3 ms·

Other than the US using a fake vaccination program to find Osama. I say this as someone who got the vaccine as someone first in the line. I’m pissed at the go

Other than the US using a fake vaccination program to find Osama. I say this as someone who got the vaccine as someone first in the line. I’m pissed at the government doing this, because I can’t blame folks for not trusting the government over this. And what that means is the next pandemic will take so much longer to deal with because of this distrust.

kube-system 2y ago
I absolutely understand why someone might not understand the practical and operational differences between the development of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and how that chain of command has nothing in common with CIA operations in Pakistan. It's a very explainable opinion, but that doesn't mean it is correct.
- odyssey7 2y ago
  Begging the question fallacy. If a government agency doesn’t use vaccines as a vector for some ulterior purpose, then it’s nothing like the other time when it used vaccines for some ulterior purpose?
  - kube-system 2y ago
    The pronoun 'it' in that sentence is referring to tens of millions of different people in different centuries. It is absolutely silly to pretend that they're a single actor.
    - odyssey7 2y ago
      I assume you mean “the government.” The number of people (not) involved makes no difference. The government should be accountable to its constituents. Refusing to tell us the truth about St. Louis makes that impossible. It should tell us the truth.
      - kube-system 2y ago
        Again, you're saying this as if it is a monolith, which it isn't. The information you're asking for isn't something that "the government" as a whole even has, only a very few specific people ever had the information and they're probably dead now. And certainly the CDC/FDA/NIH doesn't have a clue. So distrusting them for something they don't even know about is hand-waving away a whole hell of a lot of nuance here. You might as well say that you're not going to trust anything Tom Brady says until the NFL tells the truth about Nicole Brown's death. Just because someone is a member of a group doesn't mean they're all acting in lock step.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  If you "understand why someone might not understand," then I don't get how you could also believe someone with an incorrect understanding "is not going to be convinced by anything" or, even worse, is "not a person worth convincing of anything." Your response to conspiracy theorists is to place the burden of proof on them and then ignore them since your understanding transcends theirs? That may work for you as an individual, but on a macro scale, it seems defeatist, and also unhelpful to all sides (since you're neither convincing them to give up unfounded theories, nor increasing safety against actual conspiracies for yourself).

kube-system 2y ago

I absolutely understand why someone might not understand the practical and operational differences between the development of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and how that chain of command has nothing in common with CIA operations in Pakistan. It's a very explainable opinion, but that doesn't mean it is correct.

odyssey7 2y ago
Begging the question fallacy. If a government agency doesn’t use vaccines as a vector for some ulterior purpose, then it’s nothing like the other time when it used vaccines for some ulterior purpose?
- kube-system 2y ago
  The pronoun 'it' in that sentence is referring to tens of millions of different people in different centuries. It is absolutely silly to pretend that they're a single actor.
  - odyssey7 2y ago
    I assume you mean “the government.” The number of people (not) involved makes no difference. The government should be accountable to its constituents. Refusing to tell us the truth about St. Louis makes that impossible. It should tell us the truth.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      Again, you're saying this as if it is a monolith, which it isn't. The information you're asking for isn't something that "the government" as a whole even has, only a very few specific people ever had the information and they're probably dead now. And certainly the CDC/FDA/NIH doesn't have a clue. So distrusting them for something they don't even know about is hand-waving away a whole hell of a lot of nuance here. You might as well say that you're not going to trust anything Tom Brady says until the NFL tells the truth about Nicole Brown's death. Just because someone is a member of a group doesn't mean they're all acting in lock step.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
jacobgkau 2y ago
If you "understand why someone might not understand," then I don't get how you could also believe someone with an incorrect understanding "is not going to be convinced by anything" or, even worse, is "not a person worth convincing of anything." Your response to conspiracy theorists is to place the burden of proof on them and then ignore them since your understanding transcends theirs? That may work for you as an individual, but on a macro scale, it seems defeatist, and also unhelpful to all sides (since you're neither convincing them to give up unfounded theories, nor increasing safety against actual conspiracies for yourself).