5 ms·

> it will at least make sense without demonizing a person who thinks differently. I specifically do NOT demonize people who think differently, hence why I don'

> it will at least make sense without demonizing a person who thinks differently. I specifically do NOT demonize people who think differently, hence why I don't find it appropriate to leverage the authority of the state in order to prevent them from thinking differently.

hayst4ck 4y ago
I think this is a fair re-statement of what you said: > "How can anyone believe we need more authoritarian control of information?" The direct implication of this statement is "it's unreasonable to want more authoritarian control of information", stated differently, "only an unreasonable person would support this bill because this bill increases authoritarian control of information." That is demonization. You've defined support as unreasonable with the presupposition of support for "authortarianism." The language you've used denies alternative explanations or that a reasonable person might support the bill. It denies curiosity for why someone would support it. They support it because they are unreasonable, clearly. If there was a good reason for support, it wouldn't flabbergast you that someone might support it. If I asked you "would you like your doctor to be vetted for competence by an authority?" You would probably say no, but many many people, myself included, would like to trust that our doctors have been vetted for competence by some authority so I'm not getting a snake oil salesperson or someone selling their expertise while having none. I don't want a lawyer who hasn't passed the bar. I don't want an electrician that has "unconventional" beliefs about how to wire things. I don't want to share the road with driver's who "think differently" about what lane they should drive in. Licensed positions have a level of authority and are given a level of trust. Licenses exist to protect that trust from abuse. I definitely think some doctors have been abusing trust for political purposes. We saw doctors falsifying vaccination records. I think a doctor can tell fellow doctors or the academics that do the research that informs treatment whatever they want because there's not a level of trust enforced by an authority, but a doctor patient relationship must be protected because a patient is fundamentally unable to evaluate what the doctor says and must rely on trust.
- ralusek 4y ago
  You keep telling me that I'm failing to understand what motivations someone might have for controlling information. I understand perfectly well what the motivations might be, and I understand how it could actually be beneficial given that the information that they're controlling for is unbiased and correct. The issue is that there is no unbiased or correct in the middle of an emerging pandemic with a novel pathogen and two new vaccines using completely novel technology platforms, both of which are a radical departure from existing vaccines. Mind you, I would have a difficult time supporting legislation like this, even in the event that our institutions had actually just demonstrated total competence, good faith, and mastery of the facts. However, what we've just witnessed is the near opposite of that situation. - Beginning of pandemic, disease is being controlled by contact tracing and quarantine. Events of community spread occur, which should result in an immediate change in strategy, which does not happen. The first case of community spread should have been followed by alerting the country that this is no longer contained, contact tracing is no longer capable of containment. - Masks are said to be useless, in bad faith, with the goal of preventing the population from buying out PPE supply while healthcare professionals secure inventory - Disease isn't declared airborne until nearly a full year after incontrovertible evidence - mRNA and viral vector vaccines declared safe and effective, despite a typical safety profile on a vaccine taking about 7 years...for well understood pathogens using well understood technologies (attenuated virus vaccines, subunit protein vaccines, etc). mRNA vaccines and viral vectors vaccines are a radical departure from existing technology. Both encode for the production of an antigen (on RNA and DNA respectively), and have our own cells produce the spike antigen and express them on their surface to be targeted by the immune system. Viral vector had only been deployed in humans outside of a lab one time for a very recent ebola outbreak, and mRNA vaccines had never been deployed. Both were deployed to hundreds of millions of people, with virtually no prospective studies in place. Skepticism regarding these specific vaccines was made to be synonymous with skepticism regarding vaccines in general. - Vaccine mandates ignored prior COVID infection - Vaccines targeted a single antigen, providing highly narrow immunological profile for which the virus could escape, Incidentally, nearly all viral variants have escaped immunity by mutations on this single antigen. The virus has over 20. - The antigen selected for production in the vaccines has since proven to be problematic. Once it was announced that myocarditis and pericarditis were likely associated with the antigen, trimerization and prefusion of the S1 and S2 subcomponents of the antigen was retroactively asserted to have been done in the vaccines in an effort to mitigate certain harmful elements of the antigen. In actuality trimerization and prefusion were outright declared to have been done strictly for the purpose of increasing efficacy...not for safety. Regardless, the pathogenic behavior associated with the spike antigen has been found to take place from all of the vaccines, regardless of these changes. - The highly likely "lab leak hypothesis" was dismissed as a conspiracy theory for over a year, before legitimate institutions and publications began to treat it as a potential explanation regarding the origins of the virus. - By the time Delta variant came around with a fair degree of immune escape, right around when the first wave of vaccine efficacy started to fade, infections among the vaccinated were declared rare "breakthrough infections" for months. I personally witnessed countless vaccinated individuals go to extremely high risk events under the pretense that they were immune, only to catch COVID and not understand how that was possible. - Canadian truckers protest vaccine mandates well into the Delta era of vaccines no longer even acting as a pivotal factor in containing transmission. They are declared white supremacists, and the bank accounts of individuals who donated money to them are frozen. These are just off the top of my head. Again, even if our institutions had gotten it completely right and operated in good faith, I would be hugely skeptical of legislation like this. But coming out of what we just went through...

hayst4ck 4y ago

I think this is a fair re-statement of what you said: > "How can anyone believe we need more authoritarian control of information?" The direct implication of this statement is "it's unreasonable to want more authoritarian control of information", stated differently, "only an unreasonable person would support this bill because this bill increases authoritarian control of information." That is demonization. You've defined support as unreasonable with the presupposition of support for "authortarianism." The language you've used denies alternative explanations or that a reasonable person might support the bill. It denies curiosity for why someone would support it. They support it because they are unreasonable, clearly. If there was a good reason for support, it wouldn't flabbergast you that someone might support it. If I asked you "would you like your doctor to be vetted for competence by an authority?" You would probably say no, but many many people, myself included, would like to trust that our doctors have been vetted for competence by some authority so I'm not getting a snake oil salesperson or someone selling their expertise while having none. I don't want a lawyer who hasn't passed the bar. I don't want an electrician that has "unconventional" beliefs about how to wire things. I don't want to share the road with driver's who "think differently" about what lane they should drive in. Licensed positions have a level of authority and are given a level of trust. Licenses exist to protect that trust from abuse. I definitely think some doctors have been abusing trust for political purposes. We saw doctors falsifying vaccination records. I think a doctor can tell fellow doctors or the academics that do the research that informs treatment whatever they want because there's not a level of trust enforced by an authority, but a doctor patient relationship must be protected because a patient is fundamentally unable to evaluate what the doctor says and must rely on trust.

ralusek 4y ago
You keep telling me that I'm failing to understand what motivations someone might have for controlling information. I understand perfectly well what the motivations might be, and I understand how it could actually be beneficial given that the information that they're controlling for is unbiased and correct. The issue is that there is no unbiased or correct in the middle of an emerging pandemic with a novel pathogen and two new vaccines using completely novel technology platforms, both of which are a radical departure from existing vaccines. Mind you, I would have a difficult time supporting legislation like this, even in the event that our institutions had actually just demonstrated total competence, good faith, and mastery of the facts. However, what we've just witnessed is the near opposite of that situation. - Beginning of pandemic, disease is being controlled by contact tracing and quarantine. Events of community spread occur, which should result in an immediate change in strategy, which does not happen. The first case of community spread should have been followed by alerting the country that this is no longer contained, contact tracing is no longer capable of containment. - Masks are said to be useless, in bad faith, with the goal of preventing the population from buying out PPE supply while healthcare professionals secure inventory - Disease isn't declared airborne until nearly a full year after incontrovertible evidence - mRNA and viral vector vaccines declared safe and effective, despite a typical safety profile on a vaccine taking about 7 years...for well understood pathogens using well understood technologies (attenuated virus vaccines, subunit protein vaccines, etc). mRNA vaccines and viral vectors vaccines are a radical departure from existing technology. Both encode for the production of an antigen (on RNA and DNA respectively), and have our own cells produce the spike antigen and express them on their surface to be targeted by the immune system. Viral vector had only been deployed in humans outside of a lab one time for a very recent ebola outbreak, and mRNA vaccines had never been deployed. Both were deployed to hundreds of millions of people, with virtually no prospective studies in place. Skepticism regarding these specific vaccines was made to be synonymous with skepticism regarding vaccines in general. - Vaccine mandates ignored prior COVID infection - Vaccines targeted a single antigen, providing highly narrow immunological profile for which the virus could escape, Incidentally, nearly all viral variants have escaped immunity by mutations on this single antigen. The virus has over 20. - The antigen selected for production in the vaccines has since proven to be problematic. Once it was announced that myocarditis and pericarditis were likely associated with the antigen, trimerization and prefusion of the S1 and S2 subcomponents of the antigen was retroactively asserted to have been done in the vaccines in an effort to mitigate certain harmful elements of the antigen. In actuality trimerization and prefusion were outright declared to have been done strictly for the purpose of increasing efficacy...not for safety. Regardless, the pathogenic behavior associated with the spike antigen has been found to take place from all of the vaccines, regardless of these changes. - The highly likely "lab leak hypothesis" was dismissed as a conspiracy theory for over a year, before legitimate institutions and publications began to treat it as a potential explanation regarding the origins of the virus. - By the time Delta variant came around with a fair degree of immune escape, right around when the first wave of vaccine efficacy started to fade, infections among the vaccinated were declared rare "breakthrough infections" for months. I personally witnessed countless vaccinated individuals go to extremely high risk events under the pretense that they were immune, only to catch COVID and not understand how that was possible. - Canadian truckers protest vaccine mandates well into the Delta era of vaccines no longer even acting as a pivotal factor in containing transmission. They are declared white supremacists, and the bank accounts of individuals who donated money to them are frozen. These are just off the top of my head. Again, even if our institutions had gotten it completely right and operated in good faith, I would be hugely skeptical of legislation like this. But coming out of what we just went through...