|
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. |
Bj shouldn't give you the time of day for the way you talk down to him in #13054, Serm.
On November 08 2022 01:26 WombaT wrote:
Ma, pa stop fighting!
For those more plugged in than I, what does the upcoming winter, traditionally also flu season, but now also what I would assume is also COVID season look like?
At least in my neck of the woods, I haven’t heard a single peep on this, and I’m relatively plugged in.
Is it a case where, for all extents and purposes Covid is being treated as the flu in terms of policy, with those worried about it able to avail of boosters, or is a ‘wait and see’ situation where contingency plans may exist depending on what develops, but as of now haven’t been publicly communicated?
We stretch across a fair few locales so I’m curious how this is across them and if there is divergence in policy
Colloquially I'm seeing COVID added to people's vernacular as another flu. "Can't meet this weekend, I tested positive. Still recovering taste and smell." Vaccinations have peaked since school restarted. Cases are down, my guess due to less testing. Deaths low and no pattern. No news from hospital.
|
On November 08 2022 02:26 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 01:13 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 16:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 13:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less. Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument. BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think. So after all of BJ's insistence that his interpretation of your statements is the only accurate one possible, and that the rest of us are crazy or insincere... His interpretation was wrong? I asked him a question about if he understood why he got vaccinated as a kid and then he went on a multiple page tantrum because he couldn't understand why and had to cover up being exposed for not understanding how vaccines work. I am not sure if you realise what you wrote here...
Yeah forgot a word thanks added it to the quote here for you as well.
|
On November 08 2022 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 01:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 19:12 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 19:03 Magic Powers wrote:
No, we're having this discussion here or we don't. I want people to see what both of us are saying, otherwise I'm not interested.
This is not about myocarditis, this is about you using definitions whichever way is temporarily convenient for you, and switching the definition when that becomes more convenient.
Why are you not questioning the claim of vaccine safety? Should they, according to your definition, not instead say "vaccines are almost safe"? And just to get ahead of potential goalpost moving: I'm obviously still talking about covid vaccines, more specifically Pfizer and Moderna. Then yeah we're not having the discussion. You think I want to have to discussion while simultaneously putting up with that dimwit saying
HeY GuyS BJ OnLY wants TO talk abOUT MyoCarditis!!!! He DoESn'T evEN KnoW VaCCines SavE LivEs!!Yeah sounds like a lot of fun but I politely decline. and we can say vaccines are safe because billions have been given out now the the risks are very very small. Which is different than saying there are no risks. Again this is generally collectively understood language. A routine medical procedure like a colonoscopy can be called generally safe, nobody would call it risk-free. Who says that you're unaware that vaccines save lives? Serm? I'd be happy to disagree with whoever says that, as I believe you're quite aware that vaccines save lives. Nobody faults you for not reading his illegible drivel but his existence in this thread for 3 months now has been nothing more than to say that "BJ is an antivaxxer and he doesn't want anyone to get the vaccine because he is so hateful he wants them to die of COVID and if he says different he is lying" or something to that regard. Then he asks ridiculously stupid loaded questions over and over like "BJ why don't want want anyone to get vaccinated?" or "Why do you think people getting vaccinated is a bad thing?" Which I rightfully ignore then he repeatedly badgers me with "BJ why won't you answer the question!" Which evidently doesn't violate any forum rules. You're right that my eyes glaze over when the two of you resort to mudslinging and out-pettying each other, instead of having substantive discussions, so let me ask Serm: Serm, do you recognize that BlackJack knows that vaccines save lives? (A simple Yes or No can suffice; you don't need to go into any more detail if you don't want to, and we don't need to make this about any other covid-related topic that you and he may not agree about.) No I don't. He's shown constantly that he reacts violently when pressed on any part about how vaccines work or why they're used. I think he understands that he would look bad if he admitted that he doesn't think vaccines save lives and so tries desperately to find some justification for him being able to admit it in public. Okay. I don't agree with BJ on everything, and I think he's said other things that weren't very clear, but I also think he's made it clear that he understands that vaccines save lives. People can know that vaccines save lives even if they don't know how they work, or whether they think mandates could be effective, etc.
I mean I agree that people can know that vaccines save lives even if they don't know how they work but I don't see his behavior of either. Hes been asked why he thinks that there shouldn't be mandates even though it would save lives and his answer was "people shouldn't be forced to get the vaccine". When he was told that people agree with him but that it isn't an argument against the mandates we've seen so far he doesn't have another reason.
How many times have we seen him act like vaccine mandate support is the same as thinking that the disease can be eradicated? Or being against giving the vaccine to people due to the vaccine giving symptoms that are less than the disease itself? I asked him why he thought he got vaccinated as a kid and he steadfastly cannot answer it because he has no idea I believe.
The arguments he makes just doesn't reconcile with knowing how vaccines work or belving that they save lives.
On November 08 2022 02:48 Troutish wrote:
Bj shouldn't give you the time of day for the way you talk down to him in #13054, Serm.
I mean he's chill with calling other people mentally challenged and being "complete wastes of space". Hes not exactly briming with reasons to treat him any better then how he treats other people.
|
On November 08 2022 03:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2022 01:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 19:12 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 19:03 Magic Powers wrote:
No, we're having this discussion here or we don't. I want people to see what both of us are saying, otherwise I'm not interested.
This is not about myocarditis, this is about you using definitions whichever way is temporarily convenient for you, and switching the definition when that becomes more convenient.
Why are you not questioning the claim of vaccine safety? Should they, according to your definition, not instead say "vaccines are almost safe"? And just to get ahead of potential goalpost moving: I'm obviously still talking about covid vaccines, more specifically Pfizer and Moderna. Then yeah we're not having the discussion. You think I want to have to discussion while simultaneously putting up with that dimwit saying
HeY GuyS BJ OnLY wants TO talk abOUT MyoCarditis!!!! He DoESn'T evEN KnoW VaCCines SavE LivEs!!Yeah sounds like a lot of fun but I politely decline. and we can say vaccines are safe because billions have been given out now the the risks are very very small. Which is different than saying there are no risks. Again this is generally collectively understood language. A routine medical procedure like a colonoscopy can be called generally safe, nobody would call it risk-free. Who says that you're unaware that vaccines save lives? Serm? I'd be happy to disagree with whoever says that, as I believe you're quite aware that vaccines save lives. Nobody faults you for not reading his illegible drivel but his existence in this thread for 3 months now has been nothing more than to say that "BJ is an antivaxxer and he doesn't want anyone to get the vaccine because he is so hateful he wants them to die of COVID and if he says different he is lying" or something to that regard. Then he asks ridiculously stupid loaded questions over and over like "BJ why don't want want anyone to get vaccinated?" or "Why do you think people getting vaccinated is a bad thing?" Which I rightfully ignore then he repeatedly badgers me with "BJ why won't you answer the question!" Which evidently doesn't violate any forum rules. You're right that my eyes glaze over when the two of you resort to mudslinging and out-pettying each other, instead of having substantive discussions, so let me ask Serm: Serm, do you recognize that BlackJack knows that vaccines save lives? (A simple Yes or No can suffice; you don't need to go into any more detail if you don't want to, and we don't need to make this about any other covid-related topic that you and he may not agree about.) No I don't. He's shown constantly that he reacts violently when pressed on any part about how vaccines work or why they're used. I think he understands that he would look bad if he admitted that he doesn't think vaccines save lives and so tries desperately to find some justification for him being able to admit it in public. Okay. I don't agree with BJ on everything, and I think he's said other things that weren't very clear, but I also think he's made it clear that he understands that vaccines save lives. People can know that vaccines save lives even if they don't know how they work, or whether they think mandates could be effective, etc. I mean I agree that people can know that vaccines save lives even if they don't know how they work but I don't see his behavior of either. Hes been asked why he thinks that there shouldn't be mandates even though it would save lives and his answer was "people shouldn't be forced to get the vaccine". When he was told that people agree with him but that it isn't an argument against the mandates we've seen so far he doesn't have another reason. How many times have we seen him act like vaccine mandate support is the same as thinking that the disease can be eradicated? Or being against giving the vaccine to people due to the vaccine giving symptoms that are less than the disease itself? I asked him why he thought he got vaccinated as a kid and he steadfastly cannot answer it because he has no idea I believe. The arguments he makes just doesn't reconcile with knowing how vaccines work or belving that they save lives.
Based on how many times you've just mentioned how BlackJack feels about vaccine mandates, it makes me think that your line of reasoning is "Why wouldn't someone support a vaccine mandate if they know vaccines actually save lives", but it's more complicated than that. Being against a vaccine mandate is not the same thing as not understanding that vaccines save lives. Each person has their own threshold for what kinds of freedoms they believe should be limited during different scenarios (the height of a pandemic, a year later when things are more manageable, etc.) and also considers other variables (the efficacy of the vaccine for the individual taking it, the decrease in infection rate month over month when a vaccinated person is around others, etc.).
In other words, I think that the statement "Person X understands that covid vaccines save lives, but Person X is also against a legal mandate forcing everyone to get vaccinated" is a possible and not-inherently-contradictory position to have. I'm not saying that someone is necessarily right (or wrong) for having that position, just that the latter half of that position doesn't refute the former half. I think BlackJack might hold that position - that he is an example of Person X - one who recognizes that covid vaccines have saved lives and continue to do so, but also believes that mandating covid vaccines for everyone (especially now, at the end of 2022) isn't necessary.
I apologize in advance if I've misunderstood your line of reasoning or BlackJack's position; I'm trying to sincerely interpret the situation.
|
Sorry but what’s going on with the moderation on this forum? So you’re allowed to call someone an antivaxxer and insist they don’t want people to get vaccinated? Then when asked why there’s many posts of me saying people should get vaccinated but none of me saying they shouldn’t you’re allowed to say “he’s lying” or “he just won’t admit it.”
I have little doubt that if Serm was right-leaning instead of left-leaning he would have had mod action taken against him long ago. Which is just another reason this place is an echo chamber.
|
On November 08 2022 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2022 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2022 01:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 19:12 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 19:03 Magic Powers wrote:
No, we're having this discussion here or we don't. I want people to see what both of us are saying, otherwise I'm not interested.
This is not about myocarditis, this is about you using definitions whichever way is temporarily convenient for you, and switching the definition when that becomes more convenient.
Why are you not questioning the claim of vaccine safety? Should they, according to your definition, not instead say "vaccines are almost safe"? And just to get ahead of potential goalpost moving: I'm obviously still talking about covid vaccines, more specifically Pfizer and Moderna. Then yeah we're not having the discussion. You think I want to have to discussion while simultaneously putting up with that dimwit saying
HeY GuyS BJ OnLY wants TO talk abOUT MyoCarditis!!!! He DoESn'T evEN KnoW VaCCines SavE LivEs!!Yeah sounds like a lot of fun but I politely decline. and we can say vaccines are safe because billions have been given out now the the risks are very very small. Which is different than saying there are no risks. Again this is generally collectively understood language. A routine medical procedure like a colonoscopy can be called generally safe, nobody would call it risk-free. Who says that you're unaware that vaccines save lives? Serm? I'd be happy to disagree with whoever says that, as I believe you're quite aware that vaccines save lives. Nobody faults you for not reading his illegible drivel but his existence in this thread for 3 months now has been nothing more than to say that "BJ is an antivaxxer and he doesn't want anyone to get the vaccine because he is so hateful he wants them to die of COVID and if he says different he is lying" or something to that regard. Then he asks ridiculously stupid loaded questions over and over like "BJ why don't want want anyone to get vaccinated?" or "Why do you think people getting vaccinated is a bad thing?" Which I rightfully ignore then he repeatedly badgers me with "BJ why won't you answer the question!" Which evidently doesn't violate any forum rules. You're right that my eyes glaze over when the two of you resort to mudslinging and out-pettying each other, instead of having substantive discussions, so let me ask Serm: Serm, do you recognize that BlackJack knows that vaccines save lives? (A simple Yes or No can suffice; you don't need to go into any more detail if you don't want to, and we don't need to make this about any other covid-related topic that you and he may not agree about.) No I don't. He's shown constantly that he reacts violently when pressed on any part about how vaccines work or why they're used. I think he understands that he would look bad if he admitted that he doesn't think vaccines save lives and so tries desperately to find some justification for him being able to admit it in public. Okay. I don't agree with BJ on everything, and I think he's said other things that weren't very clear, but I also think he's made it clear that he understands that vaccines save lives. People can know that vaccines save lives even if they don't know how they work, or whether they think mandates could be effective, etc. I mean I agree that people can know that vaccines save lives even if they don't know how they work but I don't see his behavior of either. Hes been asked why he thinks that there shouldn't be mandates even though it would save lives and his answer was "people shouldn't be forced to get the vaccine". When he was told that people agree with him but that it isn't an argument against the mandates we've seen so far he doesn't have another reason. How many times have we seen him act like vaccine mandate support is the same as thinking that the disease can be eradicated? Or being against giving the vaccine to people due to the vaccine giving symptoms that are less than the disease itself? I asked him why he thought he got vaccinated as a kid and he steadfastly cannot answer it because he has no idea I believe. The arguments he makes just doesn't reconcile with knowing how vaccines work or belving that they save lives. Based on how many times you've just mentioned how BlackJack feels about vaccine mandates, it makes me think that your line of reasoning is "Why wouldn't someone support a vaccine mandate if they know vaccines actually save lives", but it's more complicated than that. Being against a vaccine mandate is not the same thing as not understanding that vaccines save lives. Each person has their own threshold for what kinds of freedoms they believe should be limited during different scenarios (the height of a pandemic, a year later when things are more manageable, etc.) and also considers other variables (the efficacy of the vaccine for the individual taking it, the decrease in infection rate month over month when a vaccinated person is around others, etc.). In other words, I think that the statement "Person X understands that covid vaccines save lives, but Person X is also against a legal mandate forcing everyone to get vaccinated" is a possible and not-inherently-contradictory position to have. I'm not saying that someone is necessarily right (or wrong) for having that position, just that the latter half of that position doesn't refute the former half. I think BlackJack might hold that position - that he is an example of Person X - one who recognizes that covid vaccines have saved lives and continue to do so, but also believes that mandating covid vaccines for everyone (especially now, at the end of 2022) isn't necessary. I apologize in advance if I've misunderstood your line of reasoning or BlackJack's position; I'm trying to sincerely interpret the situation.
Lol I like how you explain this to him like he is in grade school. Unfortunately it’s still not going to work
|
On November 08 2022 03:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 02:48 Troutish wrote:
Bj shouldn't give you the time of day for the way you talk down to him in #13054, Serm. I mean he's chill with calling other people mentally challenged and being "complete wastes of space". Hes not exactly briming with reasons to treat him any better then how he treats other people.
So infantilizing him and mocking him for your own entertainment is justified, yes? That's going to get him to change his mind on COVID vaccine mandates? That's going to convince antivaxxers they're mistaken and should have a change of heart? I'm not being sarcastic it's an honest question, I don't see how crawling through this mud helps.
If you recognize that this slogfest goes nowhere then we can ask more productive questions like how do we move on? What do we move on to? Where should our efforts be aimed going forward?
|
On November 08 2022 05:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2022 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2022 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2022 01:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 19:12 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 19:03 Magic Powers wrote:
No, we're having this discussion here or we don't. I want people to see what both of us are saying, otherwise I'm not interested.
This is not about myocarditis, this is about you using definitions whichever way is temporarily convenient for you, and switching the definition when that becomes more convenient.
Why are you not questioning the claim of vaccine safety? Should they, according to your definition, not instead say "vaccines are almost safe"? And just to get ahead of potential goalpost moving: I'm obviously still talking about covid vaccines, more specifically Pfizer and Moderna. Then yeah we're not having the discussion. You think I want to have to discussion while simultaneously putting up with that dimwit saying
HeY GuyS BJ OnLY wants TO talk abOUT MyoCarditis!!!! He DoESn'T evEN KnoW VaCCines SavE LivEs!!Yeah sounds like a lot of fun but I politely decline. and we can say vaccines are safe because billions have been given out now the the risks are very very small. Which is different than saying there are no risks. Again this is generally collectively understood language. A routine medical procedure like a colonoscopy can be called generally safe, nobody would call it risk-free. Who says that you're unaware that vaccines save lives? Serm? I'd be happy to disagree with whoever says that, as I believe you're quite aware that vaccines save lives. Nobody faults you for not reading his illegible drivel but his existence in this thread for 3 months now has been nothing more than to say that "BJ is an antivaxxer and he doesn't want anyone to get the vaccine because he is so hateful he wants them to die of COVID and if he says different he is lying" or something to that regard. Then he asks ridiculously stupid loaded questions over and over like "BJ why don't want want anyone to get vaccinated?" or "Why do you think people getting vaccinated is a bad thing?" Which I rightfully ignore then he repeatedly badgers me with "BJ why won't you answer the question!" Which evidently doesn't violate any forum rules. You're right that my eyes glaze over when the two of you resort to mudslinging and out-pettying each other, instead of having substantive discussions, so let me ask Serm: Serm, do you recognize that BlackJack knows that vaccines save lives? (A simple Yes or No can suffice; you don't need to go into any more detail if you don't want to, and we don't need to make this about any other covid-related topic that you and he may not agree about.) No I don't. He's shown constantly that he reacts violently when pressed on any part about how vaccines work or why they're used. I think he understands that he would look bad if he admitted that he doesn't think vaccines save lives and so tries desperately to find some justification for him being able to admit it in public. Okay. I don't agree with BJ on everything, and I think he's said other things that weren't very clear, but I also think he's made it clear that he understands that vaccines save lives. People can know that vaccines save lives even if they don't know how they work, or whether they think mandates could be effective, etc. I mean I agree that people can know that vaccines save lives even if they don't know how they work but I don't see his behavior of either. Hes been asked why he thinks that there shouldn't be mandates even though it would save lives and his answer was "people shouldn't be forced to get the vaccine". When he was told that people agree with him but that it isn't an argument against the mandates we've seen so far he doesn't have another reason. How many times have we seen him act like vaccine mandate support is the same as thinking that the disease can be eradicated? Or being against giving the vaccine to people due to the vaccine giving symptoms that are less than the disease itself? I asked him why he thought he got vaccinated as a kid and he steadfastly cannot answer it because he has no idea I believe. The arguments he makes just doesn't reconcile with knowing how vaccines work or belving that they save lives. Based on how many times you've just mentioned how BlackJack feels about vaccine mandates, it makes me think that your line of reasoning is "Why wouldn't someone support a vaccine mandate if they know vaccines actually save lives", but it's more complicated than that. Being against a vaccine mandate is not the same thing as not understanding that vaccines save lives. Each person has their own threshold for what kinds of freedoms they believe should be limited during different scenarios (the height of a pandemic, a year later when things are more manageable, etc.) and also considers other variables (the efficacy of the vaccine for the individual taking it, the decrease in infection rate month over month when a vaccinated person is around others, etc.). In other words, I think that the statement "Person X understands that covid vaccines save lives, but Person X is also against a legal mandate forcing everyone to get vaccinated" is a possible and not-inherently-contradictory position to have. I'm not saying that someone is necessarily right (or wrong) for having that position, just that the latter half of that position doesn't refute the former half. I think BlackJack might hold that position - that he is an example of Person X - one who recognizes that covid vaccines have saved lives and continue to do so, but also believes that mandating covid vaccines for everyone (especially now, at the end of 2022) isn't necessary. I apologize in advance if I've misunderstood your line of reasoning or BlackJack's position; I'm trying to sincerely interpret the situation. Lol I like how you explain this to him like he is in grade school. Unfortunately it’s still not going to work
Either way, you saying something like this isn't helpful, right?
|
On November 08 2022 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
Sorry but what’s going on with the moderation on this forum? So you’re allowed to call someone an antivaxxer and insist they don’t want people to get vaccinated? Then when asked why there’s many posts of me saying people should get vaccinated but none of me saying they shouldn’t you’re allowed to say “he’s lying” or “he just won’t admit it.”
I have little doubt that if Serm was right-leaning instead of left-leaning he would have had mod action taken against him long ago. Which is just another reason this place is an echo chamber.
I don't know if asking for moderation against people who are hostile and call others names is a position you want to take. I think a lot of people have noticed both you and Serm throwing insults around.
|
On November 08 2022 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
Sorry but what’s going on with the moderation on this forum? So you’re allowed to call someone an antivaxxer and insist they don’t want people to get vaccinated? Then when asked why there’s many posts of me saying people should get vaccinated but none of me saying they shouldn’t you’re allowed to say “he’s lying” or “he just won’t admit it.”
I have little doubt that if Serm was right-leaning instead of left-leaning he would have had mod action taken against him long ago. Which is just another reason this place is an echo chamber. I don't know if asking for moderation against people who are hostile and call others names is a position you want to take. I think a lot of people have noticed both you and Serm throwing insults around.
False equivalency to say it's a wash, imo. I repeatedly attempt to ignore him and he repeatedly attacks me with libelous and harassing posts. Occasionally I respond and occasionally I respond unkindly.
It's fine if someone is too stupid to understand the difference between supporting COVID vaccine mandates and supporting COVID vaccination itself, only our education system can be faulted for that. But to repeatedly lie and say I refuse to explain my position or I refuse say why I oppose vaccine mandates should be actionable, period.
Look here is even a post of you explaining my position
I elaborate even further
His response to both you and Eri who have explained my position quite clearly is that "He's lying to you" and "He just won't admit it."
How would you like it if I called you a fascist and said you want to round up all the unvaccinated and send them to internment camps and even though you never said this I'll just insist "you won't admit it." How long until you think I would get banned?
|
Or explain this one to me. On this very page he says:
Hes been asked why he thinks that there shouldn't be mandates even though it would save lives and his answer was "people shouldn't be forced to get the vaccine". When he was told that people agree with him but that it isn't an argument against the mandates we've seen so far he doesn't have another reason.
But here is a long post of his that begins
"BJ says he opposes vaccine mandates on two major vectors..." before going on another rant calling me an antivaxxer
So what's your explanation for why someone would say I won't give a reason for why I oppose vaccine mandates when there's posts of his on the record trying to counter some reasons I gave for why I oppose vaccine mandates? Do you think it's unfair to say he has the memory of a tadpole or he is a liar? What's your take?
|
|
|
Norway28876 Posts
Tbh I've considered putting a moratorium on my 'don't moderate threads I participate in' because this thread has needed some. You wouldn't walk scot free though (not for your posts responding to serm, those I think have been acceptable, and in you discussions with him, there's no question he's been the bigger offender), but there's been some need for calming down, 'on both sides'. I guess this can be considered a warning.
|
On November 08 2022 06:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2022 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
Sorry but what’s going on with the moderation on this forum? So you’re allowed to call someone an antivaxxer and insist they don’t want people to get vaccinated? Then when asked why there’s many posts of me saying people should get vaccinated but none of me saying they shouldn’t you’re allowed to say “he’s lying” or “he just won’t admit it.”
I have little doubt that if Serm was right-leaning instead of left-leaning he would have had mod action taken against him long ago. Which is just another reason this place is an echo chamber. I don't know if asking for moderation against people who are hostile and call others names is a position you want to take. I think a lot of people have noticed both you and Serm throwing insults around. False equivalency to say it's a wash, imo. I repeatedly attempt to ignore him and he repeatedly attacks me with libelous and harassing posts. Occasionally I respond and occasionally I respond unkindly. It's fine if someone is too stupid to understand the difference between supporting COVID vaccine mandates and supporting COVID vaccination itself, only our education system can be faulted for that. But to repeatedly lie and say I refuse to explain my position or I refuse say why I oppose vaccine mandates should be actionable, period. Look here is even a post of you explaining my positionI elaborate even furtherHis response to both you and Eri who have explained my position quite clearly is that "He's lying to you" and "He just won't admit it." How would you like it if I called you a fascist and said you want to round up all the unvaccinated and send them to internment camps and even though you never said this I'll just insist "you won't admit it." How long until you think I would get banned?
I think Serm has a hard-on for throwing insults at you, and I think you throw insults at multiple people (although not as laser-focused or as frequently as Serm attacks you). I also think it'd be much more fruitful to discuss coronavirus, the vaccines, and what the future may hold.
|
On November 08 2022 01:26 WombaT wrote:
Ma, pa stop fighting!
For those more plugged in than I, what does the upcoming winter, traditionally also flu season, but now also what I would assume is also COVID season look like?
At least in my neck of the woods, I haven’t heard a single peep on this, and I’m relatively plugged in.
Is it a case where, for all extents and purposes Covid is being treated as the flu in terms of policy, with those worried about it able to avail of boosters, or is a ‘wait and see’ situation where contingency plans may exist depending on what develops, but as of now haven’t been publicly communicated?
We stretch across a fair few locales so I’m curious how this is across them and if there is divergence in policy It seems to be a situation of 'monitor and wait to see what happens'. Everyone that wants a booster can get one, there was a brief spike in positive cases in October but that didn't last long and didn't go up that much. So long as no new big wave that actually puts a lot of additional pressure on healthcare forms its all back to business as usual and more or less treated as the flu yes.
I'm sure contingency plans exist for if a new big wave forms but no need to talk about them and create anxiety when nothing is happening.
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On November 08 2022 05:21 BlackJack wrote:
Sorry but what’s going on with the moderation on this forum? So you’re allowed to call someone an antivaxxer and insist they don’t want people to get vaccinated? Then when asked why there’s many posts of me saying people should get vaccinated but none of me saying they shouldn’t you’re allowed to say “he’s lying” or “he just won’t admit it.”
I have little doubt that if Serm was right-leaning instead of left-leaning he would have had mod action taken against him long ago. Which is just another reason this place is an echo chamber.
You’ve literally had Drone openly vouch for you on the basis of knowing your character and your posting on a non-TL forum and you’re complaining about moderation? How many other posters in any area of the site get that kind of slack?
I’m not saying you’ve done anything, IMO remotely actionable but you’ve literally got a mod batting for you while simultaneously complaining about moderation. You’ve got a mod, and basically the only active mod who posts regularly in the thread backing you up. On record, on this very thread.
You and Serm can resolve your, quite frankly increasingly irritating pissing contest how you want. Ideally not in the thread.
Neither of you are martyrs for truth based on a complete inability to communicate with one another.
|
its completely understandable that bj is frustrated about lack of mod action. sure, he himself is walking on ice but serm is straight up hostile against bj.
On November 07 2022 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Serm, do you recognize that BlackJack knows that vaccines save lives? (A simple Yes or No can suffice; you don't need to go into any more detail if you don't want to, and we don't need to make this about any other covid-related topic that you and he may not agree about.)
On November 08 2022 01:25 Sermokala wrote:
No I don't. He's shown constantly that he reacts violently when pressed on any part about how vaccines work or why they're used. The things he argues most passionately against is results from vaccination efforts or results from previous vaccination efforts.
I think he understands that he would look bad if he admitted that he doesn't think vaccines save lives and so tries desperately to find some justification for him being able to admit it in public.
after 50 pages of shit flinging this is serms conclusion on bj's position. ive said it before, but serm is literally not even reading bj's posts, hes just looking for keywords that he doesnt like and going on a tirade. its not possible that anyone reading this thread in good faith can conclude that bj is an anti-vaxxer. not wanting a mandate is not the same thing as thinking vaccines are worthless.
im pretty sure if this was the us pol thread and serm didnt have his post count number hed already be temp'd for his bad faith conduct. serm isnt disagreeing with bj's points, hes just disagreeing with bj. its tiresome as fuck to read
|
|
|
On November 08 2022 10:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 10:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:its completely understandable that bj is frustrated about lack of mod action. sure, he himself is walking on ice but serm is straight up hostile against bj. On November 07 2022 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Serm, do you recognize that BlackJack knows that vaccines save lives? (A simple Yes or No can suffice; you don't need to go into any more detail if you don't want to, and we don't need to make this about any other covid-related topic that you and he may not agree about.)
On November 08 2022 01:25 Sermokala wrote:
No I don't. He's shown constantly that he reacts violently when pressed on any part about how vaccines work or why they're used. The things he argues most passionately against is results from vaccination efforts or results from previous vaccination efforts.
I think he understands that he would look bad if he admitted that he doesn't think vaccines save lives and so tries desperately to find some justification for him being able to admit it in public. after 50 pages of shit flinging this is serms conclusion on bj's position. ive said it before, but serm is literally not even reading bj's posts, hes just looking for keywords that he doesnt like and going on a tirade. its not possible that anyone reading this thread in good faith can conclude that bj is an anti-vaxxer. not wanting a mandate is not the same thing as thinking vaccines are worthless. im pretty sure if this was the us pol thread and serm didnt have his post count number hed already be temp'd for his bad faith conduct. serm isnt disagreeing with bj's points, hes just disagreeing with bj. its tiresome as fuck to read Your post along with the 10 others and The mods all supporting BJ compeltely defeat his point. If he wants people to stop being an ass to him he should stop being an ass and using a ton of toneless sarcasim. If he wants to keep being the way he is he needs to stop crying so mucb about being a victim.
what does my showing some support for bj's position have anything to do with mod action? there were plenty of right wing posters that had support from other users in the us pol threads; didnt stop any of them getting banned eventually.
and if anything the reason why i post now and then to say something, despite my preference to just lurk, is exactly because they have been flinging shit at each other for 50 pages and im getting tired of it. sure, i could just let bj 1v9 and see if he gives up in exhaustion and the thread quiets down or changes topic, but when im of the view that he has legitimate points that are being attacked simply because the poster's name was his, then it would be wrong to just say nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
