3 ms·

> Apparently not, since they seem to get angry if they've used the one that "lasts for 6 months". People get mad when their cheap stuff breaks, too, even if th

> Apparently not, since they seem to get angry if they've used the one that "lasts for 6 months". People get mad when their cheap stuff breaks, too, even if that wasn't part of their purchasing criteria. Now they're scared about dying, again. > You can hardly use that as evidence that they are ineffective and there are trusts everywhere. I'm not making such an extreme claim, because it's not binary. There's a middle ground that you've excluded. I'm using the existence of some antitrust in one sphere as evidence that some antitrust might also exist in another sphere. Edit: I think you might be misunderstanding my position: I'm defending the legitimacy of some very critical questions. Far as I can tell, you're arguing that my skepticism is flat-out unwarranted. Of the two, from a logic perspective, yours is the harder position to defend, because you're trying to prove a negative.

AshamedCaptain 5y ago
> People get mad when their cheap stuff breaks, too No, they don't. They just buy another iDevice with again non-removable battery. > I'm using the existence of some antitrust in one sphere as evidence that some antitrust might also exist in another sphere. Not really -- you are assuming the entire "another" sphere is entirely a big trust, since that is what would be required for your claim of not a single lab making long-term vaccines / claiming that they know how to make long-term vaccines / leaking that they don't make long-term vaccines for non-technical reasons. This is not a minor specialized market, it is the friggin vaccine-of-the-year market. > I'm defending the legitimacy of some very critical questions. Far as I can tell, you're arguing that my skepticism is flat-out unwarranted. Of the two, from a logic perspective, yours is the harder position to defend, because you're trying to prove a negative. This is ridiculous. You are the one making the claim, you are the one needing to provide the evidence. Most specially if it is a dubious claim that requires a big conspiracy of a significant amount of people (but you'd still need to provide the evidence even if it wasn't). Otherwise, this is just Russell's teapot all over again. How are you going to disprove my very critical questions of there being a perfectly safe and very long term vaccine hidden inside a porcelain teapot which is floating around in the Lagrange point of Earth that NASA (and Elon Musk!) is hiding from us, for god knows what reasons? Aha! Unwarranted skepticism much, eh?

AshamedCaptain 5y ago

> People get mad when their cheap stuff breaks, too No, they don't. They just buy another iDevice with again non-removable battery. > I'm using the existence of some antitrust in one sphere as evidence that some antitrust might also exist in another sphere. Not really -- you are assuming the entire "another" sphere is entirely a big trust, since that is what would be required for your claim of not a single lab making long-term vaccines / claiming that they know how to make long-term vaccines / leaking that they don't make long-term vaccines for non-technical reasons. This is not a minor specialized market, it is the friggin vaccine-of-the-year market. > I'm defending the legitimacy of some very critical questions. Far as I can tell, you're arguing that my skepticism is flat-out unwarranted. Of the two, from a logic perspective, yours is the harder position to defend, because you're trying to prove a negative. This is ridiculous. You are the one making the claim, you are the one needing to provide the evidence. Most specially if it is a dubious claim that requires a big conspiracy of a significant amount of people (but you'd still need to provide the evidence even if it wasn't). Otherwise, this is just Russell's teapot all over again. How are you going to disprove my very critical questions of there being a perfectly safe and very long term vaccine hidden inside a porcelain teapot which is floating around in the Lagrange point of Earth that NASA (and Elon Musk!) is hiding from us, for god knows what reasons? Aha! Unwarranted skepticism much, eh?