Same reason I care about US politics: because it does affect me.
And I have friends, family, neighbors, and the like who were forced to take something that now means they're more at risk for death; that does affect me. But even if it wasn't so direct, different death trends in humans affects everyone.
I suspect that people who do try to portray it as such are interested in self-justification.
I don't need to justify shit. I was wright about everything, and the people who were wrong about everything are in their own reality; they're either realize or they won't, but I don't feel I can do much to convince them, even if I wanted to. I don't need to justify anything; I'm very happy with my decision, and I don't regret it for a microsecond.
There is nothing to justify. Just say "Didn't want it."
Exactly. So why are you saying I'm justifying things by simply discussing them? I voice my opinions on lots of issues, am I justifying whatever topic we happen to be talking about, when I simply say what I think? I don't really get the argument. I've never been defensive or felt the need to justify my position on the vaccines and the mandates.
And I have friends, family, neighbors, and the like who were forced to take something that now means they're more at risk for death; that does affect me. But even if it wasn't so direct, different death trends in humans affects everyone.
I'd argue that the problem is the 'force' element. Like I said: that would be as valid even if you thought it was good for them. I would not accept others imposing their will on me even if it were something that was 'good' for me, even by my own standards.
I don't need to justify shit. I was wright about everything, and the people who were wrong about everything are in their own reality; they're either realize or they won't, but I don't feel I can do much to convince them, even if I wanted to. I don't need to justify anything; I'm very happy with my decision, and I don't regret it for a microsecond.
A lot of people sound otherwise. A lot of comments they post sound like it's a direct reply to someone saying "YOU STILL HAVEN'T TAKEN THE VACCINE? YOU'RE KILLING GRANDMA!"
I don't really get the argument. I've never been defensive or felt the need to justify my position on the vaccines and the mandates.
Nor did I mean you. You are actually one of the few here who seems capable of logical discussion of the matter, rather than just insult. There is a certain strand though that's completely batty. A while back someone posting a Twitter screenshot of someone clearly opposed to the vaccine, who said not to insult people who, in her view, made the "wrong decision". There was a genius here who said "SHUT UP YOU MURDERING CLOTBLOODED SCUM". With such people, any sort of intelligent discussion is impossible, and honestly, the average pro-vaccine I've had discussion with was more reasonable.
Now let's discuss the substance. You say that it is a 'great evil'. If you mean the mandates, I do agree. Not so much the vaccine itself. How bad, in your view, does the cost/benefit have to be in order to qualify as a 'great evil'? Suppose as a pure hypothetical that tens of thousands of people died from the vaccine, for which I've seen no evidence, and also that it saved tens of millions of people. That clearly has a positive cost/benefit ratio. Insofar as a great evil was committed, it would be the hiding of differential cost/benefit by age, and not the vaccine itself. Maybe approximately the same number of people could have been saved, with say 10,000 fewer deaths, if people who are in little to no need of the vaccine had been properly informed of the matter, rather than being pressured even without being forced.
Now let's say that the vaccine, on average, has a neutral cost/benefit. Here again, the problem would be the same, namely that those who have little to no need for it were pressured to take it, instead of being properly informed. The cost/benefit would probably be positive in this scenario if it were otherwise.
My point is not to smuggle in some assumptions about actual costs and benefits. Just to probe what specifically it is that makes you view it as a 'great evil'. Regarding any mandate, we agree.
And I have friends, family, neighbors, and the like who were forced to take something that now means they're more at risk for death...
I'd argue that the problem is the 'force' element.
And I'd argue the problem is that people I care about are more likely to keel over and die...
A lot of people sound otherwise. A lot of comments they post sound like it's a direct reply to someone saying "YOU STILL HAVEN'T TAKEN THE VACCINE? YOU'RE KILLING GRANDMA!"
Some people say...
Nor did I mean you. You are actually one of the few here who seems capable of logical discussion of the matter, rather than just insult.
Well, thanks, but that's also been your fallback before, as well as other people who argue like that. Assert one thing, then when you get pushback say "well, no, not you, you're one of the good ones."
For example, yes, you did tell me I sounded like I was justifying. Then when I said I wasn't, you said you didn't mean me. A story old as time.
A while back someone posting a Twitter screenshot of someone clearly opposed to the vaccine, who said not to insult people who, in her view, made the "wrong decision". There was a genius here who said "SHUT UP YOU MURDERING CLOTBLOODED SCUM".
Yup, on that we can agree. I remember that thread, and I was there defending the Tweeter, at least on the vaccine issue. I still thought she was retarded in her demands on language, but, yeah, she wasn't "pro-vax," and a bunch of people - both here and on Twitter - completely fucking missed the mark on that one, and were just lashing out.
If you mean the mandates, I do agree. Not so much the vaccine itself. How bad, in your view, does the cost/benefit have to be in order to qualify as a 'great evil'?
We do agree the mandates are evil, yes. As to how bad the cost/benefit has to be...not very bad at all. And before you scream 'gotcha,' hear me out. Even if the vaccine mostly worked, and was mostly safe (which I argue it doesn't and isn't, but I know we won't agree there), I think the gaslighting, changing of terms and definitions, and general obfuscation of the science is in itself evil. Ironically enough, "mis- and disinformation." Even if the vaccine worked hundreds of times better than I believe it does, and was hundreds of times safer than I believe it is...it would still be a massive departure from past precedent when it comes to vaccine rollouts. They've bulled vaccines for much, much, much, much, much less, when it comes to safety concerns. A few adverse reactions, not even death, used to be enough for the powers that be to go 'whoa, let's slow this shit down, recall it and rework it.'
You objected to the other guy's use of 'poison,' and I agree it's a strong one. But in context of the history of modern vaccines, it absolutely is poison. It never should have been released into the population, much less mandated. But we're leaving the mandate discussion out of it, since we agree. But, yeah, even I'm wrong and the vaccine works much better than I though, I still think it's evil to put it out there, since even based on their own studies it's both historically unsafe and historically ineffective. They, at best, wanted a quick buck. At worst, something far more sinister.
Suppose as a pure hypothetical that tens of thousands of people died from the vaccine, for which I've seen no evidence, and also that it saved tens of millions of people. That clearly has a positive cost/benefit ratio.
Again, historically speaking, that doesn't belong out there. Especially because, in this hypothetical, that's still only a year or two out...we don't know the long term effects. If it's killing people so quickly, it could also be killing people slowly, or otherwise damaging them; infertility, lowered immune responses to other things, etc.
No matter how many people it saves (unless humanity would literally die out without it or something crazy like that), a vaccine that so quickly kills tens of thousands of people (your hypothetical) should not be released. It's not safe, it's not ready. Especially if told it's safe and effective, it has no side effects, and it stops both transmission and illness.
Insofar as a great evil was committed, it would be the hiding of differential cost/benefit by age, and not the vaccine itself. Maybe approximately the same number of people could have been saved, with say 10,000 fewer deaths, if people who are in little to no need of the vaccine had been properly informed of the matter, rather than being pressured even without being forced.
Yup, I agree that's certainly an issue too, but I do think the vaccine itself is greatly flawed to begin with.
My point is not to smuggle in some assumptions about actual costs and benefits. Just to probe what specifically it is that makes you view it as a 'great evil'.
We agree that the lying is a big part. But I don't believe the vaccine was ready to be released at all, even if they'd been more honest about it.
And I'd argue the problem is that people I care about are more likely to keel over and die...
Folks do many things that have that effect. If it was their choice.
Well, thanks, but that's also been your fallback before, as well as other people who argue like that. Assert one thing, then when you get pushback say "well, no, not you, you're one of the good ones."
I was talking to someone else before you joined in. It's not my fallback. If I thought you were crazy, I'd tell you straight.
For example, yes, you did tell me I sounded like I was justifying. Then when I said I wasn't, you said you didn't mean me. A story old as time.
I talked about 'such people' and said that this is what I 'suspect'. It may sound like it. But whatever.
We do agree the mandates are evil, yes. As to how bad the cost/benefit has to be...not very bad at all. And before you scream 'gotcha,' hear me out. Even if the vaccine mostly worked, and was mostly safe (which I argue it doesn't and isn't, but I know we won't agree there), I think the gaslighting, changing of terms and definitions, and general obfuscation of the science is in itself evil.
I actually do agree. Insofar as it actually happened, which I haven't verified in case of 'changing the meaning of the term vaccine'.
Even if the vaccine worked hundreds of times better than I believe it does, and was hundreds of times safer than I believe it is...it would still be a massive departure from past precedent when it comes to vaccine rollouts. They've bulled vaccines for much, much, much, much, much less, when it comes to safety concerns. A few adverse reactions, not even death, used to be enough for the powers that be to go 'whoa, let's slow this shit down, recall it and rework it.'
Is it though? Suppose for a moment that the vaccine is effective in preventing death. It would be pretty crazy to withdraw it as soon as there is one death. Isn't the question the cost vs. the benefit? The benefits can still grossly outweigh the benefits, even if there is a death. I don't see why my parents should not be able to get a vaccine that has a 1/10,000,000 chance of death, when they have a (just making stuff up) 1/4 chance of getting Covid and a 1/100 chance of dying if they do.
Now if you already have a superior vaccine, then of course, you go for that one. Like in the 1980s, the live polio vaccine was exchanged for the dead one, because the geniuses gave some kids polio.
But in context of the history of modern vaccines, it absolutely is poison. It never should have been released into the population, much less mandated.
We agree on mandating it. Not with releasing it in the population, though if you think that it literally has zero positive effect, your position makes sense from your POV. As for poison, what's the criterion for that? "It has worse side-effects than other vaccines", if true, would not make it a poison.
I still think it's evil to put it out there, since even based on their own studies it's both historically unsafe and historically ineffective. They, at best, wanted a quick buck. At worst, something far more sinister.
What is the most sinister thing that you could still regard as plausible? The most sinister to me, is that they used this opportunity to push mRNA vaccines, which people would not have accepted unless there was an emergency.
No matter how many people it saves (unless humanity would literally die out without it or something crazy like that), a vaccine that so quickly kills tens of thousands of people (your hypothetical) should not be released. It's not safe, it's not ready. Especially if told it's safe and effective, it has no side effects, and it stops both transmission and illness.
So in this scenario, you're saying that it's OK to have tens of millions of people die, to prevent potential side-effects from the vaccine. I actually think that's a respectable position, because messing with nature is something that we should not take lightly. But I do take the opposite view. People should be able to choose, without any pressure. If you want to take the risk of Covid, fine. If you want to take the risk of the vaccine, also fine.
Yup, I agree that's certainly an issue too, but I do think the vaccine itself is greatly flawed to begin with.
I agree that it's flawed. But it's the best we've got.
We agree that the lying is a big part. But I don't believe the vaccine was ready to be released at all, even if they'd been more honest about it.
I suspect that if there were no vaccine, we'd still be in on-and-off lockdowns. So I am rather happy with them. No one has given a damn about Covid here for close to a year. Imagine if they were able to say: we have to lock down until the vaccine arrives in 4-5 years, or millions of old people will die. Maybe people still would not put up with it, I don't know. But no one wants his parents or grandparents to die, and Covid put the fear of god in anyone a little older.
And I'd argue the problem is that people I care about are more likely to keel over and die...
Folks do many things that have that effect. If it was their choice.
If it's not an informed choice it doesn't matter. If you're told there's no risk by "authorities and experts," and told any counter argument is "dangerous misinformation," it's not really a fair choice.
I don't really get your argument. You're saying even if the vaccine is killing people around me, it would be fine, as long as they weren't mandated? Even though there was a bunch of lies, as well as societal pressure? Even if this was back in the days of "YOU'RE LITERALLY KILLING GRANDMA?"
The vaccines are supposed to make you healthier in theory, not less healthy. Having people die from medicine, and then handwaving that away as "if it was their choice," is pretty terrible. They wanted to live, so they took the medicine. If the medicine kills them it's not "oh, they made a bad choice..." Yikes.
I suspect that if there were no vaccine, we'd still be in on-and-off lockdowns. So I am rather happy with them.
Eh, lockdowns didn't work either, and people got sick of them. I think the vaccines and lockdowns are unrelated, and just an excuse. They pushed as far as they thought they could, then backed off. Lockdowns may even come back at some point, I wouldn't be surprised. So, yeah, I don't credit the vaccines with "ending lockdowns" or anything of the like. We just don't talk about the people dying any more, and we don't have CNN with a running tally. If you want to credit anything with "ending lockdowns," it's that Bad Orange Man stopped literally murdering everyone, and Benevolent Biden saved our souls. They didn't want to push as much fear any more. We're in the Russia Bad arc now anyway. Covid is so last year.
No one has given a damn about Covid here for close to a year. Imagine if they were able to say: we have to lock down until the vaccine arrives in 4-5 years, or millions of old people will die. Maybe people still would not put up with it, I don't know. But no one wants his parents or grandparents to die, and Covid put the fear of god in anyone a little older.
But they could still try that, nothing's stopping them. Again, I don't credit the vaccine with anything policy-related. The people at the top have shown time and again that they can work with any data to push their agenda, facts be damned.
And I have friends, family, neighbors, and the like who were forced to take something that now means they're more at risk for death; that does affect me. But even if it wasn't so direct, different death trends in humans affects everyone.
I don't need to justify shit. I was wright about everything, and the people who were wrong about everything are in their own reality; they're either realize or they won't, but I don't feel I can do much to convince them, even if I wanted to. I don't need to justify anything; I'm very happy with my decision, and I don't regret it for a microsecond.
Exactly. So why are you saying I'm justifying things by simply discussing them? I voice my opinions on lots of issues, am I justifying whatever topic we happen to be talking about, when I simply say what I think? I don't really get the argument. I've never been defensive or felt the need to justify my position on the vaccines and the mandates.
I'd argue that the problem is the 'force' element. Like I said: that would be as valid even if you thought it was good for them. I would not accept others imposing their will on me even if it were something that was 'good' for me, even by my own standards.
A lot of people sound otherwise. A lot of comments they post sound like it's a direct reply to someone saying "YOU STILL HAVEN'T TAKEN THE VACCINE? YOU'RE KILLING GRANDMA!"
Nor did I mean you. You are actually one of the few here who seems capable of logical discussion of the matter, rather than just insult. There is a certain strand though that's completely batty. A while back someone posting a Twitter screenshot of someone clearly opposed to the vaccine, who said not to insult people who, in her view, made the "wrong decision". There was a genius here who said "SHUT UP YOU MURDERING CLOTBLOODED SCUM". With such people, any sort of intelligent discussion is impossible, and honestly, the average pro-vaccine I've had discussion with was more reasonable.
Now let's discuss the substance. You say that it is a 'great evil'. If you mean the mandates, I do agree. Not so much the vaccine itself. How bad, in your view, does the cost/benefit have to be in order to qualify as a 'great evil'? Suppose as a pure hypothetical that tens of thousands of people died from the vaccine, for which I've seen no evidence, and also that it saved tens of millions of people. That clearly has a positive cost/benefit ratio. Insofar as a great evil was committed, it would be the hiding of differential cost/benefit by age, and not the vaccine itself. Maybe approximately the same number of people could have been saved, with say 10,000 fewer deaths, if people who are in little to no need of the vaccine had been properly informed of the matter, rather than being pressured even without being forced.
Now let's say that the vaccine, on average, has a neutral cost/benefit. Here again, the problem would be the same, namely that those who have little to no need for it were pressured to take it, instead of being properly informed. The cost/benefit would probably be positive in this scenario if it were otherwise.
My point is not to smuggle in some assumptions about actual costs and benefits. Just to probe what specifically it is that makes you view it as a 'great evil'. Regarding any mandate, we agree.
And I'd argue the problem is that people I care about are more likely to keel over and die...
Some people say...
Well, thanks, but that's also been your fallback before, as well as other people who argue like that. Assert one thing, then when you get pushback say "well, no, not you, you're one of the good ones."
For example, yes, you did tell me I sounded like I was justifying. Then when I said I wasn't, you said you didn't mean me. A story old as time.
Yup, on that we can agree. I remember that thread, and I was there defending the Tweeter, at least on the vaccine issue. I still thought she was retarded in her demands on language, but, yeah, she wasn't "pro-vax," and a bunch of people - both here and on Twitter - completely fucking missed the mark on that one, and were just lashing out.
We do agree the mandates are evil, yes. As to how bad the cost/benefit has to be...not very bad at all. And before you scream 'gotcha,' hear me out. Even if the vaccine mostly worked, and was mostly safe (which I argue it doesn't and isn't, but I know we won't agree there), I think the gaslighting, changing of terms and definitions, and general obfuscation of the science is in itself evil. Ironically enough, "mis- and disinformation." Even if the vaccine worked hundreds of times better than I believe it does, and was hundreds of times safer than I believe it is...it would still be a massive departure from past precedent when it comes to vaccine rollouts. They've bulled vaccines for much, much, much, much, much less, when it comes to safety concerns. A few adverse reactions, not even death, used to be enough for the powers that be to go 'whoa, let's slow this shit down, recall it and rework it.'
You objected to the other guy's use of 'poison,' and I agree it's a strong one. But in context of the history of modern vaccines, it absolutely is poison. It never should have been released into the population, much less mandated. But we're leaving the mandate discussion out of it, since we agree. But, yeah, even I'm wrong and the vaccine works much better than I though, I still think it's evil to put it out there, since even based on their own studies it's both historically unsafe and historically ineffective. They, at best, wanted a quick buck. At worst, something far more sinister.
Again, historically speaking, that doesn't belong out there. Especially because, in this hypothetical, that's still only a year or two out...we don't know the long term effects. If it's killing people so quickly, it could also be killing people slowly, or otherwise damaging them; infertility, lowered immune responses to other things, etc.
No matter how many people it saves (unless humanity would literally die out without it or something crazy like that), a vaccine that so quickly kills tens of thousands of people (your hypothetical) should not be released. It's not safe, it's not ready. Especially if told it's safe and effective, it has no side effects, and it stops both transmission and illness.
Yup, I agree that's certainly an issue too, but I do think the vaccine itself is greatly flawed to begin with.
We agree that the lying is a big part. But I don't believe the vaccine was ready to be released at all, even if they'd been more honest about it.
Folks do many things that have that effect. If it was their choice.
I was talking to someone else before you joined in. It's not my fallback. If I thought you were crazy, I'd tell you straight.
I talked about 'such people' and said that this is what I 'suspect'. It may sound like it. But whatever.
I actually do agree. Insofar as it actually happened, which I haven't verified in case of 'changing the meaning of the term vaccine'.
Is it though? Suppose for a moment that the vaccine is effective in preventing death. It would be pretty crazy to withdraw it as soon as there is one death. Isn't the question the cost vs. the benefit? The benefits can still grossly outweigh the benefits, even if there is a death. I don't see why my parents should not be able to get a vaccine that has a 1/10,000,000 chance of death, when they have a (just making stuff up) 1/4 chance of getting Covid and a 1/100 chance of dying if they do.
Now if you already have a superior vaccine, then of course, you go for that one. Like in the 1980s, the live polio vaccine was exchanged for the dead one, because the geniuses gave some kids polio.
We agree on mandating it. Not with releasing it in the population, though if you think that it literally has zero positive effect, your position makes sense from your POV. As for poison, what's the criterion for that? "It has worse side-effects than other vaccines", if true, would not make it a poison.
What is the most sinister thing that you could still regard as plausible? The most sinister to me, is that they used this opportunity to push mRNA vaccines, which people would not have accepted unless there was an emergency.
So in this scenario, you're saying that it's OK to have tens of millions of people die, to prevent potential side-effects from the vaccine. I actually think that's a respectable position, because messing with nature is something that we should not take lightly. But I do take the opposite view. People should be able to choose, without any pressure. If you want to take the risk of Covid, fine. If you want to take the risk of the vaccine, also fine.
I agree that it's flawed. But it's the best we've got.
I suspect that if there were no vaccine, we'd still be in on-and-off lockdowns. So I am rather happy with them. No one has given a damn about Covid here for close to a year. Imagine if they were able to say: we have to lock down until the vaccine arrives in 4-5 years, or millions of old people will die. Maybe people still would not put up with it, I don't know. But no one wants his parents or grandparents to die, and Covid put the fear of god in anyone a little older.
If it's not an informed choice it doesn't matter. If you're told there's no risk by "authorities and experts," and told any counter argument is "dangerous misinformation," it's not really a fair choice.
I don't really get your argument. You're saying even if the vaccine is killing people around me, it would be fine, as long as they weren't mandated? Even though there was a bunch of lies, as well as societal pressure? Even if this was back in the days of "YOU'RE LITERALLY KILLING GRANDMA?"
The vaccines are supposed to make you healthier in theory, not less healthy. Having people die from medicine, and then handwaving that away as "if it was their choice," is pretty terrible. They wanted to live, so they took the medicine. If the medicine kills them it's not "oh, they made a bad choice..." Yikes.
Eh, lockdowns didn't work either, and people got sick of them. I think the vaccines and lockdowns are unrelated, and just an excuse. They pushed as far as they thought they could, then backed off. Lockdowns may even come back at some point, I wouldn't be surprised. So, yeah, I don't credit the vaccines with "ending lockdowns" or anything of the like. We just don't talk about the people dying any more, and we don't have CNN with a running tally. If you want to credit anything with "ending lockdowns," it's that Bad Orange Man stopped literally murdering everyone, and Benevolent Biden saved our souls. They didn't want to push as much fear any more. We're in the Russia Bad arc now anyway. Covid is so last year.
But they could still try that, nothing's stopping them. Again, I don't credit the vaccine with anything policy-related. The people at the top have shown time and again that they can work with any data to push their agenda, facts be damned.