6 ms·

Isnt this argument predicated on the supposition that the only reason they are opposed to coercive experimental gene therapy is because they want to "own the li

Isnt this argument predicated on the supposition that the only reason they are opposed to coercive experimental gene therapy is because they want to "own the libs?" I mean, maybe that's right but it seems unlikely when there are other much more obvious things to explain the reasons for the actions in question. That they then post hoc express schadenfreude for the party who they perceive to be responsible for the situation is evidence of the addiction to contempt the article refers to, sure. But I find it difficult to imagine they wouldn't prefer not to be coerced into experimental gene therapy even if it means they don't get the opportunity to "own the libs" in response.

md8z 5y ago
I'm not sure if you're saying this is your opinion, but just to be clear: Vaccine mandates are not coercive, the vaccine is not experimental, and vaccines in general are not gene therapy. To elaborate: You can consider work vaccine mandates to be similar to any other job requirement. The COVID vaccines have received a huge amount of studies and trials. And "gene therapy" usually refers to use of things like CRISPR-Cas9 or other methods of delivering DNA into the cell which are able to modify genes. mRNA vaccines do not modify genes. (I'm not a biologist so you should ask one if you want more information on this)
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  >> mandates are not coercive Wait, hold on. That's an actual argument you are making and not satire? "Mandates are not coercive", that's a thought that actually went through your head and you thought, "Hmm, that sounds like a reasonable argument"?
  - md8z 5y ago
    Please read my follow up responses where I explain it further. Also your comment doesn't really have anything substantial in it that I can respond to, you may want to note these parts of the HN guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
    - rufus_foreman 5y ago
      The strongest plausible interpretation of "mandates are not coercive" is very weak.
      - md8z 5y ago
        Please see my explanations in the follow up responses where I give a stronger interpretation, thanks. Best of luck.
- notenoughbeans 5y ago
  What do you mean the vaccine mandates are not coercive? Isn't that the entire selling point of the mandates?
  - md8z 5y ago
    The selling point of the mandates is to reduce spread of the virus.
    - notenoughbeans 5y ago
      Yes, that is ultimately the end goal of the mandates, but the selling point of the mandates is that they are a tool to get people who would otherwise remain vaccinated to get vaccinated by introducing additional costs (ie. coercion)
      - md8z 5y ago
        Not sure where you heard that. Maybe that's a secondary goal that some would like to reach if they're trying to convince someone else to get the vaccine, but for a business the primary goal is to prevent unvaccinated people from entering that business so they avoid getting other coworkers and customers sick. Few businesses seem to want to carry the liability of causing a super spreading event. Edit: I believe some health insurance rates for businesses also go up when employees aren't vaccinated, so that can cause more of a problem too. Being in the ICU for two weeks on a ventilator is not cheap.
- etherael 5y ago
  It's not my opinion, it's a fact that; Mandates are coercive by definition, that's the entire point of them, putting whatever magical word in front of them you like doesn't change that. The medication to which the "Vaccine mandates" refer is not the same as traditional inactivated virus vaccines, and before this whole fiasco started, was always referred to as what it actually is which is gene therapy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817894/ It doesn't matter how great or how well tested these things are, or how reasonable it is to take them, and that I will acknowledge goes into the realm of opinion and given how polluted that discussion is with political barracking yeah I'm not interested in having it at all, the simple underlying fact that they are actually coercive experimental gene therapy is exactly that, pure fact, not opinion at all.
  - md8z 5y ago
    I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements. (Sorry to be blunt.) You're saying it's coercive when they're part of a job requirement? No, I explained this farther down. Please check my other post, thanks. If your presence being there is going to cause the company's insurance rates to rise to the point where they can't afford you anymore, then they're going to dismiss you. That's unfortunately the way it's been at a lot of companies I've seen for a very long time, for many other things besides vaccines as well. Also that paper seems to suggest that mRNA could generally be used as a component in gene therapy. It does not say that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. You're getting several things mixed up. Let me know if you want clarification, or if you want some helping finding a biologist or doctor who could answer more of your questions. But mRNA vaccines are probably not "coercive experimental gene therapy" unless you really want to stretch that definition.
    - etherael 5y ago
      I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements.
      - md8z 5y ago
newbie789 5y ago
I didn’t mention anything about gene therapy or whatever other bananas theory that can be inserted into literally any conversation nowadays. What I did bring up is the fact that people are willing to deny themselves, their families and neighbors the ability to leave their own homes to get food and medicine in order to “own the libs.” While this sort of Markov-chain sounding word salad about… whatever, must indicate that people are passionate about… whatever, the fact of the matter is that sabotaging your own infrastructure out of ideology sounds kind of suicidal. I honestly don’t get how I could personally rally behind people that would celebrate my righteous death from being stranded in the snow because I’d died owning the libs because uh… my ideology will have prevented theoretical vaccine deaths in the future? My actual, concrete, current life is literally worth less than… what? Some bogeyman that I read about on Facebook? If I were genuinely that concerned about all these conspiracies and thought that my thoughtless death would make a difference, I’d self-immolate like the monks during Vietnam. Somehow curiously, these folks rather than doing that are taking the mighty stand of keeping kids from going to school, their neighbors going to work or their doctors, local business owners from opening etc. Ironically, not plowing the streets creates the exact same (if not considerably worse) lockdown situation that these people have been mad about for 18 months. Ironically, it’s not the reduction of peoples freedoms that matter to these conservatives, it’s who gets to be the ones taking the freedoms away. People will literally kill themselves and everyone around them in order to feel Right About Stuff. “Love” isn’t an answer here. It’s a completely meaningless word put in a context to sound nice on a podcast to sell books to people who will never change their minds about any of this.
- etherael 5y ago
  All you're doing here is re-stating your original argument, seemingly without actually understanding my criticism of it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by that, but it strikes me as very strange. Look, let's say we observe an employee and employer undertaking a discussion that goes something like this. "Take this medicine" "No I don't want to" "Take it or else you're fired" "I'm not going to take it, fire me if you have to." "OK, you're fired" "That's going to turn out poorly for the people who must now suffer the consequences of not having people available to do my job" I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion that the reason the employee refuses to take the medicine is so they can have that last line of dialogue, rather than that they don't want to take the medicine. Enlighten me?

md8z 5y ago

I'm not sure if you're saying this is your opinion, but just to be clear: Vaccine mandates are not coercive, the vaccine is not experimental, and vaccines in general are not gene therapy. To elaborate: You can consider work vaccine mandates to be similar to any other job requirement. The COVID vaccines have received a huge amount of studies and trials. And "gene therapy" usually refers to use of things like CRISPR-Cas9 or other methods of delivering DNA into the cell which are able to modify genes. mRNA vaccines do not modify genes. (I'm not a biologist so you should ask one if you want more information on this)

rufus_foreman 5y ago
>> mandates are not coercive Wait, hold on. That's an actual argument you are making and not satire? "Mandates are not coercive", that's a thought that actually went through your head and you thought, "Hmm, that sounds like a reasonable argument"?
- md8z 5y ago
  Please read my follow up responses where I explain it further. Also your comment doesn't really have anything substantial in it that I can respond to, you may want to note these parts of the HN guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    The strongest plausible interpretation of "mandates are not coercive" is very weak.
    - md8z 5y ago
      Please see my explanations in the follow up responses where I give a stronger interpretation, thanks. Best of luck.
notenoughbeans 5y ago
What do you mean the vaccine mandates are not coercive? Isn't that the entire selling point of the mandates?
- md8z 5y ago
  The selling point of the mandates is to reduce spread of the virus.
  - notenoughbeans 5y ago
    Yes, that is ultimately the end goal of the mandates, but the selling point of the mandates is that they are a tool to get people who would otherwise remain vaccinated to get vaccinated by introducing additional costs (ie. coercion)
    - md8z 5y ago
      Not sure where you heard that. Maybe that's a secondary goal that some would like to reach if they're trying to convince someone else to get the vaccine, but for a business the primary goal is to prevent unvaccinated people from entering that business so they avoid getting other coworkers and customers sick. Few businesses seem to want to carry the liability of causing a super spreading event. Edit: I believe some health insurance rates for businesses also go up when employees aren't vaccinated, so that can cause more of a problem too. Being in the ICU for two weeks on a ventilator is not cheap.
etherael 5y ago
It's not my opinion, it's a fact that; Mandates are coercive by definition, that's the entire point of them, putting whatever magical word in front of them you like doesn't change that. The medication to which the "Vaccine mandates" refer is not the same as traditional inactivated virus vaccines, and before this whole fiasco started, was always referred to as what it actually is which is gene therapy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817894/ It doesn't matter how great or how well tested these things are, or how reasonable it is to take them, and that I will acknowledge goes into the realm of opinion and given how polluted that discussion is with political barracking yeah I'm not interested in having it at all, the simple underlying fact that they are actually coercive experimental gene therapy is exactly that, pure fact, not opinion at all.
- md8z 5y ago
  I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements. (Sorry to be blunt.) You're saying it's coercive when they're part of a job requirement? No, I explained this farther down. Please check my other post, thanks. If your presence being there is going to cause the company's insurance rates to rise to the point where they can't afford you anymore, then they're going to dismiss you. That's unfortunately the way it's been at a lot of companies I've seen for a very long time, for many other things besides vaccines as well. Also that paper seems to suggest that mRNA could generally be used as a component in gene therapy. It does not say that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. You're getting several things mixed up. Let me know if you want clarification, or if you want some helping finding a biologist or doctor who could answer more of your questions. But mRNA vaccines are probably not "coercive experimental gene therapy" unless you really want to stretch that definition.
  - etherael 5y ago
    I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements.
    - md8z 5y ago

newbie789 5y ago

I didn’t mention anything about gene therapy or whatever other bananas theory that can be inserted into literally any conversation nowadays. What I did bring up is the fact that people are willing to deny themselves, their families and neighbors the ability to leave their own homes to get food and medicine in order to “own the libs.” While this sort of Markov-chain sounding word salad about… whatever, must indicate that people are passionate about… whatever, the fact of the matter is that sabotaging your own infrastructure out of ideology sounds kind of suicidal. I honestly don’t get how I could personally rally behind people that would celebrate my righteous death from being stranded in the snow because I’d died owning the libs because uh… my ideology will have prevented theoretical vaccine deaths in the future? My actual, concrete, current life is literally worth less than… what? Some bogeyman that I read about on Facebook? If I were genuinely that concerned about all these conspiracies and thought that my thoughtless death would make a difference, I’d self-immolate like the monks during Vietnam. Somehow curiously, these folks rather than doing that are taking the mighty stand of keeping kids from going to school, their neighbors going to work or their doctors, local business owners from opening etc. Ironically, not plowing the streets creates the exact same (if not considerably worse) lockdown situation that these people have been mad about for 18 months. Ironically, it’s not the reduction of peoples freedoms that matter to these conservatives, it’s who gets to be the ones taking the freedoms away. People will literally kill themselves and everyone around them in order to feel Right About Stuff. “Love” isn’t an answer here. It’s a completely meaningless word put in a context to sound nice on a podcast to sell books to people who will never change their minds about any of this.

etherael 5y ago
All you're doing here is re-stating your original argument, seemingly without actually understanding my criticism of it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by that, but it strikes me as very strange. Look, let's say we observe an employee and employer undertaking a discussion that goes something like this. "Take this medicine" "No I don't want to" "Take it or else you're fired" "I'm not going to take it, fire me if you have to." "OK, you're fired" "That's going to turn out poorly for the people who must now suffer the consequences of not having people available to do my job" I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion that the reason the employee refuses to take the medicine is so they can have that last line of dialogue, rather than that they don't want to take the medicine. Enlighten me?