35 ms·

I think the burden of research and citations can also be put back onto you as well. You can fully research this information yourself - it’s trivial.

moribvndvs 3y ago
Sorry, that’s not how this works. Burden of proof is not new, nor is it complicated. Thus: > what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. It’s trivial to find sweeping and unsubstantiated opinions. It’s trivial to find arguments on both[1] sides[2]. Why should I trust either? Either way, what evidence trivially and unquestionably supports “immense harm”? This argument has been going in circles for 2+ years, it’s not like I haven’t seen more rigorously defended and less hyperbolic opinions before. That stuff, I’ll consider. What you and OP are doing is just noise. [1] https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failing-case-covid-19-mandates https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failin... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-are-lawful-effective-and-based-on-rock-solid-science/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-...
- cempaka 3y ago
  It's not clear, do you believe that firing people from their jobs did not cause them great harm, or do you just believe that that harm was justified?
  - pritambaral 3y ago
    > It's not clear, do you believe that firing people from their jobs did not cause them great harm ... It's clear to us all that you're not here in good faith.
    - cempaka 3y ago
      Nah, there are plenty of others in this thread on the same page as me here.
      - pritambaral 3y ago
        That there are others who share your agenda doesn't imply or support the notion that your agenda is in good faith.
        cempaka 3y ago
        You've at least stopped speaking for everyone else in the thread, but you've simply arrived at the same point these threads tend to reach, where you stop addressing arguments and fall back to simply impugning other's intelligence and motives.
        pritambaral 3y ago
        > You've at least stopped speaking for everyone else in the thread ... I never spoke for anyone else in this thread. In your dichotomy of "us vs them", I am neither. You need a finer brush. > but you've simply arrived at ... where you stop addressing arguments and fall back to simply impugning other's intelligence ... I made no comments about yours or anyone's intelligence. Again, you need a finer brush to paint other people's opinions. If I felt you weren't intelligent enough, I wouldn't have attempted to talk to you. But your responses to me are giving me reasons to rethink the (f)utility of this attempt. > ... and motives. Nor did I make any comments about your motives; only your conduct. I have neither condoned nor denounced your motives. I only pointed out that you attacked your parent. You justified the attack by claiming that you had many people on your side. This is HN, not a schoolyard. Having many people on your side does not give you the right to attack participants in this forum. If you still do not understand this, know this: it only makes your point harder to agree with. The harder you are to talk to, the harder you will find people to talk with. I'd hoped you were intelligent enough to see your conduct was not helping you argue your case. I have no such hopes now. Goodbye.

moribvndvs 3y ago

Sorry, that’s not how this works. Burden of proof is not new, nor is it complicated. Thus: > what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. It’s trivial to find sweeping and unsubstantiated opinions. It’s trivial to find arguments on both[1] sides[2]. Why should I trust either? Either way, what evidence trivially and unquestionably supports “immense harm”? This argument has been going in circles for 2+ years, it’s not like I haven’t seen more rigorously defended and less hyperbolic opinions before. That stuff, I’ll consider. What you and OP are doing is just noise. [1] https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failing-case-covid-19-mandates https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failin... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-are-lawful-effective-and-based-on-rock-solid-science/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-...

cempaka 3y ago
It's not clear, do you believe that firing people from their jobs did not cause them great harm, or do you just believe that that harm was justified?
- pritambaral 3y ago
  > It's not clear, do you believe that firing people from their jobs did not cause them great harm ... It's clear to us all that you're not here in good faith.
  - cempaka 3y ago
    Nah, there are plenty of others in this thread on the same page as me here.
    - pritambaral 3y ago
      That there are others who share your agenda doesn't imply or support the notion that your agenda is in good faith.
      - cempaka 3y ago
        You've at least stopped speaking for everyone else in the thread, but you've simply arrived at the same point these threads tend to reach, where you stop addressing arguments and fall back to simply impugning other's intelligence and motives.
        pritambaral 3y ago
        > You've at least stopped speaking for everyone else in the thread ... I never spoke for anyone else in this thread. In your dichotomy of "us vs them", I am neither. You need a finer brush. > but you've simply arrived at ... where you stop addressing arguments and fall back to simply impugning other's intelligence ... I made no comments about yours or anyone's intelligence. Again, you need a finer brush to paint other people's opinions. If I felt you weren't intelligent enough, I wouldn't have attempted to talk to you. But your responses to me are giving me reasons to rethink the (f)utility of this attempt. > ... and motives. Nor did I make any comments about your motives; only your conduct. I have neither condoned nor denounced your motives. I only pointed out that you attacked your parent. You justified the attack by claiming that you had many people on your side. This is HN, not a schoolyard. Having many people on your side does not give you the right to attack participants in this forum. If you still do not understand this, know this: it only makes your point harder to agree with. The harder you are to talk to, the harder you will find people to talk with. I'd hoped you were intelligent enough to see your conduct was not helping you argue your case. I have no such hopes now. Goodbye.