4 ms·

In my experience, it’s usually not about finding out the actual facts / truth for these groups of people actual facts https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/covi

In my experience, it’s usually not about finding out the actual facts / truth for these groups of people actual facts https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/covid-deaths-in-israel-have-hit-an https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/covid-deaths-in-israel-h... look at that chart and then recall the absolutely mad state so many people went into Summer 2021 "time to blame the 'unvaccinated'" "time to inject them against their will" "time to violate their basic human rights" https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/i-know-what-you-did-last-summer-and https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/i-know-what-you-did-last... maybe, just maybe, the "unvaccinated" were able to see something you weren't and chose the better path

LadyCailin 4y ago
Public health rights and not clogging up hospitals with easily preventable diseases readily outweigh your individual right to not get vaccinated, in general. Had the discussions around the specific Covid vaccines been argued with this in mind, a more productive conversation could be had, but instead it jumps immediately to a conversation about “muh rights” which is wholeheartedly disingenuous and/or selfish.
- canoebuilder 4y ago
  The shots don’t work. Even if they did, people’s choice over what is injected into their bodies comes first. Even if they did work, the profile of who was at risk was clear, it wasn’t healthy young people. So why was it pushed on healthy young people? From the outset the risk reward ratio was not clear for those without high comorbidites, the minute the myocarditis signal showed up it should have been pulled for most people. Bearing in mind we now know myocarditis is just one of a multitude of negative side effects. So why did it go on being pushed and coerced to healthy people, actively harming them?
- brigandish 4y ago
  To protect or support one individual's rights is to protect or support everyone's individual rights. That is why, for example, prominent free speech activists will support the right of people they vehemently disagree with to voice their opinions, as it protects one's own right to voice opinions. How is that selfish? > If you would like to be selfish, you should do it in a very intelligent way. The stupid way to be selfish is … seeking happiness for ourselves alone. … the intelligent way to be selfish is to work for the welfare of others.” - Dalai Lama
  - LadyCailin 4y ago
    Individual rights do not trump collective rights in all cases. If I have the right to shoot a gun, that does not mean I have the right to shoot a gun while people are down range. This lack of nuance in your argument is absurd. The selfish part is suggesting that your individual rights trump everyone else’s rights. Specific individual rights can and do trump collective rights, but this is a conversation we have to have as a society. For instance, if I am down range, my individual right trumps everyone’s right to fire a gun down that range. It’s the flip side of the same coin. Positive freedoms are zero sum with negative freedoms. Realizing that is step one to having a productive conversation about these things. Once we get past that fact, by realizing that it is zero sum, and your individual right takes away some collective right (and vice versa) we can look at specific instances and debate those. But when the conversation begins with “you’re taking away my rights”, the rest of the conversation is guaranteed to be unproductive, because, depending on your perspective, both outcomes take away someone’s rights.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > Individual rights do not trump collective rights in all cases. I agree, though: a) I didn't make that claim b) You may as well just say "one right does not always trump another", which is just as true and more insightful Which makes this part: > This lack of nuance in your argument is absurd. actually absurd. And this part: > The selfish part is suggesting that your individual rights trump everyone else’s rights. as I've already pointed out, is not something I claimed. This was my claim: “To protect or support one individual's rights is to protect or support everyone's individual rights." Perhaps you'd like to try again, and this time actually address me with some respect, not least by actually replying to what was written and not what is most convenient to you in the fantasy argument you've spilled out from your head.
netsharc 4y ago
Ah, you link to (your) "actual facts": a few short sentences, and a demand based on one graph. Plus speculation (no details though) that the vaccine is interacting with Omicron. A title with a demand in all caps. Yay for facts, and not emotions! For the obtuse: the last sentence was sarcastic. Give me a long detailed scientific paper and then maybe it's worth considering.
- canoebuilder 4y ago
  The “actual facts” are the numbers represented in the graph. (My bad, I thought that would be clear) The shots were sold as “If you get this shot you won’t get the virus” but apparently people still are getting the virus. And not just getting the virus, but dying from it. And dying from it in greater numbers than before the shots! WTF is up with that?! Clearly the shots don’t work as they were supposed to. And they are killing people. Excess deaths are way up in mRNA injected countries. And they are preventing people from being born. Birth rates are way down in mRNA injected countries. Not good.
  - netsharc 4y ago
    Sorry, that is poor application of the scientific method. The blogger - and you - have made hypotheses, and conclude (the page:) "How can anyone view this chart as evidence of anything except - at best - complete vaccine failure?" and (you:) "Clearly the shots don’t work as they were supposed to.". You've concluded these things because emotionally that's what you want to happen, because (I'll assume) you're afraid[1] of the vaccine. From 1 screenshot graph! Is that all the data you need to draw your conclusions? Is the graph even real, or is a graph from a random blog good enough because it supports your viewpoint? (Let's be honest, "both sides" have this deficiency; "This PNG supports my viewpoint, I'm right!"). Let's see the vax rates (to me the page is trying to trick people by presenting "Over 95% are vaccinated" but that's for people over the age 50. Let's see the rate of "returning to normal" and partying and mingling by people who think since they were vaxxed 6 months ago they were safe. > And they are preventing people from being born. Birth rates are way down in mRNA injected countries. Oooh... it must be the vaccine! How about the fact that there's been economic instability since the pandemic? Nah: mRNA introduced, birth rates down, must be mRNA! Look, birth rates have been down since 2007, oh, must be Bill Gates' time machine: https://www.aei.org/economics/the-reasons-for-americas-birth-rate-decline-seem-more-obvious-than-possible-solutions/ https://www.aei.org/economics/the-reasons-for-americas-birth... Sorry if you're insulted, but geez, either this comment slaps some sense into you (here I am fighting against a windmill) that you're an idjit who needs to be more scientific about his way of thinking, or you're just going to reaffirm your beliefs, because it's more comforting to think that you have a clue and everyone else are the idjits[2]. A toast to that! [1] Yeah TBH it's a foreign substance, I don't know what liquid they injected into me, at the end of the day I had my faith in the scientists making and checking the vaccine, just like we all put faith that the burger we're eating have been checked properly - by whoever is in charge for checking those things - for mad cow and other diseases. [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont... - Yes, arguably your "facts" won't change the minds of "I have faith in the vax" people either...

LadyCailin 4y ago

Public health rights and not clogging up hospitals with easily preventable diseases readily outweigh your individual right to not get vaccinated, in general. Had the discussions around the specific Covid vaccines been argued with this in mind, a more productive conversation could be had, but instead it jumps immediately to a conversation about “muh rights” which is wholeheartedly disingenuous and/or selfish.

canoebuilder 4y ago
The shots don’t work. Even if they did, people’s choice over what is injected into their bodies comes first. Even if they did work, the profile of who was at risk was clear, it wasn’t healthy young people. So why was it pushed on healthy young people? From the outset the risk reward ratio was not clear for those without high comorbidites, the minute the myocarditis signal showed up it should have been pulled for most people. Bearing in mind we now know myocarditis is just one of a multitude of negative side effects. So why did it go on being pushed and coerced to healthy people, actively harming them?
brigandish 4y ago
To protect or support one individual's rights is to protect or support everyone's individual rights. That is why, for example, prominent free speech activists will support the right of people they vehemently disagree with to voice their opinions, as it protects one's own right to voice opinions. How is that selfish? > If you would like to be selfish, you should do it in a very intelligent way. The stupid way to be selfish is … seeking happiness for ourselves alone. … the intelligent way to be selfish is to work for the welfare of others.” - Dalai Lama
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  Individual rights do not trump collective rights in all cases. If I have the right to shoot a gun, that does not mean I have the right to shoot a gun while people are down range. This lack of nuance in your argument is absurd. The selfish part is suggesting that your individual rights trump everyone else’s rights. Specific individual rights can and do trump collective rights, but this is a conversation we have to have as a society. For instance, if I am down range, my individual right trumps everyone’s right to fire a gun down that range. It’s the flip side of the same coin. Positive freedoms are zero sum with negative freedoms. Realizing that is step one to having a productive conversation about these things. Once we get past that fact, by realizing that it is zero sum, and your individual right takes away some collective right (and vice versa) we can look at specific instances and debate those. But when the conversation begins with “you’re taking away my rights”, the rest of the conversation is guaranteed to be unproductive, because, depending on your perspective, both outcomes take away someone’s rights.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > Individual rights do not trump collective rights in all cases. I agree, though: a) I didn't make that claim b) You may as well just say "one right does not always trump another", which is just as true and more insightful Which makes this part: > This lack of nuance in your argument is absurd. actually absurd. And this part: > The selfish part is suggesting that your individual rights trump everyone else’s rights. as I've already pointed out, is not something I claimed. This was my claim: “To protect or support one individual's rights is to protect or support everyone's individual rights." Perhaps you'd like to try again, and this time actually address me with some respect, not least by actually replying to what was written and not what is most convenient to you in the fantasy argument you've spilled out from your head.

netsharc 4y ago

Ah, you link to (your) "actual facts": a few short sentences, and a demand based on one graph. Plus speculation (no details though) that the vaccine is interacting with Omicron. A title with a demand in all caps. Yay for facts, and not emotions! For the obtuse: the last sentence was sarcastic. Give me a long detailed scientific paper and then maybe it's worth considering.

canoebuilder 4y ago
The “actual facts” are the numbers represented in the graph. (My bad, I thought that would be clear) The shots were sold as “If you get this shot you won’t get the virus” but apparently people still are getting the virus. And not just getting the virus, but dying from it. And dying from it in greater numbers than before the shots! WTF is up with that?! Clearly the shots don’t work as they were supposed to. And they are killing people. Excess deaths are way up in mRNA injected countries. And they are preventing people from being born. Birth rates are way down in mRNA injected countries. Not good.
- netsharc 4y ago
  Sorry, that is poor application of the scientific method. The blogger - and you - have made hypotheses, and conclude (the page:) "How can anyone view this chart as evidence of anything except - at best - complete vaccine failure?" and (you:) "Clearly the shots don’t work as they were supposed to.". You've concluded these things because emotionally that's what you want to happen, because (I'll assume) you're afraid[1] of the vaccine. From 1 screenshot graph! Is that all the data you need to draw your conclusions? Is the graph even real, or is a graph from a random blog good enough because it supports your viewpoint? (Let's be honest, "both sides" have this deficiency; "This PNG supports my viewpoint, I'm right!"). Let's see the vax rates (to me the page is trying to trick people by presenting "Over 95% are vaccinated" but that's for people over the age 50. Let's see the rate of "returning to normal" and partying and mingling by people who think since they were vaxxed 6 months ago they were safe. > And they are preventing people from being born. Birth rates are way down in mRNA injected countries. Oooh... it must be the vaccine! How about the fact that there's been economic instability since the pandemic? Nah: mRNA introduced, birth rates down, must be mRNA! Look, birth rates have been down since 2007, oh, must be Bill Gates' time machine: https://www.aei.org/economics/the-reasons-for-americas-birth-rate-decline-seem-more-obvious-than-possible-solutions/ https://www.aei.org/economics/the-reasons-for-americas-birth... Sorry if you're insulted, but geez, either this comment slaps some sense into you (here I am fighting against a windmill) that you're an idjit who needs to be more scientific about his way of thinking, or you're just going to reaffirm your beliefs, because it's more comforting to think that you have a clue and everyone else are the idjits[2]. A toast to that! [1] Yeah TBH it's a foreign substance, I don't know what liquid they injected into me, at the end of the day I had my faith in the scientists making and checking the vaccine, just like we all put faith that the burger we're eating have been checked properly - by whoever is in charge for checking those things - for mad cow and other diseases. [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont... - Yes, arguably your "facts" won't change the minds of "I have faith in the vax" people either...