I am aware of the science says take the vaccine. There may very well be some scientists who disagree. But my doctor took it and he advises me to take it and all the dissent I see is on Faux News with no peers. — James Riley

That's not the issue here. Your decision to take the vaccine is not in question. Your response to those who decided otherwise is.

Why would you judge others on the basis of your own unqualified and self-admittedly incomplete assessment of the dissenting scientific opinion? If you don't know (and admit you don't know), then on what grounds the vitriolic judgement?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11633/would-the-covid19-vaccine-be-made-obligatory-if-more-than-40-of-the-people-refused-to-take-it

But I dont refuse to get compensation from a corporation or boss. In fact I like it that it is obliged before going to work. I dont have to work for them like that. But why should I stay inside (which I have already done for about a year, quite coincidentally). I cant make the vaccinated ill...

31mReplyShareAccept — frank

True. But why they are considered a thread by the non-vaccinated?

Why would you judge others on the basis of your own unqualified and self-admittedly incomplete assessment of the dissenting scientific opinion? If you don't know (and admit you don't know), then on what grounds the vitriolic judgement? — Isaac

As has been explained, in this or other threads (I'm losing track) I judge others based upon their equally unqualified, incomplete assessment of the prevailing scientific opinion. They don't know, and yet they expose others to their ignorance, possibly at the peril of others. If I don't drive drunk, then at least I've ameliorated the risks (you know, instead of saying it is my body, my right to drive drunk and no one else's concern). Like seat belts, I'm under no illusion that many people could give a shit about me getting hurt in a wreak. But they have a legitimate reason to want to keep their premiums down. There might be people out there who do care about me, and that's the Fauci idea about caring about other people. But beyond that, "the experts say . . . ." and the dissent sound like selfish idiots.

So, yes, I judge because you are not just (possibly) hurting yourself, but you are (possibly) hurting others. And the weight of the professional opinion is on my side.

So yeah, I judge those who are against following the prevailing advice of experts, because it is not simply them they are placing at risk. They are risking others.

Risk yourself. And, at the very least, if you do get sick, for crying out loud, don't go to the fucking doctor.

You want to challenge my empathy because I'm harsh on those who have no empathy, and because I reserve my empathy for those who have empathy? See how far that gets you. Sure, I'll come to your defense, and pay your bills, so long as you haven't refused my help or efforts to pay. But if you have, don't be surprised if I break bad. You brought it on yourself. I still have empathy, just not for you.

34mReplyOptions — T Clark

But I dont refuse to get compensation from a corporation or boss. In fact I like it that it is obliged before going to work. I dont have to work for them like that. But why should I stay inside (which I have already done for about a year, quite coincidentally). I cant make the vaccinated ill...

So why should I stay inside? The high percentage is reached by the way because the propaganda wotks well. You can say" oh just shut up and get shot", of course.

I judge because you are not just (possibly) hurting yourself, but you are (possibly) hurting others. And the weight of the professional opinion is on my side. — James Riley

But you've now three times failed to provide the details of what that 'weight of professional opinion' actually says on the matter. So how do you know it's on your side?

Risk yourself. And, at the very least, if you do get sick, for crying out loud, don't go to the fucking doctor. — James Riley

So if you get sick as a result of any of your choices, do you avoid going to the doctor?

But you've now three times failed to provide the details of what that 'weight of professional opinion' actually says on the matter. So how do you know it's on your side? — Isaac

No, I have not so failed. You clearly are being obstinate. The details are these, read my words (watch my lips): Distance, mask, vax. Wait, hold on. Let me try saying that again: Distance, mask, vax. Maybe wash your hands once in a while. :roll:

If you want more, go to school, get an advanced degree in the area and engage your peers.

" — James Riley

"It's not a matter of "should." It's a function of nature, Darwin, society. "

What do you mean? That it is only Natural to take away individual rights?

The details are these, read my words (watch my lips): Distance, mask, vax. — James Riley

In what scientific peer-reviewed journal is the conclusion that everyone ought to distance, mask, vax reached? What methodology would such an experiment even employ?

If you want more, go to school, get an advanced degree in the area and engage your peers. — James Riley

I already have. It's your position I'm interested in here, not theirs.

"
— James Riley

"It's not a matter of "should." It's a function of nature, Darwin, society. "

What do you mean? That it is only Natural to take away individual rights? — Prishon

I've lost the context from which you quoted me. Can you please re-insert it? I *think* I might get your question but I don't want to answer without seeing the context in which I said what you quoted. Thanks.

answer — James Riley

Im not sure what happened. I saw your comment above I think. But it's not there. It involved your reaction to suspiciousness to non-vaccinators. Im not sure now...☺

In what scientific peer-reviewed journal is the conclusion that everyone ought to distance, mask, vax reached? What methodology would such an experiment even employ? — Isaac

I think I already explained to you that I am not a peer or an expert. Nor do I read the journals. Nor would I know what methodology any experiment would employ. I listen, rather, to those appointed by and working for institutions that I support as part of my chosen, democratic form of government (You know, like the CDC, Fauci, et al).

In typical internet argumentative fashion, you might ask me to ask you to step up and show me in what scientific peer-reviewed journal is the conclusion that no one needs to distance, mask, vax, or what methodology they used to arrive at their conclusions. But you see, I don't give a shit. I couldn't (or don't want to invest the time, resources and energy necessary to) understand what it is they are saying. I'm not following the evidence. I'm following those who I trust to have followed the evidence. They aren't Tucker Carlson or Isaac.

Oh just shut up and get shot.

6mOptions — DingoJones

Maybe I will. I cant even go visit my family in Italy. Maybe in 10 years...

Im not sure what happened. I saw your comment above I think. But it's not there. It involved your reaction to suspiciousness to non-vaccinators. Im not sure now...☺ — Prishon

Well, I did not delete it so I don't know what happened. In any event, I don't think I have argued, in the context of this thread, that Darwin would say it is natural to take away individual rights. It's a good question, though. He might. For instance, I am a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. However, if the exercise of the right ever presented a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state (nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, or exercise of the right to the exclusion of the right of others to bear) then yeah, the right could be infringed. If one were to believe in political Darwinism, then yes, individual rights can be trashed to maintain a state which perpetuates the species beyond the ability of other, competing states that jeopardize the species. But that is a long walk from this thread. Sorry for the digression.

I don't know what you are doing, but your quotes come up "6mOptions" and it's disconcerting. Might want to ask some techy what's the hell is going on.

I cant make the vaccinated ill... — Prishon

Apparently the vaccinated can be infected in some cases, but that's not the main problem. Yes, you can infect the unvaccinated. You can also infect those for whom the vaccine hasn't worked, like my brother who had a kidney transplant and is immunosuppressed.

9mReplyOptions — James Riley

Nono. Dont be sorry! I kinda like digressions. There are times I think its a good idea to have a gun around too. But then again, I can alsi throw the bullet... Im not sure I agree with the Darwinian view on countries as a whole. I think thats a bit too abstract. On a personal level Im Lamarckian, rather than Darwinian (or Dawkinskian, the selfish gene guy)

10mReplyOptions — James Riley

Does it still show? Let's look...

Does it still show? Let's look... — Prishon

Yup, still there. I'm not the guy to help. I don't know tech.

1mReplyOptions — James Riley

I just tapped the "quote" button...Strange indeed! Your message should appear. Curious what appears now...

nowOptions — Prishon

Still there!

This thread ought be merged back to Anti-vaccination: Is it right?

I feel strong negative sentiments and even hostility are present in people who have taken the vaccine. — Prishon

Folk do react negatively to freeloaders, yes.

The vaccine does not prevent one from catching the virus. It may reduce the probability of doing so, and certainly reduces the severity of the consequences. Hence those who are vaccinated are less likely to need hospitalisation.

But if the hospitals are full of recalcitrants, that will be difficult.

And recalcitrants will make it more likely that the vaccinated will become sick. They will ensure the virus remains a problem despite the efforts of the vaccinated.

It would be odd were you to not expect a backlash against your recalcitrance.

3mReplyOptions — Banno

"recalcitrance"

That word sounds already very negative. Honestly I dont care if I got sick by the virus ir sick by the vaccination. I just dont want someone to push a needle in my arm and inject some stuff in it. Even it was for my own or others good. Unless the needle contained nice stuff...

Honestly I dont care if I got sick by the virus ir sick by the vaccination. I just dont want someone to push a needle in my arm and inject some stuff in it. Even it was for my own or others good. Unless the needle contained nice stuff.. — Prishon

See how often you use the word "I"?

Curious,

Yes, indeed, recalcitrant should be read as negative. You are acting against the common good.

10mReplyOptions — Banno

"freeloaders"

Good one...

Neither affect the viral load outside the bloodstream, in the nasal mucosa, for example, which, as I cited earlier, carries a significant proportion of the transmitted virus particles. — Isaac

Do you have references for this claim? The information I have been able to find on the issue of viral load suggests that the more infected you are the more virus you will be shedding. I agree that vaccines are not claim to be sterilizing, so they don't totally prevent infection, but it is the conjecture that the vaccinated will be on average significantly less infected and hence less infectious that seem to me, in the absence of counter-evidence, plausible.

This doesn't translate into a moral claim that one ought to get vaccinated because an individual has other options which (as current evidence stands) are equally efficacious given known factors of their personal circumstances. — Isaac

OK, but you haven't addressed the point as to why one should not adopt all the strategies that work, because together they will be even more efficacious than any single strategy. You are offering other strategies as alternatives to vaccination, why should they not be adjuncts?

I'm following those who I trust to have followed the evidence. — James Riley

Good. I wouldn't have any reason to want you to do otherwise. But here (again), we're not discussing how you reached your decision since no-one has raised the least concern about it. We're discussing your seething hatred of those who didn't use your method for deciding, those who, perhaps, did not trust those institutions, who instead, did read the journals, found enough evidence there to support an alternative position. I'm asking you about your ground for thinking those people so utterly worthless as to be deserving of nothing but to be kicked to the street to die.

As I asked you before, if your decision, your chosen method of dealing with your lack of expertise, leads to injury, do you expect to be kicked to the street by those who chose differently?

The data here overdetermines the theory (the same data fails to falsify more than one theory), so... more than one 'truth'. Some things, of course, are false, and maybe one day 'does vaccination reduce viral transmission?' will be something to which a false answer might be possible, but I don't think that's today. — Isaac

Are you saying that there might some day be a true answer to the question as to whether vaccination reduces viral transmission, but that there is no fact of the matter today because we are not able to determine it? If it is something to be determined as opposed to invented, then why would the fact of the matter not exist today, even though we might not be yet able to determine it?