3 ms·

Who said anything about a minority of laymen? Imagine 5 years from now we learn that the vaccine was a clear net negative for certain populations that were forc

Who said anything about a minority of laymen? Imagine 5 years from now we learn that the vaccine was a clear net negative for certain populations that were forced to take it. It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence" or whatever excuse they want to make, they removed the choice from a group of people, when you remove choice you are responsible for the outcome.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
> Who said anything about a minority of laymen? the opposite of an expert is a layman. Neither a majority of experts, nor a majority of laymen, have, after analyzing the issue as you have, come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement > It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence" is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?
- willcipriano 4y ago
  > come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement Where do I argue that? It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. The positive effects are much more immediate, we have a generation of kids that how to grow up now to see how their development was impacted for example. > is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this? This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. You can find elements of what I am saying in the Code of Hammurabi, The Art of War, as well as the Magna Carta. If a general orders his men to run into a minefield, even if he doesn't know that it is one, even if he uses the best available evidence, he is responsible for their deaths because he gave the order. That's the reason we play hail to the chief when the president walks into a room, that's why he gets to eat fancy dinners and hobnob with celebrities, that is the reward for the great risk you take for being responsible. Leaders eat first because they take responsibility, to have leaders who only take authority is unworkable, it is tyranny manifest.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    > Where do I argue that? when you argued with this: > If you made a trade-off that folks of a certain political persuasion believe was the wrong trade-off, but most people and most qualified experts believe was a reasonable trade-off? That's the job. If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts to decide, or for a majority of laymen to decide, or for a majority of americans to decide, then who do you think should make the decision? >It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. sure, and as soon as a majority of experts, maybe even of Americans, believe that the trade-off showed poor judgment, then we can talk about it as if it did >This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. this is not how people believe leadership works in the US at least, where people (not you personally, clearly) judge based on the circumstances present at the time of the action being judged, not at the time of judgement most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      > when you argued with this: did you forget something here? > If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts are not to decide, and a majority of laymen are not to decide, and a majority of Americans are not to decide, then who do you think should make the decision? Democracy. In our system of government we elect leaders, those leaders are responsible to the people who have elected them. This has been sidestepped in recent decades by appointing experts who have the ability to use the force of law without explicit congressional approval. This is unconstitutional and the supreme court in the past year has twice affirmed this view[0][1]. We can't allow our leaders to hide behind people that they themselves have appointed when those appointees make choices that may have disastrous consequences. > most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future Funny they didn't mention that while making proclamations from on high. "I did my best" is of little comfort to someone harmed by their choices. [0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf [1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

> Who said anything about a minority of laymen? the opposite of an expert is a layman. Neither a majority of experts, nor a majority of laymen, have, after analyzing the issue as you have, come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement > It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence" is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?

willcipriano 4y ago
> come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement Where do I argue that? It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. The positive effects are much more immediate, we have a generation of kids that how to grow up now to see how their development was impacted for example. > is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this? This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. You can find elements of what I am saying in the Code of Hammurabi, The Art of War, as well as the Magna Carta. If a general orders his men to run into a minefield, even if he doesn't know that it is one, even if he uses the best available evidence, he is responsible for their deaths because he gave the order. That's the reason we play hail to the chief when the president walks into a room, that's why he gets to eat fancy dinners and hobnob with celebrities, that is the reward for the great risk you take for being responsible. Leaders eat first because they take responsibility, to have leaders who only take authority is unworkable, it is tyranny manifest.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  > Where do I argue that? when you argued with this: > If you made a trade-off that folks of a certain political persuasion believe was the wrong trade-off, but most people and most qualified experts believe was a reasonable trade-off? That's the job. If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts to decide, or for a majority of laymen to decide, or for a majority of americans to decide, then who do you think should make the decision? >It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. sure, and as soon as a majority of experts, maybe even of Americans, believe that the trade-off showed poor judgment, then we can talk about it as if it did >This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. this is not how people believe leadership works in the US at least, where people (not you personally, clearly) judge based on the circumstances present at the time of the action being judged, not at the time of judgement most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    > when you argued with this: did you forget something here? > If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts are not to decide, and a majority of laymen are not to decide, and a majority of Americans are not to decide, then who do you think should make the decision? Democracy. In our system of government we elect leaders, those leaders are responsible to the people who have elected them. This has been sidestepped in recent decades by appointing experts who have the ability to use the force of law without explicit congressional approval. This is unconstitutional and the supreme court in the past year has twice affirmed this view[0][1]. We can't allow our leaders to hide behind people that they themselves have appointed when those appointees make choices that may have disastrous consequences. > most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future Funny they didn't mention that while making proclamations from on high. "I did my best" is of little comfort to someone harmed by their choices. [0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf [1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf