4 ms·

> COVID deniers aren't suggesting we don't take vaccines because they are unsure of the effectiveness of vaccines - they are suggesting we don't take vaccines b

> COVID deniers aren't suggesting we don't take vaccines because they are unsure of the effectiveness of vaccines - they are suggesting we don't take vaccines because they are actually microchips by Bill Gates designed to track us. That is misinformation. It is absolutely the case that people are unwilling to take the vaccine because the effectiveness (and safety) is questionable. You're just throwing up a strawman. It's also possible you just don't know the reasoning behind any but the most vocal "covid deniers". That wouldn't be surprising, since the standard practice now seems to be to lump everyone who questions the 'official position' in with the most extreme theories, and that makes rational people shut up. Your generalization is only strengthening your echo chamber.

nemothekid 6y ago
>It is absolutely the case that people are unwilling to take the vaccine because the effectiveness (and safety) is questionable. Effectiveness is one thing; I take the same exact reasoning for wearing masks - you take the insurance especially when it costs you nothing. However, you are welcome to enlighten me on well supported arguments against vaccine safety. You can't just tell me that I'm throwing up strawman, then make 0 actual arguments except "I'm not doing enough research". If you are asking me to doubt vaccine safety on no data except some vague claims on there being "less extreme" positions, then I would argue you are spreading misinformation; especially when there are decades of research showing the safety otherwise.
- generalizations 6y ago
  I think you've completely misunderstood me. I'm not attempting to persuade you of anything. You're misrepresenting the positions of the people who disagree with you. You're making it sound like the only alternative to your position is rediculous. You're throwing up a strawman. Disagree with me; that's fine. But this is my point: be intellectually honest about it, and don't fool yourself into thinking that the people who disagree with you are not well-reasoned.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    >be intellectually honest about it, and don't fool yourself into thinking that the people who disagree with you are not well-reasoned. You have me 100% correct; I don't think the people who disagree with me, on this specific point, are well reasoned and are infact misled by deliberate misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories. If you know something I don't, then let me know - but don't accuse me of making a strawman if you can't correct my viewpoint of the opposing argument. Why is it a strawman? Do people have reasons for not taking the vaccines other than amorphous distrust of billionaires? If I'm wrong, explain why, I genuinely want to know. Otherwise I'm led to believe that you aren't being intellectually honest and you are only acting as a foil to provide an air of legitimacy to dangerous arguments; which is also a form of misinformation.
    - generalizations 6y ago
      > I don't think the people who disagree with me, on this specific point, are well reasoned and are infact misled by deliberate misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories. If you're unwilling to see the people who disagree with you as equally intelligent, and equally capable of reasoned decisions, then what can I possibly say to change your mind? And how can you tell me that others of equal mental capacity are misled, while you yourself are untouched by misinformation? If that's what you claim, your hubris is impressive. You've effectively insulated yourself from any counterargument. In the chance you're willing to consider that I'm not misled, this is why I'm skeptical of the vaccine. mRNA vaccines are an extremely new technology, and very different from any previous type of vaccine; there has been no time for extensive testing, and we don't know the long-term side effects. > Given the novel nature of the mechanism of action of RNA vaccines, and their drug delivery vehicles, little is known about the medium and longer-term side effects....Up until December 2020, no mRNA vaccine, drug, or technology platform, had ever been approved for use in humans, and before 2020, mRNA was only considered a theoretical or experimental candidate for use in humans. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNA_vaccine&oldid=991617711 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNA_vaccine&oldid... The wikipedia article about mRNA has been altered a lot in the past month, and is now much more focused on COVID-19. Last time I read or quoted from it was prior to those alterations, so that's what I'm citing. No reason to think the data has changed since then, just the interpretation.

nemothekid 6y ago

>It is absolutely the case that people are unwilling to take the vaccine because the effectiveness (and safety) is questionable. Effectiveness is one thing; I take the same exact reasoning for wearing masks - you take the insurance especially when it costs you nothing. However, you are welcome to enlighten me on well supported arguments against vaccine safety. You can't just tell me that I'm throwing up strawman, then make 0 actual arguments except "I'm not doing enough research". If you are asking me to doubt vaccine safety on no data except some vague claims on there being "less extreme" positions, then I would argue you are spreading misinformation; especially when there are decades of research showing the safety otherwise.

generalizations 6y ago
I think you've completely misunderstood me. I'm not attempting to persuade you of anything. You're misrepresenting the positions of the people who disagree with you. You're making it sound like the only alternative to your position is rediculous. You're throwing up a strawman. Disagree with me; that's fine. But this is my point: be intellectually honest about it, and don't fool yourself into thinking that the people who disagree with you are not well-reasoned.
- nemothekid 6y ago
  >be intellectually honest about it, and don't fool yourself into thinking that the people who disagree with you are not well-reasoned. You have me 100% correct; I don't think the people who disagree with me, on this specific point, are well reasoned and are infact misled by deliberate misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories. If you know something I don't, then let me know - but don't accuse me of making a strawman if you can't correct my viewpoint of the opposing argument. Why is it a strawman? Do people have reasons for not taking the vaccines other than amorphous distrust of billionaires? If I'm wrong, explain why, I genuinely want to know. Otherwise I'm led to believe that you aren't being intellectually honest and you are only acting as a foil to provide an air of legitimacy to dangerous arguments; which is also a form of misinformation.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    > I don't think the people who disagree with me, on this specific point, are well reasoned and are infact misled by deliberate misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories. If you're unwilling to see the people who disagree with you as equally intelligent, and equally capable of reasoned decisions, then what can I possibly say to change your mind? And how can you tell me that others of equal mental capacity are misled, while you yourself are untouched by misinformation? If that's what you claim, your hubris is impressive. You've effectively insulated yourself from any counterargument. In the chance you're willing to consider that I'm not misled, this is why I'm skeptical of the vaccine. mRNA vaccines are an extremely new technology, and very different from any previous type of vaccine; there has been no time for extensive testing, and we don't know the long-term side effects. > Given the novel nature of the mechanism of action of RNA vaccines, and their drug delivery vehicles, little is known about the medium and longer-term side effects....Up until December 2020, no mRNA vaccine, drug, or technology platform, had ever been approved for use in humans, and before 2020, mRNA was only considered a theoretical or experimental candidate for use in humans. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNA_vaccine&oldid=991617711 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNA_vaccine&oldid... The wikipedia article about mRNA has been altered a lot in the past month, and is now much more focused on COVID-19. Last time I read or quoted from it was prior to those alterations, so that's what I'm citing. No reason to think the data has changed since then, just the interpretation.