ifyoubuildit

6 ms·

61.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
So basically you have a gut feeling that you feel very passionately, but that we have no way of evaluating. It might be just as likely that zero of the people in such a position took the vaccines for all we know. How is this somehow more en
62.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
> Every single plutocrat that pulls the levers that get you riled on your march to becoming Soylent Green got the vaccines. Every single power broker got the vaccines I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious how you came t
63.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
I've only really heard of cisa in terms of "fighting disinformation", which seemed more than a little dubious. Can someone speak to what their mission is and how effective they've been at it? Or is this like the DHS wher
64.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
Sure. But you put evidence in quotes, presumably because you probably don't trust their source(s). Just like they don't trust yours. Obviously, in your head your sources are evidence while their sources are 'evidence', a
65.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
And there's the actual hard part: institutional trustworthiness is in the shitter. Everyone will have their sources that they trust, and if were honest, none of us can really vet any of them. A lot of these disputes can be simplified t
66.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
There's a good standup bit out there: we used to have a word for "doing your own research": reading! Now everyone gives you shit for it.
67.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
Is it only ok for luxury items? What happens when you swap steaks out of that sentence? You have a hundred (dollars|pens|shoes|boxes of cereal), you probably won't notice if I take one. I don't feel right taking one if I have othe
68.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
I didn't take being barely able to afford ramen as someone who is going to starve to death. Their health is probably pretty poor, but I was assuming like in real life there would be other options. Like I said before, if the alternative
69.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
OK, thanks for spelling them out. I don't see how either of those principles suggest I should go steal the steaks, because I could easily end up being the person who is stolen from. Its not surprising when starving people steal, and yo
70.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
I have no idea what any of that means
71.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
What is it then if its not just my feelings? Can you give me some specific principle to go by? When is it OK for me to decide that someone else's possessions should be mine?
72.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
Sure it would feel bad, but would my feelings justify taking the steaks from them?
73.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
Maybe this is me being a dumb peasant, but I can't imagine where I would get the right to have a say in that. How is it different from me looking at my neighbor in his bigger house with his nicer car and deciding that those should be m
74.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
Maybe I wasn't being clear, since I didn't mean to accuse anyone of anything. I'm not disputing that someone had the genuine experience of antidepressants saving their life. I'm asking if that precludes antidepressants a
75.
by ifyoubuildit 8mo ago
A: The same is true for people that say that antidepressants are mostly placebo. They are not. B: When people say that antidepressants saved their life, they aren’t joking or exaggerating in the least. Are placebos unable to save lives? Not
76.
by ifyoubuildit 9mo ago
Maybe you mean in any modern sense of the word, but I'm pretty sure that is indeed a large part of what it used to mean.
77.
by ifyoubuildit 9mo ago
> you pay about 35% total of income in taxes. That's what's directly taken out of your check right? But how much more do you pay after that in other taxes? And if you go even further, how much higher are the prices of everythin
78.
by ifyoubuildit 10mo ago
What is the limiting principle here? You note that a bunch of small business just won't be viable if you up the taxes, but you agree on the need to do it. So do you just keep upping the taxes until nothing is profitable except giant so
79.
by ifyoubuildit 10mo ago
> What I think a lot of people who are anti-vax miss is the risk of the vaccine compared to the risk of COVID Why do people still frame this as either/or? How many people out there didn't get covid after they got some number of
80.
by ifyoubuildit 11mo ago
I can't say I agree that "regular pickups" are very utilitarian, unless you're talking about the base trim work trucks. They seem to me to be incredibly expensive luxury vehicles for the most part.
81.
by ifyoubuildit 11mo ago
I think the quality ranges a lot. I got one of these free energy audit things which included swapping out up to 30 or so bulbs with LEDs. Whatever contractor did it seems to have gotten the cheapest bulbs they could, and the majority of the
82.
by ifyoubuildit 11mo ago
> No it isn't. Getting rubella while pregnant would be much much worse for the fetus, while likely mild for the woman. Does the doctor give the pregnant woman that vaccine? (I meant same difference about "temporal recommendatio
83.
by ifyoubuildit 11mo ago
> It's a temporal recommendation, not against. Same difference. "There is no downside to any vaccine" means at any time, if you see a label that says "vaccine", it's never a bad idea for you to take it. I&#x
84.
by ifyoubuildit 11mo ago
Still false. Maybe if you qualify it further to currently prescribed vaccines (e.g fda certified ones that haven't been taken off the market for whatever reason, or just superceded by newer better vaccines), you'd be closer, but s
85.
by ifyoubuildit 11mo ago
> There is no downside to taking any vaccine. This is just wrong. Go figure out which vaccines you haven't had, and then figure out why they haven't been prescribed to you. (Hint: It's not because your doctors are anti-vax
86.
by ifyoubuildit 11mo ago
This is the result of the covid era info landscape, thinking like this. Medicine is not an unqualified good. Here's a simple test. Go take some chemo meds. Assuming you don't have cancer, would that be good? Or go swallow a bottle
87.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
It's contrived and breaks down pretty easily, but why isnt it more like this: - both wearing seatbelts and getting in an accident have a significant chance of causing x - you are almost definitely going to get in an accident - are your
88.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
> The consensus has been that this is an acceptable risk, particularly since COVID itself is associated with an increased risk of myocarditis. This made more sense to me when people still believed that the shots meant getting covid was v
89.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
A fun exercise for headlines like these is to replace "AI assistants" with "people on the internet", and see how different you feel about it.
90.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
> It strongly suggests against, e.g. the covid vaccine. Is that why the analogy is bad? In other words, if a line of reasoning leads you away from the covid shot, then that line of reasoning must be flawed (horrifically, even)?

More ›