Pandemic 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
My goal is to bring awareness to the facts which you and others here apparently would prefer to cover up and ignore.
This is the shit you are causing, you are part of the problem, not the solution. People don't like you because you harm others with bullshit you are not qualified to have an opinion on.
Town essentially shuts down because of so many Covid-19 cases

 

Cycad

Well-Known Member
When I had to undego heart surgery I was terrified. There was a 3% chance I wouldn't see the light of day again. But then I considered: what if the operation had not been available to me? How would I have felt then. knowing that my time was very limited? And with this reflection I felt relieved that I had been offered the chance and I went ahead with it.
When I was 5, I was terrified that I would catch polio and end up a 'spazzo' with an iron brace on a withered leg, or gasping in an 'iron lung'. One of the reasons polio was so scary is that it paralysed your respiratory muscles making it impossible to breathe. Covid-19 destroys the lungs making it impossible to breathe. A friend had it. He told me it was terrifying.
All this is why I find it hard to understand why someone would put themselves in harm's way.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
You are nitpicking, because the data is still there. You are correct that my anecdote is only anecdotal however, I have no problem with that. At the end of the day the data speaks for itself.
No. I am disallowing you to shift the narrative away from your awful lack of rigor. The data do not in any way support presenting anecdote as information. You keep weaseling away from this basic principle.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
No. I am disallowing you to shift the narrative away from your awful lack of rigor. The data do not in any way support presenting anecdote as information. You keep weaseling away from this basic principle.
The data says that the flu vax is only around 40% effective, so we can just leave it at that if you like.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
I'm always down for refinement. What language should I have used to give less of a everyone/categorical vibe and more that I'm just explaining my thought process, of which you may or may not adopt as you see fit..?
Don't equate being for vaccination with "merit", "tribalism" and other politically provocative ideas without spelling out the logical progression from one idea to the other. You are generating meritless (!) equivalencies imo.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
The data says that the flu vax is only around 40% effective, so we can just leave it at that if you like.
No. You are still ignoring the elephant in the room. You dishonestly used anecdote to support your interpretation of a completely unrelated data set. Address this and stop deflecting "the data! the data!"

Anecdote is not treatabl statistically.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
Don't equate being for vaccination with "merit", "tribalism" and other politically provocative ideas without spelling out the logical progression from one idea to the other. You are generating meritless (!) equivalencies imo.
If I'm against vaccination by tribalism, as in, I don't want republicans feeling like they can't get vaccinated without betraying their party...

...and I'm not allowed to support vaccines based on merit and I have to support all vaccines around the globe in general, even if in the future that means supporting something deadly from "Trump's Special Sauce For Democrats Only" because he paid off the right people...

...then what sort of ruleset could I come up with that fits?
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
If I'm against vaccination by tribalism, as in, I don't want republicans feeling like they can't get vaccinated without betraying their party...

...and I'm not allowed to support vaccines based on merit and I have to support all vaccines around the globe in general, even if in the future that means supporting something deadly from "Trump's Special Sauce For Democrats Only" because he paid off the right people...

...then what sort of ruleset could I come up with that fits?
If you are against the vaccine "by tribalism" is ambiguous.

If you are against the vaccine due to tribal values (a clearer statement), you are by default in favor of Republicans feeling etc.

Perhaps much of my difficulty is that I am seeing you use phrases that do not mean to me what they mean to you. Thus my request for a clear and linear unpacking of a) terminology and b) the consequent reasoning.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
If you are against the vaccine "by tribalism" is ambiguous.

If you are against the vaccine due to tribal values (a clearer statement), you are by default in favor of Republicans feeling etc.

Perhaps much of my difficulty is that I am seeing you use phrases that do not mean to me what they mean to you. Thus my request for a clear and linear unpacking of a) terminology and b) the consequent reasoning.
Aw c'mon bud, don't beat me up over "tribalism" versus "tribal values". It's not ambiguous, because you instantly knew that being an anti-vaxxer is synonymous with a republican position. Also, just want to make sure you're not having an absolutes argument? Because we're just talking in general. There are always plenty of exceptions.

Anyway, the goal with my thought process is often to leave room for people that feel disenfranchised. I don't want people to feel cornered and I want them to feel like they have somewhere to go. For example, I often try to separate republicanism from conservatism, so that someone that was a republican prior to 2016, and they were a republican because they held conservative values...I make that distinction so that they don't feel forced to be a republican and know that it's okay to be a conservative. It's bad to lump them together, because if you do that, then you're pushing conservatives into the republican party and you're harming your own interests, because democrats and conservatives can work together, but democrats and republicans cannot work together.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
Aw c'mon bud, don't beat me up over "tribalism" versus "tribal values". It's not ambiguous, because you instantly knew that being an anti-vaxxer is synonymous with a republican position. Also, just want to make sure you're not having an absolutes argument? Because we're just talking in general. There are always plenty of exceptions.

Anyway, the goal with my thought process is often to leave room for people that feel disenfranchised. I don't want people to feel cornered and I want them to feel like they have somewhere to go. For example, I often try to separate republicanism from conservatism, so that someone that was a republican prior to 2016, and they were a republican because they held conservative values...I make that distinction so that they don't feel forced to be a republican and know that it's okay to be a conservative. It's bad to lump them together, because if you do that, then you're pushing conservatives into the republican party and you're harming your own interests, because democrats and conservatives can work together, but democrats and republicans cannot work together.
No. Antivax is not the same as being Republican. Are you really proposing such black/white thinking? Are you really arguing against tribalism from a plainly tribalized premise? I cant work with such false equivalence.

I agree on Republican not equaling conservative. Republicans, at least the active majority of that party, have been unmasked, if I may say so, as Fascists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top