then a handful of scientists came out and said yes vaccines are bad and do not work. If vaccines don't do what they are intended to do what is the purpose? why do they make them? how do you account for the elimination of things like polio, measles, small pox ECT ECT if it wasn't vaccines? they didn't just go away on their own. i want these answers in your words pref. i don't have time to go through 1000 diff web sites. Im aware that vaccines are not perfect but nothing is perfect. there are rare cases of bad side effects in just about any drug you can think of. when it comes to vaccines the good far out weighs the bad. sorry for being rude and what not i just don't get how you could think the things you do. also sorry to reply on diff posts... this is getting a bit messy.

ok man you got me. im here to make $hill bux. its all a huge conspiracy to inject mind control drugs into the population. we paid off the majority of doctors and scientists to keep this under wraps. the few that have spoken out against us are currently on our hit list and will soon be eliminated. lol. you win.

In my opinion, you can question religion. Of course, in many cases it's difficult to do so by talking to someone who will not dare to do it publicly. But one thing is certain : it's possible to question his religion and the one of others in a personal way !

Would you go up to a Buddhist and say "What if Nirvana is simply a fantasy you have after prolonged psychological stress?" Or go up to a Christian and say "How can one have free will without moral agency and self ownership? What if this whole repentence thing just inhibits your spiritual development?" Or to a Muslim and ask "What if you die and find out Allah is actually a woman?"

Or here's a real kicker what if you're a theist and question if God exists or an Atheist and question the assumption that he does not exist? See it's all well and good to question someone else's religion but God forbid you question your own. And if you start questioning someone's religion odds are they'll get very upset with you because you are questioning the underlying beliefs they've based their life on.

As I said, it's not easy to question someone's faith, especially if you ask such questions, which go against the deep beliefs. But what are you looking for by asking a controversial question? Do you really think that the person is going to tell you, yes Allah is a woman ? He won't and will probably be upset by your question. But the fact is that he'll probably think about it by himself, and therefore question his faith somehow, in a personal way. Moreover, what's the problem with asking God existence, when you are a theist ? And question the assumption for an atheist ? I don't think that the Manichaean view is appropriate to these questions. One can always find nuances and intermediaries. In fact, it's quite normal to ask questions, and if God exists, he is not forbidding anyone to do it ! Let us take the fact that a theist questions his faith with what he has been able to see and hear and then decides to no longer believe in the same way as before or even no more at all. Would God be furious and vengeful ? There would be no point do that, because the mere fact that there is no undeniable proof of its existence, proves that questioning is allowed !

I remember reading somewhere that the only difference between a religion and a cult is if the "God" figure that is worshiped is alive or dead. So is statism a cult? Quite possibly. To me that's even worse than a religion.

I usually think of the difference between religion and a cult as a difference in scale. After all Christianity used to be considered a minor cult at one point in time and now look at it. By those definitions Government is definitely a religion, and a perverse and dangerous one at that.

Wise insight! Dogma is dogma, regardless of the book used for reference.

A degree does NOT mean one is beyond question.

This can't be said enough. Great article!

Downvoted to reduce reward from excessive and concentrated whale voting. This post contains votes from at least four members of the development team. It boggles my mind to think that the developers of this system think that it is a good idea for their votes to collectively pile on to the highest rewarded posts and therefore deprive hundreds of posts and the bulk of the user base of any meaningful chance at being rewarded.

This is really shitty of you, @smooth. Did it not occur to you that perhaps they all voted on it because it is a great post which is not only thought-provoking, but educational. In your attempts to justify the downvote, you did not so much as mention the post or its value to Steemit. I wonder if you even bothered to read it.

I haven't been making very much as of late, and I'm sure there are plenty others out there who haven't either. But I do not look at a post like this getting whale votes and think, I wish he would have less of a payout so that I could have more. I am--correction, was--very happy to see that this posted had large rewards because I found it to be far more deserving than a lot of other things I see with higher payouts.

I told you once before not to downvote someone else's post in my name, and by doing it to "redistribute rewards" you have essentially done so. No one elected you chief of police on Steemit. And even if they did, downvoting a post based on who else has voted it rather than the content of the post is not helpful to anyone on this platform. It seems you are just doing it to piss off the other whales who upvoted it that you do not like, and @blindsite and his terrific article have paid the price for your pettiness.

I urge you to take the time to read through this post so that you can see how helpful it could be to some people, and why it is more than deserving of the higher visibility that a larger payout provides.

I know that you probably do not like me. And I'm certain that you do not like the majority of the development team. But this is not about us. This is about the user you are trampling on to make an insignificant point. If you are able to see this and remove your downvote it will be a demonstration of your character that I know I, and many others would love to see.

I told you once before not to downvote someone else's post in my name, and by doing it to "redistribute rewards" you have essentially done so.

Whether you wish it done on your behalf or not, it is unavoidable that the math leads to that result. As rewards are shifted away from being allocated in a concentrated manner to a few top posts by a few whales all voting on the same things, it means that all other upvoted posts earn more, and it also means all other voters have more influence in deciding on rewards based on their own individual preferences.

Thanks you for sharing your point of view. I appreciate the input even though I respectfully disagree.

You disagree that posts should be rewarded based on their quality?

You use your vote politically far too often, and considering a great deal of users came to this site to escape the injustices of politics and make use of a supposedly better model of self governance, I am bewildered by the fact that you are unable to see the damage you are doing after all of this time.

You disagree that posts should be rewarded based on their quality

Rewarded, yes. Excessively rewarded no.

It's easy for someone with a $280,000 account value to determine what an excessive reward is?

Not everyone has a quarter million in the bank. Some people are trying to eat, or feed their families, and one trending post can make a huge difference to them.

The $0.01 that gets added on to everyone else's posts when you downvote a trending post makes absolutely no difference to them. You always attempt to justify this shit by saying that you are helping others by the downvote, but the hurting far outweighs the alleged helping. So perhaps you could find a better way to be of assistance, like actively finding posts that you think deserve higher rewards and upvoting them.

You're far too quick to use the hammer and far too inconsiderate of the potential consequences of its blow.

I think we have engaged enough times now to be sure that we are likely never going to agree on anything of importance. Not when it comes to the use of flags at least. I just wonder how you are able to find joy in this platform from doing what are doing. Do you really feel no remorse at all for the rewards you have stripped from hardworking authors?

He's only making $21 now! The last time I looked it was at $40.
How is $40 an excessive award for an EXCELLENT POST?
Can't you at least give a smaller % flag?
He/she have been only posting for a month, with very few followers, and yet managed to put out such extraordinary content that it attracted all those votes!

Also, 11 people Re-Steemed this post!
That means that it was considered exceptional to do so.
I do know that I am very selective in what I resteem.
If that many people value this post that much, than $40 is not at excessive reward. It is insulting to lower his payout to only $20.
https://steemdb.com/science/@blindsite/that-s-not-science-that-s-religion/reblogs

[nesting]

The $0.01 that gets added on to everyone else's posts

That's not how it works. When rewards are redistributed other posts gain proportionately. So tamping down on the excesses at the top can make a real percentage-gain difference (likely at least 20-30% if enough Trending posts are brought down to size a bit) to posts earning a dollar or a few dollars. It likewise proportionately increases the power of smaller votes. It does not spread out as 0.01 per post across a thousand posts.

You are missing my point.

You said the following;

it means that all other upvoted posts earn more, and it also means all other voters have more influence in deciding on rewards based on their own individual preferences.

All other upvoted posts earn more? No. Not really. Definitely not enough worth mentioning. As you said, it is distributed according to current payout, so really the only people who benefit from it to any level of significance are the few top trending posts.

Speaking of the top trending post, it is your friend. A post that has concentrated whalevotes beyond belief, but I don't see your downvote on that one. And he benefited from you downvoting this post more than anyone else did, but surely that was not on your mind when you downvoted... Just a happy coincidence.

All other voters have more influence on deciding rewards? No. Not really. Definitely not for the 95% of voters who's upvote means absolutely nothing. Perhaps their vote might be able to add on a few cents to the trending posts... ie, your friend. But, to anyone else, their vote would have no effect.

So, no. Any time you downvote a post. You're not helping everyone. You are helping the top two or three trending posts. I should probably pay more attention to who is currently trending or heading there whenever you do downvote a post like this in future.

[nesting]

As you said, it is distributed according to current payout, so really the only people who benefit from it to any level of significance are the few top trending posts.

You are incorrect. There are hundreds of posts earning a meaningful amount. Just scroll down Trending (it isn't one page). You can go pages and pages and see posts getting rewarded. Those users are no less deserving of a fair change for a larger share of the reward pool than a few whale favorites at the very top.

Other than the very few at the top of the trending list, the amount added on to each post will be insignificant. Less than $0.50 for many, and less than $0.10 for most. This is not worth mentioning, but the $20 you stole from this author is worth mentioning, because you can actually do something $20. You can't do shit with $0.10.

Edit, it's really more than 20 you stole from them, because you impacted the following upvotes as well as reduced its visibility.

[nesting]

Other than the very few at the top of the trending list, the amount added on to each post will be insignificant. Less than $0.50 for many, and less than $0.10 for most.

We will have to agree to disagree, both numerically and in terms of the impact. One of the most-heard comments from non-stacked users on Steemit is "I only wish my vote were worth 0.01". That $0.50 or $0.10 (even if they were correct) that you dismiss as insignificant is nothing of the sort for the people earning it. Get out a little.

I too wish my vote was worth a penny. But, that is not because someone I upvote will be happy as fuck to receive it, they wouldn't be. That is because I would at least feel that I'm giving something, rather than nothing.

I feel that everyone who wishes they could give a cent say this with the same sentiment, not because they think anyone needs or can possibly do anything with a cent.

I think you're aware of this. I hadn't yet seen @krnel's post and realised just how often you have been using this excuse before I pulled you up on this. Now I realise that it is a waste of my time, because you have no intent on correcting your behaviour. I no longer believe that it is because you think you're in the right, though. I think it's become very obvious that there is an agenda at play here. I won't be wasting any more of my time trying to talk sense to you. Either you see the damage you're causing and just don't care, or you will never see it and continue to convince yourself that you're doing good, even when everyone other than arselickers who want whalevotes are telling you otherwise.

Enjoy the rest of your night.

I too wish my vote was worth a penny. But, that is not because someone I upvote will be happy as fuck to receive it, they wouldn't be. That is because I would at least feel that I'm giving something, rather than nothing.

And that is indeed among the results of reversing some of the excess concentration of rewards at the top. More people have votes worth a penny, and feel they have accoplished something. i.e. more happy users. We will have to agree or disagree whether that is more valuable than a few posts already earning a lot more than most of the others earning even more than that. I personally think it is.

If this is how you feel, then why did you not downvote atsdavids most recent post which was trending at $200+ dollars, and basically consisted of things he had already said in comments, which you are aware of, because you upvoted a ton of them. So he should be getting another payout for something he was already paid for sharing, but this guy shouldn't because there was concentrated whalevotes(that came at the hands of a curation trail)?

You should rephrase your excuse to "concentrated voting of whales I don't like." Or better yet, come up with an entirely new excuse because this one is illogical and I don't think anyone with a bit of common sense is buying it.

[nesting]

If this is how you feel, then why did you not downvote atsdavids most recent post which was trending at $200+ dollars

Because as this exchange illustrates, improving the incentive structures on Steemit is extremely important and, as such, effective presentation and discussion of these issues adds more value than any routine personal blog post. Especially more so than paying concentrated rewards to a large number of personal blog posts day after day, week after week. That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to use my vote power according to my opinion as is anyone else.

This does not explain why you haven't downvoted many of the trending posts that are saturated with whalevotes in spite of the content being far from deserving.

Yes, @smooth. You are entitled to use your voting power in whatever you like. But, you are certainly not entitled to my respect as long as you continue to use it in this way. If you had an ounce of morality, you would send the author of this post the 20 dollars that you took from him, as neither you nor I know how much they may have needed it.

Chances are, they might not have. But, they just might of. Everyone of our talks has been on the same topic. Consideration. You have none of it, and someone in your position ought to have a lot of it. I hope, I really do, that you will take some time to reflect on your actions and think of the potential afflictions your flags may be having on users who are working hard for the hope that they might one day get rewards deserving on their time and efforts.

Now, I mean not to be rude. But, I am busy, so I would rather not continue this conversation as it has proven itself unproductive.

Good night.

So.... you want to moderate what other people choose to vote on? Isn't that kind of against the spirit of Steemit given it's supposed to be a form of decentralized social media?

No, I want to vote as well, based on my views of how rewards are being allocated. That's very much part of the spirit of Steemit. But I also have a view that for developers of the system to support pile-on voting and concentrate rewards on one post out of a thousand is unfortunate. Couldn't they at least find four different good posts to support instead of all piling on, or failing that simply step away and let the community votes have more influence? That, to me, is a lot more decentralized.

sadly there is so much to go around, we cant all get 1000 per day. at least unless the first 60 people do and then the rest get their other days to hope for :D

For clarity, it was voted on by a curation guild (Curie) which uses voting power from Steemit developers such as Val-a and Val-b, then voted by Jamesc.

Likely the only vote that can from a Steemit dev himself was jamesc.

When a stakeholder delegates his or her vote, I still consider the stakeholder responsible for how that delegation is used. What deals they may make with other parties is their business, not mine.

whale wars :) :D this is a bit too much tho, I don't mind what you are doing, but I do find a flaw in the thinking now that I started to do it, first of all some posts get recognition after the whale votes, then get the community votes, after all it doesn't matter how many people resteem and upvote when the goal is the trending page.
So you break the chain that gets people there, at least soft downvote if you can, it would be sad to see all the high payout posts getting a few downvotes by whales, it's going to start looking like a tug of war :D
Still many have done it many are doing it, I don't mind as long as it's not every day. And btw they vote on a trail, so your vote countered all of theirs probably, the payout went from 40 to 20 :D now if 300 people vote on it it might get to 30 :D

There will always (without exception) be posts on the Trending page, and on their way to the trending page. There is nothing I can do to change that, nor would I want to if I could. The only real question is what share of the reward pool is gobbled up by those posts. Too much is too much.

sometimes it is, but fixing the leaks and the problems coupled with the drop in price by ~10-15 times would do a great deal, I was seeing 2k, then I saw even 8k and 16k payouts even more. SO it wasn't always so I agree with you, but even moderation should be moderate :D

Now the field of battle has gone to krnel and bernie :D first guy that can stand up to him :D and probably won't be much of a scuffle

Science never was and will never be a religion, by it's own definition. What can be religious are people that think they are doing "science", but they don't.

Fair enough but I think that was the point of my post hence the title "That's not science, that's religion!" Science is a method for solving problems. Religion is a social construct to have faith in someone else's experience or belief about the universe.