4 ms·

You are implying a symmetry that does not exist: one group is doing what it can to help, the other is not.

giantg2 5y ago
Are they though? I agree that there is not symmetry. There are many groups, doing many different activities. There are plenty of vaccinated people who are done with masking, done with isolation, and going out in public or traveling. While there are also people who caught covid while doing a necessary job before a vaccine was required. It's false to create only two groups. This completely ignores symmetry, undermining your entire argument of saying I'm ignoring it.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I see you want to be pedantic: >It's false to create only two groups. That claim is not even a half-truth... >This completely ignores symmetry ... and this would not follow even if it were. [Update moved to a subsequent reply.]
  - giantg2 5y ago
    ">It's false to create only two groups. That claim is not even a half-truth." Would you like to expand on that? There clearly are numerous different groups providing a variety of permutations of risk taking or risk avoiding actions. ">This completely ignores symmetry ... and this would not follow even if it were." Would you like to explain this too? It appears to me that two artificial groups were formed and then used in a false dichotomy. I'm not being pedantic. Attacking a large number of people in a heterogeneous, artificial group is disingenuous when a moderate to large number of the people in that group may not even exhibit the risks claimed, while wholly ignoring the risks posed by the "good" group.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      I see there was a data race in my editing, so I will move my update here: Beyond that, it is consistent with every factual claim you have made to say that the population lies on a broad spectrum of how thoroughly they are contributing to ameliorating the impact of this epidemic on the population as a whole. Your own argument is predicated on this spectrum being divisible into two populations. My point is that, wherever you make that divide, one group is helping more than the other. With regard to your specific questions here: 1) Putting aside the abstruse issue around the axiom of choice (which is not relevant here) one can always create two groups, and in my expanded reply, I made a relevant, non-pedantic case for that. 2) There are more symmetries than dichotomous ones. Also: > while wholly ignoring the risks posed by the "good" group. With words like 'wholly' and 'false', you are making straw man arguments. It is factually accurate and completely reasonable to say that some people are net contributors to public health, while others have the opposite effect.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "Your own argument is predicated on this spectrum being divisible into two populations. My point is that, wherever you make that divide, one group is helping more than the other." My argument is that the person who made the division into two groups did so using the wrong line, and even then blamed one group for the damage while absolving the other. This two group divide was poorly defined and should not have been made in the first place. "With words like 'wholly' and 'false', you are making straw man arguments." Not at all. 'False' is a perfectly acceptable way to identify a factually incorrect statement. If the person making the argument supports their argument with facts as well as non-subjectively, unambiguously defined definition of the groups, then one could address the individual points. As it stands, they made a blanket statement which is not supported by facts but rather by opinion. Perhaps they could rephrase it to be accurate or add facts to support their claim. "It is factually accurate and completely reasonable to say that some people are net contributors to public health, while others have the opposite effect." But it is not factually accurate based on the division made by the original person. Nor was that the claim (net contributors to public health). Nor have I seen facts to support the claim that one group is a net positive and the other is a net negative. If both groups are capable of catching and spreading the virus, then there is no net positive in that context - merely one group is less of a net negative - to what degree would again require better definition of the groups.

Are they though? I agree that there is not symmetry. There are many groups, doing many different activities. There are plenty of vaccinated people who are done with masking, done with isolation, and going out in public or traveling. While there are also people who caught covid while doing a necessary job before a vaccine was required. It's false to create only two groups. This completely ignores symmetry, undermining your entire argument of saying I'm ignoring it.

mannykannot 5y ago
I see you want to be pedantic: >It's false to create only two groups. That claim is not even a half-truth... >This completely ignores symmetry ... and this would not follow even if it were. [Update moved to a subsequent reply.]
- giantg2 5y ago
  ">It's false to create only two groups. That claim is not even a half-truth." Would you like to expand on that? There clearly are numerous different groups providing a variety of permutations of risk taking or risk avoiding actions. ">This completely ignores symmetry ... and this would not follow even if it were." Would you like to explain this too? It appears to me that two artificial groups were formed and then used in a false dichotomy. I'm not being pedantic. Attacking a large number of people in a heterogeneous, artificial group is disingenuous when a moderate to large number of the people in that group may not even exhibit the risks claimed, while wholly ignoring the risks posed by the "good" group.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I see there was a data race in my editing, so I will move my update here: Beyond that, it is consistent with every factual claim you have made to say that the population lies on a broad spectrum of how thoroughly they are contributing to ameliorating the impact of this epidemic on the population as a whole. Your own argument is predicated on this spectrum being divisible into two populations. My point is that, wherever you make that divide, one group is helping more than the other. With regard to your specific questions here: 1) Putting aside the abstruse issue around the axiom of choice (which is not relevant here) one can always create two groups, and in my expanded reply, I made a relevant, non-pedantic case for that. 2) There are more symmetries than dichotomous ones. Also: > while wholly ignoring the risks posed by the "good" group. With words like 'wholly' and 'false', you are making straw man arguments. It is factually accurate and completely reasonable to say that some people are net contributors to public health, while others have the opposite effect.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "Your own argument is predicated on this spectrum being divisible into two populations. My point is that, wherever you make that divide, one group is helping more than the other." My argument is that the person who made the division into two groups did so using the wrong line, and even then blamed one group for the damage while absolving the other. This two group divide was poorly defined and should not have been made in the first place. "With words like 'wholly' and 'false', you are making straw man arguments." Not at all. 'False' is a perfectly acceptable way to identify a factually incorrect statement. If the person making the argument supports their argument with facts as well as non-subjectively, unambiguously defined definition of the groups, then one could address the individual points. As it stands, they made a blanket statement which is not supported by facts but rather by opinion. Perhaps they could rephrase it to be accurate or add facts to support their claim. "It is factually accurate and completely reasonable to say that some people are net contributors to public health, while others have the opposite effect." But it is not factually accurate based on the division made by the original person. Nor was that the claim (net contributors to public health). Nor have I seen facts to support the claim that one group is a net positive and the other is a net negative. If both groups are capable of catching and spreading the virus, then there is no net positive in that context - merely one group is less of a net negative - to what degree would again require better definition of the groups.