Either you don't understand what a strawman argument is or just lack the understanding of it and I need to spell it out for you. A strawman argument is when you

Either you don't understand what a strawman argument is or just lack the understanding of it and I need to spell it out for you. A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone's argument and attack it in a misguided attempt to refute the original one. In this case, you are misrepresenting the argument I'm trying to convey by comparing it to something that is proven without a shadow of a doubt (the earth is round). You misrepresented the initial claim as being a statement on the "proven safety (or lack thereof) of covid mRNA vaccines" whereas it was merely about the "uncertainty of the safety of covid mRNA vaccines". Also to address your other leaky arguments. > However it makes no sense to me to say, of two vaccine types that have had the same amount of testing One of the vaccine types (hint: adenovirus vectored) has an instance that has approval for use by EMA. Now if you want to raise questions about the rigor of the EMA compared to that of the FDA and as a result their relative safety compared to the other vaccine types, you are free to do so. Like I mentioned, even if you want to omit that specific type of vaccine, my point still stands. It makes 0 difference to the argument I'm making. If you don't understand this basic point and are unable to progress beyond a single technicality, there is no use having a discussion because you don't get the point that is being made. > Indeed that was my point: flat earth is nuts. If your argument could be used to support a patently false position than there is almost certainly a mistake in your logic What is this patently false position you speak of? The only patently false argument I can think of is your insistence that there is enough evidence to conclude that the covid vaccines are conclusively safe over the long term. You do not need any additional evidence to prove that the earth is not flat. You absolutely do need more evidence to conclude with high probability that the covid vaccines are safe long-term for the obvious fact that there has not been sufficient time since a large group has been vaccinated to know. Not to mention the various variants which the vaccines don't seem to be effective against. > Again that's very literally the opposite of what a straw man argument is. Wikipedia has an article on the topic if you are curious. You should definitely go read up on what a strawman argument is. I am not surprised that you use such arguments given that your understanding of them is incomplete. To clarify, I'm referring to the fact that based on your previous responses, I can guess that you are prone to misunderstanding what I am saying as "covid vaccines are especially prone to having horrendous side effects" as opposed to "there is uncertainty about its long-term safety, for good reason". > I'm claiming that you're evaluating its safety irrationally and inconsistently (or perhaps without researching the underlying topic) I clearly just outlined several reasons to be skeptical of mRNA vaccines. I have many friends who are immunologists and pharmaceutical scientists who know about the history of mRNA vaccines and their associated risks. If you have no clue about this, you're the pot calling the kettle black and you should do more reading instead of wasting my time. Your deference to "experts" in the public eye clearly supersedes your ability for critical thinking, making sound logical arguments and reading primary literature.