It’s my argument, not a breakdown of yours. So maybe you can dispute it. — NOS4A2

It's a straw man. Not an argument.

If you want to make choices that harm no one else, fine. Do what you want. But, again, sorry to remind you, but we live in a society.

You don’t know. You’re ignorant. You’re scared. Fear and ignorance is the premise you use to justify denying bodily autonomy. — NOS4A2

We do know, because we know how viruses spread.

Fear and ignorance is on your side -- fear of, and ignorance of, vaccines. That's all this boils down to: sheer ignorance on your part. Like with almost everything you discuss.

I posted a quotation from the article that showed the coroner’s verdict was far more definitive than that. — AJJ

Like most anti-vaxxers, you didn't read your own article. But it doesn't matter, because I'm willing to grant it as "true" -- I in fact anticipated this several posts earlier.

Cling to that one death if you want, that's fine. If you seriously think this proves the statement of "death and debilitation," which you clearly do, you're also welcome to that.

In that case, there's death and debilitation associated with literally everything, including walking in a field -- because people have been struck by lighting. So walking in a field involves death and debilitation. For anyone serious, this is simply laughable. But so be it.

This is question begging. — AJJ

You don't know what that means, so stop using it.

Call it a “freak-case” if you like — AJJ

One case presented out of 5 billion doses is a freak case, yes. 5,000 cases would be freak cases, in that sense. More people die in bathtubs.

But keep trying.

This is question begging. — AJJ

You don't understand what that means, so stop using it. Make you look like a bigger idiot than you already are, as an anti-vaxxer.

Sorry -- unless you have good reasons for doing so, it isn't reasonable to ignore what doctors and virologists are telling us to do.
— Xtrix

It can be if you can think. — AJJ

It can be if you're a complete imbecile, too. Which is much more likely than an anti-vaxxer on the internet knowing more than thousands of the world's leading experts, who have dedicated their lives to studying these issues.

That the vaccines are safe is a fact. This is based on overwhelming evidence, of which I've given a sample. That they are effective, likewise. That they slow the spread, likewise.
— Xtrix

You assume these things and dismiss anything that casts doubt on them. It’s question begging. — AJJ

You don't understand what that means, so stop using it.

It's not "assumed," it's supported by the overwhelming evidence. Anti-vaxxers like you reject this evidence, of course, but that proves about as much as the fact that flat Earthers and Creationists also deny evidence contrary to their beliefs.

If you don’t own anyone’s body, what gives you the right to force vaccines upon them, make medical decisions for them, or otherwise attempt to assert your will with theirs? Nothing. — NOS4A2

Straw man.

The problem is you don’t know whether I’m affecting people or not. — NOS4A2

If you live in society, you are. We do know. Which is why we mandate vaccines in schools and many workplaces.

Yours is an idiotic and inconsistent view. But I expect nothing else from you.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/howard-stern-anti-vaxxers-go-fuck-yourself-1222672/

I agree with Howard. AJJ and James, both anti-vaxxers, are included in this.

Plus, even without a strict mandate there’s coercion happening as a consequence of views such as yours, so speaking against mandates comes into this. — AJJ

This isn't about mandates.

Looking for evidence to support a view is called “thinking” — AJJ

No, it isn't. It's called being an anti-vaxxer, which is what you are.

Rather, look at the evidence and then form an opinion. Not the other way around.

Data based on reports made to the MRHA. — AJJ

That's not the same as them being reports, or studies. A person "reporting" something is not a report. "A scientific report is a document that describes the process, progress, and or results of technical or scientific research or the state of a technical or scientific research problem."

Dying from a blood clot is both death and debilitation. — AJJ

So one ("likely") example out of 5+ billion doses. Which is what I mentioned before with freak cases, of which this (if it's true) would qualify.

There is no death and debilitation with COVID vaccines. They're safe and effective, as the evidence shows. There's no death and debilitation with toothpaste, either. Toothpaste is safe and effective, as the evidence shows.

We don't make claims based on freak accidents and anecdotes. If we're serious.

How is it that a vaccinated individual is supposedly less likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated asymptomatic individual? — AJJ

It's never a guarantee that you'll be asymptomatic. Those who are vaccinated protect themselves from getting sick, and the community at large. The more people vaccinated, the quicker we get to herd immunity. This is not simply an individual choice. I know anti-vaxxers like you don't want to hear that. Too bad.

This discussion opened with me saying it was perfectly reasonable to decline receiving the vaccine. — AJJ

It isn't. Why? Because the vaccines are safe and effective. Given that over 5 billion doses have been given around the world, I think the data speak for themselves.

You, an anti-vaxxer, cite a case where a woman may have died after taking the vaccine, then state that you disagree with the doctors within this article that say it should in no way dissuade people from getting the vaccine.

5 billion vs. one freak (and inconclusive) case. Millions of deaths from COVID, millions of hospitalizations. Every major medical and scientific establishment advising vaccinations. Yet to anti-vaxxers, like you, it's "perfectly reasonable" to deny the vaccine. Sorry -- unless you have good reasons for doing so, it isn't reasonable to ignore what doctors and virologists are telling us to do.

The answer is yes, they should -- not only for themselves, but for the community. They're safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus -- these are facts, however many times you want to assert the opposite.
— Xtrix

This is question begging. — AJJ

The premises do not assume the truth of the conclusion. Thus, it's not question-begging. You don't know what you're talking about.

That the vaccines are safe is a fact. This is based on overwhelming evidence, of which I've given a sample. That they are effective, likewise. That they slow the spread, likewise.

The conclusion, based on these facts, is that one should take the vaccine -- assuming, of course, that we want to end the pandemic and care about our health and the health of others.

Best to not use terms you don't understand.

According to irrational "libertarians" like this guy, the government is always the problem. Remember, that's the mantra. Socialism bad, government bad. Free markets = necessary and good, for "freedom," of course. "Free to choose," etc.

It's a completely inconsistent, incoherent view. People are drawn to it because it's simple, gives them a principle in which you judge all matters, slogans to repeat, etc. But it has no application in the real world whatsoever.

Going to school or work sick effects other people. Coughing and touching things other people touch effects other people. This is why we have laws that employees in restraurants must wash their hands after they use the bathroom. This is why we have vaccine mandates in schools, and have for years. This is why we have traffic laws. This is why you can't go into a supermarket and start shooting people. We live in a society.

A while ago, wasn't one of the main anti-vaxxer arguments the fact that the FDA hadn't approved the vaccines yet? Funny how they haven't changed their stance...it's almost as if they can't be persuaded by evidence and reason.

Talking to anti-vaxxers is basically talking to walls. It's a bad habit on my part. I think I do it in case others -- who are actually open to evidence and reasons -- see it and can be persuaded.

And so I don’t wish to see the driving of cars mandated — AJJ

Suddenly it's only about mandates, which is a different topic. We have had vaccine mandates for years, but that's simply not what's being discussed. If that's your issue, then stop making a fool of yourself attempting to argue against the vaccines safety and efficacy.

You’re inclined to argue simply by assuming your position is true. — AJJ

No, by deferring to the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and by looking at evidence.

You, on the other, hand, as an anti-vaxxer, assume your position is true, and then search desperately for evidence that supports it.

I haven't arbitrarily dismissed the examples -- I'm quoting FROM the examples, which state explicitly that one should not use these cases as reasons not to take the vaccine. Very strange, given your use of them to support exactly that.
— Xtrix

I disagree with them. — AJJ

So you disagree with your own weak citations.

Thank you, but I'll go with their conclusions on this matter over an anti-vaxxer on the internet. I guess this is "begging the question."

The JCVI partially disagrees with that claim in not recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds. — AJJ

12-15 year olds are a different subject. That's currently being studied, as it should be. My guess is that this will be approved shortly.

You keep wanting to bring this up as if it supports your non-arguments. It doesn't.

The important thing about the examples and statistics is that they show that death and health conditions can reasonably be thought to occur sometimes after a vaccine dose. — AJJ

They do not, as the articles themselves say.

It’s one example that demonstrates that it can happen. — AJJ

I'll just quote myself at this point, to save time:

If you seriously want to play the game of "Well even ONE death proves it" -- then, I repeat: ANYTHING we do or use can be argued to lead to "death and debilitation." But it's a stupid argument. — Xtrix

The MRHA is a system to which these things are reported. They are reports. — AJJ

They are not reports. They are not studies. They are data -- data which is misinterpreted by you and your anti-vaxxer "sources."

The clotting cases you cited are weak. It's hardly "death and debilitation," which is a delusion. It can be said of anything, given the rarity.

"The same clotting conditions were substantially more likely to occur — and over longer periods — among people infected with the coronavirus, the study found.
-- NY times

Ask yourself why the world's experts are recommending these vaccines. Is it a global conspiracy? Do you really think they don't have answers to your questions? Do you really think there's no studies and data and mountains of evidence behind it? I can point you to plenty of them.

Also, we're not talking mandates. We're talking whether people should take the vaccine. The answer is yes, they should -- not only for themselves, but for the community. They're safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus -- these are facts, however many times you want to assert the opposite. Your "disagreeing" with the very experts you cite is irrelevant to me. You're not an expert, and are in no position to do so.

Yes, the government doesn’t own anyone’s body. — NOS4A2

No one has once claimed that. The fact that you have to resort to straw men gives away the bankruptcy of your position.

The legitimacy of government authority over someone’s body has never been justified. It’s as simple as that. — NOS4A2

There are laws made about what we can and cannot do with our bodies all the time. There are thousands of examples.

Your rights stop when you effect others with your body. It's as simple as that. Yes, we do live in a society -- sorry to inform remind of that. We know you're not a fan.

And, again, vaccines have been mandated in schools for decades. According to you, this is illegitimate. Thankfully people like you aren't in charge of public health.

I point out that you’re arbitrarily dismissing the examples and statistics I linked to and begging question. — AJJ

You apparently don't know what "begging the question" means.

I haven't arbitrarily dismissed the examples -- I'm quoting FROM the examples, which state explicitly that one should not use these cases as reasons not to take the vaccine. Very strange, given your use of them to support exactly that.

I expect you’d say that about any evidence. A coroner rules that woman has died from a vaccine induced blood clot. — AJJ

No, this is what the article said. The doctor said it was "likely," that's not conclusive. It's also ONE case out of hundreds of millions of doses given -- which you repeatedly want to ignore.

But again, let's assume it's true. This proves what, exactly? Because, as the articles state, it certainly doesn't prove you shouldn't take the vaccines. So it proves that there ARE freak cases out there, which I already anticipated several posts ago, that occur -- as with any vaccine or any product whatsoever? Is this the point you're making?

A number of countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine over blood clot fears. — AJJ

And Johnson and Johnson, yes. Look at the conclusions to those pauses.

A study links the Pfizer vaccine to blood clots also. — AJJ

It does not, as the article mentions.

Many reports have been made of deaths and health conditions following a vaccine dose. — AJJ

Many reports have been made of death and health conditions following taking ibuprofen. I guess that settles it.

By "reports" you mean anecdotes, not studies. Anecdotes, I repeat, are not evidence.

You say my ignorance is getting people killed. Would it surprise you to learn that I think the same of you — AJJ

It wouldn't, no. Given that 5.6 billion doses around the world have been given, however, I think the data speak for themselves -- even if we take your desperate and selective searching for "evidence" of "death and debilitation" seriously, it's still extremely safe and effective, especially compared to the COVID death rate and hospitalizations.

But like most anti-vaxxers, string together enough anecdotes, inconclusive studies, freak cases, etc., and this is enough to prove what they already wanted to believe.

You said there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that death and debilitation are occurring among healthy vaccinated people. This isn’t true. — AJJ

It is true. There is no evidence whatsoever.

That could turn out to be wrong. If evidence is presented that shows this, fine -- then they're freak cases which occur in any vaccine whatsoever. No different than someone dying of toothpaste. It would still make the claim of "death and debilitation" completely delusional.

If you seriously want to play the game of "Well even ONE death proves it" -- then, I repeat: ANYTHING we do or use can be argued to lead to "death and debilitation." But it's a stupid argument.

And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made — AJJ

You've made an argument, and a ridiculous one. You've cited evidence which is inconclusive and non-credible. But even granting we take your "evidence" seriously, it still proves exactly nothing about the vaccines. It would be, again, like saying that people have died of the polio vaccine. Even if that's true, it proves exactly nothing about whether one should get a polio vaccine.

The studies you cited, which you ignored, also make it very clear that they should NOT be used to sway people not to take the vaccines. Interesting you leave that out, as it undermines your entire argument. Ask yourself why your own sources are stressing that and get back to me.

They do this because they can’t think. — AJJ

It's very clear who isn't "thinking" here: you, the anti-vaxxer. Again, take it up with the CDC and WHO. Keep fighting the good fight to promote misinformation and dissuade people from being vaccinated -- your ignorance is getting people killed worldwide. It's dangerous, and the only normal response should be embarrassment and retraction.

Again -- not holding my breath.

I think parents ought to decide how to protect their children when it comes to vaccination. I don’t think the government should. — NOS4A2

As soon as you (or your children) enter society, where individual decisions effects others, things change. It's not longer simply about you and your kids. We live in a society.

Things change with traffic lights too. It's no longer an individual decision about whether you've decided you want to follow these rules or not. Maybe your "belief system" tells you that traffic laws are unjust -- doesn't matter.

Vaccines, incidentally, have been mandatory in schools for years, and rightly so.

The question you perpetually struggle with is legitimacy of authority. You struggle with it because you fundamentally distrust governments, as you're a follower of anti-socialist, libertarian bullshit from the Cold War era. But the real issue is legitimacy, not source. In this case, the government (which you want to assume is always wrong and over-reaching) is employing its power legitimately -- if they were to impose mandates on vaccines, which hasn't even happened yet on a national level.

So what you're questioning is the legitimacy. The legitimacy is based on the facts of science and medicine, and on expert consensus. You're in no position to dispute that. If you go with a minority view or a conspiracy theory, that's your business. But for those of us living in the real world, where the spread of the virus effects all of us, mandates are legitimate -- and those who choose not to take them should simply remove themselves from civil society, the same way those who don't agree with traffic laws should as well. If you don't want to abide by the rules we've all created to ensure public health and safety, then find a place where you don't have to deal with others.

You have a right to your beliefs, but no right to harm others.

My risk of dying from Covid even if unvaccinated is extremely small (1 in several thousand), there's no dispute about this, experts all agree here. As such it is completely unremarkable, on a personal level, that I might choose to remain unvaccinated and take that risk for entirely trivial reasons — Isaac

Maybe it's impossible for you to understand, but this isn't simply an individual issue.

Also, the fatality rate of COVID isn't the whole picture. Plenty of people get extremely ill, take up hospital beds and ventilators, and have lasting symptoms for weeks or months later, even if they don't ultimately die. It's also more likely to spread in unvaccinated populations, as we're seeing all over the world, and hence mutate into different variants -- which effects everyone. These are factors you, and other anti-vaxxers, want to continually ignore.

We're living in a pandemic. The vaccines have been shown to be effective and safe against COVID and help prevent the spread. Don't like these facts? Take it up with the CDC and WHO -- I'm sure they'll be interested in your assessment.

But given these facts, the choice is clear as day: everyone should get vaccinated. Same with the polio vaccine. The difference? No anti-vaxxer movement back then, of which you're an unfortunate member. There was also much more trust in science and medicine, which doesn't exist for anything that is engineered to be politicized.

Lastly, your examples of skydiving is embarrassing.

Because there's no evidence to support that claim whatsoever. So not only "tenuous," but an outright delusion.
— Xtrix

This just isn’t true: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796.amp — AJJ

:lol:

As I said, I'm sure you can find freak cases -- which is all this is. It's also inconclusive and, as stated in the article, "very rare."

Again, if this is what you mean by "death and debilitation," you can find it with any vaccine. It's complete delusion.

So you'll now retract that ridiculous claim, I assume?
— Xtrix

I don’t need to retract: https://m.jpost.com/health-science/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-linked-to-rare-blood-disease-israeli-study-671694 — AJJ

"A spokesperson from the hospital stressed that this study, which was very small, should in no way deter people from vaccinating and encouraged anyone who has not yet been inoculated to get the jab."

So this is "death and debilitation"? An inconclusive, small study from Israel where they outright say that it shouldn't deter people from getting the vaccine and, again, an example you can give with any vaccine whatsoever? It's as if you want there to be a reason for deterring vaccinations...hmmm....

I'd ask why you're desperately searching for reasons to make ridiculous claims about the vaccines, but we already know the answer: you're an anti-vaxxer. Have the courage to come out and say it.

It does detract from that statement, because people still get ill despite being vaccinated and need further shots for the vaccination to work adequately. — AJJ

It does not detract from the statement. Vaccines are highly effective against COVID -- period. Breakthrough cases happen, yes. They're about 1 in 5,000 or 10,000. If that's not effective, then "effective" has no meaning.

It's not debatable -- again, it's a matter of fact. 173 million people have been vaccinated. How many deaths?
— Xtrix

In the UK is was 1,440 by the end of June: https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/fact-deaths-due-to-the-covid-vaccines-in-the-uk-after-6-months-are-407-higher-than-deaths-due-to-all-other-vaccines-combined-in-the-past-11-years/ — AJJ

You cite "Rights and Freedoms," which is not credible. But even if it were 1,440 deaths -- which it isn't -- what's that percentage? 92 million doses given in the UK so far. You do the math.

There is no "death and debilitation" from the vaccines, and no evidence whatsoever supporting such a claim. They're highly effective and safe, and help slow the spread, which is why health experts are pushing for them to be taken.

Sorry this doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative, but it's true. Anecdotes, inconclusive studies, and freak cases, while fun to talk about, tell us nothing about the vaccines -- even if we take them seriously.

Whether vaccinating the young and healthy on balance helps the vulnerable community enough to warrant the death and debilitation that occurs within the former group. — AJJ

There is no "death and debilitation." You're talking nonsense.

The allegations of death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group are tenuous, at best
— James Riley

How so? — AJJ

Because there's no evidence to support that claim whatsoever. So not only "tenuous," but an outright delusion.

True, I'm sure you can find some freak cases out of hundreds of millions of vaccinations where something is claimed to have gone wrong. I'm sure you can do the same with the polio vaccine, the flu vaccines, the TB shot, etc. Someone died a week later of a heart attack, someone committed suicide, someone got hit by a bus (who knows -- could there be a connection?). Fortunately, anecdotes aren't evidence.

If you're worried about stuff like that, then the answer to your question is a very easy one indeed: everyone should get vaccinated, old and young.

The type caused by blood clots, for example. Are you disputing that blood clots are a potential side effect of these vaccines? — AJJ

Yes. That was one claim about the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, for example, which is not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, and it was shown to be extremely infrequent. It has nothing to do with younger people, or their "death and debilitation." So you'll now retract that ridiculous claim, I assume? (Given that you're sincerely just looking to have your questions answered, of course.)

I won't hold my breath.

You, who know nothing about virology, immunology or epidemiology would say "unnecesarily"? On the basis of anecdotes that may or may not be accurate? Are you serious? — Janus

Couldn't have put it better myself.

You’ve taken a side, and are now out to prove what you want to prove.
— Xtrix

This is what you’re doing. It’s what everyone does all the time. — AJJ

Not even close. On most issues in the real world — ones that haven’t been politicized— we allow the possibility of being wrong, since our identities don’t hinge on it.

Vaccines are effective.
— Xtrix

Not that effective. People still get ill and a train of booster shots is on the cards. — AJJ

Vaccines are very effective against COVID. The fact that people "still get ill" does not detract from this statement. Nor do booster shots.

The odds of a breakthrough infection from COVID are very small, in fact. When breakthroughs do happen, they're much milder. This is what the data show, which you would know if you cared to learn about this instead of trying to prove an anti-vaxxer ideology, which is what you're doing.

Vaccines are safe.
— Xtrix

Debatable. Lots of documented side-effects, some truly awful. — AJJ

It's not debatable -- again, it's a matter of fact. 173 million people have been vaccinated. How many deaths?

Vaccines slow the spread of COVID.
— Xtrix

Perhaps, but if they do this by reducing viral load and a healthy person’s immune system does this anyway then they’re a superfluous risk for those people. — AJJ

They don't.

"Even when the size of the viral loads are similar, the virus behaves differently in the noses and throats of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated."

But again, it's not simply about YOU and your "healthy immune system," even if it were true. Same as with getting an annual flu shot -- I used to think I didn't need one, because I could handle getting sick, until a doctor (rightly) pointed out to me that it's not simply about me.

Even if one is otherwise healthy— it’s not simply about YOU, it’s about the community.
— Xtrix

It might be *about* the community, but whether they’re overall good for a community is debatable. — AJJ

Everything's "debatable." Maybe the Earth is flat too, that's "debatable."

Why you want to debate only some things you don't understand is obvious -- it's because you're part of this anti-vaxxer crowd. Just be brave enough to own up to it. Stop pretending like you're interested in learning anything, and "just asking questions."

These questions have been answered, as a simple Google search will show. There's hundreds of millions of people vaccinated, and plenty of data on this now. Numerous studies. This is why we have the CDC, the WHO, and human beings who specialize in things like diseases and viruses and the immune system -- call them "doctors," "virologists," and "immunologists," if you will. I think it prudent to perhaps listen to what they have to say about this.

The real issue here, as mentioned before, is that you simply don't trust the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus. Fine -- that just means, in my view, that you have terrible instincts. But so be it.

Vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of COVID. That's good for the community, anti-vaxxer "skepticism" (delusions) notwithstanding.

It won’t make a shred of difference. Why? Because the very fact that you have decided to “question” this issue, but don’t do so in almost any other area of your life, means you’re one more person who’s jumping in with a “side” — and you’ve happened to pick the wrong side, probably because of political or religious reasons and, hence, in bad faith. You’re not interested in learning anything. You’ve taken a side, and are now out to prove what you want to prove.

But just in case, this is what we know:

Vaccines are effective.
Vaccines are safe.
Vaccines slow the spread of COVID.

Even if one is otherwise healthy— it’s not simply about YOU, it’s about the community. Same reason we wear a mask— YOU may not care if you get it, but that’s not the point of a mask.

It takes place in the nose, of course.

But are stumped by your questions, despite their having been answered repeatedly.

I’m sure you’ve understood them well.

Yeah, I hear Alex Jones is in the running this year.

I guess that proves it. Please take your discoveries to the AMA, CDC, or WHO. You could win the Nobel Prize.

Here is a good case of what I mentioned above: someone who doesn't know what they're talking about deciding to go with quackery and conspiracy theories over the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus. Terrible, terrible judgment at its finest. It's like these losers who have two choices and always manage to pick the wrong one.

Imagine thinking the world's experts haven't asked themselves -- or don't have answers to -- your very profound "questions." I'm always in awe of this, especially with climate deniers. Now it's manifesting as COVID and vaccine denial, apparently. Same basic phenomenon.

Maybe I'll try it one day. I'll pick a topic -- one that hasn't even been politicized -- like physics, walk into a university and start arguing with the professor, confronting him with questions I've conjured up on my own (because I'm a very stable, and definitely not brainwashed, contrarian). I bet it feels amazing to have that level of ego.

Yes, and those questions have been answered, numerous times. If you're unaware of them, it's because you're unwilling to find them -- nothing more.
'
True, there could be a vast global conspiracy involved. But short of that, it's crystal clear what one should do: take the vaccine.

has been a doubling down on a mistake which those who have participated in it find themselves unable to admit to—principally governments and media but the general population included. — AJJ

:lol:

Thankfully there are geniuses like you around to steer us in the right direction.

I wonder how many people have died as a result of this type of "thinking"? — James Riley

We don't have to wonder -- it's happening right now, all around us. And people like Isaac help it along -- which is unfortunate.

I think this entire thread is a ruse to justify child pornography, which is repugnant by almost any standard. Including it in the same category as drugs or prostitution is ridiculous.

If you enjoy viewing nude pictures of children, or watching them engage in sex acts, then you have a problem, should acknowledge that problem, and should seek help for it.

This is an example of bad faith, I think. I can't imagine why anyone would want to continue on like this unless they're secretly an anti-vaxxer. Otherwise it's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe some people like to think of these things as "debates" where one gets points if one "wins," or pride themselves on arguing indefensible positions. Who knows. Any thoughts?

Is this an example of a complete waste of time, which I've argued against in the "Axioms of Discourse" thread?

This is the only interesting question that emerges from such interchanges, in my view.

I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.
— Xtrix

Then why do people skydive? I don't know what kind of people you associate with, but in my experience going on living is not even in the top ten. People want to enjoy themselves, have sex, relax, learn new things, have a group of friends, taste nice food, make meaningful relationships, see beauty, stamp their identity on the world, play a part in something bigger then them...Maybe the mundane act of going on on living comes 11th at best. — Isaac

Worth quoting the whole thing. This is why philosophy gets a bad rep.

But your only criteria for identifying these people is that they win. That's not the criteria you're using here. The criteria you're using here is that they trust the same people you trust for the same reasons. Winning has not entered into it. — Isaac

Yes, because that's an analogy. The point being made with that analogy is about decisions, and what we base those decisions on: knowledge or instinct.

Let's go over this yet again. The original point you made was: those who believe in climate change and vaccines are usually just as ignorant as those who don't. That's probably true and I agree with it. My claim, which started this odd interchange, was a simple one: regardless of their ignorance, one group is lining up with the truth (climate change is real; vaccines are effective; the Earth is spherical, etc), the other isn't -- this matters. I also think the people who go with the truth over bullshit, or in this case the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, deserve some credit for doing so -- just as the "instinct player" deserves some credit (not a lot, but some) for having the instincts to make the right poker moves.

I'll repeat all this as many times as you need, as tiresome as it is.

If most laypeople in the United States, who know nothing about vaccines, virology, microbiology, biochemistry, medicine, molecular biology, immunology, epidemiology, etc. etc., would listen to what these experts are saying and take the vaccine, then that would be a very great advantage indeed -- for everyone.
— Xtrix

This just assumes the question of discussion. — Isaac

Whatever question you have in mind, it wasn't what started this discussion. What started this discussion is the following:

(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.

That's all this has been about, your digressions aside.

But the question is an odd one anyway. It's like asking: "What's the advantage of having everyone put their money on something with a 70% chance of winning instead of a 20% chance or 10% chance?"
— Xtrix

Yes, that's exactly the question I'm asking. — Isaac

Amazing. All right, I'll explain it:

Assuming people like to win money, putting their money on something with a higher probability of winning is the right move. It's advantageous. It's also basic logic. Here's the definition of advantage:

"a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position."

Putting money on something with a 20% chance of winning puts you at a disadvantage compared to a 70% chance of winning.

Now switch to the topic of this thread. Assuming three things: (1) people want to live a healthy life, (2) people want the pandemic to be over, and (3) the medical establishment is correct in recommending vaccines as a way to stop the spread of COVID and take us out of the pandemic, then we're in the exact same position. It's advantageous for everyone if people take the vaccines.

Are you in favor of vaccinations or not? Do you believe people should get themselves vaccinated? Do you agree with the medical establishment? If not, just say so and trying to dance around it by playing dumb and arguing these ridiculous points.

All true. What's that got to do with the ethical question of whether one ought to take the vaccine? — Isaac

That wasn't the topic. The topic was the following:

(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.

You now want to raise an ethical question, which is different. But I'll indulge. It's very simple:

If we make the basic assumption that people want to live, want to be healthy, want to come out of the pandemic, etc., then the facts mentioned above lead directly to the conclusion of what one ought to do. If you're really questioning those assumptions, then that's your own business.

I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.
— Xtrix

Then why do people skydive? — Isaac

:lol:

Because people want to die, be sick, etc.? It's hard to skydive when you're dead -- but have it your way.

I very much doubt there is a nutritionist out there who says you can eat the quantity of junk food most Americans eat who does not have a clear bias — Isaac

Likewise with the fossil fuel industry "scientists" and the COVID quackery. Very clear bias, very clear motivations (almost always monetary).

It's clear that a doctor cannot provide a judgement about what one ought to do, they provide medical facts. What one ought to do about those facts is a separate question which a doctor is no more qualified to answer than you are. — Isaac

Doctors do this all the time, because they live in the real world and assume people don't want to be sick and die -- an assumption you seem to want to argue about.

Again, put down David Hume and what you've read about the "is/ought" gap -- it's bogus anyway.

Regardless, this wasn't the topic. The topic was the following:

(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.

If you want to have philosophical debates about dividing the world up into "facts" and "values," fine. But we're dealing with a real world situation. It's very simple: people should listen to doctors and take the vaccine. It would be better for everyone. It's the ethical thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do -- all based on overwhelming evidence. True, all this rests on the assumption that people want to live, want to be healthy, want the pandemic to be over, want to stop the spread of COVID, aren't sociopaths, etc. I'm sure you can find some exceptions, but this is the assumption I make -- and I think it's reasonable to everyone but those who spend way too much time with abstractions and introductory philosophy books. ("What if people like being sick? What if they want to die?")

Again, if you don't agree with that, then say so. But don't try to shift the topic into the fact/value dichotomy -- I'm really not interested, nor do I believe in such nonsense.

https://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis-pleads-world-listen-cry-earth-climate-change-fight-1626788

Pope, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, all put out this statement. That's a big deal.

Some other interesting current reading:

Climate Change Is The Greatest Threat To Public Health, Top Medical Journals Warn

Weather Disasters Have Become 5 Times As Common, Thanks In Part To Climate Change

Climate change should be the top story, daily, in every newspaper in the world.

Centuries of experience in the law have taught that expert opinions are a very low grade of evidence. Popper, the greatest philosopher of science of the 20th Century, has shown that unfalsifiable opinions are no part of the scientific method. This means that climatology is only pseudo-science. — Neri

:lol:

There you have it, folks. Don't bother with climate science: some internet guy says it's all "pseudo-science."

Evolution? Also pseudo-science -- at least according to Creationists. Equally relevant.

Those who question this “religion” are personally attacked--as many of the posts herein have amply demonstrated. — Neri

You're not "questioning" anything. You've showed up with a viewpoint, and your offered evidence is laughable.

I think climate denial should be attacked, generally. Because there's no "questioning" or good-faith effort to understand anything.

Then why the praise? If they've not done something ethically praiseworthy? Are just personally pleased with them? — Isaac

I initially said "credit," not "praise" -- you wanted to use "praise." That's fine, call it what you will. But as I've said several times now, I don't think it deserves much praise at all. But it deserves some. Why? Again, the poker example is a good one. There are winning players who don't know a thing about game theory, and yet they win. That's not just random chance and lucky guessing; they're making the mathematically/theoretically "correct" moves, but they're doing so by incorporating things like instinct, intuition, sensitivity to psychological data, the ability to read people, etc. Whatever the source of these instincts, I think they deserve some credit for having them in the first place. That's arguable -- maybe they don't. Maybe people who have a natural "aptitude" for things don't deserve any credit either. That's a discussion perhaps worth having. But either way, I'm not suggesting high praise.

OK. So, same question but for laymen. what's the advantage to society in have all the laymen follow the advice that it most likely to be right (as opposed to having some of them follow the second most likely, third most likely etc.)? — Isaac

You speak as if we're not currently living the answer, presumably forgetting the thread topic.

If most laypeople in the United States, who know nothing about vaccines, virology, microbiology, biochemistry, medicine, molecular biology, immunology, epidemiology, etc. etc., would listen to what these experts are saying and take the vaccine, then that would be a very great advantage indeed -- for everyone.

But the question is an odd one anyway. It's like asking: "What's the advantage of having everyone put their money on something with a 70% chance of winning instead of a 20% chance or 10% chance?"

Is it better to be on the right side of the truth or not?
— Xtrix

Woah. When did 'Truth' enter into it? — Isaac

It's true that smoking increases the likelihood of getting cancer. It's true that anthropogenic climate change is happening. It's true that vaccines are highly effective at combating COVID. It's true that masks help slow the spread of the virus.

Many people outright deny all of the above, largely because they believe the wrong people. People and things which I mentioned above -- quack doctors, Facebook memes, YouTube stars, bloggers, Twitter users, bogus websites, etc.

Neither of those things are a statement about what we ought to do. They are both statements of fact. — Isaac

Again, take a step away from Hume for a minute. Everything I mentioned above is a fact -- it is true, in any sense of the word. Based on those facts, we can decide what to do. It's that simple. But people aren't listening to the facts anymore, and that's the problem. They're not listening because they don't trust medical or scientific authority -- and that's a dangerous mistake.

True, maybe there are people who want the Earth to burn up, who want the pandemic to spread further, who want to die tomorrow, who want to get lung cancer, etc. In those cases, the facts I mentioned above, in their minds, translates to the exact opposite actions of most sane people. So what?

To get an action out them we need an objective, and a value system to weigh it against other objectives. Do you have experts in those things? — Isaac

Yes: nearly every human being on the planet who want to continue to live, who want the pandemic to be over, who want to sustain the environment for future generations, etc.

The question isn't whether or not people are insane. I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.

The question is a matter of who they're listening to. Eventually it'll be right in front of them: they'll get COVID themselves, even after believing it was a "hoax" because they listened to some guy on the internet say so. Eventually the impacts of climate change will hit them where they live, despite believing it's a "Chinese hoax" because they trusted Donald Trump over the overwhelming scientific consensus. Etc.

You'll find most nutritionists say you should outright never eat McDonalds. Others will say it's OK a few times a year -- in other words, in moderation. Do any suggest you should eat fast food "as often as you like"? I'm sure very few, but you could probably find them
— Xtrix

Find one then. — Isaac

That's like saying "find someone who says climate change is a hoax." Equally ridiculous. But they're out there, despite not helping whatever argument you're trying to make.

the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves.
— Xtrix

Again, in what way can a doctor be an expert in which values are most important, such that they can give an expert opinion on what one ought to do? — Isaac

Are you serious?

I won't even get into it again -- see above -- but think for a second about what you're saying. You're really going off the rails, and I have no idea why.

I think you're a prime example for the people on here who argue that studying philosophy isn't such a good thing for most people. If this is the kind of argument that comes out of it, we're in very deep trouble indeed.

There are almost no experts who question the use of vaccines
— Xtrix

That's just bullshit. — Isaac

No, it's just a fact.

But let me get this straight: the idea that there are nutritionists out there who would say "eat McDonalds as often as you like" you consider to be outlandish -- you don't even think there's one. But the idea that there are "almost no experts" who question the vaccine -- equally absurd -- you think is "bullshit," and then talk about recommendations for kids as "proof" of this?

In case it's not clear: none of those doctors are questioning the use of vaccines. If you believe recommendations about appropriate ages to get the vaccine is equivalent to "questioning the use of vaccines," you've really misread my statement. Which is a striking misreading.

You singled out, for credit, those who put their money on most experts. — Isaac

Yes, I've been saying that all along. This was my original statement in response to your emphasizing that most people, even those who are what we would call "correct" about a topic (climate change, vaccines), are themselves often just as ignorant about climatology and medicine. I agreed, with the following qualification:

The fact that they happened to be right doesn't say much -- they're ultimately just as ignorant as the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers, they just are lucky enough to have "good taste" in who they trust. They at least deserve credit for that, however. — Xtrix

Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. — Xtrix

And what does the greater probability of it being true have to do with ethics? — Isaac

Nothing.

You've not explained why a society in which everyone follows the highest probabilities is a better one than one in which most people follow the highest probabilities and some follow the second highest, the third highest and so forth — Isaac

I never once made sweeping statements like this. You repeatedly seem to forget the topic, and what I have actually said. I never once mentioned "everyone." I'm talking about laymen, the average citizen, and have been from the beginning, as quoted above.

For them, as for anyone who doesn't have a clue about a particular topic, the best move is to go with the overwhelming consensus of experts. Those who do, I argue, deserve praise only in the sense of having the good judgment to do so -- their ignorance of the topic itself notwithstanding.

I really don't think this is a controversial statement if you take a few seconds to think about it. Is it better to be on the right side of the truth or not? I'd argue it is. I'd argue it's better to make a bet and win than make a bet and lose. I'd argue it's better to choose surgery if 98 out of 100 surgeons say it's the right move. I'd argue it's good to put your money into the pot when you're a 3:1 favorite to win.

To you castigate people — Isaac

ore risky one is to be reprimanded? — Isaac

This entire conversation has been rather bizarre. I'm not castigating or reprimanding anyone. Listen once again to what I initially said (and have repeated since):

"Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters."

That's not high praise, and it's not castigating those who don't.

You seem to be overthinking this and reading into things way too much.

Not everything is a debate, and you don't lose points by agreeing with truisms.

98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs.
— Xtrix

Really? — Isaac

Really? Yes, really.

You think you could find a qualified, nutritionist who says you can eat at McDonalds as often as you like (one who isn't obviously paid, or influenced by the fast food industry). — Isaac

I never said "as often as you like."

You can find "experts" who make all kinds of claims. About tobacco, about fossil fuels, about sugar, about fast food, about anything you like. And that's part of my point.

The reason why your example sounds so convincing to you is because you've made up a deliberately convincing (and unfortunately completely fantastical) one. — Isaac

Not at all. You'll find most nutritionists say you should outright never eat McDonalds. Others will say it's OK a few times a year -- in other words, in moderation. Do any suggest you should eat fast food "as often as you like"? I'm sure very few, but you could probably find them -- just as you can find climate scientists who deny climate change, who are also sincere.

So it's not fantastical at all. But even assuming it was -- that completely misses the point. Just use the examples I started with, in this very thread, regarding COVID and vaccines. Nothing "fantastical" about that either -- the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves.

My advice to those who know nothing about medicine is simple: listen to the overwhelming medical consensus about this issue.

Simple. Easy. Yet seemingly very difficult for you which, again, is rather bizarre.

There are scores of properly qualified, unaffiliated experts in the appropriate field who raise a variety of objections to the consensus response to covid, climate change, (possibly 9/11 too - I've never looked). — Isaac

There are almost no experts who question the use of vaccines, or that climate change is real, or that 9/11 happened. If this is what you mean, then I can see why this discussion has been difficult for you.

If that's not the case, then whatever you mean by "response" here is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Yes, there are disagreements about exactly how to tackle climate change, how best to handle COVID (although there is still a large consensus), etc. So what? That's completely irrelevant.

Maybe this will help: do you think vaccines should be taken? Do you think climate change is real and should be dealt with? Do you believe the Earth is spherical?

If you answer yes to any of those, then I'm not sure what you're arguing against -- besides straw man you've constructed about my "praising" people. My only claim was that they deserve some credit, and I used the example of instinct players in poker, which is a good example.


I can say it only so many ways:


Those lay persons who go with the overwhelming scientific or medical consensus, despite knowing nothing about science or medicine, at least deserve credit for that judgment -- because it's the wiser bet.


Shouldn't be controversial, except for those who want to defend their own bad judgment.

I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person
— Xtrix

Ha! We all think we're better than average drivers, have better than average senses of humour. — Isaac

My statement is not subjective. I simply know more about the topic than average people.

To react how you did is typical, I suppose, because it sounds ego driven. But it’s a statement of fact, and there’s no reason not to say it simply because it applies to myself— any more than the claim that I’m taller than the average person. I take no pride in it any more than I do about chess or poker. Doesn’t make me special, just means I’ve spent more time on it. Why one is considered bad taste and the other perfectly fine is something we should grow out of.

your knowledge is still second hand, — Isaac

My knowledge of mathematics is also “second hand.”

Why you continue on like this is baffling.

Neither are a sufficiently homogenous group to be either right nor wrong. — Isaac

They are. Those who are anti-vaxxers and climate deniers are wrong. Sorry it’s a struggle for you to acknowledge the obvious.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if people should trust the consensus. — Isaac

Which I answered: yes.

If fifty fully qualified experts think one thing and five similarly qualified experts think another, what is it about choosing the fifty which deserves such praise over choosing the five when deciding who to trust? — Isaac

It doesn’t deserve much praise. It’s just a much better bet, as a layman.

Why? Because the more experts draw the same conclusion, the greater the probability that it’s true. This can be checked— it’s an empirical claim.

98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs.

Do we really only want people who trust the "overwhelming medical, scientific consensus"? — Isaac

Yes, when it comes to laypeople. People should trust scientists and doctors — and these institutions should be trustworthy.

As for others: it’s good to be questioning and challenging dogma and the status quo. But only if you put in the work— not simply because you’ve spent a few minutes on YouTube.

What advantage to society does removing scientific dissent bring? — Isaac

I figured you’d go this route.

I’m not talking about scientific dissent— which is indeed important.

The topic was the similar ignorance of both those who agree with and disagree with scientific consensus and mainstream medicine. My sole claim, in this case, is that those who have the intuition, instinct, or judgment to put their money on — and trust — the opinions of most experts deserve some credit, despite their ignorance of the subject.

Do you see those as the only two options? — Isaac

Do you?

No—those are called examples. There’s gray area.

But you're neither climate scientist, not virologist, nor (whatever a 9/11 expert would be!), so you can't 'step outside' of this. — Isaac

I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person, which is what we were talking about.

There is also plenty of evidence in favor of going with mainstream science and medicine.

There is such a thing as correct and incorrect. The people who are anti-vaccine or climate deniers are simply wrong. The ones who “throw in” with mainstream science and medicine, but who are almost completely ignorant about science and medicine, is what the topic was. They happen to be right, and that matters.

Government make a decision favouring the arms manufacturers they're "so obviously in their pocket, it stinks". Government makes a decision in favour of the pharmaceutical industry they're "following the science". It's just roles in a story, evil arms trader, white-coated scientist-hero. — Isaac

But one happens to be right and the other wrong, regardless of how one arrives at that claim. So while I also think it's a shame people aren't more educated, I also am willing to credit them for have the instinct, intuition, or whatever else was required to end jump making the right choice in the end.

In fact I saw this in poker a lot. Though some people wouldn't be able to give a theory or knowledgable explanation of a decision, they would consistently make the right ones -- and would be winning long-term players.

To say they're just as bad as the losing players because they're both equally ignorant of game theory is a mistake.

I'd wager less than a tenth of the people passionate about climate change actually understand climate change, likewise for vaccines, covid, 9/11,...whatever. — Isaac

A good point, and probably true -- even if you double the numbers, it's still not great.

It comes down, in the end, to who we do trust. Nearly everyone says they distrust government, business, the media, etc. -- for very different reasons. Yet they get their information from somewhere, and have arrived at their opinions somehow. It's almost always the influence of their social environment -- their upbringing, their location, their "culture." We see this in the predictability of rural versus urban polling.

But no matter who you talk to, they will give you their reasons -- even the crazy ones -- and these reasons usually come from something they heard or read, and can be traced to somewhere and someone. Much of the COVID misinformation, for example, was traced to under 20 people on Facebook, Twitter, etc. I forget the number, but it was a large percentage.

I'm not only targeting conservatives, either. I'm always surprised by how little people, who I would say are on the right side of an issue, know about the issue they're "right" about -- whether vaccines or COVID or climate change, as you mentioned. The fact that they happened to be right doesn't say much -- they're ultimately just as ignorant as the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers, they just are lucky enough to have "good taste" in who they trust. They at least deserve credit for that, however.

Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. I'm not even sure it can be taught.