On 9/11, some perspective:

American death toll on 9/11: 2,977
American death toll in Afghanistan war: 2,461
American death toll from COVID: 3,260

That last one is a two day average.

That’s right; the “interests of society” are whatever Xtrix says they are. — NOS4A2

Imagine struggling with “health and safety” as an interest. This is what modern “libertarianism” does, folks. Take a good look.

Yes, there is such a thing as the common good. Not having a virus spread around because a bunch of people think they know more than medical experts — that’s part of the common good.

Saint Reagan didn’t say it, so it isn’t true.

Who says the interests of society is health and safety? — NOS4A2

:lol:

That’s one interest of many. Who says it isn’t?

Nevermind. You’re right: the interests of society are death and destruction.

Did you do that only after you worked to falsify any theory, and applied the scientific method to what your doctor said? — James Riley

Doctor isn’t government. Government is the problem, remember. Saint Reagan said so.

Your obedience is to government officials, not “science”. — NOS4A2

Lol. No, to the overwhelming medical consensus.

You listen to your doctor, but not doctor(s). Because you’re too blinded by anti-politics.

Repeat the prayer of your religion once again: government is the problem.

Once we accept that, the rest follows—and leads you this dangerous, contradictory nonsense.

Those "individuals" who don't want to play ball can stay home and off of society's streets and public places. — James Riley

Right. Just like those who want to take a paintball into the supermarket and shoot everyone in there. Or those who want to smoke indoors.

Sorry—you’re welcome to smoke in your own space, not in mine.

Is society not composed of individuals? — NOS4A2

No, society is composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons…etc.

There are different concepts and analyses brought into play when dealing with individuals, groups, and systems.

True, you can argue that understanding chess is really a matter of studying atoms— but no one would pay the slightest attention to you, because it’s idiotic.

I’d love to hear what you think the “interests of society” are. — NOS4A2

One such interest is the interest of health and safety. Which anyone sane, and willing to participate in society, accepts.

And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. There is nothing unfeasible about it. — NOS4A2

No where does WHAT state? The constitution?

No where does “it” state that people must obey traffic lights. I view this as against my individual rights and autonomy, and I shouldn’t be denied access to society if I don’t follow them.

What a stupid, stupid argument.

The state imposes and laws all the time. The only question is whether it’s legitimate. Decisions about vaccines are based on science and recommendations from the overwhelming medical consensus. It’s as commonsensical as traffic lights and hand washing laws.

The issue is simply that you don’t think it as legitimate as these other cases, and the reason you don’t think it is is because you’re fundamentally anti-science and anti-medicine. Otherwise it’s simply a matter of logic, based on simple values and goals we all share.

Stop being an imbecile and prolonging this pandemic with your Ayn Rand, quasi-libertarian bullshit.

Society is composed of individuals. The interests of the individual is the interest of society at large. — NOS4A2

So goes the old, tired, long refuted Thatcher bullshit.

The coronavirus is a good example of exactly how individual “interests” are often completely contrary to the interests of society.

Notice how this simply cannot be seen by those so indoctrinated by neoliberal propaganda. Quite sad.

Devaluing the Nazis is a bad thing, according to new agey, pseudo-Buddhistic bullshit.

Dehumanizing is arguably bad; devaluing groups is perfectly normal, and often just.

Yes. Also, some more good news: Harvard University, after 9 years of student activism, has finally divested their 42 billion dollar endowment from fossil fuels.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1035901596/harvard-university-end-investment-fossil-fuel-industry-climate-change-activism

It's the basis for tribalism. The foundation of fascism. — Cheshire

No it isn’t.

There’s a golden mean here. We don’t want to be close minded, and we don’t want to be so open minded that we fall for any charlatan out there.

Dissent — in law, in politics, in science — is very important. Minority opinion is important. Challenging prevailing dogma and consensus is important. No doubt. We all agree.

Since charlatans and ignoramuses readily use this to justify their stances, and since real dissent often looks ridiculous to establishment dogma, how do we distinguish between “real dissent” and the “dissent” of climate deniers, creationists, astrologers, and the others?

That’s the real question, and I don’t think there are any recipes or litmus tests to decipher. It’s not even a matter of evidence, since anyone can easily claim the evidence is on their side — for example, that the fossil record is evidence for the Biblical flood. Entire books have been written about that (“The Genesis Flood”).

Yet there is such a thing as correct and incorrect, true and false. So where are we left?

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.

I think all that’s left is to understand how and why people come to these immovable positions in the first place. Like with the study of cults, it usually involves social pressure and desire for inclusion, appeals to values and existing beliefs, gives a neat explanation of things, and allows members to maintain a sense of specialness.

Whether or not we can use this understanding to change minds, I don’t know. I tend to doubt it.

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people. — Cheshire

No it isn’t.

You learn that you don’t need a heap of credentials to be *smart*. — AJJ

Flat-Earthers, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, and all the rest also say this -- and often.

Credentials have nothing to do with being smart. True. But there is such a thing as expertise. Credentials are one indicator of this expertise, along with experience, research, published material, knowledge of a subject, etc., which are the more important factors.

You have none of the above. What you do is beg the question, repeatedly. Then try to hide it by accusing others of it -- using the term in a way that betrays how little you understand it.

If it comes down to the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, or you, I choose the former. You go with "my own thoughts on this matter" -- fine, go be happy with that. But much like flat earthers and others mentioned in the thread's title, you're just wrong.

I just think Trump voters and Republicans. — James Riley

There's a very real correlation, yes. The group that denies the vaccines in the highest percentage is white, male, Republican. Not a surprise.

https://www.wpr.org/gop-men-are-most-likely-say-theyll-refuse-covid-19-vaccine

Don't leave out small pox -- the world was declared free of smallpox in 1980. "One of history's deadliest diseases, smallpox is estimated to have killed more than 300 million people since 1900 alone." The fatality rate for smallpox was about 33%. Those who survived were usually scarred, sometimes severely. — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed -- thank you for that.



Since he has demonstrated, over and over, that he doesn't have a clue what "begging the question" even means, there's no sense in wasting time. In my view.



:up:



:100:

From the Times:

“Social media and news reports are full of stories about Covid deniers dying in hospitals. Many of those stories seem to be in good faith. It is as if they are trying to force us to marshal empathy for people who were led astray by nefarious disinformation campaigns to their own peril. The stories have all the makings of an emotional “feel good” cinematic morality play. The dying are humanized through their social roles — a dad, a mom, a veteran — all wishing in their final hours that they had done something differently.

Like many people, I am finding it hard to muster the empathy these stories try to elicit because other images are so fresh in my mind. The maskless rallies, the red-faced anti-maskers screaming at grocery store workers, the protesters hurling invectives at the schoolteachers who are begging for masks so that schoolchildren can return to school — those images fill me and crowd out my empathy.“

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/covid-empathy-grief.html

Good to know I’m not alone in my empathy fatigue.

5.4 billion shots given around the world.

177 million Americans fully vaccinated.

Vaccines shown to be safe and effective.

School and workplace vaccinations have been around for decades.

We wiped out polio, once upon a time, with a vaccine.

FDA approved.

World’s leading medical experts say the same thing: get vaccinated.

Just some facts worth remembering. Anti-vaxxer bullshit should simply be ignored, at this point. If they want to refuse, fine— but they won’t be allowed in most public places or businesses. As it should be. Their dangerous ignorance and stupidity will simply prolong the pandemic, and patience is indeed wearing thin.

Consider it: you’re not a good person. — AJJ

Consider it: you’re an imbecile.

Do you spend your time organizing others? — T Clark

Yes, but not while on here of course.



Anti-vaxxer. So here's a good example of a dead end. Don’t bother, Joe.

:up:

You read this stuff and you conform. — AJJ

Yes, I read what experts say. You ignore what they say, because you’re an anti-vaxxer and, as demonstrated here, an otherwise complete buffoon. Enjoy.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe

For anyone serious, who have legitimate questions about safety and efficacy.

Johns Hopkins is arguably the best hospital in the United States.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?
— Xtrix

The universe was created. Who says this didn't happen 6000 years ago? If they think this is what happened... Why shouldn't I engage with them? Of course I won't argue about the creation how they view it. But I know a lot of other means to engage with creationists. Especially when they are female (though I don't think they will like me being married, nor do I think will my wife approve...). — MikeBlender

I find this to be a bizarre response, but in a good way.

Of the categories listed the anti-vaxxers should be dealt with by a federal mandate requiring most receive the shots. — jgill

There's a good argument for that -- at least for schools and workplaces. I think vaccine verification in other public places -- bars, restaurants, sporting events, etc., should also be a requirement. It's time to stop coddling people who are putting others at risk and prolonging this pandemic -- despite them not intending to, and despite their best intentions and sincere beliefs.

Climate change mitigation can be government/citizen actions - the priority being to prepare for what seems inevitable. Creationists I have known have not been threatening, but rational disagreement leads nowhere, usually. 9/11 Truthers, well let them babble on. — jgill

More or less agree -- as long as mitigation of climate change isn't the sole focus. Priority, yes -- given that we've done next to nothing for 40 years and the effects are now locked in. But at the same time, and equally important, is to immediately transition from fossil fuels.

Not the best of interviews, but there are some cogent points here. — Banno

Thanks for that.

:up:

So is it a waste if time to engage you? — frank

For you, yes it is. Feel free not to.

My take is that they're sick in some way, even if just the sickness of stupidity. — tim wood

If one imagines them as young children, then that helps a little. We wouldn't treat children this way because of their silly beliefs or irrationality. We'd probably have more patience and empathy.

But that is wearing thin, because we're running out of time, and everyone is effected. We're all effected by the effects of climate change, for example. We're all effected by the pandemic.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't place the majority of the blame on misinformed or ignorant people. One shouldn't blame the students, only the teachers.

I place the blame on those with power who deliberately dupe them, through their influence on the government, through their owning the media, through advertising, and through appealing to their prejudices. Pundits, false prophets, bad teachers, religious leaders, corrupt "scientists," con man of every stripe, corporate propaganda campaigns, etc. This is the real source. People don't conjure most of this bullshit up on their own.

Not worth it, for they are stuck in their notions from thoughts that so often fired together that they became very strongly wired together. It shows a fixed will to the nth degree as well as an inhibited learning disability that prevents a new and wider range of will to form beyond the stuck notion. — PoeticUniverse

So, they will die, but at least evolution has this new opening to rid us of stupid people. — PoeticUniverse

That's pretty harsh, but you may be right. If so, it's really quite sad.

My point is that as long as one is looking for happiness outside, one is going to be faced with an endless amount of problems. Even if you were to opt for the final solution (as some in the past did) and executed it in full (as those in the past haven't succeeded), so that you'd be left only with like-minded people, you'd still be living on a planet where there are volcano eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, dangerous animals, unwelcome genetic mutations, limited natural resources, and at that a planet that is on collision course with some asteroids, in a solar system whose sun will eventually explode. IOW, living on such a planet and looking for happiness outside, you'd still be miserable. — baker

I agree. This has very little to do with my own personal happiness, or looking for it outside myself. I'm not looking for a perfect world, and I'm not looking to kill people off who don't agree with me and, as I said above, don't even hold them completely responsible.

Nevertheless, I do see their beliefs as leading to very dangerous actions, as we're seeing in this pandemic and as we see with climate change. That effects everyone, and will cause untold suffering. Obviously I don't think this is their intention -- I don't think people who are anti-vaxxers are psychopaths, for example. Yet they are still causing harm, unwittingly.

My question is whether we should engage with them -- assuming I'm correct about their irrationality.

For me, I engage them only in the company of a third party or audience, not to persuade them but to expose the falsity of such claims before witnesses and hopefully to provoke others to question prevalent, uninformed gossip, conventional wisdom and stupifying conspiracies. Like a good gadly, I try to plant seeds of doubt in as many heads as the occasion allows. 'Shaming stupidity' (or rodeo-clownin' the bulls***) is how I roll online as well as off. :smirk: — 180 Proof

That's interesting. I think that's generally my motivation as well. But not always -- in fact sometimes I feel it's better without an audience, because there's less chance of embarrassment on their end and so less saving face and digging in. Whether any of it is worthwhile, I'm still on the fence about. If we assume the audience is persuadable, I think the argument is a fair one.

That means that conversations with those with whom you have disagreements become more important. That it becomes more important that you find a way to find common purpose with them. The great majority of people in the US share a core set of values. Mainstream, moderate, more or less pragmatic, sometimes idealistic.

Saying you're not mature enough to work with that is a pretty poor excuse given your apparent sense of impending doom. — T Clark

That's fair.

Here's part of the problem, for me: is time better spent organizing/mobilizing those who agree, or perhaps with those who are "on the fence"/ those who are more persuadable, who really just want to understand the issue and weight the evidence?

I wouldn't call it "impending doom," but I do take climate change very seriously, yes. Nuclear weapons as well, of course. But the same applies to the pandemic -- it's only a matter of time before we're hit with one that's both highly transmissible and highly fatal. Then the stakes are even higher.

It depends what you want in life, I guess, but for me, yes. Sometimes people who you think are nuts turn out to be right. It's healthy and productive to see people as individuals, all with different unique constellations of views, some rational, others not. It can get a bit us-and-them if we group populations according to their views and dismiss individuals within that group because of their group membership. — bert1

Yes, well said.

I, for example, have not come across anything to suppose that the virus is anything other than what it appears to be, and that vaccines are probably broadly safe, at least safer than the disease, and we should probably all get vaccinated for the good of everyone. Regarding the ninth of November, on the other hand, I think the physical evidence for controlled demolition is completely overwhelming. To even begin to change my mind on that I'd need to see a plausible explanation for the collapse of building 8 minus 1 - office conflagration isn't plausible. This isn't even a conspiracy theory. It's a physical theory based on observations; I have absolutely no idea who, how or why someone would do that. And the kind of creationism that is based on taking creation myths and stories literally seems completely baseless and contradicted by evidence. — bert1

I have no idea what you're referring to by the 9th of November, but fair enough.

So while the populations that hold these views might overlap considerably, they are different views, and can, and I suggest should, be approached separately. — bert1

Yes -- I don't mean to imply they're the same, really. These are vastly different topics.

But there are obvious similarities, in that all are minority views that go against the overwhelming expert consensus -- whether it be that we evolved, or that vaccines are safe and effective, or that climate change is real, etc. Not all minority or dissenting views should be dismissed, but these certainly can. They've been debunked over and over again by experts in each respective field, yet they live on -- like zombies.

So the question stands: is it worth bothering with irrational people? Personally, I wouldn't care to -- just as I don't care about those who believe in aliens or Big Foot or a flat Earth or astrology. Let people be happy with that.

When it starts to effect society, the education of future generations, and the future of the planet, then I don't take this position anymore. I think it should be called out -- but whether one should bother spending time running through claim after debunked claim, that's a different question entirely. Is it worth it for others who can still be persuaded? I think maybe it can be justified on those grounds.

As an avid social distancer he’s probably more up your street. — AJJ

Many have claimed to have sighted him -- so the chances he exists are significant.

You seem to be taking this personally. That’s a dead giveaway.

Says the anti-vaxxer. :lol:

Go look for Big Foot while you’re at it, genius.

Depends on what that means, of course. I accept it as a fact, and willing to fight against those who wish to destroy the world, even if it’s through their dangerous ignorance.

Conformist assumptions. — AJJ

Nope. Facts- which you deny, as all anti-vaxxers do. Very common.


____
From the CDC:

Over 369 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been given in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 30, 2021.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials. The vaccines met the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality needed to support approval or authorization of a vaccine.

Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines since they were authorized for emergency use by FDA. These vaccines have undergone and will continue to undergo the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history. This monitoring includes using both established and new safety monitoring systems pdf icon[PDF – 83 KB] to make sure that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.
_____

Those pesky doctors, scientists, and experts. All making such big “assumptions.”

lol

The problem aren't those other people and whatever stances they hold or the things they do. — baker

Yes, that’s a very significant problem actually. Not just for me, but the future of the planet.

The problem is that you take for granted that you're entitled to live in a safe world that is obligated to accomodate you. — baker

I take neither for granted.

If person deems those dangers to be significant — AJJ

No— one isn’t entitled to their own facts. 1 in 5 billion isn’t significant and isn’t a reasonable position to deny a vaccine, your “beliefs” aside.

And it does do others harm by denying the vaccine, because the vaccines help us come out of this pandemic— which is demonstrated by the evidence.

Again, your assumption is that it’s the only case, or that the case number, whatever it is, isn’t significant. — AJJ

Again, since you’re the one making the claim that it is significant, the onus is on you to demonstrate it. You’ve cited one example. There may very well be other cases— maybe millions of cases. I’m unaware of that evidence, and I’ve looked. By all means point to studies confirming your claims.

I consider even just one case significant, — AJJ

One in 5 billion is significant to you. Got it.

On those grounds, you really shouldn’t do anything at all, as there are significant risks of death by this standard.

Funny that these are the lengths anti vaxxers, like you, have to go through to justify such an idiotic position. Shame.

You’ve been purposefully downplaying or dismissing the occurrences I’ve referred to, the examples and the statistics. You do this because you’ve made the assumption that the vaccines are unequivocally safe. — AJJ

The examples you cite are rife with problems, but as I’ve stated multiple times— and which you don’t understand— is that I’m willing to grant they’re true for the sake of argument.

Even with that — assuming 1440 deaths, or even ten times that much— it’s statistically insignificant. Sorry if you don’t like math.

We always have to balance the interests of the individual against the interests of society at large; there is no blanket expectation that one will always trump the other. It depends on the right that will be infringed, to what degree it will be infringed, the seriousness of the state's interest, and the tailoring of state action to further the interest of society as a whole while minimizing the infringement of the rights of individuals. At least in the US, I believe that's how it's supposed to work. — Srap Tasmaner

No— the government is always bad and individuals are all that exist. So says the Church of Rand and its followers.

Except when it’s something they approve of, of course.

Such a fact is meaningless when it comes to imposing your will on others. — NOS4A2

I’m not arguing imposing— that’s your argument, remember?

That fact of being in a majority does not justify you imposing your will on a minority. — NOS4A2

That’s called democracy. But regardless, I absolutely do have that right when it effects me. Which is why we vaccinate kids for school, which is why we ban smoking indoors.

If you want to live with the delusion that this affects no one else, that’s your business.

I fear vaccine mandates — NOS4A2

Yes, we know. So you’ve been blathering against school vaccine requirements for years, I suppose.

What a pathetic cause.

Then you're a more mature man than I am. I struggle with it because of the stakes. Climate change and COVID are good examples. This level of ignorance is dangerous. In the past, I have been much more reasonable and civil -- even online, when it comes to issues of abortion, war, taxes, elections, etc. But we're in a new phase of ignorance, one that effects all of us and the future of the planet. So compassion fatigue sits in.

Since there's no point in pretending to have a rational discussion with irrational ignorance, I imagine the reason for doing so is for those who are watching and listening.

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.
— Xtrix

Yeah, sometimes people with dogs get trampled by cows. It’s one reason why you wouldn’t say that people *should* walk their dog through a field of cows, and it’s reasonable for them to avoid doing so. — AJJ

In that case, it's "reasonable" to do (or not to do) anything. Which is why your argument is delusional.

It's reasonable not to walk in a field, as there have been deaths by lightning. It's reasonable not to own a house, as they have collapsed. It's reasonable not to get in a tub, as people have slipped and died on them -- far more than from any vaccines, in fact. It's reasonable to ignore anti-vaxxers, given how many people have died of COVID. Etc.

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.
— Xtrix

Underlying this characterisation is the assumption that it doesn’t happen often enough to be significant. — AJJ

One case presented out of 5 billion isn't an assumption of insignificance. It's the definition of insignificance. Given that's the only evidence you've presented for "deaths" thus far, what else can be concluded?

Seems to me you're assuming significance where is there none. Which isn't surprising, given you're an anti-vaxxer.

Underlying that assumption is your principle one that vaccines are unequivocally safe. It’s question begging. — AJJ

:lol:

You have no idea what that means, but by all means keep using it. I don't mind if you keep looking like a complete idiot.

For those following this odd discussion: this is not an "assumption," it is based on evidence and data. If data were presented that showed that there were a high percentage of deaths -- even something like 1% -- I would count that as significant. I would count 0.1% death rate from vaccinations as significant. The data do not show this.

So here we're left, once again, as non-experts, with a basic choice:

(1) Do we go with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and the corresponding recommendations?

Or do we go with:

(2) The minority of experts that say the opposite?

Classic choice, and very revealing.

Those who choose (2), who are not experts, are almost always doing so for religious or political reasons. Climate change, tobacco, evolution, vaccines, etc. (2) in these cases are extremely small, but have a large following -- for understood reasons.