|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
|
|
On August 19 2021 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 00:24 maybenexttime wrote:
@DPB
I'm talking about people like Andrew Wakefield, Mike Yeadon etc. and people who give them a platform. The former are certainly scientifically literate. They just happen to be charlatans. It's difficult for an average person to tell a charlatan from a credible expert. The anti-vax leaders are usually not promoting their own ideas.
As Magic Powers pointed out, an average pro-vaccine person doesn't get their information on the scientific consensus from the scientific papers or even CDC reports. They watch CNN or BBC, read NYT or whatever. They trust those institutions to provide them with credible information. Those institutions, in turn, rely on the actual scientific institutions and the authorities (so the CDC, universities etc.) to inform them about those issues.
People who fall victim of misinformation are typically distrustful of the institutions, which is why they're susceptible to all sorts of "alternative media". But the train of thought in both camps is similar enough: I don't know enough so I'll refer to the media I trust. The media give a platform to experts, who usually have some credentials, some just happens to be charlatans. Except those articles literally have links to official statements and publications from health experts. Getting news from reputable sources that are supported by the data is not equivalent to getting news from con-men and conspiracy theorists who simply don't have the science and medicine on their side. We don't just look at both and say "Meh, they're both equally reliable and/or the viewers on both sides are equally reasonable, because neither the pro-vax news anchor nor the anti-vax news anchor are the actual medical researchers." That's absurd, and it dismisses the importance of actually having the evidence and facts on your side.
Well then, would you trust the state run media in China? Because I certainly wouldn't. But in China they're considered reputable by many. Or what about propaganda from Russia? Putin likes to control media so it paints him in a good light. Should that media be trusted since it's considered reputable by many?
What makes reputation?
And I'm not arguing that the media landscape in the US is comparable to that of China or Russia. I'm saying that many people think it's the same situation, and that isn't an irrational or naive belief in and of itself.
|
On August 19 2021 01:08 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 00:24 maybenexttime wrote:
@DPB
I'm talking about people like Andrew Wakefield, Mike Yeadon etc. and people who give them a platform. The former are certainly scientifically literate. They just happen to be charlatans. It's difficult for an average person to tell a charlatan from a credible expert. The anti-vax leaders are usually not promoting their own ideas.
As Magic Powers pointed out, an average pro-vaccine person doesn't get their information on the scientific consensus from the scientific papers or even CDC reports. They watch CNN or BBC, read NYT or whatever. They trust those institutions to provide them with credible information. Those institutions, in turn, rely on the actual scientific institutions and the authorities (so the CDC, universities etc.) to inform them about those issues.
People who fall victim of misinformation are typically distrustful of the institutions, which is why they're susceptible to all sorts of "alternative media". But the train of thought in both camps is similar enough: I don't know enough so I'll refer to the media I trust. The media give a platform to experts, who usually have some credentials, some just happens to be charlatans. Except those articles literally have links to official statements and publications from health experts. Getting news from reputable sources that are supported by the data is not equivalent to getting news from con-men and conspiracy theorists who simply don't have the science and medicine on their side. We don't just look at both and say "Meh, they're both equally reliable and/or the viewers on both sides are equally reasonable, because neither the pro-vax news anchor nor the anti-vax news anchor are the actual medical researchers." That's absurd, and it dismisses the importance of actually having the evidence and facts on your side. Well then, would you trust the state run media in China? Because I certainly wouldn't. But in China they're considered reputable by many. Or what about propaganda from Russia? Putin likes to control media so it paints him in a good light. Should that media be trusted since it's considered reputable by many? What makes reputation? And I'm not arguing that the media landscape in the US is comparable to that of China or Russia. I'm saying that many people think it's the same situation, and that isn't an irrational or naive belief in and of itself.
Pointing out the fact that people are shitty at understanding reputability isn't helping your argument. All you are showing is that lots of people have lots of really stupid thoughts. That isn't new. That isn't novel. It doesn't change anything. The fact that we have billions of humans means we will have at least a billion idiots.
This ridiculous muddying of the waters is transparent and simple. You aren't the first person to come up with silly methods like this. We have already answered these fake questions of yours.
|
On August 19 2021 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:
Pointing out the fact that people are shitty at understanding reputability isn't helping your argument. All you are showing is that lots of people have lots of really stupid thoughts. That isn't new. That isn't novel. It doesn't change anything. The fact that we have billions of humans means we will have at least a billion idiots.
This ridiculous muddying of the waters is transparent and simple. You aren't the first person to come up with silly methods like this. We have already answered these fake questions of yours.
You jump to the conclusion that people are stupid real fast, almost like it's a reflex. Can you prove that they come to their conclusions because they're stupid? Because I think the burden of proof for that claim is in your corner, not anyone else's.
|
never mind, this isn't really worth continuing. If I let each person I encounter on the internet bother me, I'd have no peace. I wish you well, magic.
|
On August 19 2021 01:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 00:24 maybenexttime wrote:
@DPB
I'm talking about people like Andrew Wakefield, Mike Yeadon etc. and people who give them a platform. The former are certainly scientifically literate. They just happen to be charlatans. It's difficult for an average person to tell a charlatan from a credible expert. The anti-vax leaders are usually not promoting their own ideas.
As Magic Powers pointed out, an average pro-vaccine person doesn't get their information on the scientific consensus from the scientific papers or even CDC reports. They watch CNN or BBC, read NYT or whatever. They trust those institutions to provide them with credible information. Those institutions, in turn, rely on the actual scientific institutions and the authorities (so the CDC, universities etc.) to inform them about those issues.
People who fall victim of misinformation are typically distrustful of the institutions, which is why they're susceptible to all sorts of "alternative media". But the train of thought in both camps is similar enough: I don't know enough so I'll refer to the media I trust. The media give a platform to experts, who usually have some credentials, some just happens to be charlatans. Except those articles literally have links to official statements and publications from health experts. Getting news from reputable sources that are supported by the data is not equivalent to getting news from con-men and conspiracy theorists who simply don't have the science and medicine on their side. We don't just look at both and say "Meh, they're both equally reliable and/or the viewers on both sides are equally reasonable, because neither the pro-vax news anchor nor the anti-vax news anchor are the actual medical researchers." That's absurd, and it dismisses the importance of actually having the evidence and facts on your side. I think you are both right with the small change that both "perceive" themselves to be going about it the same way. There is clear differences from the outside on the quality of the information but to the people at play theirs is actually the "true" one. The antivaxx people find the sources you speak to to be part of the conspiracy and the media to be their mouth pieces. Once people put their faith behind something the burden of proof becomes whether it agrees or disagrees with whatever they are faithful too and that makes changing someone's mind with logic near impossible.
I'm sure that most anti-vaxxers are quite sincere with their beliefs, just as how most pro-vaxxers are sincere with theirs. From the anti-vaxxer perspective, I'm sure they believe they're acting just as rationally and justified as the pro-vaxxers, if not moreso. That's exactly why we need objective, unbiased ways to assess this: which position is backed by the actual facts? The actual science and medicine? If an anti-vaxxer wants to criticize a pro-vaxxer for listening to pro-vax news, and a pro-vaxxer wants to criticize an anti-vaxxer for listening to anti-vax news, the easiest way to establish whether each criticism is justified is to actually look at the data. If people are going to complain when we actually start fact-checking them, just because the publications and consensus are overwhelmingly on one side of the issue, then that's very telling about the complainers.
On August 19 2021 01:08 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 00:24 maybenexttime wrote:
@DPB
I'm talking about people like Andrew Wakefield, Mike Yeadon etc. and people who give them a platform. The former are certainly scientifically literate. They just happen to be charlatans. It's difficult for an average person to tell a charlatan from a credible expert. The anti-vax leaders are usually not promoting their own ideas.
As Magic Powers pointed out, an average pro-vaccine person doesn't get their information on the scientific consensus from the scientific papers or even CDC reports. They watch CNN or BBC, read NYT or whatever. They trust those institutions to provide them with credible information. Those institutions, in turn, rely on the actual scientific institutions and the authorities (so the CDC, universities etc.) to inform them about those issues.
People who fall victim of misinformation are typically distrustful of the institutions, which is why they're susceptible to all sorts of "alternative media". But the train of thought in both camps is similar enough: I don't know enough so I'll refer to the media I trust. The media give a platform to experts, who usually have some credentials, some just happens to be charlatans. Except those articles literally have links to official statements and publications from health experts. Getting news from reputable sources that are supported by the data is not equivalent to getting news from con-men and conspiracy theorists who simply don't have the science and medicine on their side. We don't just look at both and say "Meh, they're both equally reliable and/or the viewers on both sides are equally reasonable, because neither the pro-vax news anchor nor the anti-vax news anchor are the actual medical researchers." That's absurd, and it dismisses the importance of actually having the evidence and facts on your side. Well then, would you trust the state run media in China? Because I certainly wouldn't. But in China they're considered reputable by many. Or what about propaganda from Russia? Putin likes to control media so it paints him in a good light. Should that media be trusted since it's considered reputable by many? What makes reputation? And I'm not arguing that the media landscape in the US is comparable to that of China or Russia. I'm saying that many people think it's the same situation, and that isn't an irrational or naive belief in and of itself.
You keep moving the goalposts. We've already established that the anti-vaxxers are not scientifically or medically justified, and then we started talking about whether or not they at least feel like they're sincerely justified (which may be the case, and can affect how hard it is to persuade them, but is a very different conversation than whether the data is on their side), and now we're talking about China and Russia? It doesn't matter what news source or country we're referring to; if any country or news source is promoting information that's actually factual, then that's great. On the other hand, if they're lying or misrepresenting the facts, then that's not great.
|
On August 19 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
You keep moving the goalposts. We've already established that the anti-vaxxers are not scientifically or medically justified, and then we started talking about whether or not they at least feel like they're sincerely justified (which may be the case, and can affect how hard it is to persuade them, but is a very different conversation than whether the data is on their side), and now we're talking about China and Russia? It doesn't matter what news source or country we're referring to; if any country or news source is promoting information that's actually factual, then that's great. On the other hand, if they're lying or misrepresenting the facts, then that's not great.
What moving the goalpost? Do you even know what that phrase means?
I'm trying to explain why not all people come to share someone's view on something. They have many motives, many of which are not sufficiently explained by stupidity, irrationality or naivety. I pointed to China/Russia as examples of not so trustworthy media, which is the way many people perceive things to be in the US or Europe as well.
There's no moving of any goalposts.
Many people work almost around the clock and they don't have the time or nerve to fact check things. Others just want to enjoy life in their little spare time. Is that irrational?
Some people have a black swan kind of event in their life where they lose all trust in a number of media outlets. Is that irrational?
I'm not moving anything here, unless you consider further elaborating on an existing point "moving".
|
|
|
On August 19 2021 01:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 01:01 JimmiC wrote:On August 19 2021 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 00:24 maybenexttime wrote:
@DPB
I'm talking about people like Andrew Wakefield, Mike Yeadon etc. and people who give them a platform. The former are certainly scientifically literate. They just happen to be charlatans. It's difficult for an average person to tell a charlatan from a credible expert. The anti-vax leaders are usually not promoting their own ideas.
As Magic Powers pointed out, an average pro-vaccine person doesn't get their information on the scientific consensus from the scientific papers or even CDC reports. They watch CNN or BBC, read NYT or whatever. They trust those institutions to provide them with credible information. Those institutions, in turn, rely on the actual scientific institutions and the authorities (so the CDC, universities etc.) to inform them about those issues.
People who fall victim of misinformation are typically distrustful of the institutions, which is why they're susceptible to all sorts of "alternative media". But the train of thought in both camps is similar enough: I don't know enough so I'll refer to the media I trust. The media give a platform to experts, who usually have some credentials, some just happens to be charlatans. Except those articles literally have links to official statements and publications from health experts. Getting news from reputable sources that are supported by the data is not equivalent to getting news from con-men and conspiracy theorists who simply don't have the science and medicine on their side. We don't just look at both and say "Meh, they're both equally reliable and/or the viewers on both sides are equally reasonable, because neither the pro-vax news anchor nor the anti-vax news anchor are the actual medical researchers." That's absurd, and it dismisses the importance of actually having the evidence and facts on your side. I think you are both right with the small change that both "perceive" themselves to be going about it the same way. There is clear differences from the outside on the quality of the information but to the people at play theirs is actually the "true" one. The antivaxx people find the sources you speak to to be part of the conspiracy and the media to be their mouth pieces. Once people put their faith behind something the burden of proof becomes whether it agrees or disagrees with whatever they are faithful too and that makes changing someone's mind with logic near impossible. I'm sure that most anti-vaxxers are quite sincere with their beliefs, just as how most pro-vaxxers are sincere with theirs. From the anti-vaxxer perspective, I'm sure they believe they're acting just as rationally and justified as the pro-vaxxers, if not moreso. That's exactly why we need objective, unbiased ways to assess this: which position is backed by the actual facts? The actual science and medicine? If an anti-vaxxer wants to criticize a pro-vaxxer for listening to pro-vax news, and a pro-vaxxer wants to criticize an anti-vaxxer for listening to anti-vax news, the easiest way to establish whether each criticism is justified is to actually look at the data. If people are going to complain when we actually start fact-checking them, just because the publications and consensus are overwhelmingly on one side of the issue, then that's very telling about the complainers. On August 19 2021 01:08 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2021 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2021 00:24 maybenexttime wrote:
@DPB
I'm talking about people like Andrew Wakefield, Mike Yeadon etc. and people who give them a platform. The former are certainly scientifically literate. They just happen to be charlatans. It's difficult for an average person to tell a charlatan from a credible expert. The anti-vax leaders are usually not promoting their own ideas.
As Magic Powers pointed out, an average pro-vaccine person doesn't get their information on the scientific consensus from the scientific papers or even CDC reports. They watch CNN or BBC, read NYT or whatever. They trust those institutions to provide them with credible information. Those institutions, in turn, rely on the actual scientific institutions and the authorities (so the CDC, universities etc.) to inform them about those issues.
People who fall victim of misinformation are typically distrustful of the institutions, which is why they're susceptible to all sorts of "alternative media". But the train of thought in both camps is similar enough: I don't know enough so I'll refer to the media I trust. The media give a platform to experts, who usually have some credentials, some just happens to be charlatans. Except those articles literally have links to official statements and publications from health experts. Getting news from reputable sources that are supported by the data is not equivalent to getting news from con-men and conspiracy theorists who simply don't have the science and medicine on their side. We don't just look at both and say "Meh, they're both equally reliable and/or the viewers on both sides are equally reasonable, because neither the pro-vax news anchor nor the anti-vax news anchor are the actual medical researchers." That's absurd, and it dismisses the importance of actually having the evidence and facts on your side. Well then, would you trust the state run media in China? Because I certainly wouldn't. But in China they're considered reputable by many. Or what about propaganda from Russia? Putin likes to control media so it paints him in a good light. Should that media be trusted since it's considered reputable by many? What makes reputation? And I'm not arguing that the media landscape in the US is comparable to that of China or Russia. I'm saying that many people think it's the same situation, and that isn't an irrational or naive belief in and of itself. You keep moving the goalposts. We've already established that the anti-vaxxers are not scientifically or medically justified, and then we started talking about whether or not they at least feel like they're sincerely justified (which may be the case, and can affect how hard it is to persuade them, but is a very different conversation than whether the data is on their side), and now we're talking about China and Russia? It doesn't matter what news source or country we're referring to; if any country or news source is promoting information that's actually factual, then that's great. On the other hand, if they're lying or misrepresenting the facts, then that's not great. I think that finding a "source of truth" that almost everone trusts is the biggest challenge for todays society. When I was young any arguement could basically be solved by looking at the encyclopedia britanica. Now everyone has their own that argues with others.
Right, and it's very frustrating. And it's for that very reason that I think a bunch of us were receptive to other methods of convincing anti-vax people to change their minds and actually get vaccinated, if presenting actual facts don't work, like making things less convenient for them.
On August 19 2021 01:40 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
You keep moving the goalposts. We've already established that the anti-vaxxers are not scientifically or medically justified, and then we started talking about whether or not they at least feel like they're sincerely justified (which may be the case, and can affect how hard it is to persuade them, but is a very different conversation than whether the data is on their side), and now we're talking about China and Russia? It doesn't matter what news source or country we're referring to; if any country or news source is promoting information that's actually factual, then that's great. On the other hand, if they're lying or misrepresenting the facts, then that's not great. What moving the goalpost? Do you even know what that phrase means? I'm trying to explain why not all people come to share someone's view on something. They have many motives, many of which are not sufficiently explained by stupidity, irrationality or naivety. I pointed to China/Russia as examples of not so trustworthy media, which is the way many people perceive things to be in the US or Europe as well. There's no moving of any goalposts. Many people work almost around the clock and they don't have the time or nerve to fact check things. Others just want to enjoy life in their little spare time. Is that irrational? Some people have a black swan kind of event in their life where they lose all trust in a number of media outlets. Is that irrational? I'm not moving anything here, unless you consider further elaborating on an existing point "moving".
The very next sentence elaborated on the goalpost-moving: when a position of "factually justified" shifts to "sincere in belief" after the former is contested (i.e., when you're challenged to actually present anti-vax publications), that's goalpost-moving.
You're also misrepresenting how "rational/irrational" was being used beforehand, compared to how you're using it now. Not having the time to do research on vaccines does not mean you're rationally justified in being an anti-vaxxer. We can say it's rational to decide against spending every waking moment doing research, but that's very different than talking about the truth value of statements like "I think vaccines do/don't help fight against covid". It just sounds like you're making excuses for people who don't want to put in the effort and learn. It may be rational for them to spend time doing other things and enjoying their free time, but that doesn't mean their scientific positions on covid vaccines are necessarily rational in the sense that they're supported by the data.
|
It's hard to put into words, but I understand the point that vaccine hesitancy may not always be down to clear-cut irrationality. Scientific data is just one factor. People are also swayed by peers, personal experiences (especially tragedies and hardships), and their own circle of trusted 'expert influencers'.
Recently, Eric Clapton made a bold statement of refusing to play in venues requiring full vaccination passport. One of the reasons is his own adverse reaction to vaccine. Of course, he's the minority when it comes to celebrities. Is he irrational? That's arguable.
I'm not saying that I agree with him, or know many people like him. Maybe they are being really selfish. But one can be purely selfish yet rational.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57934379
|
Norway28715 Posts
I'm not too fond of the rational/irrational angle, as I generally believe everyone acts in accordance with their own rationality. The issue how I see it is more a question of people inhabiting different information universes, and, indeed, that some people end up being consistently wrong because they, for whatever reason, (not necessarily related to intelligence) stumbled into a wrong information universe. These different universes aren't necessarily different in how rationally they interpret facts, they rather differ in what facts form the foundation of their greater beliefs.
Then, I believe the one I myself inhabit is significantly more likely to be true, because it more consistently leans on a consensus of what experts in x field believe. But I (generally) don't think others who consistently believe other things are stupid or irrational. I think they are ignorant and wrong.
|
On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 18 2021 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 07:19 Amui wrote:I like this approach more than holding them down to be honest. I'd rather ostracize than radicalize. With how covid is now, the ends really justify the means with respect to vaccination. We aren't likely getting out of this without having at least 4/5 people fully vaccinated, in addition to the unvaccinated people catching it. If keeping anti-vax out of restaurants, bars, offices and everything else works, great. If it doesn't work, hold them down or deport them. If we had other options, I would advocate for those. Nothing else is working. At one point you need to escalate. I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them. If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines.
I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: I don't think you would ever have to go that far
Briliant discussion
|
On August 19 2021 04:43 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 18 2021 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 07:19 Amui wrote:I like this approach more than holding them down to be honest. I'd rather ostracize than radicalize. With how covid is now, the ends really justify the means with respect to vaccination. We aren't likely getting out of this without having at least 4/5 people fully vaccinated, in addition to the unvaccinated people catching it. If keeping anti-vax out of restaurants, bars, offices and everything else works, great. If it doesn't work, hold them down or deport them. If we had other options, I would advocate for those. Nothing else is working. At one point you need to escalate. I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them. If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines. I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: Briliant discussion
So long as anti-vax folks are causing people to die, the way you are framing this is silly. Look up the total deaths from covid so far. This isn't some benign situation. It is actively shitty already. Pretending we have some option that doesn't result in loss of human life is naive.
This is the trolley problem. If we pull a switch, 20 anti-vaxers die and and 200 people are saved. Total slam dunk as far as I am concerned. Lots of antivaxers would totally take the vax if you threaten their livelihood/citizenship/career/child custody. I would gladly spend my mornings pulling that lever over and over because I would have the benefit of saving hundreds of lives.
|
On August 19 2021 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 04:43 teeel141 wrote:On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 18 2021 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 07:19 Amui wrote:I like this approach more than holding them down to be honest. I'd rather ostracize than radicalize. With how covid is now, the ends really justify the means with respect to vaccination. We aren't likely getting out of this without having at least 4/5 people fully vaccinated, in addition to the unvaccinated people catching it. If keeping anti-vax out of restaurants, bars, offices and everything else works, great. If it doesn't work, hold them down or deport them. If we had other options, I would advocate for those. Nothing else is working. At one point you need to escalate. I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them. If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines. I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: I don't think you would ever have to go that far Briliant discussion So long as anti-vax folks are causing people to die, the way you are framing this is silly. Look up the total deaths from covid so far. This isn't some benign situation. It is actively shitty already. Pretending we have some option that doesn't result in loss of human life is naive. This is the trolley problem. If we pull a switch, 20 anti-vaxers die and and 200 people are saved. Total slam dunk as far as I am concerned. Lots of antivaxers would totally take the vax if you threaten their livelihood/citizenship/career/child custody. I would gladly spend my mornings pulling that lever over and over because I would have the benefit of saving hundreds of lives.
Maybe put the non vaxxed in prison camps atleast? They could work for food and the shelter we built for them. Just to be efficient obviously. And they can always get vaxxed to leave the camps right? So no problem at all?
Theres one somewhat better option I dunno, it seems that you really don't care about human life at all while claiming that you do. Nor any other implications for what you propose.
|
On August 19 2021 05:12 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 04:43 teeel141 wrote:On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 18 2021 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 07:19 Amui wrote:I like this approach more than holding them down to be honest. I'd rather ostracize than radicalize. With how covid is now, the ends really justify the means with respect to vaccination. We aren't likely getting out of this without having at least 4/5 people fully vaccinated, in addition to the unvaccinated people catching it. If keeping anti-vax out of restaurants, bars, offices and everything else works, great. If it doesn't work, hold them down or deport them. If we had other options, I would advocate for those. Nothing else is working. At one point you need to escalate. I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them. If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines. I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: I don't think you would ever have to go that far Briliant discussion So long as anti-vax folks are causing people to die, the way you are framing this is silly. Look up the total deaths from covid so far. This isn't some benign situation. It is actively shitty already. Pretending we have some option that doesn't result in loss of human life is naive. This is the trolley problem. If we pull a switch, 20 anti-vaxers die and and 200 people are saved. Total slam dunk as far as I am concerned. Lots of antivaxers would totally take the vax if you threaten their livelihood/citizenship/career/child custody. I would gladly spend my mornings pulling that lever over and over because I would have the benefit of saving hundreds of lives. Maybe put the non vaxxed in prison camps atleast? They could work for food and the shelter we built for them. Just to be efficient obviously. And they can always get vaxxed to leave the camps right? So no problem at all? Theres one somewhat better option I dunno, it seems that you really don't care about human life at all while claiming that you do. Nor any other implications for what you propose.
The problem with your camp solution is that they can still spread to others. Big nono. No one has the right to choose to expose other people to contagions. I care about human life, which is why I am advocating for increasing human life.
Are you familiar with the trolley problem? Would you kill 5 people to save 10? Or would you complain that human lives are being lost and pout?
|
On August 19 2021 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 05:12 teeel141 wrote:On August 19 2021 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 04:43 teeel141 wrote:On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 18 2021 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 07:19 Amui wrote:
[quote]
I like this approach more than holding them down to be honest. I'd rather ostracize than radicalize.
With how covid is now, the ends really justify the means with respect to vaccination. We aren't likely getting out of this without having at least 4/5 people fully vaccinated, in addition to the unvaccinated people catching it. If keeping anti-vax out of restaurants, bars, offices and everything else works, great. If it doesn't work, hold them down or deport them. If we had other options, I would advocate for those. Nothing else is working. At one point you need to escalate. I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them. If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines. I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: I don't think you would ever have to go that far Briliant discussion So long as anti-vax folks are causing people to die, the way you are framing this is silly. Look up the total deaths from covid so far. This isn't some benign situation. It is actively shitty already. Pretending we have some option that doesn't result in loss of human life is naive. This is the trolley problem. If we pull a switch, 20 anti-vaxers die and and 200 people are saved. Total slam dunk as far as I am concerned. Lots of antivaxers would totally take the vax if you threaten their livelihood/citizenship/career/child custody. I would gladly spend my mornings pulling that lever over and over because I would have the benefit of saving hundreds of lives. Maybe put the non vaxxed in prison camps atleast? They could work for food and the shelter we built for them. Just to be efficient obviously. And they can always get vaxxed to leave the camps right? So no problem at all? Theres one somewhat better option I dunno, it seems that you really don't care about human life at all while claiming that you do. Nor any other implications for what you propose. The problem with your camp solution is that they can still spread to others. Big nono. No one has the right to choose to expose other people to contagions. I care about human life, which is why I am advocating for increasing human life. Are you familiar with the trolley problem? Would you kill 5 people to save 10? Or would you complain that human lives are being lost and pout?
Youre either trolling or incredibly stupid
|
On August 19 2021 05:18 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 05:12 teeel141 wrote:On August 19 2021 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 04:43 teeel141 wrote:On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 18 2021 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
If keeping anti-vax out of restaurants, bars, offices and everything else works, great. If it doesn't work, hold them down or deport them. If we had other options, I would advocate for those. Nothing else is working. At one point you need to escalate. I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them. If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines. I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: I don't think you would ever have to go that far Briliant discussion So long as anti-vax folks are causing people to die, the way you are framing this is silly. Look up the total deaths from covid so far. This isn't some benign situation. It is actively shitty already. Pretending we have some option that doesn't result in loss of human life is naive. This is the trolley problem. If we pull a switch, 20 anti-vaxers die and and 200 people are saved. Total slam dunk as far as I am concerned. Lots of antivaxers would totally take the vax if you threaten their livelihood/citizenship/career/child custody. I would gladly spend my mornings pulling that lever over and over because I would have the benefit of saving hundreds of lives. Maybe put the non vaxxed in prison camps atleast? They could work for food and the shelter we built for them. Just to be efficient obviously. And they can always get vaxxed to leave the camps right? So no problem at all? Theres one somewhat better option I dunno, it seems that you really don't care about human life at all while claiming that you do. Nor any other implications for what you propose. The problem with your camp solution is that they can still spread to others. Big nono. No one has the right to choose to expose other people to contagions. I care about human life, which is why I am advocating for increasing human life. Are you familiar with the trolley problem? Would you kill 5 people to save 10? Or would you complain that human lives are being lost and pout? Youre either trolling or incredibly stupid
I've posted here for quite a while and I think plenty of people will agree I am not trolling. You are welcome to think of me as stupid, but I'd ask you provide some supporting information for the sake of the conversation. Why am I stupid?
|
On August 19 2021 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 05:12 teeel141 wrote:On August 19 2021 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 04:43 teeel141 wrote:On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 18 2021 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 07:19 Amui wrote:
[quote]
I like this approach more than holding them down to be honest. I'd rather ostracize than radicalize.
With how covid is now, the ends really justify the means with respect to vaccination. We aren't likely getting out of this without having at least 4/5 people fully vaccinated, in addition to the unvaccinated people catching it. If keeping anti-vax out of restaurants, bars, offices and everything else works, great. If it doesn't work, hold them down or deport them. If we had other options, I would advocate for those. Nothing else is working. At one point you need to escalate. Reality is basically never as binary as the trolley problem. Its an analogy that has very little place in any discussion. I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them. If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines. I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: I don't think you would ever have to go that far Briliant discussion So long as anti-vax folks are causing people to die, the way you are framing this is silly. Look up the total deaths from covid so far. This isn't some benign situation. It is actively shitty already. Pretending we have some option that doesn't result in loss of human life is naive. This is the trolley problem. If we pull a switch, 20 anti-vaxers die and and 200 people are saved. Total slam dunk as far as I am concerned. Lots of antivaxers would totally take the vax if you threaten their livelihood/citizenship/career/child custody. I would gladly spend my mornings pulling that lever over and over because I would have the benefit of saving hundreds of lives. Maybe put the non vaxxed in prison camps atleast? They could work for food and the shelter we built for them. Just to be efficient obviously. And they can always get vaxxed to leave the camps right? So no problem at all? Theres one somewhat better option I dunno, it seems that you really don't care about human life at all while claiming that you do. Nor any other implications for what you propose. The problem with your camp solution is that they can still spread to others. Big nono. No one has the right to choose to expose other people to contagions. I care about human life, which is why I am advocating for increasing human life. Are you familiar with the trolley problem? Would you kill 5 people to save 10? Or would you complain that human lives are being lost and pout? Reality is rarely as binary as the trolley problem. It has little place in trying to have an actual discussion.
|
On August 19 2021 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 05:12 teeel141 wrote:On August 19 2021 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 04:43 teeel141 wrote:On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 18 2021 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
If keeping anti-vax out of restaurants, bars, offices and everything else works, great. If it doesn't work, hold them down or deport them. If we had other options, I would advocate for those. Nothing else is working. At one point you need to escalate. Reality is basically never as binary as the trolley problem. Its an analogy that has very little place in any discussion. I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them. If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines. I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: I don't think you would ever have to go that far Briliant discussion So long as anti-vax folks are causing people to die, the way you are framing this is silly. Look up the total deaths from covid so far. This isn't some benign situation. It is actively shitty already. Pretending we have some option that doesn't result in loss of human life is naive. This is the trolley problem. If we pull a switch, 20 anti-vaxers die and and 200 people are saved. Total slam dunk as far as I am concerned. Lots of antivaxers would totally take the vax if you threaten their livelihood/citizenship/career/child custody. I would gladly spend my mornings pulling that lever over and over because I would have the benefit of saving hundreds of lives. Maybe put the non vaxxed in prison camps atleast? They could work for food and the shelter we built for them. Just to be efficient obviously. And they can always get vaxxed to leave the camps right? So no problem at all? Theres one somewhat better option I dunno, it seems that you really don't care about human life at all while claiming that you do. Nor any other implications for what you propose. The problem with your camp solution is that they can still spread to others. Big nono. No one has the right to choose to expose other people to contagions. I care about human life, which is why I am advocating for increasing human life. Are you familiar with the trolley problem? Would you kill 5 people to save 10? Or would you complain that human lives are being lost and pout?
It seems you forgot to say something, would you like to try?
|
On August 19 2021 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On August 19 2021 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 05:12 teeel141 wrote:On August 19 2021 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 04:43 teeel141 wrote:On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]Reality is basically never as binary as the trolley problem.
Its an analogy that has very little place in any discussion.
I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them.
If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines. I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: I don't think you would ever have to go that far Briliant discussion So long as anti-vax folks are causing people to die, the way you are framing this is silly. Look up the total deaths from covid so far. This isn't some benign situation. It is actively shitty already. Pretending we have some option that doesn't result in loss of human life is naive. This is the trolley problem. If we pull a switch, 20 anti-vaxers die and and 200 people are saved. Total slam dunk as far as I am concerned. Lots of antivaxers would totally take the vax if you threaten their livelihood/citizenship/career/child custody. I would gladly spend my mornings pulling that lever over and over because I would have the benefit of saving hundreds of lives. Maybe put the non vaxxed in prison camps atleast? They could work for food and the shelter we built for them. Just to be efficient obviously. And they can always get vaxxed to leave the camps right? So no problem at all? Theres one somewhat better option I dunno, it seems that you really don't care about human life at all while claiming that you do. Nor any other implications for what you propose. The problem with your camp solution is that they can still spread to others. Big nono. No one has the right to choose to expose other people to contagions. I care about human life, which is why I am advocating for increasing human life. Are you familiar with the trolley problem? Would you kill 5 people to save 10? Or would you complain that human lives are being lost and pout? It seems you forgot to say something, would you like to try? no clue what happened there. edited it back in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
