That company X or Y has done something in the past or even many bad things isn't reason enough to not use their products when they are safe and effective. You know one computer or cellphone maker that hasn't been sued? One car maker that never did anything shoddy? Should we express blanket mistrust for all car and cellphone makers and stop using cars and cellphones? — Olivier5
"pharmaceuticals can do bad things (eg lobby for a dangerous drug) and good things (eg develop safe and effective vaccines). We should try and discourage them to do the former (via the law) and encourage them to do the latter, by purchasing their vaccines when they are safe and effective. — Olivier5
Possibly. So how do you get from there to 'anyone who disagrees with this strategy must be suffering from some mental illness'? — Isaac
why you think my view 'paranoid'. — Isaac
Because of its essentialist and absolutist angles. — Olivier5
a non-absolutist (ie relativist) and non-essentialist (ie pragmatic, result-oriented) view of dishonest behaviors within pharmaceuticals would be to say something like this: "pharmaceuticals can do bad things (eg lobby for a dangerous drug) and good things (eg develop safe and effective vaccines). We should try and discourage them to do the former by using the law to its fullest extent against them when they do bad things, and also encourage them to do the latter, by purchasing their vaccines when they are safe and effective. — Olivier5
So anyone who disagrees that pharmaceutical companies should be rewarded for making [safe, effective] vaccines (a type of product they actually chose to make anyway) by purchasing their vaccines, is absolutist and essentialist and therefore paranoid. — Isaac
Since the vaccines are effective, it is in our short-term interest to buy them anyway. Long-term, it incentivizes pharmaceutical to produce more safe and effective vaccines in the future.
If on the other hand we say: "these people are inherently evil, hence we should not buy their safe and effective vaccines, or only buy as few of them as we possibly can", we shoot ourselves in the foot by depriving ourselves of these effective and safe vaccines, and by giving pharmaceuticals no incentives to produce more safe and effective vaccines in the future. So this would be perverse. — Olivier5
I didn't say that anyone rejecting it is crazy, — Olivier5
Because the carrot and stick strategy is balanced, effective and just, while using only the stick is imbalanced and has perverse effects. — Olivier5
I have been the one pointing out at such fake disagreement promoted here by people like you, as in this post you were quoting.
So you're vaccinated against COVID, Baker? — Olivier5
You're incorrigible! — Isaac
The spectre of mandates now is absolutely not something which requires some kind of psychologising bullshit explanation in terms of politics. — Isaac
you?
It’s not new technology.
— Xtrix
So the CDC are lying? — Isaac
Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades.
Vaccination might help a bit, but I don't place faith in it. I certainly don't have the kind of enthusiastic, confident, optimistic attitude toward it the way some vocal proponents of vaccination expect me to have.
This is a major point of disagreement between myself and them. — baker
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.