Pro-vaxxers have a heurestic too, where the most used one is "scientific consensus". Even that is posited as a rational decision making process but it really isn't. But since most people tend to agree with the fact it's a pretty good heurestic they don't get challenged on it. — Benkei

It is absolutely a rational choice, which is obvious in every aspect of our lives. Why? Because there is no possible way to become an expert in everything. We have to trust car companies, engineers, mechanics, drug makers, farmers, pharmacists, doctors, lawyers, historians, scientists, etc. -- all the time.

Regarding this particular scenario, given all this trust, it's a perfectly rational choice to trust experts, particularly when a large majority of them are in agreement.

Could this rational choice end up being wrong at times? Yes. Likewise if you "did your own research" for weeks about a topic, weighed evidence, collected data, ran experiments yourself, and held symposia about it in your living room.

We operate on incomplete information, and have to make the best decisions (given our goals) on the basis of this information. Trusting the scientific and medical consensus when you cannot devote your life to becoming an expert yourself is a rational choice indeed.

It isn't my problem that there are not enough beds. If you're so concerned, donate your bed? — Merkwurdichliebe

It will be your problem if you or a loved one need a bed. I donated mine by getting a vax.

You prefer the indescriminate blowing up of Arab children, I prefer covid fatalities. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't prefer either, but there is one I can do something about and I did it. You know, the one with more numbers.

Did you know that children are far less susceptible to severe infection from covid than are other age groups? I guess that means I care about the lives of children more than you. — Merkwurdichliebe

What have you done for those Arab kids? Did you get a shot so you could better be there for them? If so, good. Nobody is likely to be able to help your kids if they can't take a few minutes out of their life for a free shot.

I am, if I see the situation to be a democratic state, I expect it to serve its people.. — Merkwurdichliebe

Actually you are not. If you had situational awareness you would have seen the answer to your own question: The difficulty for the state is people like you. Can the state fix stupid?

This is probably news to you, but not everyone is so needy, there are multitudes of people that do not want others to give a shit about them, especially strangers they will never meet. Looks like you don't give a shit about those people...so much for your universal benevolence — Merkwurdichliebe

Your reasoning fails. I don't give a shit about those who do not want others to give a shit about them. Fuck them. I give a shit about those who do care, and who will be killed by the former.

Speaking of kids:

Trust isn't rational at all. It's a rather obvious point really. I could be right 99 times, that's no reason at all to trust I'll be right the 100th time. Trusting scientific consensus generally works for a basis to make decisions but it's not a rational decision making process.

Edit: I'm not saying it's a bad heuristic and that you shouldn't employ it, I'm merely pointing out that it's not rational. And if you understand that, you can imagine that such a heuristic fundamentally cannot work fit someone who has general distrust. So repeating "but the scientific consensus" means absolutely nothing for those who think "but the government is evil". You trust the consensus, they distrust anything the government promotes. Nobody is talking about the same thing at that point.

Trust isn't rational at all. — Benkei

Of course it is. Not only is it rational, it's also a complete necessity in life. You're confusing trust and faith, I think. There's very good reasons for trusting -- for trusting medicine, science, expertise, family, friends, etc. It's not about blind faith -- it's about the simple fact that we cannot possibly know or do everything ourselves, especially with limited time.

I could be right 99 times, that's no reason at all to trust I'll be right the 100th time. — Benkei

Now you're confusing what I'm saying with a kind of gambler's fallacy. That doesn't apply at all to expertise. If someone has proven over and over again to be an honest person, there's all the reason in the world to trust them. Could it be the case that they suddenly become a completely different person and fuck you over? Yes. Was it therefore irrational to trust them? Of course not.

Trust isn't rational at all. It's a rather obvious point really. I could be right 99 times, that's no reason at all to trust I'll be right the 100th time. Trusting scientific consensus generally works for a basis to make decisions but it's not a rational decision making process. — Benkei

I agree. But it is rational to trust the rational, and to distrust the irrational. Just because one lacks the skill sets to be among the rational, does not mean one lacks the skill sets to distinguish between the rational and irrational.

Apparently the rational people say the 100th time you jump off the cliff will generate a result identical to the other 99. They don't say that because of the odds. That would be irrational. Rather, they say it because they've studied gravity, physics, etc. The irrational say "Meh, maybe the result will be different."

It's not irrational to trust the rational.

It will be your problem if you or a loved one need a bed. I donated mine by getting a vax. — James Riley

Damn right! It will be my problem, not yours or anybody else's. And even though we are vaxxed, that is no guarantee we won't need "a bed" someday.

I don't prefer either, but there is one I can do something about and I did it. You know, the one with more numbers. — James Riley

What have you done for those Arab kids? Did you get a shot so you could better be there for them? If so, good. Nobody is likely to be able to help your kids if they can't take a few minutes out of their life for a free shot. — James Riley

Don't worry about me, whether or not i got vaxxed. Mind your own business before you get stepped on foo.

Anyway. Let me get this strait...you say you did something about covid, and nevertheless, there are more fatalities... sounds like you didn't do much. I have done nothing to stop the bombing of Arab children, and as you say, there are less fatalities than with covid....seems that my strategy is more effective here.

Anyway, Arab children in the middle east are more likely to die from a bomb than covid. The real question you should be asking is: did those children get their free shot so they don't put me at risk? Personally, I respect their right to choose, rather than imposing upon them with my fear.

The difficulty for the state is people like you. Can the state fix stupid? — James Riley

You are obviously a born servant the state. You would have made a great Nazi.

Your reasoning fails. I don't give a shit about those who do not want others to give a shit about them. Fuck them. I give a shit about those who do care, and who will be killed by the former. — James Riley

But you do. You care very much about those people who don't want concern from others. It is obvious from your posts here. If you didn't, you would respect the individual's right to choose rather than getting so butt-hurt about people declining the vaccine. After all, if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right?

Speaking of kids: — James Riley

Hey, its Russell Crow!

Damn right! It will be my problem, not yours or anybody else's. — Merkwurdichliebe

It will be if you are taking up a bed I want for my friends or loved ones. It ain't all about you.

And even though we are vaxxed, that is no guarantee we won't need "a bed" someday. — Merkwurdichliebe

Especially since so many unvaxxed, non-masking, non-distancing people are spinning up variants; not to mention the dolts that vax but throw shade on vaxxing.

Don't worry about me, whether or not i got vaxxed. Mind your own business before you get stepped on foo. — Merkwurdichliebe

Keep your filthy fucking virus out of other people's lives and we're good. Until then, it is my business, fool.

Let me get this strait...you say you did something about covid, and nevertheless, there are more fatalities... sounds like you didn't do much. — Merkwurdichliebe

I go the shot, I mask, I distance. And nevertheless there are more fatalities because the stupid people say stupid people have rights to be stupid people.

I have done nothing to stop the bombing of Arab children, and as you say, there are less fatalities than with covid....seems that my strategy is more effective here. — Merkwurdichliebe

I think you just owned yourself. Okay.

did those children get their free shot so they don't put me at risk? — Merkwurdichliebe

Nobody cares about you.

You are obviously a born servant the state. You would have made a great Nazi. — Merkwurdichliebe

:rofl:

You care very much about those people who don't want concern from others. It is obvious from your posts here. If you didn't, you would respect the individual's right to choose rather than getting so butt-hurt about people declining the vaccine. After all, if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right? — Merkwurdichliebe

Your reasoning fails you. Re-read what you just said. Think. Try harder.

Oh, and there is this:

And even though we are vaxxed, that is no guarantee we won't need "a bed" someday. — Merkwurdichliebe

You're stepping on your own dick. Slow down. Think.

It will be if you are taking up a bed I want for my friends or loved ones. It ain't all about you. — James Riley

Really? What are you gonna do? whine about it on TPF.

Especially since so many unvaxxed, non-masking, non-distancing people are spinning up variants; not to mention the dolts that vax but throw shade on vaxxing. — James Riley

Oh no! Variants, so scary!

Guess what else? Fuck your vaccine, I piss on it.

Keep your filthy fucking virus out of other people's lives and we're good. Until then, it is my business, fool. — James Riley

I'll make you a deal, ill keep "your filthy fucking virus" out of other people's lives, if you keep all your fascist bullshit in your spiteful little skull.

I go the shot, I mask, I distance. — James Riley

Good for you, you want a cookie?

there are more fatalities because the stupid people say stupid people have rights to be stupid people. — James Riley

Momma always said: "stupid is as stupid does". ~Forest Gump

I think you just owned yourself — James Riley

I've always owned myself, unlike you, who has been own by others since birth. I am owning you right now in fact.

Nobody cares about you. — James Riley

Good. I can care about myself just fine.

Your reasoning fails you. Re-read what you just said. Think. Try harder. — James Riley

My reasoning stands, otherwise you would have been specific in pointing out where it fails. But you know, we both know, that if you analyze my reasoning here, it will shine a bright light on the gaping hole in your little vax obsession.

Really? What are you gonna do? whine about it on TPF. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'll rip the fucking vent out of your mouth and throw you ass out the nearest window and make the doc tend a deserving human being. How's that? :rofl: Or maybe I'll do what you've done for the Arab kids. Nothing. :rofl:

Oh no! Variants, so scary!

Guess what else? Fuck your vaccine, I piss on it. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not my vaccine. Well, except that which is in me. Try pissing on that and see what you get.

I'll make you a deal, ill keep "your filthy fucking virus" out of other people's lives, if you keep all your fascist bullshit in your spiteful little skull. — Merkwurdichliebe

Deal.

Good for you, you want a cookie? — Merkwurdichliebe

You asked, I answered. Don't want the answer, don't ask.

Momma always said: "stupid is as stupid does". ~Forest Gump — Merkwurdichliebe

Momma was right.

I've always owned myself, — Merkwurdichliebe

I know. You make a fool of yourself all the time.

I am owning you right now in fact. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not with that moronic shit you aren't. You're owning yourself.

I can care about myself just fine. — Merkwurdichliebe

Try caring about others.

My reasoning stands, otherwise you would have been specific in pointing out where it fails. — Merkwurdichliebe

So you re-read what you said and didn't see it? LOL! No wonder we can't fix stupid.

Here, let me dumb it down for you. You said:

You care very much about those people who don't want concern from others. It is obvious from your posts here. If you didn't, you would respect the individual's right to choose rather than getting so butt-hurt about people declining the vaccine. After all, if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right? — Merkwurdichliebe

You say that if I didn't care about those who don't care about others then I would respect their right to choose. WTF? Why would I respect the rights of anyone I don't care about? Your words. Jeesh.

Then you say the vaxxed are not at risk from the non-vaxxed, right after you said:

And even though we are vaxxed, that is no guarantee we won't need "a bed" someday. — Merkwurdichliebe

DOH! They are called pass through or variants. Jeesh. Take a seat.

Anyway. Let me get this strait...you say you did something about covid, and nevertheless, there are more fatalities — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes, the fatalities and hospitalizations are overwhelming among the unvaccinated -- causing problems in hospitals, and allowing the virus to continue to mutate into more severe forms. If you've missed that, you haven't been paying attention -- or you simply don't want to know.

:100: :up:

You're a better man than me. I'm going to cede the floor and ban myself for a couple of weeks for unprofessional behavior. I'd say "Hold down the fort" but that might be a curse. :rofl:

Adios, amigos.

You say that if I didn't care about those who don't care about others then I would respect their right to choose. WTF? Why would I respect the rights of anyone I don't care about? Your words. Jeesh. — James Riley

You obviously can't read.  I was only talking about your concern for people who "don't want your concern". Also, just because they don't want concern from others, it doesn't necessitate that they don't care about others themselves.  You are really confused,  poor lil' fella. 

Then you say the vaxxed are not at risk from the non-vaxxed, right after you said: — James Riley

I didn't say it, I asked it.  Here, I'll ask it again: if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right?

see you when you return. I wish health and happiness to you and yours

if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right? — Merkwurdichliebe

You people really just don't understand, do you?

This is not an individual thing. This is a collective thing. Community -- you've heard of that word, yes? This is why we should care that everyone is being vaccinated unless, of course, they want to isolate themselves from society, which is their choice.

The vaccinated can still get breakthrough cases, and some who want a vaccine can't get one. I'm vaccinated, and I'm not afraid of the virus. That means exactly NOTHING when discussing vaccination. We should all get vaccinated -- they're safe, they're effective, and they help stop the spread. 6 billion shots given around the world, 100s of millions of people fully vaccinated. Serious side effects? Extremely rare -- better odds of getting hit by lightning.

If you want to remain ignorant, fine. But the excuses don't work, and patience is running out. People who want to quit their jobs over this -- good, do so. Tough shit. It's not just about you.

You people really just don't understand, do you? — Xtrix

"You people", lol. Just so we are clear, to what people do you think I belong?

This is not an individual thing. This is a collective thing. Community -- you've heard of that word, yes? — Xtrix

It's an individual thing to individuals. "Community"? Yes, specifically the way you use the term, I noticed it when I was reading about slave morality.

This is why we should care that everyone is being vaccinated unless, of course, they want to isolate themselves from society, which is their choice. — Xtrix

I disagree. Rather, if you think going out into society is a risk to your health and life, then YOU can choose to dig into your den of cowardice and stay put. Stop encroaching on other people's lives with your cowardice, man up.

The vaccinated can still get breakthrough cases, and some who want a vaccine can't get one. I'm vaccinated, and I'm not afraid of the virus. That means exactly NOTHING when discussing vaccination. We should all get vaccinated -- they're safe, they're effective, and they help stop the spread. 6 billion shots given around the world, 100s of millions of people fully vaccinated. Serious side effects? Extremely rare -- better odds of getting hit by lightning. — Xtrix

Ok. And your point is...what exactly?

Btw...Your hope for the indiscriminate vaccination of everybody on earth is very naive. How can everyone get vaccinated, if as you say, "some who want a vaccine can't get one"? Personally, I support peoples right to get the vax if they choose, its too bad they cannot get it if they want it.

If you want to remain ignorant, fine. But the excuses don't work, and patience is running out. People who want to quit their jobs over this -- good, do so. Tough shit. — Xtrix

Wow, you are really spiteful, wishing ill on people...Talk about ignorance. Just like that Riley fella. I definitely do not want to be affiliated with you people. I think I'll start referring to your kind as "vaxscists"- provaxxers with fascist attitudes

"You people", lol. Just so we are clear, to what people do you think I belong? — Merkwurdichliebe

Well apparently you belong to the people that believe that:

if you think going out into society is a risk to your health and life, then YOU can choose to dig into your den of cowardice and stay put. Stop encroaching on other people's lives with your cowardice, man up. — Merkwurdichliebe

If cowardice is the opposite of bravery, are you doing something brave? Can you describe that?

I definitely do not want to be affiliated with you people. — Merkwurdichliebe

So your judgement on male cowardice is final? Can you see no other virtues to redeem them?

If a theory is predictive then it is presumed correct until it is falsified.
Scientists are trustworthy.
Therefore the theory is correct.

:chin:

A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational. — Benkei

The pleasure that people get from accusing another to be irrational, evil, bad, weak, etc. should not be underestimated.

To ask them to give up that pleasure, you'd need to offer them something in return. What do you have in mind?

people first need to be in the clear about "the big existential issues" and have a definitive answer to the meaning of life question.
— baker

That's ... aiming rather high (unless I misunderstand, which is entirely possible). — jorndoe

A "high aim"? No, a most basic one.

There are historical/textbook case studies, and (cumulative) evidence, all that stuff, that we can learn from

So we can do what? Remain on autopilot? Eat, drink, and make merry? This is supposed to be the whole point of life?

Seems relevant for a functional society where all kinds of different people interact, yes?

No. Truth trumps diversity.

A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational. — Benkei

When making decisions about one's own body, there isn't a need for one's arguments to be understood as rational anyway.

That changes when one starts projecting one's emotions on the outside world and expect others to live by the same chains as oneself.

I'm not immune to it myself especially with people I consider lost causes.

When making decisions about one's own body, there isn't a need for one's arguments to be understood as rational anyway. — Tzeentch

A non-rational argument is a contradiction in terms so I have no clue whatsoever what your point is.

Obviously decisions about your body need to be weighed against the interest of others if those decisions have consequences for others and once you reached a conclusion you'll have to argue for it. And your decisions can also have consequences. You're free to drink, but you don't get to drive. You're welcome to walk around naked, just not in public.

When making decisions about one's own body, there isn't a need for one's arguments to be understood as rational anyway. — Tzeentch

Indeed, because according to the constitutions of many countries, one's body is by default considered private and granted the right to exist.

Obviously decisions about your body need to be weighed against the interest of others if those decisions have consequences for others and once you reached a conclusion you'll have to argue for it. — Benkei

Legally, this is actually quite a tricky area. Because in order to argue for or against, one has to take into account what the constitution and the laws of one's country say. This way, one quickly ends up in problems that even professional constitutional lawyers have difficulty to be unanimous about.

And your decisions can also have consequences. You're free to drink, but you don't get to drive. You're welcome to walk around naked, just not in public.

If you don't get caught, who can say that you didn't have the freedom to do those things?

Indeed, because according to the constitutions of many countries, one's body is by default considered private and granted the right to exist. — baker

So bodily integrity is only a right that can be granted by governments? Interesting.

If you don't get caught, who can say that you didn't have the freedom to do those things? — baker

You're always free to break the law. But we generally agree it is opportunistic to do so as those breaking the law are only too happy to get all the protections a well organised state offers. This is why ndividuals generally cannot be the arbiter of law (only state sanctioned individuals, e.g. judges) even though there are extreme cases where norms ought to precede laws and therefore require civil disobedience.

In that respect I consider mandatory vaccinations for specific services/industries a curious hill to want to die on.

So bodily integrity is only a right that can be granted by governments? Interesting. — Benkei

As things stand, every human on the planet is subject to some government, so, yes. (Even those people who don't have citizenship; and there is, on principle, no no-man's land, so that wherever on planet Earth someone is, one is always under someone's jurisdiction.)

If you don't get caught, who can say that you didn't have the freedom to do those things?
— baker

You're always free to break the law. But we generally agree it is opportunistic to do so as those breaking the law are only too happy to get all the protections a well organised state offers. This is why ndividuals generally cannot be the arbiter of law (only state sanctioned individuals, e.g. judges) even though there are extreme cases where norms ought to precede laws and therefore require civil disobedience.

If the State truly is as powerful and as authoritative as it says it is, then why does it catch only some of those who break the law?

It's this discrepancy between the proposed authority of the State and its actual effectiveness that gives reason to doubt its authority.

There is an unwritten social norm that we shall all respect the State and consider it authoritative, even though it quite frequently fails to deliver. This is the weakest link in the system. Whose fault is it when this weakest link is exploited? The State's or the individual person's?

A non-rational argument is a contradiction in terms so I have no clue whatsoever what your point is. — Benkei

You've accused me of not being able to read in the past. :chin:

Obviously decisions about your body need to be weighed against the interest of others if those decisions have consequences for others and once you reached a conclusion you'll have to argue for it. — Benkei

My decision to get vaccinated or not, does not hold any direct consequences for anyone but myself.

I consider mandatory vaccinations for specific services/industries a curious hill to want to die on. — Benkei

Really? Putting aside for now your judgement about the facts of the case right now, can you really not see a problem with creating a system whereby a government and/or a private corporation can inject the entire population of their country with a chemical which is only intermittently batch tested?

The thing is, we already know the answer (at least for the left) because when utilities were privatised we were up in arms. The idea of letting a private, profit-making company clean and distribute our water was an abomination. Same with health, same with housing, same with every basic human need... except prophylactic medicine, apparently, where the left are not only happy to hand over control to a private corporation, but then spend the majority of their time doing their fucking advertising for them.

These corporations are criminals. Actually convicted of criminal acts. They spend four times more on lobbying than any other industry. They lie, cheat, pay off government oversight, and show callous disregard for human life (you should read some of the emails in the opioid cases). And they're now in charge of a medical procedure you'd campaign to have extended to whole world.

I struggle to think of a more important hill to die on than keeping the well-being of the entire population of the world out of the hands of a criminal profiteering enterprise.

... except prophylactic medicine, apparently, where the left are not only happy to hand over control to a private corporation, but then spend the majority of their time doing their fucking advertising for them. — Isaac

Best to call it out for what it is: authoritarianism. The left's version has always been will to power masquerading as philanthropy. Offer a moral pretense to soothe the conscience and these people will happily forfeit all your rights for the thinnest of perceived benefits, but mostly to pat their own back.

A "high aim"? No, a most basic one. — baker

Sure, according to some anyway, but not particularly decidable/determinable like the medical matters are. I seem to remember posts/threads about this stuff here on the forums.

Truth trumps diversity. — baker

I meant this

There are historical/textbook case studies, and (cumulative) evidence, all that stuff, that we can learn from, we'd be fools not to — jorndoe

is relevant to

a functional society where all kinds of different people interact — jorndoe

Is the "meaning of life" thing (universally) truth-apt? This is the sort of thing where (some) people find whatever, and people have found whatever for centuries, and they all still haven't shown the one true "purpose of life". Unlike the tangible medical matters where we've learned lots, where nature has taught us and keep doing so.

This is supposed to be the whole point of life? — baker

Life is not a means to some (other) end.

Life is what you make of it, so make it a good one. — paraphrasing the good Doc Emmett Brown

If anything in particular, the "purpose of life" is living (it). Enjoy. :up:

"Back to the regularly scheduled program." ? :)

Pro-vaxxers have a heurestic too, where the most used one is "scientific consensus". Even that is posited as a rational decision making process but it really isn't. But since most people tend to agree with the fact it's a pretty good heurestic they don't get challenged on it. — Benkei

Trust isn't rational at all. It's a rather obvious point really. — Benkei

Trust is the currency of all social interaction. Trust, in the guise of 'confidence', is the foundation of the economy, and trust is the prerequisite for communication and meaningful language.

Let me put it this way: I do not have a laboratory, or even a microscope, so I have never seen a virus. Any research I do consists of reading other people's accounts of what they have done and what happened. That there is a new disease at all is based on reports; that people have died of it is based on reports, the disease model is based on reports.

So I think you go too far, and not far enough. If trust isn't ever rational, then nothing is ever rational but what one sees with one's own eyes. Perhaps I can adapt Wittgenstein a little and suggest that distrust and trust are on a par, and equally need some, but not absolute, justification. There is, alas, good reason to distrust governments and medical companies, in the record of lies and bullshit that they have promulgated over the years. It is clear that the truth is not as high on their priorities list as their self-interest.

It should be. It comes down to this: if society does not value the truth it disintegrates. A century of moral nihilism has brought us here, to where the truth is simply unavailable, and talk has almost no value. Thus the thread does little but allow some emotional venting. If trust is irrational, then no one should rationally believe anything another says or posts, and we cannot talk at all.