I am not particularly afraid of that ever happening... but I can't get out my mind the idea that if we could have summoned some broad political and societal agreement around climate change two decades ago, in line with the scientific consensus, we could have averted or mitigated the worst of it.

We blew that chance because of artificial doubt and manufactured disagreement. — Olivier5

No. I don't believe such things have much to do with doubt or agreement, politicial or social or otherwise.

The simple fact is that lifestyle habits are hard to change in any significant way, even regardless of the time available, what to speak of changing them when under pressure. It's not realistic to expect that people will be able to make such significant changes. Anyone who has tried to give up smoking or junkfood knows first hand how hard it is to make significant changes in one's life. Scientists know this too. To say nothing of the difficulty of carrying out lifestyle changes that would be necessary to change the negative effect of humans on the planet.

Blaming "artificial doubt and manufactured disagreement" is just a convenient distraction.

Blaming "artificial doubt and manufactured disagreement" is just a convenient distraction. — baker

Yeah? You think they did all this disinformation because it was not working?

What was not working?

If we make use of their vaccines, we have to pay them for it, thus rewarding the good work done and incentivizing the future production of safe and effective vaccines. That's agreed then? — Olivier5

Yes. So...

So where have I suggested we shouldn't make use of the vaccine? — Isaac

Recall, I'm asking you to explain why what I've posted counts as...

disgusting, creepy paranoid shit — Olivier5

...you're explaining why we have to pay companies for their products... the link being?

If we make use of their vaccines, we have to pay them for it, thus rewarding the good work done and incentivizing the future production of safe and effective vaccines. That's agreed then?
— Olivier5

Yes. So... — Isaac

So what was so hard to understand then? What were all these "WTF" and other expressions of disbelief for, in the past dozen posts since I introduced this now seemingly agreeable idea? Why did it take you so much time to get your head around it?

Disinformation by the fossil fuel industry.

A minor disagreement, when you think of it. — Olivier5

No, it's a major one, given the repercussions. I don't have the kind of enthusiastic, confident, optimistic attitude toward the vaccines the way some vocal proponents of vaccination expect me to have so they have categorized me as an anti-vaccer. Some of their replies:

If I were permitted to let you die and not be forced to heroically exhaust common resources to treat you, I'd buy into your Randian libertarian wet dream and let God sort out your bad decisions. But we don't live by that ethic today. If today's ethics require I protect against Darwin, they require you play along too. — Hanover

You are an enemy. I hate you. — James Riley

And from yourself:

You take yourself very seriously, that's for sure, and you're a hero in your own mind, but to me you're just another coward running away from a needle, and rationalizing his fears. — Olivier5

Rather, I nailed you, reason for which you are now speechless... — Olivier5

Cowards with a big mouth and a tiny brain don't deserve to be saved alright. They are a waste of perfectly fine vaccine. — Olivier5

And those are just the ones where I readily remembered the keywords.

Disinformation by the fossil fuel industry. — Olivier5

People will say all kinds of things to protect their interests. That doesn't make it okay, but it is what people do and should be taken in consideration as such.

Or you poor snowflake. You wanted to share your worst fears and darkest antisocial pessimism in the midst of a crisis, and people called you a coward or an enemy. Go figure!

I’m talking about— and have been from the beginning — the United States. — Xtrix

Why?

I'm asking you how you justify dismissing contrary opinion with you psychological be, and you said

Your views are enough. — Xtrix

So why are you talking only about the US when the question is about your justification for psychologizing your opponents. You argued that it was justified because they'd had a history of vaccine mandates and were only now kicking up a fuss, thus proving they were politicised. The relevant fact there is whether your opponents have had a history of vaccine mandates and are only now kicking up a fuss. Not you.

CDC said just what I said: the technology has been around for decades. I’ll quote them again— from your source: — Xtrix

Your quote does not say "the technology has been around for decades" and I cited several experts explaining why not. Citations you completely ignored.

The vaccines are safe and effective. — Xtrix

No one is arguing that.

Mandates are completely legal and justified — Xtrix

The entire UK government and a large number of medical ethicists disagree, who again I cited and again you completely ignored.

But the balance of opinion is not the topic here. It's your suggestion that disagreement is so outrageous that only the politically motivated would pretend to hold such views. It's egotistical on a monumental scale to hold that your personal opinion is so right that dissent can only be seen as a Machiavellian political move.

People will say all kinds of things to protect their interests. That doesn't make it okay, but it is what people do and should be taken in consideration as such. — baker

Rather, it should be discarded as such.

So what was so hard to understand then? What were all these "WTF" and other expressions of disbelief for, in the past dozen posts since I introduced this now seemingly agreeable idea? Why did it take you so much time to get your head around it? — Olivier5

Because the question was why my posts were

disgusting, creepy paranoid shit — Olivier5 — Isaac

I couldn't see (and still can't) what the fuck the fact that we ought to pay for the vaccines we use has got to do with answering that question.

No, that's another issue. My question is: why did the idea seem so counterintuitive to you at first? Why did you initially (and during many posts) reject this very simple idea, that even the pharmaceuticals need incentives to do the right thing?

And those are just the ones where I readily remembered the keywords. — baker

And, of course, Mr. Wood @tim wood piling on.

When in fact there isn't much we disagree on. I can think of really just one thing we disagree on: and that is the vehemence with which scientific claims should be held and the ethical status that should be ascribed to them.
— baker

We agree on that too, if you deigned to read what I said instead of rushing into accusations. — Xtrix

No, we disagree on this matter. I never push for scientific claims the way you do.

All I ever did was call for more caution. For this, several posters immediately classed me as an anti-vaccer, as irrational, evil, and such.
— baker

Then take some responsibility and be more clear next time.

I should not have to repeat myself over and over again, for every poster in every thread. I should not have to defend myself against wrongful accusations. I should not have to disclose sensitive medical information about myself in public forums. I should not have to accomodate other posters' uncharitable reading.

Incidentally, I never called you “evil.”

You called me irrational etc. etc.

People will say all kinds of things to protect their interests. That doesn't make it okay, but it is what people do and should be taken in consideration as such.
— baker

Rather, it should be discarded as such. — Olivier5

The interests remain and it remains that people protect them.

So I obliged. — James Riley

We both know that you didn't. Right from the onset.

The interests remain and it remains that people protect them. — baker

So if someone wants to con you a few grands, you're okay with that because he defends his interests?

We both know that you didn't. Right from the onset. — baker

We both know that I did. My turn: Fuck off, and don't mention me again. You aren't worthy.

My question is: why did the idea seem so counterintuitive to you at first? Why did you initially (and during many posts) reject this very simple idea, that even the pharmaceuticals need incentives to do the right thing? — Olivier5

I just answered that. It's because I was trying to read into it some relevance to the question. If I ask why my posts are crazy paranoid shit I don't immediately expect someone to start talking about the basics of market economics.

The interests remain and it remains that people protect them.
— baker

So if someone wants to con you a few grands, you okay with that because he defends his interests? — Olivier5

Eh? How do you figure that?

It's pointless to try to openly discuss a person's interests when the fulfillment of those very interests is at stake. It's as useless as, for example, pointing out to a private contractor building your house that he's charging too much, pocketing too much money. Of course he's going to defend his interests, and perhaps tell you that you should find someone else or sue him.

In order to make a difference to how humans impact the planet, humans would need to change their interests. But how can they be made to do that?

wrt what? Or am I just in your head?

That is not true. You genuinely could not understand at first the very simple idea of rewarding pharmaceuticals for their good work on vaccines. And that's because in your mind they are inherently evil.

It's pointless to try to openly discuss a person's interests when the fulfillment of those very interests is at stake — baker

My point is rather that when you see some 'scientist' doubting climate change, remember that he could well be entirely paid for by some fossil fuel group or another. So we have a moral responsibility not to be a sucker, and not to relay their lies.

That is not true. You genuinely could not understand at first the very simple idea of rewarding pharmaceuticals for their good work on vaccines. And that's because in your mind they are inherently evil. — Olivier5

OK, so in your world I think we ought to just steal the vaccines from the pharmaceutical companies because they're evil. But I've not said that. You just think that's the case, from the way I responded.

So...you offer, as proof that my posts are "crazy paranoid shit", that you think they are.

So I guess we're back to the beginning. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be crazy...just 'cos.

Paranoids are very hard to convince of their own paranoia, as you must know. In fact it is most of times impossible to do so.

Paranoids are very hard to convince of their own paranoia, as you must know. In fact it is most of times impossible to do so. — Olivier5

What a fantastically self-immunised argument. You suggest I'm paranoid, I resist such an accusation and you declare "there, see, paranoid people are notoriously resistant to being convinced of it. Case closed".

Pathetic.

Well, so sorry I didn't manage to convince you then.

Well, so sorry I didn't manage to convince you then. — Olivier5

You're under no obligation to convince me. The obligation is to support a claim like "crazy paranoid shit", with something of more substance than your idle speculations. I honestly can't believe I'm having to spell this out to a grown adult. If you can't support the claim with more than just your 'gut feeling' then perhaps hold back on the accusations of mental illness.

then perhaps hold back on the accusations of mental illness. — Isaac

You should not take it as an accusation, I'm rather trying to alert you about it. Your mind is not totally gone yet I think. You can still pull it together if you try. It's also a way to flag to other posters that there might be some mental toxicity involved there, in case they haven't noticed already.