I guess Hitler and Mother Terresa are of equal value. — James Riley

What's your evaluation of your own life?

One thing is for sure, you need to keep your day job and not try for the life insurance industry, or Worker's Compensation, or . . . etc. — James Riley

wut

What's your evaluation of your own life? — frank

I've never thought about it and I wouldn't hazard a guess. You are free to do so, though, if you wish. But I'm sure you would find me invaluable. LOL!

wut — frank

Well, since you think there is no way to put a value on a life, you should probably steer clear of industries that do it all the time, as a matter of course. Eyes, fingers, arms, toes, lives, etc. You also should not be placed in a position where, say, OBL and some SEAL are having a disagreement. Or a Nuremburg Judge and a Nazi. Or a single poor girl with a rapist uncle's baby in her belly or . . . etc. I mean, it's already a shame that you'd place me on equal footing with an anti-vaxer when we both need a vent. But you be you.

and I wouldn't hazard a guess — James Riley

Why are you exempt from the valuation process? I mean you've got a value set for Sally and she doesn't even exist. You do.

. I mean, it's already a shame that you'd place me on equal footing with an anti-vaxer when we both need a vent. — James Riley

It's ashame that you think non-medical criteria should bear on the question. I think we've covered this ground sufficiently.

Blaming people, limiting your goodwill, showing contempt, considering them infantile, irrational, and so on is _not_ effective in changing people's mind. — baker

If I have to engage in endless debate while the planet burns around me, in the name of goodwill, then no— I don’t want to be effective in that way. — Xtrix

If most of those attributes are true, then there's no point in doing so in the first place.

I don't assume every anti-vaxxer is irrational, however. Most are; some are reachable. The question is whether it's worthwhile making the attempt, or if time is better spent on other things. I think the latter is the case, at this point.

Why are you exempt from the valuation process? — frank

I'm not exempt. I told you that you are free to value me. As is anyone else. I'm not selling anything to me.

It's ashame that you think non-medical criteria should bear on the question. I think we've covered this ground sufficiently. — frank

It's a shame that you consider failure to take the medical advice and the vax as non-medical criteria. We did cover that.

I'm not selling anything to me. — James Riley

Were you selling something to Sally? Or was she selling something to you? I'm so confused. And tired. Talk at cha later.

They'll cry like little puppies about big bad authoritarian gubmn't treading on them, but they had their chance to debate politely on the merits of the science and consider what the experts had to say about what the experts had to say about what the experts had to say. Their bed may be uncomfortable, but they made it. — James Riley

Yeah -- at what point do we say "enough is enough, this case is settled"? When the vaccines were first rolled out, I was one of the first ones in line -- and many friends, family, and co-workers were hesitant. I totally understood their hesitancy. While I didn't accept them myself, I could see why they would have fears -- about how quickly it was created, about FDA approval, about side-effects, and generally about it's safety.

8 months, 5.4 billion shots later, FDA approval, and rigorous safety monitoring -- almost all of them have come around and gotten the vaccine. The ones who refuse even now are doing so because it's been politicized. The demographics bear this out -- Republicans being far less likely to get the vaccine.

So we're talking about all this as if this weren't the case. But it's very clear. The question is what to do about it. How many times can experts explain things, field question after question, concern after concern? It's like playing whack-a-mole.

It reminds me of the Creationists: "Where's the missing link between x fossil and z fossil?" A missing link, y, is provided. Then: "Where's the missing link between x and y, y and z?"

Time is of the essence, both with this and with climate change. Lives are on the line. Denial and immovable ignorance cannot be tolerated forever -- even if one is the Dalai Lama. The world is burning, people are dying, while we're "debating" this issue over and over again.

Sorry, but eventually we have to move on and take action. Sometimes there's simply no amount of goodwill, reasoned argument, evidence, or logic that will sway people who don't want to know or understand. Yes, they will complain, mock, sue, kick and scream -- in other words, they'll try their best to keep this pandemic going, accelerate climate change, etc. But given that their choices effects everyone else, and their choices are dangerous, I don't see any alternative beside them isolating themselves.

Were you selling something to Sally? Or was she selling something to you? — frank

I wasn't selling anything to Salle. Sally was trying to sell me on the idea that 5 + 5 + 10.

:100: :up: I got it April 1st but I had waited until those more vulnerable and the health care workers had had a fair shot. I didn't want to take up a shot from those who need it more. I self isolate real well and masks don't bother me. But once it was clear they had plenty, I got it. Wife and kid too.

Time is of the essence, both with this and with climate change. Lives are on the line. Denial and immovable ignorance cannot be tolerated forever -- even if one is the Dalai Lama. The world is burning, people are dying, while we're "debating" this issue over and over again. — Xtrix

Worth mentioning you are starting to sound like a prophet preaching to people who would not listen. That being said, we're all going to die eventually, some sooner than others. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. There are a lot if sheep in the world to different ideas and ideologies. It's why the Taliban exists, Isis exists, political parties exist, religious groups that fight each other exist. Part of the great American experiment was to see if we could all co-exist without killing each other. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how stupid someone else's idea is, at least they're free to it and we don't have to fight each other--at least until the modernist prophets come declaring we need war to cleanse our planet...

:100: :up: I got it April 1st but I had waited until those more vulnerable and the health care workers had had a fair shot. I didn't want to take up a shot from those who need it more. I self isolate real well and masks don't bother me. But once it was clear they had plenty, I got it. Wife and kid too. — James Riley

I would have done the same, but my clients are mostly high risk, and so they were encouraging all staff as well.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how stupid someone else's idea is, at least they're free to it and we don't have to fight each other- — Derrick Huestis

It does matter when it effects other people. These ideas do effect the other people. So no, you're not "free to it" at that point. I can't act in a way that harms others, regardless of my beliefs.

Very good editorial in the NY Times, worth quoting at length.

As Americans contemplate the prospect of a second winter trapped in the grip of Covid-19, remember that it didn’t need to be this way. Vaccines were developed in record time, and have proved to be both incredibly safe and stunningly effective. Nearly two-thirds of eligible Americans have accepted these facts and done their part by getting fully vaccinated.

Yet tens of millions more have not, allowing the more contagious Delta variant to sweep across the country, where it is now killing more than 1,500 people in the United States daily. Right now, the list of the very sick and the dead is made up almost entirely of the unvaccinated. But as long as the virus continues to spread widely, it can and will evolve in ways that put everyone at risk.

Faced with this avoidable catastrophe, President Biden is right to order tighter vaccine rules, which he did for roughly two-thirds of the nation’s work force on Thursday. “We’ve been patient,” Mr. Biden told vaccine holdouts. “But our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”

The president moved to require all executive branch employees, federal contractors and millions of health care workers to be vaccinated. Workers at private businesses with 100 or more employees will have to either get vaccinated or take a weekly Covid test. Any business covered by the order must offer its employees paid time off to get their shots or recover from any side effects.

[...]

Yet vaccine resisters carry on about violations of their freedom, ignoring the fact that they don’t live in a bubble, and that their decision to stay unvaccinated infringes on everyone else’s freedom — the freedom to move around the country, the freedom to visit safely with friends and family, the freedom to stay alive.

The Supreme Court made this point more than a century ago, when it upheld a fine against a Massachusetts man who refused to get the smallpox vaccine. In a majority opinion that echoes powerfully today, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, “Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

Refusers’ hollow appeals to “freedom” are especially hard to take considering that Americans already accept countless restrictions in the name of safety: We are required to wear seatbelts, for example, and to get vaccinations to attend public school.

Speaking of school vaccination requirements, they’ve proven wildly effective. Thanks to vaccines, measles and the mumps were essentially eradicated in children, at least until vaccine opponents opened the door for them to return.

A small number of people have a legitimate reason to decline the vaccine — say, those with an allergy. Others, particularly racial minorities, are mistrustful because of their personal experiences with the health care system, or because the vaccines are relatively new. Still others have struggled to get time off work or have worried (mistakenly) about the cost.

Beyond these, it’s hard to understand any arguments against getting the shot. The vaccine made by Pfizer is now fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the one by Moderna is expected to be shortly. — NY Times

It goes on, and worth a read. Says it all quite nicely, I think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/biden-covid-vaccine.html

It does matter when it effects other people. — Xtrix

You can justify anything on that basis. Our country permits a lot, and sometimes it bothers me also. But the things that bother me would probably piss you off if I tried controlling it. We just find the middle ground and move on, it isn't worth pissing people off for. Personally, I think this is one of the best reasons for state autonomy, people have the ability to move states, but when you push things on people from the national level, boy do they get mad fast.

For what it's worth, not that you will change your opinion, drunk driving kills many people, but banning alcohol didn't work so well.

It does matter when it effects other people.
— Xtrix

You can justify anything on that basis. — Derrick Huestis

No, you can't.

it isn't worth pissing people off for — Derrick Huestis

It is. I don't care who it pisses off. Smoking laws piss people off -- doesn't give them a right to make everyone take in secondhand smoke.

For what it's worth, not that you will change your opinion, drunk driving kills many people, but banning alcohol didn't work so well. — Derrick Huestis

Drunk driving is illegal.

If we could put a prohibition on the coronavirus, I'd be for that.

No, you can't. — Xtrix

Alright fine. You're already on the side of saving the planet from climate change or it hurts people, so from now on in order to not hurt people with CO2 gas you can't travel anywhere in powered transportation except work and the grocery store. You can't visit your parents or friends or go on vacation unless you can walk or bicycle there. Since water usage has an effect on the environment, in both treatment and sourcing, and uses energy to heat when you shower, the government should now impose limits on your shower, you can only use a few gallons to wash yourself. And heating/cooling houses uses a lot of energy, and the wood to build them cuts down trees, so that all hurts the environment which hurts people so 1 person is only allowed to have a 400sqft home, and each additional person in your family allows for 200sqft, all to save energy, and the government will handle moving you if your family size changes. So a family of 4 gets 1000sqft, plenty, no more retired individuals living comfortably in a 2000sqft home they've been paying 30 years for, that hurts people!

Or we could just reduce our population down to carrying capacity. But yeah, government action is better than expecting environmentalists to reduce consumption, thus increasing supply, thus lowering price, thus stimulating demand, thus bearing all the burden while Rush Limbaugh and company roll coal and party down. It's kind of like responding when .gov asks nicely to distance, mask and vax: we don't do it and the hammer comes down. Only with climate, Mother Nature holds the hammer.

It's always the foot-dragging assholes that cause the hammer.

Tired denialist thinking.
Common.
Boring.

Mother Nature holds the hammer. — James Riley

She is the best teacher, let her do her thing. I'm all about government stoping the waist of the wealthy, one flight in a private jet consumes more fuel then I'll burn in a year. But no, they have to bug the little guy because the people with the private jets pay for the political campaign. Get rid of first-class in the airlines while they're at it. That would make the airlines so much more efficient to carry more people and potentially require fewer planes. But once again, that affects the wealthy who pay the politicians, so go after the little guy...

Tired denialist thinking.
Common.
Boring. — Xtrix

Argue with emotion because logic is hard.
Common.
Boring.

Personally, I like it when predictions are made— like in the QAnon conspiracy theory — because when they fail to come true (as they always do), the failure is palpable. But most nonsense doesn’t make predictions, and in fact can’t be falsified in any way. — Xtrix

One simply has to have general knowledge and insight to the issue. What matters even more is to understand the political biases that people have. Usually these are given far too much importance, but the easy simple way is to watch or read the different coverage of an issue. This is very useful as you can easily understand what are the facts and what part is story told in the certain way. Once you understand the bias what Fox News, RT Today, MSNBC, CNN has, it's easy to spot an agenda. The conspiracist will not do this: he or she will cling on to one true narrative and not even look at what other (false) narratives there are of the issue. Because the other is "the evil propaganda" of the "evil actors".

I think all that’s left is to understand how and why people come to these immovable positions in the first place. — Xtrix

Well, let's just remember that even in this site you start to argue about mathematics something that is clearly wrong, I think those who do reply to you will have "immovable positions". The basic thing again comes down to the level of general knowledge the person has.

Without basic school level knowledge of things people will be the most insane things.

It's ashame that you think non-medical criteria should bear on the question. I think we've covered this ground sufficiently. — frank

So in a triage situation you would let a charity worker die if she was in worse condition than a rapist and you were only able to give medical aid to one of them?

Irrational over-trust vs irrational under-trust.
Both sides can be immune to facts and a waste of time.

Kind of off-topic, but if I understand your question, yes.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist. — Charles Baudelaire

The second greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is the good guy. — Ken Ammi

It appears that those who deny mainstream views/official explanations are of the same breed as people who have the so-called God Gene put forth by Dean Hamer - it predisposes people to (always) consider the possibility of a hidden, third-party, force/agent in all human affairs. This concealed-from-view force/agent/actor used to go by the name god, now it's the government, big businesses, and so on. The God Gene must have something to latch onto it seems. I'm probably talking about conspiracy theories more than anything else but the OP seems broad enough to accommodate my point.

@Cheshire @baker @Srap Tasmaner ...

If we disagree and you are wrong –> demonstrably wrong –> demonstrably dangerously wrong, then is it "fascist" to defend myself, with violence if needs be, against being subjected to the imminent danger/s which you (e.g. anti-vaxxers) advocate or present?

You're already on the side of saving the planet from climate change or it hurts people, so from now on in order to not hurt people with CO2 gas you can't travel anywhere in powered transportation except work and the grocery store. You can't visit your parents or friends or go on vacation unless you can walk or bicycle there. Since water usage has an effect on the environment, in both treatment and sourcing, and uses energy to heat when you shower, the government should now impose limits on your shower, you can only use a few gallons to wash yourself. And heating/cooling houses uses a lot of energy, and the wood to build them cuts down trees, so that all hurts the environment which hurts people so 1 person is only allowed to have a 400sqft home, and each additional person in your family allows for 200sqft, all to save energy, and the government will handle moving you if your family size changes. So a family of 4 gets 1000sqft, plenty, no more retired individuals living comfortably in a 2000sqft home they've been paying 30 years for, that hurts people! — Derrick Huestis

I'm liking this manifesto.

Argue with emotion because logic is hard. — Derrick Huestis

“Logic.” :rofl:

“Against climate change? Then don’t drive a car or heat your house!”

How original! Because we haven’t heard this denialist bullshit (sorry, I mean “logic”) a million times before. You seem satisfied with it, so I’ll let you be.

@Cheshire @baker @Srap Tasmaner ...

If we disagree and you are wrong –> demonstrably wrong –> demonstrably dangerously wrong, then is it "fascist" to defend myself, with violence if needs be, against being subjected to the imminent danger/s which you (e.g. anti-vaxxers) advocate or present? — 180 Proof

(y) ("No", I mean :smile:)

London transport staff warned of anti-mask posters with razor blades (Sep 9, 2021) :o

People going to such lengths over masking up have more than just lost perspective (if they ever had any). Sure, they'd have to be way out extremists. I'd be somewhat reluctant to feed their fanaticism.

against demonstrably (dangerously) wrong ≠ fascism

People going to such lengths over masking up have more than just lost perspective (if they ever had any). Sure, they'd have to be way out extremists. — jorndoe

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/241993676_1229838880854483_7035579705140754664_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=2EKPt-ha7_UAX8ZfbqG&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=900995b7c8f46c55369e470a920ca1ef&oe=61438079

Both sides — Yohan

This is misleading. Try arguing both-sides to the flat earth “debate.” It simply looks ridiculous there.

Yes, as laymen we should question those in authority.

But most of the time, our real choice lies in who we deem trustworthy— because we can’t be questioning everything at all times, and we can’t do “deep dives” into every medical, mechanical, scientific, or physical issue that we face— we rely on those with the requisite experience, knowledge, expertise to guide us as we get on with our lives.

We do this all the time. When we go to the doctor, when we go to the auto mechanic, to the bank, and even when we go over bridges. There’s a level of common-sensical trust and reliance on others’ goodness and expertise that’s taken for granted in everyday life.

This issue about vaccines is no different, as vaccines have been around for a long time, mandates have been around a long time, etc. What’s changed is the anti-vax movement and politicization of every issue. Because of this, laypeople who would otherwise get the shot and get on with their lives now feel the need to have an “opinion” about it and choose a “side.”

Many — enough to prevent vaccination targets from being met — are going with Alex Jones, “plandemic” and other such nonsense, some more sophisticated and nuanced than others. But all as wrong and misguided as flat earthers and, unfortunately, much more dangerous.

To argue that both sides are equally irrational is irrational.

To argue that both sides are equally irrational is irrational. — Xtrix

:100:

"Both sides" is the media's veiled "whataboutism." They don't do it when the should (Iraq) and do it when they shouldn't (Trump).