:100: :up: I got it April 1st but I had waited until those more vulnerable and the health care workers had had a fair shot. I didn't want to take up a shot from those who need it more. I self isolate real well and masks don't bother me. But once it was clear they had plenty, I got it. Wife and kid too. — James Riley

I would have done the same, but my clients are mostly high risk, and so they were encouraging all staff as well.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how stupid someone else's idea is, at least they're free to it and we don't have to fight each other- — Derrick Huestis

It does matter when it effects other people. These ideas do effect the other people. So no, you're not "free to it" at that point. I can't act in a way that harms others, regardless of my beliefs.

They'll cry like little puppies about big bad authoritarian gubmn't treading on them, but they had their chance to debate politely on the merits of the science and consider what the experts had to say about what the experts had to say about what the experts had to say. Their bed may be uncomfortable, but they made it. — James Riley

Yeah -- at what point do we say "enough is enough, this case is settled"? When the vaccines were first rolled out, I was one of the first ones in line -- and many friends, family, and co-workers were hesitant. I totally understood their hesitancy. While I didn't accept them myself, I could see why they would have fears -- about how quickly it was created, about FDA approval, about side-effects, and generally about it's safety.

8 months, 5.4 billion shots later, FDA approval, and rigorous safety monitoring -- almost all of them have come around and gotten the vaccine. The ones who refuse even now are doing so because it's been politicized. The demographics bear this out -- Republicans being far less likely to get the vaccine.

So we're talking about all this as if this weren't the case. But it's very clear. The question is what to do about it. How many times can experts explain things, field question after question, concern after concern? It's like playing whack-a-mole.

It reminds me of the Creationists: "Where's the missing link between x fossil and z fossil?" A missing link, y, is provided. Then: "Where's the missing link between x and y, y and z?"

Time is of the essence, both with this and with climate change. Lives are on the line. Denial and immovable ignorance cannot be tolerated forever -- even if one is the Dalai Lama. The world is burning, people are dying, while we're "debating" this issue over and over again.

Sorry, but eventually we have to move on and take action. Sometimes there's simply no amount of goodwill, reasoned argument, evidence, or logic that will sway people who don't want to know or understand. Yes, they will complain, mock, sue, kick and scream -- in other words, they'll try their best to keep this pandemic going, accelerate climate change, etc. But given that their choices effects everyone else, and their choices are dangerous, I don't see any alternative beside them isolating themselves.

Blaming people, limiting your goodwill, showing contempt, considering them infantile, irrational, and so on is _not_ effective in changing people's mind. — baker

If I have to engage in endless debate while the planet burns around me, in the name of goodwill, then no— I don’t want to be effective in that way. — Xtrix

If most of those attributes are true, then there's no point in doing so in the first place.

I don't assume every anti-vaxxer is irrational, however. Most are; some are reachable. The question is whether it's worthwhile making the attempt, or if time is better spent on other things. I think the latter is the case, at this point.

Then it wasn't goodwill in the first place. — baker

It was goodwill.

Do you want to be effective or not? — baker

Effective at changing minds? Surely.

If I have to engage in endless debate while the planet burns around me, in the name of goodwill, then no— I don’t want to be effective in that way.

Imagine needing state officials to decide your health and safety. — NOS4A2

So doctors and the overwhelming medical consensus become “state officials” now. Got it.

So you took a vaccine shot because your state official told you to? How sad.

Well, expect backlash — baker

There was backlash before as well. So what does it matter.

The thing is that you see yourself as the arbiter of rationality. — baker

:yawn: More diagnoses.

I’m not doing that.

You treat people like they are your underlings. — baker

I do not.

Again, there's that authoritarianism. — baker

Nothing to do with authoritarianism.

And blaming them is helping you how exactly? — baker

Helping with what? They are to blame, bringing everyone down with them, and patience is rightfully wearing thin.

Goodwill doesn’t last forever.

Then, once the left stands up on it's hind legs and starts bringing them some of their own shit, they all of a sudden starting crying foul. Fuck them. And the gurney they are rolled in on. — James Riley

Basically, yes.

Suddenly it’s all about empathy, contempt, and how generally mean we are.

Patience and empathy have their limits. If you don’t listen to reason, evidence, and argument — you leave little recourse.

People get persuaded by goodwill, not by arguments, nor by force. — baker

So you’re indirectly answering my question: it’s not worth engaging with people who are actively harming others, the planet, etc.

Why? Because having “goodwill” towards those who are actively harming you is not only next to impossible, but undesirable.

If they’re not persuaded by reason, then force is all that remains. Hence the vaccine mandates.

You have not demonstrated goodwill toward them, and that's why they don't listen to you. — baker

Quite the opposite. I have— they haven’t.

Which is exactly what the question pertains to. If anyone wants to enter a discussion in good faith and a spirit if goodwill, I’m all for it. But not only do they not do so, their views (through their actions or non-actions) harm everyone.

You just expect others to be other than they are, as if they owed you that. — baker

I’m not interested in your continual projections and diagnoses.

They don’t “owe” me anything.

If it prevents one from becoming a Nazi then maybe it's a worthwhile consideration. — Cheshire

It worked wonders for Chamberlain. :roll:

Governments aren't doing this because they have a hard-on for telling people what to do. They're doing this because that's what the medical science recommends. — Michael

Sorry, but NOS is a medical expert, with years of experience with epidemics and infectious diseases and, more importantly, has a simple, handy-dandy principle on which to judge things — as articulated by Saint Reagan: government is not the solution, only the problem.


Case closed. The rest is your non-thinking obsequiousness to Big Government. Which is the problem.

On 9/11, some perspective:

American death toll on 9/11: 2,977
American death toll in Afghanistan war: 2,461
American death toll from COVID: 3,260

That last one is a two day average.

That’s right; the “interests of society” are whatever Xtrix says they are. — NOS4A2

Imagine struggling with “health and safety” as an interest. This is what modern “libertarianism” does, folks. Take a good look.

Yes, there is such a thing as the common good. Not having a virus spread around because a bunch of people think they know more than medical experts — that’s part of the common good.

Saint Reagan didn’t say it, so it isn’t true.

Who says the interests of society is health and safety? — NOS4A2

:lol:

That’s one interest of many. Who says it isn’t?

Nevermind. You’re right: the interests of society are death and destruction.

Did you do that only after you worked to falsify any theory, and applied the scientific method to what your doctor said? — James Riley

Doctor isn’t government. Government is the problem, remember. Saint Reagan said so.

Your obedience is to government officials, not “science”. — NOS4A2

Lol. No, to the overwhelming medical consensus.

You listen to your doctor, but not doctor(s). Because you’re too blinded by anti-politics.

Repeat the prayer of your religion once again: government is the problem.

Once we accept that, the rest follows—and leads you this dangerous, contradictory nonsense.

Those "individuals" who don't want to play ball can stay home and off of society's streets and public places. — James Riley

Right. Just like those who want to take a paintball into the supermarket and shoot everyone in there. Or those who want to smoke indoors.

Sorry—you’re welcome to smoke in your own space, not in mine.

Is society not composed of individuals? — NOS4A2

No, society is composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons…etc.

There are different concepts and analyses brought into play when dealing with individuals, groups, and systems.

True, you can argue that understanding chess is really a matter of studying atoms— but no one would pay the slightest attention to you, because it’s idiotic.

I’d love to hear what you think the “interests of society” are. — NOS4A2

One such interest is the interest of health and safety. Which anyone sane, and willing to participate in society, accepts.

And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. There is nothing unfeasible about it. — NOS4A2

No where does WHAT state? The constitution?

No where does “it” state that people must obey traffic lights. I view this as against my individual rights and autonomy, and I shouldn’t be denied access to society if I don’t follow them.

What a stupid, stupid argument.

The state imposes and laws all the time. The only question is whether it’s legitimate. Decisions about vaccines are based on science and recommendations from the overwhelming medical consensus. It’s as commonsensical as traffic lights and hand washing laws.

The issue is simply that you don’t think it as legitimate as these other cases, and the reason you don’t think it is is because you’re fundamentally anti-science and anti-medicine. Otherwise it’s simply a matter of logic, based on simple values and goals we all share.

Stop being an imbecile and prolonging this pandemic with your Ayn Rand, quasi-libertarian bullshit.

Society is composed of individuals. The interests of the individual is the interest of society at large. — NOS4A2

So goes the old, tired, long refuted Thatcher bullshit.

The coronavirus is a good example of exactly how individual “interests” are often completely contrary to the interests of society.

Notice how this simply cannot be seen by those so indoctrinated by neoliberal propaganda. Quite sad.

Devaluing the Nazis is a bad thing, according to new agey, pseudo-Buddhistic bullshit.

Dehumanizing is arguably bad; devaluing groups is perfectly normal, and often just.

Yes. Also, some more good news: Harvard University, after 9 years of student activism, has finally divested their 42 billion dollar endowment from fossil fuels.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1035901596/harvard-university-end-investment-fossil-fuel-industry-climate-change-activism

It's the basis for tribalism. The foundation of fascism. — Cheshire

No it isn’t.

There’s a golden mean here. We don’t want to be close minded, and we don’t want to be so open minded that we fall for any charlatan out there.

Dissent — in law, in politics, in science — is very important. Minority opinion is important. Challenging prevailing dogma and consensus is important. No doubt. We all agree.

Since charlatans and ignoramuses readily use this to justify their stances, and since real dissent often looks ridiculous to establishment dogma, how do we distinguish between “real dissent” and the “dissent” of climate deniers, creationists, astrologers, and the others?

That’s the real question, and I don’t think there are any recipes or litmus tests to decipher. It’s not even a matter of evidence, since anyone can easily claim the evidence is on their side — for example, that the fossil record is evidence for the Biblical flood. Entire books have been written about that (“The Genesis Flood”).

Yet there is such a thing as correct and incorrect, true and false. So where are we left?

Personally, I like it when predictions are made— like in the QAnon conspiracy theory — because when they fail to come true (as they always do), the failure is palpable. But most nonsense doesn’t make predictions, and in fact can’t be falsified in any way.

I think all that’s left is to understand how and why people come to these immovable positions in the first place. Like with the study of cults, it usually involves social pressure and desire for inclusion, appeals to values and existing beliefs, gives a neat explanation of things, and allows members to maintain a sense of specialness.

Whether or not we can use this understanding to change minds, I don’t know. I tend to doubt it.

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people. — Cheshire

No it isn’t.

You learn that you don’t need a heap of credentials to be *smart*. — AJJ

Flat-Earthers, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, and all the rest also say this -- and often.

Credentials have nothing to do with being smart. True. But there is such a thing as expertise. Credentials are one indicator of this expertise, along with experience, research, published material, knowledge of a subject, etc., which are the more important factors.

You have none of the above. What you do is beg the question, repeatedly. Then try to hide it by accusing others of it -- using the term in a way that betrays how little you understand it.

If it comes down to the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, or you, I choose the former. You go with "my own thoughts on this matter" -- fine, go be happy with that. But much like flat earthers and others mentioned in the thread's title, you're just wrong.

I just think Trump voters and Republicans. — James Riley

There's a very real correlation, yes. The group that denies the vaccines in the highest percentage is white, male, Republican. Not a surprise.

https://www.wpr.org/gop-men-are-most-likely-say-theyll-refuse-covid-19-vaccine

Don't leave out small pox -- the world was declared free of smallpox in 1980. "One of history's deadliest diseases, smallpox is estimated to have killed more than 300 million people since 1900 alone." The fatality rate for smallpox was about 33%. Those who survived were usually scarred, sometimes severely. — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed -- thank you for that.



Since he has demonstrated, over and over, that he doesn't have a clue what "begging the question" even means, there's no sense in wasting time. In my view.



:up:



:100:

From the Times:

“Social media and news reports are full of stories about Covid deniers dying in hospitals. Many of those stories seem to be in good faith. It is as if they are trying to force us to marshal empathy for people who were led astray by nefarious disinformation campaigns to their own peril. The stories have all the makings of an emotional “feel good” cinematic morality play. The dying are humanized through their social roles — a dad, a mom, a veteran — all wishing in their final hours that they had done something differently.

Like many people, I am finding it hard to muster the empathy these stories try to elicit because other images are so fresh in my mind. The maskless rallies, the red-faced anti-maskers screaming at grocery store workers, the protesters hurling invectives at the schoolteachers who are begging for masks so that schoolchildren can return to school — those images fill me and crowd out my empathy.“

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/covid-empathy-grief.html

Good to know I’m not alone in my empathy fatigue.

5.4 billion shots given around the world.

177 million Americans fully vaccinated.

Vaccines shown to be safe and effective.

School and workplace vaccinations have been around for decades.

We wiped out polio, once upon a time, with a vaccine.

FDA approved.

World’s leading medical experts say the same thing: get vaccinated.

Just some facts worth remembering. Anti-vaxxer bullshit should simply be ignored, at this point. If they want to refuse, fine— but they won’t be allowed in most public places or businesses. As it should be. Their dangerous ignorance and stupidity will simply prolong the pandemic, and patience is indeed wearing thin.

Consider it: you’re not a good person. — AJJ

Consider it: you’re an imbecile.

Do you spend your time organizing others? — T Clark

Yes, but not while on here of course.



Anti-vaxxer. So here's a good example of a dead end. Don’t bother, Joe.

:up:

You read this stuff and you conform. — AJJ

Yes, I read what experts say. You ignore what they say, because you’re an anti-vaxxer and, as demonstrated here, an otherwise complete buffoon. Enjoy.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe

For anyone serious, who have legitimate questions about safety and efficacy.

Johns Hopkins is arguably the best hospital in the United States.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?
— Xtrix

The universe was created. Who says this didn't happen 6000 years ago? If they think this is what happened... Why shouldn't I engage with them? Of course I won't argue about the creation how they view it. But I know a lot of other means to engage with creationists. Especially when they are female (though I don't think they will like me being married, nor do I think will my wife approve...). — MikeBlender

I find this to be a bizarre response, but in a good way.

Of the categories listed the anti-vaxxers should be dealt with by a federal mandate requiring most receive the shots. — jgill

There's a good argument for that -- at least for schools and workplaces. I think vaccine verification in other public places -- bars, restaurants, sporting events, etc., should also be a requirement. It's time to stop coddling people who are putting others at risk and prolonging this pandemic -- despite them not intending to, and despite their best intentions and sincere beliefs.

Climate change mitigation can be government/citizen actions - the priority being to prepare for what seems inevitable. Creationists I have known have not been threatening, but rational disagreement leads nowhere, usually. 9/11 Truthers, well let them babble on. — jgill

More or less agree -- as long as mitigation of climate change isn't the sole focus. Priority, yes -- given that we've done next to nothing for 40 years and the effects are now locked in. But at the same time, and equally important, is to immediately transition from fossil fuels.

Not the best of interviews, but there are some cogent points here. — Banno

Thanks for that.

:up:

So is it a waste if time to engage you? — frank

For you, yes it is. Feel free not to.

My take is that they're sick in some way, even if just the sickness of stupidity. — tim wood

If one imagines them as young children, then that helps a little. We wouldn't treat children this way because of their silly beliefs or irrationality. We'd probably have more patience and empathy.

But that is wearing thin, because we're running out of time, and everyone is effected. We're all effected by the effects of climate change, for example. We're all effected by the pandemic.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't place the majority of the blame on misinformed or ignorant people. One shouldn't blame the students, only the teachers.

I place the blame on those with power who deliberately dupe them, through their influence on the government, through their owning the media, through advertising, and through appealing to their prejudices. Pundits, false prophets, bad teachers, religious leaders, corrupt "scientists," con man of every stripe, corporate propaganda campaigns, etc. This is the real source. People don't conjure most of this bullshit up on their own.

Not worth it, for they are stuck in their notions from thoughts that so often fired together that they became very strongly wired together. It shows a fixed will to the nth degree as well as an inhibited learning disability that prevents a new and wider range of will to form beyond the stuck notion. — PoeticUniverse

So, they will die, but at least evolution has this new opening to rid us of stupid people. — PoeticUniverse

That's pretty harsh, but you may be right. If so, it's really quite sad.

My point is that as long as one is looking for happiness outside, one is going to be faced with an endless amount of problems. Even if you were to opt for the final solution (as some in the past did) and executed it in full (as those in the past haven't succeeded), so that you'd be left only with like-minded people, you'd still be living on a planet where there are volcano eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, dangerous animals, unwelcome genetic mutations, limited natural resources, and at that a planet that is on collision course with some asteroids, in a solar system whose sun will eventually explode. IOW, living on such a planet and looking for happiness outside, you'd still be miserable. — baker

I agree. This has very little to do with my own personal happiness, or looking for it outside myself. I'm not looking for a perfect world, and I'm not looking to kill people off who don't agree with me and, as I said above, don't even hold them completely responsible.

Nevertheless, I do see their beliefs as leading to very dangerous actions, as we're seeing in this pandemic and as we see with climate change. That effects everyone, and will cause untold suffering. Obviously I don't think this is their intention -- I don't think people who are anti-vaxxers are psychopaths, for example. Yet they are still causing harm, unwittingly.

My question is whether we should engage with them -- assuming I'm correct about their irrationality.

For me, I engage them only in the company of a third party or audience, not to persuade them but to expose the falsity of such claims before witnesses and hopefully to provoke others to question prevalent, uninformed gossip, conventional wisdom and stupifying conspiracies. Like a good gadly, I try to plant seeds of doubt in as many heads as the occasion allows. 'Shaming stupidity' (or rodeo-clownin' the bulls***) is how I roll online as well as off. :smirk: — 180 Proof

That's interesting. I think that's generally my motivation as well. But not always -- in fact sometimes I feel it's better without an audience, because there's less chance of embarrassment on their end and so less saving face and digging in. Whether any of it is worthwhile, I'm still on the fence about. If we assume the audience is persuadable, I think the argument is a fair one.

That means that conversations with those with whom you have disagreements become more important. That it becomes more important that you find a way to find common purpose with them. The great majority of people in the US share a core set of values. Mainstream, moderate, more or less pragmatic, sometimes idealistic.

Saying you're not mature enough to work with that is a pretty poor excuse given your apparent sense of impending doom. — T Clark

That's fair.

Here's part of the problem, for me: is time better spent organizing/mobilizing those who agree, or perhaps with those who are "on the fence"/ those who are more persuadable, who really just want to understand the issue and weight the evidence?

I wouldn't call it "impending doom," but I do take climate change very seriously, yes. Nuclear weapons as well, of course. But the same applies to the pandemic -- it's only a matter of time before we're hit with one that's both highly transmissible and highly fatal. Then the stakes are even higher.

It depends what you want in life, I guess, but for me, yes. Sometimes people who you think are nuts turn out to be right. It's healthy and productive to see people as individuals, all with different unique constellations of views, some rational, others not. It can get a bit us-and-them if we group populations according to their views and dismiss individuals within that group because of their group membership. — bert1

Yes, well said.

I, for example, have not come across anything to suppose that the virus is anything other than what it appears to be, and that vaccines are probably broadly safe, at least safer than the disease, and we should probably all get vaccinated for the good of everyone. Regarding the ninth of November, on the other hand, I think the physical evidence for controlled demolition is completely overwhelming. To even begin to change my mind on that I'd need to see a plausible explanation for the collapse of building 8 minus 1 - office conflagration isn't plausible. This isn't even a conspiracy theory. It's a physical theory based on observations; I have absolutely no idea who, how or why someone would do that. And the kind of creationism that is based on taking creation myths and stories literally seems completely baseless and contradicted by evidence. — bert1

I have no idea what you're referring to by the 9th of November, but fair enough.

So while the populations that hold these views might overlap considerably, they are different views, and can, and I suggest should, be approached separately. — bert1

Yes -- I don't mean to imply they're the same, really. These are vastly different topics.

But there are obvious similarities, in that all are minority views that go against the overwhelming expert consensus -- whether it be that we evolved, or that vaccines are safe and effective, or that climate change is real, etc. Not all minority or dissenting views should be dismissed, but these certainly can. They've been debunked over and over again by experts in each respective field, yet they live on -- like zombies.

So the question stands: is it worth bothering with irrational people? Personally, I wouldn't care to -- just as I don't care about those who believe in aliens or Big Foot or a flat Earth or astrology. Let people be happy with that.

When it starts to effect society, the education of future generations, and the future of the planet, then I don't take this position anymore. I think it should be called out -- but whether one should bother spending time running through claim after debunked claim, that's a different question entirely. Is it worth it for others who can still be persuaded? I think maybe it can be justified on those grounds.