# What could be the psychology behind those people who "rebel" against their government because of Covid measures and restrictions?



## rosesandgold (Jun 12, 2015)

There are so many people who seem to rebel against the government, last weekend there even was a big gathering in my country where people believed they were "fighting for their freedom" against the measures. The Covid positives have been going up again, we have had some new measures, a partial lockdown, and yet there are so many people gathering together and going to clubs and bars and party.

What is the psychology behind this behaviour?
Are these people just stupid, are they scared, do they just have no compassion and empathy for others? Do they not want to understand how Covid has impacted people's lives and do they not care?

There are people who believe the government people are a bunch of narcissists and liars and manipulators.

Which MBTI and Enneagram types could such people be?

I am trying to understand but a lot of people are behaving in a dumb and scary manner.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Ignorance, deliberate ignorance, easily conned and dark tetrad opportunism. The dark tetrad bunch have different reasons like wanting to cull the human race of its weakest members and/or racism, narcissistic belief in their immunity, extreme selfishness, exploiters and profiteers with assorted forms of currency including but not exclusive to, political and geopolitical forms of divisiveness.

The pandemic has exposed the dark underbelly of the human race.


----------



## Not Emily (Nov 9, 2021)

I don't think questioning your government is a negative trait at all. The people who argue against science that can be easily proven, yeah those people I don't understand. When you vote people in by a popularity contest there's really no reason to assume they know what they're talking about. Scientists and doctors who are regarded as experts in their field I'm more likely to listen to. Science is why I recommend everyone get vaccinated, not the government. Knowing the facts (science) and deciding how to act based on those facts (government) are different things. The reaction of most governments to COVID is really unprecedented, and we really have to weigh the risk against the right to live. While I'm not willing to compromise my belief in freedom for safety (my ancestors would be ashamed of me if I did), common courtesy, being careful, getting vaccinated and staying home if you might be sick isn't that much to ask all things considered. 

I was at a funeral within the last month for someone fully vaccinated, so even that isn't full proof, but it helps. Personally, I'm not sure the strain on people's mental health and their wallets is worth having a lockdown. Some people are still really struggling financially from previous lockdowns.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

I think the most basic feature is not wanting to let government change their freedoms. The thought that the government works for them, not the other way around. That freedoms are intrinsic/innate, and not merely allowed by the government.

This isn't a new thought or idea, it goes back to the beginning of recorded history, in pretty much all cultures.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

chad86tsi said:


> I think the most basic feature is not wanting to let government change their freedoms. The thought that the government works for them, not the other way around. That freedoms are intrinsic/innate, and not merely allowed by the government.
> 
> This isn't a new thought or idea, it goes back to the beginning of recorded history, in pretty much all cultures.


Considering the pandemic, why wouldn't these people amend their behaviors for the greater good, that of defeating a common enemy? It's been proven that herd immunity doesn't work for covid since it just mutates to stronger strains and sooner (many retarded 'freedom fighters' have already died or been chronically harmed by covid) or later, these typhoid Karens will also die from covid. Unfortunately, they also murder others through spread.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

mia-me said:


> Considering the pandemic, why wouldn't these people amend their behaviors for the greater good, that of defeating a common enemy? It's been proven that herd immunity doesn't work for covid since it just mutates to stronger strains and sooner (many retarded 'freedom fighters' have already died or been chronically harmed by covid) or later, these typhoid Karens will also die from covid. Unfortunately, they also murder others through spread.


There are a lot of things that can be done for the greater good that violate personal liberties. Why not just lock down for the next year? that would work better than vaccinations alone. Some reasonable compromise has been applied to the equation. There are differences of opinion about where that reasonable line lies.

it's been proven that a whole lot of people are naturally immune, they get it and survive, and then remain immune to a measurable degree. Also, those that are vaccinated still get it and can even die from it anyway. They see the government interventions as unnecessary and unjustifiable.

They see there is some freedom of choice in the matter, and make a choice.

Do you call all car drivers murderers because sometimes innocent people die in car accidents, or just the ones that do so recklessly and actually kill someone? They don't feel it's reckless (they see the risk as low), and many don't ever kill anyone anyway.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

chad86tsi said:


> it's been proven that a whole lot of people are naturally immune, they get it and survive, and then remain immune to a measurable degree. Also, those that are vaccinated still get it and can even die from it anyway. They see the government interventions as unnecessary and unjustifiable.


Most aren't immune to the more recent strains and very few of the vaccinated die from recontraction. This is a weak argument in support of Typhoid Karens.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

mia-me said:


> Most aren't immune to the more recent strains and very few of the vaccinated die from recontraction. This is a weak argument in support of Typhoid Karens.


most aren't immune to the recent strains with vaccination either, so they see it as a matter of similar calculus. How many that have natural immunity die from recontraction? are the numbers similar?


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

chad86tsi said:


> There are a lot of things that can be done for the greater good that violate personal liberties. Why not just lock down for the next year? that would work better than vaccinations alone. Some reasonable compromise has been applied to the equation. There are differences of opinion about where that reasonable line lies.
> 
> it's been proven that a whole lot of people are naturally immune, they get it and survive, and then remain immune to a measurable degree. Also, those that are vaccinated still get it and can even die from it anyway. They see the government interventions as unnecessary and unjustifiable.
> 
> ...


It is quite funny when I was one of the most critical of the vaccine in this forum, but I am from Chile and it is quite obvious that we are in the top ten of vaccinated and with a plan for the third and fourth vaccine ... ect.
I can be called inconsequent because I already have the two vaccines .... but I was simply forced.

We are a very small country (17 million people) but our territory is much bigger than several European countries.

I wouldn't lie to you that I feel that because of a few idiots who think they know everything, we were forced ...

A doctor told me that the vaccines are quite bad and you would probably have to get vaccinated every year...

Those idiots who still talk about vaccines as the garden of eden, sounds like religious fanatics to me.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

rosesandgold said:


> There are so many people who seem to rebel against the government, last weekend there even was a big gathering in my country where people believed they were "fighting for their freedom" against the measures. The Covid positives have been going up again, we have had some new measures, a partial lockdown, and yet there are so many people gathering together and going to clubs and bars and party.
> 
> What is the psychology behind this behaviour?
> Are these people just stupid, are they scared, do they just have no compassion and empathy for others? Do they not want to understand how Covid has impacted people's lives and do they not care?
> ...


I tend to think it's a coping mechanism. Some people simply cannot comprehend the scope and magnitude of this virus therefore it must not be as bad as they say. They literally cannot wrap their heads around it and so they make an ignorant/emotional response like a child would. I think some of them don't want to believe. They are being willfully ignorant because Covid simply doesn't fit into their carefully constructed delusions of how life should be. It isn't terribly surprising that many of the loudest covid/vaccination deniers are also Trump supporters. 

It takes a tremendous amount of cognitive bias and willful ignorance to believe Donald Trump *isn't* a malignant narcissist con man, and instead believe he is the second coming of Christ, and yet people have made that switch. They honestly believe Trump is a good human being who cares about them and wants the nation to prosper. He enables them to fantasize about the US being back at its peak in the late 40s/early 50s: "When white people were in charge, gays and perverts were in the closet, and blacks knew their place." They want that world back so badly they are willing to give this charlatan money, praise him like god, and follow him around the country like devout pilgrims.

The same amount of divergent belief is necessary to believe every single Covid-19 conspiracy and hoax that gets spread around the web. They don't want to believe it is true, therefore it is not true, in fact, all these completely false and unbelievable things are actually more true than the truth. It falls right into place with believing that the left is all a bunch of commies out to ruin 'merica with their virus and their vaccinations. I think deep down, these people actually know they're full of excrement, but they cannot let themselves believe that because it would mean everything else they believe falls apart too. These people build their whole worldview based upon a deluded vision of how they think things SHOULD be, not as they are, and once they establish those delusions, they double down on them and reinforce them, especially when they encounter something that contradicts them. It is the ultimate expression of willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance. Their egos would rather believe 20 fantastically impossible things than believe 1 incontrovertible fact that in any way counters their beliefs. 









The cognitive science of COVID-19: Acceptance, denial, and belief change


Because the spread of pandemics depends heavily on human choices and behaviors, dealing with COVID-19 requires insights from cognitive science which i…




www.sciencedirect.com













COVID-19 Deniers Are Still All Too Real. Here’s How We Can Convince Them


COVID-19 has killed 250,000 Americans and counting. We’re nine months into the pandemic, and our infection rates are worse than ever.A majority of people across the political spectrum acknowledge the danger of COVID-19. But research …




www.psychologicalscience.org


----------



## UpClosePersonal (Apr 18, 2014)

Somebody has been funding research to elevate animal viruses to a human infectious level (something nobody has an natural immunity against) but the bad guys are the people who won't get a vaccination against the evil that someone deliberately set out to unleash. Hmm....

Also, why hasn't the virus slowed down the way that the Flu slows down when 50 to 60% of people are vaccinated?
Why doesn't herd immunity occur? 

Are the statistics that are publicized accurate or do the powers that be just continue to exaggerate the numbers? 

Is it because so many people got an education in medical fields that there is now a glut of people trained who have nothing to treat?

I don't doubt that the virus is a terrible threat to human life. I just doubt that the chances of you getting it are any worse than other viruses.

They will test you to see if you have the corona virus but if you carry it and are asymptomatic aren't you just like those who carry the flu virus but remain asymptomatic?

So far the government came up with stupid, impractical measures for preventing the spread (closing down businesses, restricting social interaction). This is not a solution. And then they say if you want to socialize, get a vaccination. Then they say a vaccination is no guarantee and you're still being restricted by government mandates.

You have to wear a mask to go into an eating establishment, but you can remove it to eat. What is that all about?

People are questioning the government for good reasons.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

UpClosePersonal said:


> Somebody has been funding research to elevate animal viruses to a human infectious level (something nobody has an natural immunity against) but the bad guys are the people who won't get a vaccination against the evil that someone deliberately set out to unleash. Hmm....
> 
> Also, why hasn't the virus slowed down the way that the Flu slows down when 50 to 60% of people are vaccinated?
> Why doesn't herd immunity occur?
> ...


Fucking bro ... do you want to live as a fucking slave , or do you want to live whatever you want.


----------



## Not Emily (Nov 9, 2021)

chad86tsi said:


> I think the most basic feature is not wanting to let government change their freedoms. The thought that the government works for them, not the other way around. That freedoms are intrinsic/innate, and not merely allowed by the government.
> 
> This isn't a new thought or idea, it goes back to the beginning of recorded history, in pretty much all cultures.


Although often an argument you see on the right, I have to agree with the basic premise. I'd have no integrity if I said people should be forced to have vaccines or should be shut up in their homes when I think, like a lot of people, that the police are too aggressive now. You want the same police coming around enforcing new, strict laws? I don't. However, the government shouldn't have to enforce common decency. I don't need a mandate to tell me if I'm feeling sick I need to stay home. That's just basic ethics. Nobody is impressed that someone isn't wearing a mask or coughing at people who are.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

rosesandgold said:


> There are so many people who seem to rebel against the government, last weekend there even was a big gathering in my country where people believed they were "fighting for their freedom" against the measures. The Covid positives have been going up again, we have had some new measures, a partial lockdown, and yet there are so many people gathering together and going to clubs and bars and party.
> 
> What is the psychology behind this behaviour?
> Are these people just stupid, are they scared, do they just have no compassion and empathy for others? Do they not want to understand how Covid has impacted people's lives and do they not care?
> ...


I would say that's the psychology of extroverts? Lockdowns have been hard on everyone who has been used to going out unimpeded and after a year and a half of lockdown, people are probably fed up with being told to continue to stay home.

Maybe in some people's' minds they believe that they really are fighting for freedom, freedom to go out and party, that is. 😄 I think loosening lockdown restrictions so long as everyone follows safe COVID era social habits would do a lot to draw down unrest caused by long term lockdowns.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

rosesandgold said:


> There are so many people who seem to rebel against the government, last weekend there even was a big gathering in my country where people believed they were "fighting for their freedom" against the measures. The Covid positives have been going up again, we have had some new measures, a partial lockdown, and yet there are so many people gathering together and going to clubs and bars and party.
> 
> What is the psychology behind this behaviour?
> Are these people just stupid, are they scared, do they just have no compassion and empathy for others? Do they not want to understand how Covid has impacted people's lives and do they not care?
> ...


This entire thing has be politicized from the top down. Those people may not even be fully aware about what they're protesting exactly. Hive/tribe mentality plays a large role.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

rosesandgold said:


> There are so many people who seem to rebel against the government, last weekend there even was a big gathering in my country where people believed they were "fighting for their freedom" against the measures. The Covid positives have been going up again, we have had some new measures, a partial lockdown, and yet there are so many people gathering together and going to clubs and bars and party.
> 
> What is the psychology behind this behaviour?
> Are these people just stupid, are they scared, do they just have no compassion and empathy for others? Do they not want to understand how Covid has impacted people's lives and do they not care?
> ...


People who are dissatisfied with how governments handle this are not a uniform group, you can find people who would react to anything, who believe they are being chipped or satan is behind this and law professors, doctors, medicine professors, or otherwise intelligent and educated people, with sound ethical arguments and concerns. Many of those measures are completely absurd: having to write a paper saying you're going for a walk (and police potentially beating u up for it), to inconsistent: barring young people from going to shops when the elderly are the most in danger and don't even go there, while allowing churches full of elderly to not even take protective measures like masks or antiseptic or control how crowded it is.

Your questions shows you're only considering one perspective of this, meanwhile politicians and governments especially of the center-right and right have a specific moral compass that includes wanting people to be obedient so they can create the changes they believe in, like little to no public healthcare. Just as a small indication of that, in my country (in the EU), the ICU beds in the northern parts, have been reduced to *1/3* of what they were _a year ago (when they still were not even at the EU standard)_, and permanent medical personnel is not being hired. And now they urge us that hospitals are full so we have to be restricted and shift their responsibility to individuals. Of course such facts are not being displayed by the TV media who were all paid by them to promote the vaccination campaign (there's a public list with the millions spent for this), they're only found in radio or other channels where doctors who work there speak up about them and law professors speak against them. **

If you're starting from the decision that all of those concerns are dumb and unempathetic then you're not really ready to have this conversation imo.

---

**

* *




bit of a tangent but the latest incident with our PM and the journalist from the Netherlands shows just how partisan media are here





"jouranlists in your country are used to asking direct questions to politicians"
implying this isn't done here and he's not used to it  😅
then deflects the question ofc "we are saving ppl it's their fault!!! _avoids answering about push backs
have you been to Samos??
yes I have
NO you haven't been to Samos_


----------



## 497882 (Nov 6, 2017)

rosesandgold said:


> There are so many people who seem to rebel against the government, last weekend there even was a big gathering in my country where people believed they were "fighting for their freedom" against the measures. The Covid positives have been going up again, we have had some new measures, a partial lockdown, and yet there are so many people gathering together and going to clubs and bars and party.
> 
> What is the psychology behind this behaviour?
> Are these people just stupid, are they scared, do they just have no compassion and empathy for others? Do they not want to understand how Covid has impacted people's lives and do they not care?
> ...


You seem to be really oblivious to the world around you. This means either you are too young to understand whats going on. You are from a wealthy family and have a lot of money. That or you are a sheltered 18 year old. This is probably the stupidest question someone can ask but I'll explain the psychological and socioeconomic factors to you sheltered child. From a psychological standpoint people do not like feeling trapped and the government essentially trapped everyone in their house. They did this to people who at this point did nothing wrong. So of course people are angry to suddenly have their freedoms and rights stripped away for no reason. A lot of people also believed this was the end of the world and that we were facing something akin to the black plague. Many governments in the beginning did a bad job informing the public and so the panick became worse. That's psychology 101. Now for the rest of the pandemic it had to do with socioeconomic factors that already were problems. For example housing issues, poverty and homelessness has been a growing problem. Yet when you have a disease that requires everyone to shelter in place the government is forced to face these things and the pandemic only highlighted all the problems in governments and countries everywhere. Now initially we were told lockdown was 3 months. There were those who believed if we obeyed for 3months we would go back to normal. This extended to nearly 2 years. Now being trapped and isolated has a very negative effect on a person's psychological state. This is observed in prisoners as well. Which is another issue with society, we have basically turned prisoners in slaves as we force them to work labor for 2 dollars an hour, which is considered unethical. We do things that are damaging to their psychological well being and you are dim enough to think that can't happen to everyday people? Because they rent? Are you serious? Now next part is the icing on the cake. The vaccine when it did come out became highly politicized so now it you get it dictates what party you voted for. Which is ridiculous but there it is. So instead of asking dumb questions I would look outside or maybe go to the poor areas and look at all the problems. Try visiting a homeless shelter and tell me how blessed they are to be homeless, am sure they will appreciate your sheltered self calling them dumb for not smiling about it. Some of us are not sheltered children like yourself. Some of us are poor and struggling. It's hard for those who have probably always been taken care of to understand but the world is not sunshine and rainbows like you might have been told.


----------



## 497882 (Nov 6, 2017)

rosesandgold said:


> There are so many people who seem to rebel against the government, last weekend there even was a big gathering in my country where people believed they were "fighting for their freedom" against the measures. The Covid positives have been going up again, we have had some new measures, a partial lockdown, and yet there are so many people gathering together and going to clubs and bars and party.
> 
> What is the psychology behind this behaviour?
> Are these people just stupid, are they scared, do they just have no compassion and empathy for others? Do they not want to understand how Covid has impacted people's lives and do they not care?
> ...


Also anyone with a brain realizes that just because someone is in office does not make them heros. It also does not mean they always have great intentions. You operate under the logic of a high-schooler worshipping the cool kids since omg so cool!!! Unless you are saying Hitler and mussolini are heros.


----------



## rosesandgold (Jun 12, 2015)

MisterDexter said:


> You seem to be really oblivious to the world around you. This means either you are too young to understand whats going on. You are from a wealthy family and have a lot of money. That or you are a sheltered 18 year old. This is probably the stupidest question someone can ask but I'll explain the psychological and socioeconomic factors to you sheltered child. From a psychological standpoint people do not like feeling trapped and the government essentially trapped everyone in their house. They did this to people who at this point did nothing wrong. So of course people are angry to suddenly have their freedoms and rights stripped away for no reason. A lot of people also believed this was the end of the world and that we were facing something akin to the black plague. Many governments in the beginning did a bad job informing the public and so the panick became worse. That's psychology 101. Now for the rest of the pandemic it had to do with socioeconomic factors that already were problems. For example housing issues, poverty and homelessness has been a growing problem. Yet when you have a disease that requires everyone to shelter in place the government is forced to face these things and the pandemic only highlighted all the problems in governments and countries everywhere. Now initially we were told lockdown was 3 months. There were those who believed if we obeyed for 3months we would go back to normal. This extended to nearly 2 years. Now being trapped and isolated has a very negative effect on a person's psychological state. This is observed in prisoners as well. Which is another issue with society, we have basically turned prisoners in slaves as we force them to work labor for 2 dollars an hour, which is considered unethical. We do things that are damaging to their psychological well being and you are dim enough to think that can't happen to everyday people? Because they rent? Are you serious? Now next part is the icing on the cake. The vaccine when it did come out became highly politicized so now it you get it dictates what party you voted for. Which is ridiculous but there it is. So instead of asking dumb questions I would look outside or maybe go to the poor areas and look at all the problems. Try visiting a homeless shelter and tell me how blessed they are to be homeless, am sure they will appreciate your sheltered self calling them dumb for not smiling about it. Some of us are not sheltered children like yourself. Some of us are poor and struggling. It's hard for those who have probably always been taken care of to understand but the world is not sunshine and rainbows like you might have been told.


It is not a dumb question and you maybe should not make observations about me without knowing anything about me. I see people as being cold and cruel and unfeeling, I have seen people being like this and I am hoping for people to actually have compassion and empathy and understanding for each other. Covid has killed many people, and there are many who have survived who still have long-term effects from it. And yet, people gather together and go to parties and spread the virus even further and do not care about what happens to other people? Why are they not helping for the greater good? Why are they not looking at the bigger picture? Why are they not concerned about how a virus could effect their loved ones? But no, ignore the measures and go to parties and gatherings because oh, who even cares that you could infect people and spread the virus and that people are dying or that survivors can have long-term effects? It shows to me that people have little to no empathy, no understanding of others and are reckless.

I am not wealthy and I am not 18. I am 31.


----------



## 497882 (Nov 6, 2017)

rosesandgold said:


> It is not a dumb question and you maybe should not make observations about me without knowing anything about me. I see people as being cold and cruel and unfeeling, I have seen people being like this and I am hoping for people to actually have compassion and empathy and understanding for each other. Covid has killed many people, and there are many who have survived who still have long-term effects from it. And yet, people gather together and go to parties and spread the virus even further and do not care about what happens to other people? Why are they not helping for the greater good? Why are they not looking at the bigger picture? Why are they not concerned about how a virus could effect their loved ones? But no, ignore the measures and go to parties and gatherings because oh, who even cares that you could infect people and spread the virus and that people are dying or that survivors can have long-term effects? It shows to me that people have little to no empathy, no understanding of others and are reckless.
> 
> I am not wealthy and I am not 18. I am 31.


You are clearly very privileged. I explained to you the world beyond your sheltered little world. If you choose to remain ignorant is up to you. Do not ask stupid questions unless you want to raise your intelligence. Remain willfully ignorant if you wish to my privileged freind.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

mia-me said:


> Why do you believe this?


Just look at what Gov Cuomo was saying when Trump was pushing the vaccine? that he will "double" check to see if the vaccine works or not.

I do not believe there will be as many democrats anti-vaxxer as republicans but there will be a number of them out there.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> almost all governments in the EU are conservative right or center-right and though some of that is true since some of the reactionaries are even more conservative, ultra religious etc, there are many more who aren't like that and question the government because there are sound reasons to do so


EU conservative or "center" right is not the same as the American conservatives.

As long as those "sound" reasons do not involve a bs report on "vaccine death" that was filled with glaring mistakes that a man with 5 iq can spot, then it is all cool.


----------



## Miaristan (Nov 5, 2021)

chad86tsi said:


> I agree that there is no foolproof solution, but some are pretty sure they have the *only* acceptable solution.
> 
> Expecting everyone to agree in such a diverse culture is, well, naïve. Such thinking prevents the possibility of agreeing ( of finding common ground).


Personally, this is what I fear the most regarding those who support the government measures. Not that I don't consider these measures as justified, but I have the impression that for a lot of left-wingers, the health crisis is just a pretext to justify extreme collectivism (worthy of Tankies and Marxist-Leninists) and suppression of diversity of viewpoints. According to them, libertarians, conservatives, and even liberals (yes, they even hate Obama and Biden) or those who are apolitical shouldn't be allowed to have their place in the society. According to them, if you are not a Karl Max zombie fan, you should just "sh** up".

Yes, this is important to respect anyone no matter its race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and so on, but this is also important to respect anyone no matter its political orientation (and I don't include those who are on the extreme left or right). A lot of left-wingers should understand that they have to live in a society with people who disagree with them politically (this is not negotiable). Expecting anyone to share common viewpoints will only bring backlash and lead to the rise of far-right radicals. They want harmony, but harmony involves accepting individualism, because this is proven that societies without individualism are almost always chaotic societies with authoritarian governments.

Fyi, I say that as someone who supports mask mandates and vaccine mandates, but also as a former leftist who has been shocked to see how the today left-wing is become so rigid and inflexible.


----------



## PINTPZA (Nov 14, 2021)

Since when have governments around the world had the interests of the population at heart??
The psychology behind those who rebel is to question, discuss and get real answers. Answers, not narratives. Discussions, not public notices.
We are all on a personality forum here, with approximately 50% of us Te/Ti Dom, yet all of a sudden we stop questioning and take things for granted???


----------



## mug_cake (Jul 18, 2021)

I don't believe people should be forced to get a vaccine or wear a mask. However it does infringe on my safety and that is not fair to me. I think that is what makes this so complicated. Everyone wants to go out and live their lives. Unless there is a way for people who don't care about spreading it to stay away from people who do there will be problems. Maybe we should just divide up the country till this thing is over. I'm only joking but actually...


----------



## mug_cake (Jul 18, 2021)

PINTPZA said:


> Since when have governments around the world had the interests of the population at heart??
> The psychology behind those who rebel is to question, discuss and get real answers. Answers, not narratives. Discussions, not public notices.
> We are all on a personality forum here, with approximately 50% of us Te/Ti Dom, yet all of a sudden we stop questioning and take things for granted???


I'd bet you my last dollar that the government is more worried about covid wrecking our economy than lives. But yeah they need all us little worker bees to stay kicking.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Miaristan said:


> Personally, this is what I fear the most regarding those who support the government measures. Not that I don't consider these measures as justified, but I have the impression that for a lot of left-wingers, the health crisis is just a pretext to justify extreme collectivism (worthy of Tankies and Marxist-Leninists) and suppression of diversity of viewpoints. According to them, libertarians, conservatives, and even liberals (yes, they even hate Obama and Biden) or those who are apolitical shouldn't be allowed to have their place in the society. According to them, if you are not a Karl Max zombie fan, you should just "sh** up".
> 
> Yes, this is important to respect anyone no matter its race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and so on, but this is also important to respect anyone no matter its political orientation (and I don't include those who are on the extreme left or right). A lot of left-wingers should understand that they have to live in a society with people who disagree with them politically (this is not negotiable). Expecting anyone to share common viewpoints will only bring backlash and lead to the rise of far-right radicals. They want harmony, but harmony involves accepting individualism, because this is proven that societies without individualism are almost always chaotic societies with authoritarian governments.
> 
> Fyi, I say that as someone who supports mask mandates and vaccine mandates, but also as a former leftist who has been shocked to see how the today left-wing is become so rigid and inflexible.


A lot of the countries and cultures that have had a better adoption of Covid measures and mandates also tend to be less diverse, more homogenous, more of a mono-culture. So of course there is less dissent, and less polarization. I see a lot of comparisons drawn to other countries and cultures, and those countries and cultures are not the USA. Like it or not, the country was founded by rebels. One factor among many. It's not easily quantified, there are many other factors as well.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Just look at what Gov Cuomo was saying when Trump was pushing the vaccine? that he will "double" check to see if the vaccine works or not.
> 
> I do not believe there will be as many democrats anti-vaxxer as republicans but there will be a number of them out there.


Gov. Cuomo said he'd set up his own review board to double-check the vaccine because of his mistrust of Trump. This doesn't translate to dems anti-vaxxing. It means trust but verify.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

To answer the original question: 

ESxP and ENxP types are both known for resisting any outside control over their lives. Inferior Si can lead to getting stressed when someone else puts down rules on you and you have no say in it. Inferior Ni can present itself in unconciously seeing connections that might not even be there (a lot of conspiracy freaks are Ni-users in some way). 

INTJs and ENTJs can react poorly to authority. They tend to be individualistic to a fault and if someone tries to put rules on them that they personally don't see the value of, they can easily rebel and just do what they personally feel is what they should do. 

ExFJs are likely to relate to their peers for how they make decisions. If they are in a community that is against vaccinating, they are more likely to share this opinion. 

IxTPs tend to be dead set on seeing the logic of things through their own eyes. If they see flaws in the underlying logic and argumentation, they might reject the conclusions out of principle.

IxFPs might respond through fear. If the fear of side-effects for example seems more real than the fear of getting the virus, it's easy to end up not taking the vaccine, because you can exclude the known risks. 

In the end, every type can have their reasons for either vaccinating or not vaccinating. MBTI type does not directly inform your decisions, it informs how you make your decisions. 
I do think though, that ESTJs, ISTJs and ISFJs are the most likely to vaccinate themselves. They are the most likely to do what they are told (although there are many other factors weighing into that too). 

In the end, I'm not sure if the question you're asking is the right one to ask here. I would be more interested in the question of how your personality type might influence your decision-making and how to figure out a way to make someone see reason when they might have already made up their mind. 
MBTI is a great too for understanding why people do the things they do, so I think that's the best way to analyze this topic.


----------



## Ssenptni (Mar 26, 2021)

.


----------



## Sily (Oct 24, 2008)

INFP here.

I wasn’t one to get the flu vaccine “much”.

I’m not getting the Covid jab. Something is up with this whole thing. I’m suspicious with the restrictions and draconian measures. I’m not complying. I think this is some one world exercise. I just don’t trust the heavy-handedness of the response. The mandates. The forcing. Lol ... giving money away if you get the jab. And finally all the little “soldiers” out on the Web — shaming, banning, bullying, and censoring opposing opinions.

And the interesting thing to me, at least, is I’m far from conservative or republican. I think stats show there is a trend of suspicion within the Conservative group about The Jab.

This thing stinks of authoritarian control.

Plenty of INFPs get the jab. I’m making my own decision on this. Sorry not sorry. You can’t make me, no matter the threat. Oh look I still haven’t got the jab. Just been mostly quiet about the whole thing because, damn, the blow back about this subject is like a religion.

I hope the courts do more “stays”. You know, they say to Biden this is waaaaay overreaching your powers. I forgot how many states in the USA are suing. See you in court!


----------



## PINTPZA (Nov 14, 2021)

Drecon said:


> I do think though, that ESTJs, ISTJs and ISFJs are the most likely to vaccinate themselves. They are the most likely to do what they are told.


And since they're the most numerous types out there....


----------



## PINTPZA (Nov 14, 2021)

Sily said:


> INFP here.
> 
> I wasn’t one to get the flu vaccine “much”.
> 
> ...


INTP here. I'm 100% with you.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

mia-me said:


> Gov. Cuomo said he'd set up his own review board to double-check the vaccine because of his mistrust of Trump. This doesn't translate to dems anti-vaxxing. It means trust but verify.


Well, the same people can say, we don't trust the vaccine or Biden, or Fauci.. we are not anti-vaccine.

It is the same train of thought


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sily said:


> INFP here.
> 
> I wasn’t one to get the flu vaccine “much”.
> 
> ...


What is your reason for not taking the vaccine?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Well, the same people can say, we don't trust the vaccine or Biden, or Fauci.. we are not anti-vaccine.
> 
> It is the same train of thought


Trust and verify =/= refusing to take the vaccine. Trump proved himself untrustworthy, over and over again. Biden and Fauci have not done so. Anyways, you have no idea if dems would or wouldn't have gotten vaccinated under Trump, especially since it's more of having faith or not, in the big pharmas that are manufacturing the vaccine, not any Administration. Myself, I trust in science where there were tons of studies and information about the vaccines. One only had to do their homework.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

mug_cake said:


> I don't believe people should be forced to get a vaccine or wear a mask. However it does infringe on my safety and that is not fair to me. I think that is what makes this so complicated. Everyone wants to go out and live their lives. Unless there is a way for people who don't care about spreading it to stay away from people who do there will be problems. Maybe we should just divide up the country till this thing is over. I'm only joking but actually...


I'm sure conservatives would start throwing a fit if people started going in stores with their tits out or no underwear on. lol It infringes on our human rights or whatever to have to wear a shirt in public, but people seem to be able to get used to it.

Wearing a mask for fifteen minutes is not even that difficult.

Do you also think we should all be allowed to be nudists in public? (I mean, I kind of do in theory but I really think there are bigger issues and it's not even something I have an opinion on anymore)--same thing with masks, it's a ridiculously minuscule issue to be forced to wear one in public--especially if you're just a customer in the store.

I WILL absolutely listen to workers complaints about it though, because it's much harder to wear one for eight hours--and I am sympathetic to that...which is partly why it irritates me that people who shop won't do it, because it will just prolong the need for the workers to wear them imo).


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

Ssenptni said:


> INTP here. There are no aspects of cov logic that stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.
> 
> I wouldn't say I am dead set on one form of logic. My experience is that cov logic simply cannot withstand the required scrutiny using any form of logical validation.
> 
> Gorsuch agreed.


That's a very broad statement. 'covid logic' isn't one single thing, it's a whole big bunch of things and different areas. 

What areas are you mostly concerned about?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> EU conservative or "center" right is not the same as the American conservatives.
> 
> As long as those "sound" reasons do not involve a bs report on "vaccine death" that was filled with glaring mistakes that a man with 5 iq can spot, then it is all cool.


I know and that was my point, her perspective was very american-centered.

I've given some examples in a previous post.




WickerDeer said:


> There's always a good reason to question, and to question the government.
> 
> But the combo of denying science, journalism, and academics is troubling to me. The government should at least be listening to science, but in the US that's not really expected, depending on who is in the govt.
> 
> ...


The problem is when the governments don't follow science to make their decisions either. Like in the example I gave, they recently decided that unvaccinated people need an antigen test to enter all stores except supermarkets, pharmacies and the.. Church. Meanwhile, the most vulnerable unvaccinated people hang out at the church. The police and priests refuse to control people in the church for all the other measures (i.e. number of people inside, masks). Result is people in their don't use masks, they use the same spoon to take the holy communion and kiss the icons and ofc we have cases where people got sick and died and the government refuses to separate their beliefs, or political gain, from the reality of it.
Other than the Church issue, out government just the other day admitted in an official statement that the vaccine has failed to build an immunity wall, months after it was accepted abroad. So, people have reasons to not trust their decisions that are based on reason and not any other side they're on. Of course many if not most people just pick a side that have to do with their beliefs and feelings but this clearly includes the government in many cases.

So yea, I'm not disagreeing with you just adding some details from what's going on here as well. The religious extremists are here too. A recent poll here showed that those are a small minority (less than 5%) of the unvaccinated people though.



Drecon said:


> ESxP and ENxP types are both known for resisting any outside control over their lives. Inferior Si can lead to getting stressed when someone else puts down rules on you and you have no say in it. Inferior Ni can present itself in unconciously seeing connections that might not even be there (a lot of conspiracy freaks are Ni-users in some way).


Well, as an ENP this has little to do with feeling controlled and more to do with the absurdity of their decisions and lack of big picture thinking. BTW In my experience the idea of ENPs being against control in that way kinda misses the point. I think the biggest control freaks are those who have the worst reactions to feeling controlled and not the more laid back types like EPs. Feeling restricted and out of options is perhaps a better way to frame it, whereas Js are much more likely to react negatively to feeling like control is stripped from them and if they're control freaks it's even worse. It's probably a subtle difference but it's important. I think many of the most extremist reactionaries who frame the problem from a place of who has control are Js.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

mia-me said:


> Trust and verify =/= refusing to take the vaccine. Trump proved himself untrustworthy, over and over again. Biden and Fauci have not done so. Anyways, you have no idea if dems would or wouldn't have gotten vaccinated under Trump, especially since it's more of having faith or not, in the big pharmas that are manufacturing the vaccine, not any Administration. Myself, I trust in science where there were tons of studies and information about the vaccines. One only had to do their homework.


See, the problem is that in the GOP's eyes, Fauci is untrustworthy, and Trump is trustworthy. This is how Tribalism works. 

Based on how Cuomo responded, I am sure some democrats would not have taken the vaccine because Trump was the president. Some people are just tribalistic. 

If Cuomo wasn't playing partisan politics, he wouldn't have said what he said. If he was a person who trusted the science, then he wouldn't need a "separate" review since Trump is NOT the one doing the review. It was doctors, and medical officials.


----------



## Ssenptni (Mar 26, 2021)

Drecon said:


> That's a very broad statement. 'covid logic' isn't one single thing, it's a whole big bunch of things and different areas.
> 
> What areas are you mostly concerned about?


Cov logic is a very broad failure.

Definitions of "case, hospitalization, death" are trash. The counts are disconnected from causality and risk in a way that makes them invalid.

Interventions like masks and "social distancing" are known both not to work and to cause harm. The idea that they work was simply an assumption in models. To my knowledge those models have never performed up to a standard that would justify their use in setting policy. Yet that is the logic - invalid model says all will die if you don't follow the invalid rules based on invalid notions of risk.


----------



## Miaristan (Nov 5, 2021)

General Lee Awesome said:


> See, the problem is that in the GOP's eyes, Fauci is untrustworthy, and Trump is trustworthy. This is how Tribalism works.
> 
> Based on how Cuomo responded, I am sure some democrats would not have taken the vaccine because Trump was the president. Some people are just tribalistic.
> 
> If Cuomo wasn't playing partisan politics, he wouldn't have said what he said. If he was a person who trusted the science, then he wouldn't need a "separate" review since Trump is NOT the one doing the review. It was doctors, and medical officials.


The problem is that politics itself is inherently tribalistic, whence we can question ourselves weather real humanism wouldn't be apolitical (in the sense of having its own values and morals independent from any political orientation), because for me, politics is just like religion (with its own dogmas and rigid codes).

The proof is that the right prefers denouncing migrants and "evil globalists" instead of questioning the responsibility of animal cruelty or anti-environmental policies in the current health crisis, while the left prefers calling for "killing the rich" and implementing a "dictatorship of the proletariat" instead of something "cold", "boring", or "rational" such as an universal basic income to help precarious people and those who cannot work to survive and get the job they wish to have, because seriously, they pretend to care about the poor, but still expect us to work in a factory or a store instead allowing us to become artists (so we could change and improve the society).


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Ssenptni said:


> Cov logic is a very broad failure.
> 
> Definitions of "case, hospitalization, death" are trash. The counts are disconnected from causality and risk in a way that makes them invalid.
> 
> Interventions like masks and "social distancing" are known both not to work and to cause harm. The idea that they work was simply an assumption in models. To my knowledge those models have never performed up to a standard that would justify their use in setting policy. Yet that is the logic - invalid model says all will die if you don't follow the invalid rules based on invalid notions of risk.


LOL evidence, please.. HAHAH. You can't simply declare something as "invalid" because you don't understand them. 

Can you explain how a virus would spread if people are not coming in contact with each other? Through Snapchat?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> I know and that was my point, her perspective was very american-centered.
> 
> I've given some examples in a previous post.
> 
> ...


example of what? types of government? or why people don't like restrictions?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

UpClosePersonal said:


> Somebody has been funding research to elevate animal viruses to a human infectious level (something nobody has an natural immunity against) but the bad guys are the people who won't get a vaccination against the evil that someone deliberately set out to unleash. Hmm....
> 
> Also, why hasn't the virus slowed down the way that the Flu slows down when 50 to 60% of people are vaccinated?
> Why doesn't herd immunity occur?
> ...


HUH? how do you know that you are just as likely to get covid-19 as other viruses? based on what evidence? Did you pull this from the university of your bum?

Yes, if you are asymptomatic, then you are like those people who carry flu but are asymptomatic, however, those who carry flu aren't likely to kill grandma.. but Covid-19 will have a much higher chance.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> example of what? types of government? or why people don't like restrictions?


Well go and read


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

General Lee Awesome said:


> See, the problem is that in the GOP's eyes, Fauci is untrustworthy, and Trump is trustworthy. This is how Tribalism works.
> 
> Based on how Cuomo responded, I am sure some democrats would not have taken the vaccine because Trump was the president. Some people are just tribalistic.
> 
> If Cuomo wasn't playing partisan politics, he wouldn't have said what he said. If he was a person who trusted the science, then he wouldn't need a "separate" review since Trump is NOT the one doing the review. It was doctors, and medical officials.


Yeah...but is Fauci actually untrustworthy compared to Trump?

Why are you suggesting that distrusting one candidate is the same as another. If you had someone in office who had a history of fraud, lying, and was generally running amok, would it really be the same as distrusting someone in office who did not?

Some people probably would have been skeptical about Trump--there probably are Democrat anti-vaxxers too...not all anti-vaxxers are republicans or independents. 

Idk...If Trump was president, then people could try to assure others that the institutions that oversee vaccines and medical opinions were not tampered with by Trump. 

Idk--sure some people just wouldn't understand. But I think it just goes to show that you don't want someone who is actually untrustworthy in office because then it will erode public trust in institutions. Biden has not exhibited nearly the same amount of untrustworthy behavior as Trump--the main reason people don't trust Biden is because of conservative propaganda that focuses on ridiculous conspiracy theories (or alternately, his neo-liberalism). Whereas the distrust of Trump stemmed from his actual reputation and track record, and the things he was saying and doing. 

So while yeah--everyone's capable of distrust, I don't think it's really fair to say the same.

Tbh...if you went to the clinic to get a vaccine and then at the last minute they said "oh sorry...you aren't going to get a phlebotomist, but we're going to just stick Wickerdeer in here to jab you and she has no idea what she's doing" then you would be right to distrust me. Though you would not be right to distrust the nurse. That's because I'm incompetent at that.

But I think that the bigger point here is that there is still integrity of the institutions that oversee vaccines, and Democrats might fear that the integrity was lost--because Trump really was trying to weaken the integrity of other institutions, or so it seemed in my eyes, and probably many Democrat's eyes. Such as what he was doing with the State Parks, and also the spinning yarns about election fraud.

It's like...would you want a guy who's told people they could shine a light in their mouth to kill covid, to be responsible for your vaccine? Who told people to take some weird drug that killed them, and refused to wear a mask? But the reality is that there are still responsible, sane men and women who were ensuring the production and distribution of vaccines.

But medicine is a big deal so...you want to have confidence that the people who are responsible for ensuring the safety are doing their job. And Trump only inspired that to his cult-member followers, not to anyone else.

Also, maybe consider that most Democrats did have confidence in Fauci even though he was working with Trump.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Trust is a funny feeling, it's not easy to generalize, and we don't develop the same feelings when given the same circumstances. Like my 3 kids, I trust them differently. My oldest, I trust I will get an honest answer if I ask if it's raining (he will get up and look), but I don't trust I'll get an honest answer if I ask about his homework being done. My youngest might be the other way around, she won't get up and look at the weather before answering (she will say what she knew last time she looked), but she doesn't deceive me on purpose so her homework answers are pretty honest. We are all family so in essence on the same team, yet I don't trust them equally, nor the same.

Fauci is a good example of everyone seeing the same things, but coming to different conclusions about his trustability. We have record of him saying untruthful things. Many will say there were "justifiable reasons", which I accept. Some will just believe him in spite of this because of those justified reasons. Others point this as proof that they can't trust him. They are all working off the same undisputed facts, so the debate is not about facts, nor refusal to see the facts. It's about parsing the quality of the source, and potential motives to deceive. 

Understanding this might to a lot to bring both sides closer together. But just as with family, some members just don't ever get along.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

:-|


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Well go and read


Not sure which post you are referring to.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

WickerDeer said:


> Yeah...but is Fauci actually untrustworthy compared to Trump?
> 
> Why are you suggesting that distrusting one candidate is the same as another. If you had someone in office who had a history of fraud, lying, and was generally running amok, would it really be the same as distrusting someone in office who did not?
> 
> ...


No, objectively speaking, Trump is way less trustworthy than Fauci. 

No, I do not think it will be on the same level for the democrats if Trump was the president.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Not sure which post you are referring to.


the one and only I made before I replied to her


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> the one and only I made before I replied to her


one thing to be dissatisfied with is how the government handled the pandemic...another is to make up bs to go against medical science. I don't see how one justifies the other.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> one thing to be dissatisfied with is how the government handled the pandemic...another is to make up bs to go against medical science. I don't see how one justifies the other.


how does that respond to my post?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> how does that respond to my post?


read it carefully?


----------



## UpClosePersonal (Apr 18, 2014)

General Lee Awesome said:


> HUH? how do you know that you are just as likely to get covid-19 as other viruses? based on what evidence? Did you pull this from the university of your bum?
> 
> Yes, if you are asymptomatic, then you are like those people who carry flu but are asymptomatic, however, those who carry flu aren't likely to kill grandma.. but Covid-19 will have a much higher chance.


Thank you for changing it from ass to bum. Ass sounds like you're picking a fight but bum sounds like you truly are interested in the truth.

As I stated, I don't doubt the dangers of Covid. I take exception to the handling of it. And to the unrelenting insistence by the government that it's never over.

Did we really have to keep everybody home? Do we really need to continue to live as if this disease cannot be brought under control?

Couldn't we just be content to keep those at high risk home, vaccinated (elderly, those with weak immune systems who die every year from the Flu, Pnemonia).

Shouldn't a vaccination of 50 to 60 % of the people begin to bring this thing under control?
If the vaccine fails to bring a halt to the widespread threat, then why are we demanding that everyone get it? Why are we trying to "punish" those who do not feel they want to get it?



Oh, no! This is the thing from another world! It cannot be stopped! 
You need your government to keep you safe!
You need your doctor$$$ or else!!!!

Sounds like the benefits are for those other than the ones being vaccinated.


----------



## DonnaRowe (May 12, 2017)

[deleted]


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

UpClosePersonal said:


> Thank you for changing it from ass to bum. Ass sounds like you're picking a fight but bum sounds like you truly are interested in the truth.
> 
> As I stated, I don't doubt the dangers of Covid. I take exception to the handling of it. And to the unrelenting insistence by the government that it's never over.
> 
> ...


Wait, if the virus is dangerous, why shouldn't we use tough measures?

Never over? maybe they are insisting it because it is not over it? it has been what? a year? Can you imagine your attitude in WWII..those guys had to pull together for 5 years..and you are whining in 1?? sorry, the virus or war does not run on your schedule. It will be over faster if we ALL do our part.

People who have high risk also have rights. You can either discriminate against those who are at-risk, or we all pull together and wear the damn mask, and social distance, so EVERYONE gets to have a life.


No, we do not need to KEEP everyone home. We do need to practice some basic measures like masks and social distancing. I am out and about every day.


Can you tell me which virus was tamed by a vaccination rate of 50 to 60%? name one respiratory virus.


----------



## UpClosePersonal (Apr 18, 2014)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Wait, if the virus is dangerous, why shouldn't we use tough measures?
> 
> Never over? maybe they are insisting it because it is not over it? it has been what? a year? Can you imagine your attitude in WWII..those guys had to pull together for 5 years..and you are whining in 1?? sorry, the virus or war does not run on your schedule. It will be over faster if we ALL do our part.
> 
> ...


Is soomebody paying you to post this stuff?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

UpClosePersonal said:


> Is soomebody paying you to post this stuff?


I wish. I think people here should pay me. 

But answer the question, please...


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

*What could be the psychology behind those people who "rebel" against their government because of Covid measures and restrictions?*
Here is a psychological reason I completely forgot about. It has little to do with logic. It's all about being active or passive. This is illustrated by the moral philosophical problem of whether to throw a train switch and kill only one person or do nothing and five people die.

To get a vaccination one has to take action. One has to decide to go out and do something. Doing nothing is much easier. There are a million things one can do. It makes sense to be more passive and not try to do them all. Action involves pulling oneself together, weighing ones own values against non-self values. That is much harder.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> See, I knew you will miss the point ;D
> 
> It does not matter if people are for, or against something, they will still be led by the nose if they refuse to READ and verify their information. That's the part that worries me, because if we let these types of people run the show, and post nonsense articles, we are all screwed.


You're trying very hard to provoke me to talk about that report again. It's ironic because all you saw and focused on was some low hanging fruit and not the main methods, which btw have also been done by professors from all over that show the same issues with VAERS underreporting. And what you're doing is still whattaboutism, instead of facing the criticism against the government you detract the discussion from the arguments.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> You're trying very hard to provoke me to talk about that report again. It's ironic because all you saw and focused on was some low hanging fruit and not the main methods, which btw have also been done by professors from all over that show the same issues with VAERS underreporting. And what you're doing is still whattaboutism, instead of facing the criticism against the government you detract the discussion from the arguments.


I could care less about the report itself. I care more about the implication of that report and how it represents the current dialog on mRNA vaccine. 

The fact the author of that report included these "low-hanging" fruit is a HUGE red flag on their credibility and their expertise in this field. They are clueless.


Before you go, well OTHER PROFESSORS also said..blah blah blah.. how do you know what they say is accurate or reliable for Covid-19?? it is obvious that you can't tell what is reliable and what is not otherwise you wouldn't have cited the "report".

Would it bother you if you realized that you actually lack the ability to tell what is good and what is bad science?

Does that make you pause and think? or just pause? 

I think we should find out how dangerous the mRNA vaccine is, but we can't do it using bad science. Bad science pollutes the dialog and misleads people.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> LOL well, stop citing low-hanging fruits then? :O
> 
> The fact the author of that report included these "low-hanging" fruit is a HUGE red flag on their credibility and their expertise in this field. They are clueless.
> 
> ...


Their example was a low hanging fruit and not their general method using anaphylaxis reports to count underreporting, which has been done in punlished studies years now to measure vaers underreporting. I agreed that they had issues with the rest of their argumentation, but those arguments were not where their numbers came from and it doesnt seem you actually know that which makes your whole post incredibly ironic again (also I never posted it in the forum from what I remember).

I don't think you know how to have a dialogue, here is your chance to have a discussion about how the governments are handling things and you chose whattaboutism and to harass me again, both which detract and shut down productive discussion.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> *What could be the psychology behind those people who "rebel" against their government because of Covid measures and restrictions?*
> Here is a psychological reason I completely forgot about. It has little to do with logic. It's all about being active or passive. This is illustrated by the moral philosophical problem of whether to throw a train switch and kill only one person or do nothing and five people die.
> 
> To get a vaccination one has to take action. One has to decide to go out and do something. Doing nothing is much easier. There are a million things one can do. It makes sense to be more passive and not try to do them all. Action involves pulling oneself together, weighing ones own values against non-self values. That is much harder.


Getting a vaccine isn't like the trolley problem, you're using it a bit wrongly. The trolley problem has you decide whether to murder 1 person to save more - it's a deontology vs utilitarianism problem, a choice between principles. In the current issues, it applies to the problem of making vaccination mandatory, since forcing the vaccine on people will inevitably lead to some people dying or being injured by it so it's a choice between the principles of not harming people by force even if a minority VS caring only about numbers. So the problem isn't about action or inaction, but whether to choose to intervene and murder to prevent an accident or let it happen because it's an accident - not someone's fault (in theory). I think the trolley problem has been an interesting framework to see the current events through - intervening in nature at a point in time when it has always been strongly advised not to do so (vaccinating in the peak of an outbreak) VS accepting we can't and maybe shouldn't try to control nature so much. Anyways, that was just food for thought.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@Red Panda. What you have said here is tremendously important. I'm not sure we can straighten it out, but if we could, if we could take it apart, my intuition says we might come up with a better approach as to how to get people to want to get vaccinated. Would you agree that right now there are too many who reject vaccination? (Notice how I've said "we." It's no good for me to have an opinion (intuition) unless I can get it across to your opinion (intuition) ir vice versa if you could change my thinking.

First, allow me to address what you said about the trolley problem. There are some parts I don't agree with.



Red Panda said:


> The trolley problem has you decide whether to murder 1 person to save more - it's a deontology vs utilitarianism problem, ...


"Murder" is not a term used objectively. Death is objective; murder carries an emotional judgemental aspect. A utilitarian problem? Yes, if one is totally rational. * People are not just rational. * They have feelings which affect their entire being. A mother can let many suffer before she loses her child if that one child comes first to her.



Red Panda said:


> it's a choice between the principles


Who says *other* people are principled?



Red Panda said:


> So the problem isn't about action or inaction, but whether to choose to intervene and murder to prevent an accident or let it happen because it's an accident


You just said it. Choosing to intervene* IS *action. Choosing not to intervene is another kind of action. Choosing itself is action, whether conscious or subconscious. I have to apologize for saying this, but as a INTP fond of theory, I am currently after looking at the relationships between thinking, feeling and action ... those three things. I want to know what they are all about. I'm not quite there yet.

I'll stop here. You're probably thinking, "This guy doesn't get me. He is probably a complete idiot, lol."





.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> @Red Panda. What you have said here is tremendously important. I'm not sure we can straighten it out, but if we could, if we could take it apart, my intuition says we might come up with a better approach as to how to get people to want to get vaccinated. Would you agree that right now there are too many who reject vaccination? (Notice how I've said "we." It's no good for me to have an opinion (intuition) unless I can get it across to your opinion (intuition) ir vice versa if you could change my thinking.


There are too many vulnerable people who reject it, yea. From what I've seen from reports here and there it's rare to see someone dying who doesn't belong in the well established categories of vulnerability (age, obesity, comorbidities etc). I think these people just don't accept they're vulnerable, something often seen in health psychology though regardless of covid, I mean it's not a new phenomenon to have unrealistic view of your health and risks. 



> "Murder" is not a term used objectively. Death is objective; murder carries an emotional judgemental aspect. A utilitarian problem? Yes, if one is totally rational. * People are not just rational. * They have feelings which affect their entire being. A mother can let many suffer before she loses her child if that one child comes first to her.


Murder is a legal objective term that means unlawful killing (i.e. not self-defense) with premeditation. The choice to kill an innocent, non-aggressive bystander to save more people is considered murder. Utilitarian doesn't equal rational, that's the whole problem illustrated by the trolley puzzle after all. I'm not sure exactly what you mean to say here.



> Who says *other* people are principled?


I just meant the trolley problem is a choice between the principles of deontological or consequentialist ethics.



> You just said it. Choosing to intervene* IS *action. Choosing not to intervene is another kind of action. Choosing itself is action, whether conscious or subconscious. I have to apologize for saying this, but as a INTP fond of theory, I am currently after looking at the relationships between thinking, feeling and action ... those three things. I want to know what they are all about. I'm not quite there yet.
> 
> I'll stop here. You're probably thinking, "This guy doesn't get me. He is probably a complete idiot, lol."


That's why I interjected, because I do think not choosing is also taking action so with that I agree. But I think you'll also find it differs in people a lot depending on how they feel about it - for some people being 'passive' as you framed it earlier is much harder for many reasons. 

Yea I'm not sure if you get me but I don't think you're an idiot lol.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> There are too many vulnerable people who reject it, yea. From what I've seen from reports here and there it's rare to see someone dying who doesn't belong in the well established categories of vulnerability (age, obesity, comorbidities etc). I think these people just don't accept they're vulnerable, something often seen in health psychology though regardless of covid, I mean it's not a new phenomenon to have unrealistic view of your health and risks.


I agree people don't care much about their future selves. What they care about is what is happening right now.



Red Panda said:


> Murder is a legal objective term that means unlawful killing (i.e. not self-defense) with premeditation. The choice to kill an innocent, non-aggressive bystander to save more people is considered murder. Utilitarian doesn't equal rational, that's the whole problem illustrated by the trolley puzzle after all. I'm not sure exactly what you mean to say here.


You win on technical points. I haven't time just now to straighten this out (which is my optimism). I kick myself. Maybe later. don't like the term "murder" legal or not. Don't want to get trapped in symantics so use that word if you want.



Red Panda said:


> I just meant the trolley problem is a choice between the principles of deontological or consequentialist ethics.


I don't get your point here. My interest and relevance of the trolley problem is the difference between a person being active or being passive. I say that it matters in getting a vaccination. But I will add when people carry signs and protest, they are being active. People love to be in control. Being told what to do fights against their wish to be in control. Maybe I should have used the word "control" instead of active/ passive. I think of a child throwing a temper tantrum. People dislike outsiders telling them what to do even if it is against their own best interests.

*Let me role play. * You are government and I hate you Look at what you've already done to me. Now you dare to order me to vaccinate. I won't do it. You can't tell me what to do. You are government and full of shit. You want me to obey you? Then show me first you love me. Then I will follow you. Untill then I will carry signs and tell my friends to never do what you say. That is my principle.

Trolley problem. You want me to murder someone? How dare you. I don't care how many other people die. That is your thing. I have nothing to do with that. People die all the time. You want to shove your thing onto me. I will not deliberately murder just because you try to throw your garbage reasoning at me. My principle is me, not you.


----------



## Ssenptni (Mar 26, 2021)




----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@Ssenptni . I wonder how unvaccinated one has to be? Does the include measles, whooping cough, tentanus, small pox, shingles and political incorrectness?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Their example was a low hanging fruit and not their general method using anaphylaxis reports to count underreporting, which has been done in punlished studies years now to measure vaers underreporting. I agreed that they had issues with the rest of their argumentation, but those arguments were not where their numbers came from and it doesnt seem you actually know that which makes your whole post incredibly ironic again (also I never posted it in the forum from what I remember).
> 
> I don't think you know how to have a dialogue, here is your chance to have a discussion about how the governments are handling things and you chose whattaboutism and to harass me again, both which detract and shut down productive discussion.


Their entire argument is based on assumptions.. really generalized assumptions..

The fact they included nonsense in their report shows they have no idea what they are doing. You wouldn't go to a doctor who still uses leeches..right? how the hell do you know what they assumed is even applicable? they certainly can't tell what is good science or what is bad. neither can you which scares the shit out of me. If people like that are out there voting and deciding what we should be doing.. GAH!!!


When I cite scientific evidence in a report I am writing, I do not also include what my fairy godmother said to me in a dream AKA "low-hanging fruits"... because I m not an idiot.

How do you have a dialogue about what the government is doing when we can't get the facts straight? To properly analyze the actions of the government we have to look at several things like the efficacy and the risk of the vaccine or the danger of the virus. However, when people cite garbage science around these things, then we can't properly discuss this issue. 

For example, if the vaccine is super safe and super effective, then what the government is doing is fine, but if it is super unsafe and ineffective, then what the government is doing is madness...which means, to have any meaningful discussion, we have to determine if the vaccine is safe or not... and we can't be citing nonsense.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lockdowns might work in the short term, like three weeks, so that the government can better understand what they are dealing with. It's not a long term solution. People would rather live or coexist with COVID sooner rather than later.

Similarly, if a vaccine can stop COVID infections from ever happening again, then everyone would be happy to take the vaccination. However, when COVID has become like the flu, and the vaccine is only partially effective, then people need to learn to coexist with the virus, because vaccination is not an effective, long term solution (which means people a thousand years later might not take the vaccination seriously).


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Lockdowns might work in the short term, like three weeks, so that the government can better understand what they are dealing with. It's not a long term solution. People would rather live or coexist with COVID sooner rather than later.
> 
> Similarly, if a vaccine can stop COVID infections from ever happening again, then everyone would be happy to take the vaccination. However, when COVID has become like the flu, and the vaccine is only partially effective, then people need to learn to coexist with the virus, because vaccination is not an effective, long term solution.


actually, vaccines will be an effective long-term solution that can make the virus endemic.


You can either get immune by getting sick or getting the vaccine.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> actually, vaccines will be an effective long-term solution that can make the virus endemic.
> 
> 
> You can either get immune by getting sick or getting the vaccine.


"Not an effective long term solution" means that people a thousand years from now will not take seriously the vaccine that you give today, or even 900 years later.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> "Not an effective long term solution" means that people a thousand years from now will not take seriously the vaccine that you give today, or even 900 years later.


lmao.. did you just redefine long-term to 1000 years? LOL


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Their entire argument is based on assumptions.. really generalized assumptions..
> 
> The fact they included nonsense in their report shows they have no idea what they are doing. You wouldn't go to a doctor who still uses leeches..right? how the hell do you know what they assumed is even applicable? they certainly can't tell what is good science or what is bad. neither can you which scares the shit out of me. If people like that are out there voting and deciding what we should be doing.. GAH!!!
> 
> ...


I linked you that report in PM as an example of new stuff coming up to investigate not as some kind of argument or whatever. I never argued for that report, except the part about the anaphylaxis which is a standard way they judge vaers underreporting even before covid. I realize it was a mistake to share anything with you because even when I'm just sharing stuff to explore you take it as a partisan position and wanna shut it down, you keep picking fights with me, harass me with constant @ or quotes as you were doing in the other thread. I don't think we can communicate properly, and I don't care to try.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Sparky said:


> "Not an effective long term solution" means that people a thousand years from now will not take seriously the vaccine that you give today, or even 900 years later.


What about this? If everyone took that vaccine at once, the virus would die out. The virus would have no where to go. Since there are too many who don't get the vaccine, the virus always hangs around. 




Sparky said:


> Lockdowns might work in the short term, like three weeks, so that the government can better understand what they are dealing with. It's not a long term solution. People would rather live or coexist with COVID sooner rather than later.


Lockdowns might work if everyone complied. They don't comply so the virus leaks out somewhere. It hangs around ready to get the unvaccinated who spread it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> I don't get your point here. My interest and relevance of the trolley problem is the difference between a person being active or being passive. I say that it matters in getting a vaccination. But I will add when people carry signs and protest, they are being active. People love to be in control. Being told what to do fights against their wish to be in control. Maybe I should have used the word "control" instead of active/ passive. I think of a child throwing a temper tantrum. People dislike outsiders telling them what to do even if it is against their own best interests.
> 
> *Let me role play. * You are government and I hate you Look at what you've already done to me. Now you dare to order me to vaccinate. I won't do it. You can't tell me what to do. You are government and full of shit. You want me to obey you? Then show me first you love me. Then I will follow you. Untill then I will carry signs and tell my friends to never do what you say. That is my principle.
> 
> Trolley problem. You want me to murder someone? How dare you. I don't care how many other people die. That is your thing. I have nothing to do with that. People die all the time. You want to shove your thing onto me. I will not deliberately murder just because you try to throw your garbage reasoning at me. My principle is me, not you.


I mean in the trolley problem, being 'active' means you choose to aggress on someone (killing an innnocent) because you value the result of saving more lives (consequentialism/utilitarianism), while being 'passive' means you value non aggression even if circumstances means more people will die by accident. This problem shows the different ways ethical systems evaluate principles like fairness (whether being innocent or guilty matters) and how they prioritize wellbeing, justice and general social conduct. And I guess that's why I interjected, it didn't seem to me that you were using that problem correctly because characterizing that as passivity isn't really the juice of it. Anyways, I think what you say (your general point) certainly applies to some people.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I mean in the trolley problem, being 'active' means you choose to aggress on someone (killing an innnocent) because you value the result of saving more lives (consequentialism/utilitarianism), while being 'passive' means you value non aggression even if circumstances means more people will die by accident. This problem shows the different ways ethical systems evaluate principles like fairness (whether being innocent or guilty matters) and how they prioritize wellbeing, justice and general social conduct. And I guess that's why I interjected, it didn't seem to me that you were using that problem correctly because characterizing that as passivity isn't really the juice of it. Anyways, I think what you say (your general point) certainly applies to some people.


Okay. I will forget I used the words "active/ passive." (My limited vocabulary?) Are you putting a name to an alternative ethical system? Is there a name for a system favoring not throwing the trolley switch so the single person lives? The only thing I think of is what you said, "you value non aggression" Yet isn't this just as aggressive onto killing the five because the five are presumed equally innocent. "Passive" aggressive is not "non aggression" is it not?

Alright. Do I have this right? There is an ethical system that would say, "No *active* aggression under any circumstances." They will not be forced into active aggression because this violates the overall principle of non-violence. More is involved than just saving 5 people. It's the saving of 500 people because one refuses to participate in any manipulation that would harm 500 or 5000 people.

I'm reminded of the Polish priest in a prison who was told if he gave the word, he could stop the beating of the prisoner in the cell next to him. The priest refused. The priest believed it was the system who was beating the prisoner and he would not participate in such an evil system.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> Okay. I will forget I used the words "active/ passive." (My limited vocabulary?) Are you putting a name to an alternative ethical system? Is there a name for a system favoring not throwing the trolley switch so the single person lives? The only thing I think of is what you said, "you value non aggression" Yet isn't this just as aggressive onto killing the five because the five are presumed equally innocent. "Passive" aggressive is not "non aggression" is it not?
> 
> Alright. Do I have this right? There is an ethical system that would say, "No *active* aggression under any circumstances." They will not be forced into active aggression because this violates the overall principle of non-violence. More is involved than just saving 5 people. It's the saving of 500 people because one refuses to participate in any manipulation that would harm 500 or 5000 people.
> 
> I'm reminded of the Polish priest in a prison who was told if he gave the word, he could stop the beating of the prisoner in the cell next to him. The priest refused. The priest believed it was the system who was beating the prisoner and he would not participate in such an evil system.


it's called deontology: _"In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action."_

It's not aggression to let the 5 die, and it's not_ killing_ either, it's an accident (assuming in theory it was no one's fault it happened). Aggression means to attack/be forceful without provocation, so it's an act upon the innocent. Yes, passive-aggression is a form of aggression, it's just a colloquial thing to separate them because of the way it manifests, philosophically they're not different things. 

never heard of that priest story before, but yea it's a good example of how bad consequentialism can become, it can create a perverted view on aggression and especially when consequentialists are in power it can corrupt other people and social conduct in general, no real sense of right/wrong and responsibility towards others since everything is judged on desired result


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)




----------



## chriscortezhunt (Nov 16, 2021)

What could be the psychology of those who impose mask and vaccine mandates on the people?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

chriscortezhunt said:


> What could be the psychology of those who impose mask and vaccine mandates on the people?


I think the same psychology as those people who impose seatbelt mandates.

and let's not pretend vaccine mandates are new. They are not


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> What about this? If everyone took that vaccine at once, the virus would die out. The virus would have no where to go. Since there are too many who don't get the vaccine, the virus always hangs around.
> 
> 
> 
> Lockdowns might work if everyone complied. They don't comply so the virus leaks out somewhere. It hangs around ready to get the unvaccinated who spread it.


The virus can survive on surfaces and in the air without a host for many hours, if not days. Also, its host can spread the virus without coughing or running a fever. Finally, the virus mutates very fast, like the flu, so any vaccination will not work against a newer strain of the virus. These factors make lockdowns and vaccinations very ineffective. 

Lockdowns and vaccinations are effective against viruses that don't really mutate, can only spread when the host shows symptoms, and cannot survive outside the host for more than an hour or two.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

chriscortezhunt said:


> What could be the psychology of those who impose mask and vaccine mandates on the people?


Those people are likely thinking "people can't blame me for doing something, even if that something isn't effective in the long term, because doing something is better than letting nature take its course".


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> lmao.. did you just redefine long-term to 1000 years? LOL


A matter that determines how people live can be defined in 1000 years for long term, though if you talk about stock investments, then that can be 20-30 years.


----------



## chriscortezhunt (Nov 16, 2021)

General Lee Awesome said:


> I think the same psychology as those people who impose seatbelt mandates.
> 
> and let's not pretend vaccine mandates are new. They are not


Vaccines are injected into your body, while seatbelts go over your body. (A comment such as this might easily sound like down-talking, but it's not meant to come across that way). That's at least one difference that is probably relevant.

Mandates like this aren't new, like you said. I'm from the U.S. btw; your profile shows Canada if I'm reading it correctly. I wouldn't know much about laws in your country. But in the U.S. we've had vax mandates for some time. And I already disagree with those mandates on the basis of legal ideology.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Sparky said:


> The virus can survive on surfaces and in the air without a host for many hours, if not days. Also, its host can spread the virus without coughing or running a fever. Finally, the virus mutates very fast, like the flu, so any vaccination will not work against a newer strain of the virus. These factors make lockdowns and vaccinations very ineffective.


Here's the thing. Picture a field with thousands of rats. They feed and multiply ... until there is no more food. Then they start to die until all are gone. That's what happens if all are vaccinated and there are lockdowns. The virus has no more food. The virus can last for many hours if not days, but eventually dies because there is no more food. Same with newer strains. As the present strain dies, there is less virus to have the chance to mutate. What is left can mutate all it wants, but there is no more food because all the people are either isolated away from it or immune.

All it takes is *one group* of unmasked, unvaccinated people and the virus finds them and lives on. It's like the dying rats found food. Hide the food and the hungry virus dies.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

chriscortezhunt said:


> Vaccines are injected into your body, while seatbelts go over your body. (A comment such as this might easily sound like down-talking, but it's not meant to come across that way). That's at least one difference that is probably relevant.
> 
> Mandates like this aren't new, like you said. I'm from the U.S. btw; your profile shows Canada if I'm reading it correctly. I wouldn't know much about laws in your country. But in the U.S. we've had vax mandates for some time. And I already disagree with those mandates on the basis of legal ideology.


Masks are injected into you too?

Again, it does not matter if a seatbelt goes over you or is injected into you. if it harms you, then it harms you. If I force you to wear a thirty lb weight on your neck, that still goes "over" you..I guess it is ok right?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> A matter that determines how people live can be defined in 1000 years for long term, though if you talk about stock investments, then that can be 20-30 years.


LOL ok buddy. you do you.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> I linked you that report in PM as an example of new stuff coming up to investigate not as some kind of argument or whatever. I never argued for that report, except the part about the anaphylaxis which is a standard way they judge vaers underreporting even before covid. I realize it was a mistake to share anything with you because even when I'm just sharing stuff to explore you take it as a partisan position and wanna shut it down, you keep picking fights with me, harass me with constant @ or quotes as you were doing in the other thread. I don't think we can communicate properly, and I don't care to try.


It is funny because you shared a partisan hack job report..yet you are calling me partisan. LOL.. mirrors must be expensive in Europe.

When you "share" your little "reports" next time, please make sure you read them and fact check them? Please make sure they are credible? I think people should be responsible for what they share and post.

I recommend citing actual peer-reviewed journals, or credible websites. Preprints are ok too.

Scientific dialog happens when people actually use good evidence. Not when they misrepresent science. How can you explore ideas if the facts are not correct? When you cite credible information, I will do the exploring with you like the few occasions where you cited actual studies. It was good. 

P.S. I encourage you to keep on sharing information with me so I can help you fact-check them.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> Here's the thing. Picture a field with thousands of rats. They feed and multiply ... until there is no more food. Then they start to die until all are gone. That's what happens if all are vaccinated and there are lockdowns. The virus has no more food. The virus can last for many hours if not days, but eventually dies because there is no more food. Same with newer strains. As the present strain dies, there is less virus to have the chance to mutate. What is left can mutate all it wants, but there is no more food because all the people are either isolated away from it or immune.
> 
> All it takes is *one group* of unmasked, unvaccinated people and the virus finds them and lives on. It's like the dying rats found food. Hide the food and the hungry virus dies.


You are talking about something like having people from Africa, to Australia and Europe stay in their homes and never venture outside for three weeks, with everyone getting the vaccine. That's not very realistic.

People need to think about how to live with the virus, and go about their lives, while taking precautions like maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It's not about finding ways to get everyone around the globe vaccinated, and having them stay in their homes for three weeks.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I have a gut feeling that when history grades both sides of the aisle on this issue several years from now both sides are getting an F.

There is so much radicalism on both sides surrounding this.

I just think it seems obvious as people neutral, left, or right mentioned, that….

There would be instigators with agendas who propel and influence some of this

There would be many people who have adverse reactions to being in lockdown and have natural tendencies to rebel against what they are told to do or at least question it.

There would be people who do have some decency and try to respect vulnerable populations, businesses from being fined etc. I.e. While I can understand someone viewing the government mandating masks as ballsy. I don’t understand where people choose to gamble with vulnerable populations exposure or by making weird stances of posturing to F the man by freaking out at local business who just don’t want to lose their operations license etc. I can’t imagine going and screaming at some poor small business owner or some poor manager just trying to do their job and keep their operations license over mandates they didn’t personally even enforce.

Of course people with no medical background who can’t directly truly know the risk of the vaccines are justified in having doubts. Literally on both sides. People who believe in vaccines of course will have doubts about those who don’t have them. Just as people hesitant of vaccines are justified in concern of possible impact as well. While people can speculate on either side. No one knows for certain truly with confirmation what long term effects could exist with the vaccines for this or for that matter how it could vary based on which companies. They can speculate on either side. But there isn’t enough information of how good or bad they really are until the results stand the test of time. Both sides are speculating on theory to some degree. Even if studies suggest something does not mean there’s any certainty the same as people speculating all the potential hazards also doesn’t mean there’s any certainty. Both sides can find data to support their worst fears either direction and speculate.

Partying or gathering in large groups with no regard for anything and then exposing themselves blatantly to vulnerable people. Well if they argue there isn’t enough info on vaccines than the argument that there isn’t enough info on Covid transmission and reassurance they aren’t infecting vulnerable loved one with exposure seems weak too.

I personally think vaccines should be a personal choice. But I also think that people should be mindful that if they use the argument there are not enough studies out to know the outcome of vaccines they should also adhere the same philosophy from the other side, that there is not enough data than either that they should feel comfortable blatantly risking people’s health. I.e why wouldn’t they eliminate self exposure and avoid going in public places or to see grandma if they have a cough or know they’ve been exposed to a high volume of people, why wouldn’t they wear a mask or stay in. As a decency. I can see why people don’t feel comfortable getting a vaccine. And instantly trust data. But it should mean that they if they don’t know what data to trust that the logic to use precautions should also hold up. I don’t understand why people would be so blatantly obnoxious in exposures.

So my view like often is, I see it both ways. As I said I think history will probably say both sides had some serious errors in how they behaved and handled this.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> It is funny because you shared a partisan hack job report..yet you are calling me partisan. LOL.. mirrors must be expensive in Europe.
> 
> When you "share" your little "reports" next time, please make sure you read them and fact check them? Please make sure they are credible? I think people should be responsible for what they share and post.
> 
> ...


Your control issues are not my problem.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> it's called deontology: _"In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action."_


This "deontology" versus "consequentialism" sounds like concepts appropriated from some academic source. I never took such a formal philosophy course. People do Te thinking with these ideas. 

Here is how I would reconcile the two. Consequentialism seems to focus on some well-defined nearby result. There is no such thing as "an action in itself." All actions must be observed by the universe as a whole. All actions have far reaching results beyond immediacy. 

Off hand I don't know how to exemplify this. Here's a try: A falling domino has the consequence of felling the domino next to it. However falling dominoes, in general, always illustrate one of Newton's laws of motion. By allowing a domino to fall, the entire world can collapse. (My Ti thinking needs a little work.) Better: A falling domino illustrates what happens with gravitational forces. By allowing such forces to exist, such forces will affect everything everywhere.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Sparky said:


> You are talking about something like having people from Africa, to Australia and Europe stay in their homes and never venture outside for three weeks, with everyone getting the vaccine. That's not very realistic.
> 
> People need to think about how to live with the virus, and go about their lives, while taking precautions like maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It's not about finding ways to get everyone around the globe vaccinated, and having them stay in their homes for three weeks.


You are right. We can't isolate everyone for three weeks. That's why we have this unhappy situation. But what if it were for two weeks? One week? The wealthy part of the world could take care of the poor part of the world for one week? No. Too hard logistically. 

There is another way. That is, not to isolate people, but rather a whole continent. That's what these travel restrictions attempt to do. Unfortunately large areas leak as people will both leave and enter carrying the virus with them. 

There might be a compromise. Have island communities isolated. Thousands of such communities all around the world. Then as the virus is defeated outside you don't have to mask or vaccinate people inside these island communities. Hard to explain.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> You are right. We can't isolate everyone for three weeks. That's why we have this unhappy situation. But what if it were for two weeks? One week? The wealthy part of the world could take care of the poor part of the world for one week? No. Too hard logistically.
> 
> There is another way. That is, not to isolate people, but rather a whole continent. That's what these travel restrictions attempt to do. Unfortunately large areas leak as people will both leave and enter carrying the virus with them.
> 
> There might be a compromise. Have island communities isolated. Thousands of such communities all around the world. Then as the virus is defeated outside you don't have to mask or vaccinate people inside these island communities. Hard to explain.


It's almost impossible to have people stay in their homes for one week in a developed country. If everyone stays inside, then no one will be there to fight fires, fix plumbing, internet or electricity, send an ambulance, take out the trash, send food, deliver babies, or even work at the hospital.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> This "deontology" versus "consequentialism" sounds like concepts appropriated from some academic source. I never took such a formal philosophy course. People do Te thinking with these ideas.


Well, neither have I, but you mentioned the trolley problem and asked for the name, both of which are derived from "formal" academic philosophy. I don't think it matters, philosophy is something anyone can delve in without reading any books. I don't think it's exclusive to Te, the best philosophers have been NTPs.



> Here is how I would reconcile the two. Consequentialism seems to focus on some well-defined nearby result. There is no such thing as "an action in itself." All actions must be observed by the universe as a whole. All actions have far reaching results beyond immediacy.
> 
> Off hand I don't know how to exemplify this. Here's a try: A falling domino has the consequence of felling the domino next to it. However falling dominoes, in general, always illustrate one of Newton's laws of motion. By allowing a domino to fall, the entire world can collapse. (My Ti thinking needs a little work.) Better: A falling domino illustrates what happens with gravitational forces. By allowing such forces to exist, such forces will affect everything everywhere.


dunno if they can really be reconciled though people try, consequentialism focuses on the result regardless of if the action is right and wrong, that's a key element. It's not a question of whether actions have results but what are those results gonna be, really. That's why right and wrong can be such a greatly important thing when we consider the result. For example, the guards beating the prisoner don't care if they're aggressing, they only care to get the result they want (the priests' compliance, I guess?), if we extrapolate this to society you have a conduct of people who 1) don't care about hurting other people as long as their goals are achieved 2) shifts blame/responsibility onto innocents for their own horrible actions. It's basically anti-social: it's self-destructive and inconsistent for society and human life, if we follow it far enough it can just lead us to extinction. 
I'm not sure if your example with the dominoes works since ethics/morality are about how we interact with one another.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@Sparky. If one is in the service profession they need to get vaccinated as they contact many people.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> dunno if they can really be reconciled though people try, consequentialism focuses on the result regardless of if the action is right and wrong, that's a key element. It's not a question of whether actions have results but what are those results gonna be, really. That's why right and wrong can be such a greatly important thing when we consider the result. For example, the guards beating the prisoner don't care if they're aggressing, they only care to get the result they want (the priests' compliance, I guess?), if we extrapolate this to society you have a conduct of people who 1) don't care about hurting other people as long as their goals are achieved 2) shifts blame/responsibility onto innocents for their own horrible actions. It's basically anti-social: it's self-destructive and inconsistent for society and human life, if we follow it far enough it can just lead us to extinction.
> I'm not sure if your example with the dominoes works since ethics/morality are about how we interact with one another.


There are results and there are results. Guards beating a prisoner may get the prisoner to comply. That is one kind of result. However *longer term,* the beating act gets around and the act of beating itself bleeds into the entire society atmosphere where it is okay to beat up on people if one wants something. 

The thing is, there are all kinds of consequences beside the clear immediate ones. Those consequences are either hard to see or are refused to see and measure. 

Here is another example. It was okay to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because it shortened the war with Japan in WW2. But that set a precedent that is it okay to drop such a bomb on cities. Now any country wants a nuclear bomb so it can threaten another country because it was okay to do it in the past. If the USA had never dropped the bomb, new countries would be* less inclined* to want such a bomb because it would be that much harder to visualize the consequences. Bad vibes and good vibes are another form of consequence.

On topic to this thread: Wearing a mask is a bad consequence if it is uncomfortable, embarrassing or expensive. Getting a shot is a bad consequence if one has to drag themselves away from their job to go out of their way to a place offering shots. Those are good consequences if *long term* it prevents the spread of a dangerous virus. It's hard to see the long term if the short term glares right in your face.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> You can't force everyone to take the flu shot, so it wouldn't make sense to force everyone to lockdown and take the COVID vaccine.
> 
> People need to learn to live or coexist with COVID, sooner rather than later.



For example, many nurses have to take the yearly flu shot or get canned. Again, they have the choice of taking it or getting canned. You are not forced. 

It is like saying if you refuse to wash your hands, you will get fired at the sandwich shop.

We can coexist with Covid once everyone gets vaccinated or get sick once.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Ssenptni said:


> Both the benefits and costs are unknown. A bit of pain in the arm is not an accurate characterization of the costs. There have been millions of injuries, many of them life-changing, and tens or more likely hundreds of thousands of deaths.


buddy, the risk of the vaccine is definitely outweighed by the risk of the illness.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Your control issues are not my problem.


Is the adherence to the scientific method stifling your "creativity"? Do you feel CONTROLLED? I wish we can ALL wildly speculate and draw conclusions based on nonsense, instead of slaving away to get accurate data. Life would be so much easier for all the scientists out there.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> For example, many nurses have to take the yearly flu shot or get canned. Again, they have the choice of taking it or getting canned. You are not forced.
> 
> It is like saying if you refuse to wash your hands, you will get fired at the sandwich shop.
> 
> We can coexist with Covid once everyone gets vaccinated or get sick once.


That makes sense in a way, though people still need to learn to live with the COVID, just like how people need to live with people who don't wash their hands after using the toilet 😄


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> That makes sense in a way, though people still need to learn to live with the COVID, just like how people need to live with people who don't wash their hands after using the toilet 😄


What do you mean we have to "learn" to live with Covid-19?
We are learning how to live with Covid-19, and part of that learning process is to have everyone vaccinated so Covid-19 will become an endemic that is like the yearly cold or something.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> What do you mean we have to "learn" to live with Covid-19?
> We are learning how to live with Covid-19, and part of that learning process is to have everyone vaccinated so Covid-19 will become an endemic that is like the yearly cold or something.


To live with COVID means no forced or mandated vaccinations, or lockdowns.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> To live with COVID means no forced or mandated vaccinations, or lockdowns.


We live in a society where murder is an inevitability and we have to live with it, the same way we have to live with people not washing their hands. 

Should we then remove all laws around that too and just "live" with it?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> We live in a society where murder is an inevitability and we have to live with it, the same way we have to live with people not washing their hands.
> 
> Should we then remove all laws around that too and just "live" with it?


Laws are not going to prevent crimes, just like a COVID vaccine is not going to prevent COVID from getting transmitted. To live with it means to accept it, and not force or mandate people to vaccinate.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Drecon said:


> If you're making a cost/benefits analysis it's important to look at both the costs and the benefits. People who are saying that the benefits are limited seem to be forgetting that the costs are negligeable. It's half an hour of your time and maybe a bit of pain in your arm. That's it. In return you get a lower chance of hospitalization (even if the chance was already low) and a lower chance of transmission too.
> 
> If you're making a cost/benefit analysis, the conclusion is clear. There are benefits and the costs are significantly lower.


there are other costs. My wife suffered terribly with side effects on the 2nd shot, had significant symptoms for 8 weeks. Had to seek medical attention near the end of that, with lingering symptoms for several more weeks after that. She has an immune disorder, so that was the "cause" for her to react. Not every one has that, but we cant say there are little or no costs as a blanket statement either. It is estimated that up to 50,000,000 Americans have some sort of immune disorder.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> I'm not following you. As far a cars go, I have to decide what safety features to follow. Maybe everyone is going 70mph fast. I don't want to go 55mph and have everyone pass me because that is less safe. Covid is different.


Un-vaxers have been called heartless murders, among other un-kind things. Here in this forum and elsewhere. It is how they are truly viewed by some. Why do you choose to what rules to follow, who gave you that right?




> Again I'm not following you. The Opiod crisis is harder to find a fix for. Getting a shot and wearing a mask is easy. That is why a mandate should work. There is no mandate for Opiod. Also a mandate for methadone is not needed. It is only for the addicted.


It's also intrusive. "needed" is a matter of opinion. As is whom needs vaccinated. A person doesn't know if they will live or die from covid until they get it and it runs it's course. Same with opioid addiction. We are deciding to not let people decide for themselves to have that chance, to let covid run it's course. If we save methadone for the addicted, we have already failed those individuals have we not? Treating a disorder rather than preventing it. I know this isn't the best analog, but we as a society don't adhere to consistent rules/thinking, making some seem rash and unfounded, which goes to the motive some have to not trust the rules.




> Same where I am. That's a good thing, isn't it? It's easy to not cell phone/ drive. It's easy to get a Covid shot. Both deserve a push to do what's wise. .


Agreed, but the push is where the rub lies, justifications and consequences aren't well aligned to some (many?).


----------



## mug_cake (Jul 18, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> I'm sure conservatives would start throwing a fit if people started going in stores with their tits out or no underwear on. lol It infringes on our human rights or whatever to have to wear a shirt in public, but people seem to be able to get used to it.
> 
> Wearing a mask for fifteen minutes is not even that difficult.
> 
> ...


Your comparison to mask wearing and public nudity is hilarious but not sure if it's really the same thing. I guess if we are just looking at public safety than all people really need are shoes maybe? lol.

I agree it is very hard to wear a mask for a long shift and I do have sympathy for those people.

I really wish we could all wear masks in public when the spread is bad but unfortunately I think too many people would throw a fit. Stores can make their own policies but stores value money more than they value public safety. Until businesses and companies decide to put public safety before profits I think we are just stuck.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Ssenptni said:


> Both the benefits and costs are unknown. A bit of pain in the arm is not an accurate characterization of the costs. There have been millions of injuries, many of them life-changing, and tens or more likely hundreds of thousands of deaths.


The costs and benefits of what? What is unknown? You mean lockdowns? Lockdowns wouldn't be necessary if everyone were vaccinated, but they aren't. 

What injuries? You mean from Covid or something else?



Sparky said:


> On a similar note, doctors and nurses shouldn't be forced to take the COVID vaccine either, just like how they don't have to take the flu vaccine.


If those same doctors & nurses were pointing a gun at you, are you saying the cops shouldn't force them not to point their guns?



Sparky said:


> People need to coexist with COVID, instead of finding ways for everyone to take a vaccine or lockdown.


You mean we should all get used to these diseases and not fight them? You mean we should get used to dying and crippling afteraffects?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> Un-vaxers have been called heartless murders, among other un-kind things. Here in this forum and elsewhere.


Right. That is not kind. There is more to un-vaxers than that. 



chad86tsi said:


> Why do you choose to what rules to follow, who gave you that right?


Since you made that personal to me, I prefer to make suggestions, not orders. It may be wise or unwise not to follow "rules."



chad86tsi said:


> It's also intrusive. "needed" is a matter of opinion.


I would say what is recommended depends on the situation.



chad86tsi said:


> A person doesn't know if they will live or die from covid until they get it and it runs it's course.


True, but we can follow statistics. I prefer to look both ways before crossing the street. * I don't have to. There is no mandate.* I just prefer to take the best odds.



chad86tsi said:


> If we save methadone for the addicted, we have already failed those individuals have we not?


Again I'm not following what you're saying. I'm not addicted (so far). I don't want to take methadone just in case I do get addicted later. Besides, last time I heard, methadone itself is addicting. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> The costs and benefits of what? What is unknown? You mean lockdowns? Lockdowns wouldn't be necessary if everyone were vaccinated, but they aren't.
> 
> What injuries? You mean from Covid or something else?
> 
> ...


Hi, living with COVID means to find ways to coexist, not forcing or mandating vaccinations, as well as lockdowns. Previously, there are AIDS and SARS drug cocktails that treat the disease quite effectively, and there are newer drugs on the market helping to treat the disease. There are also many ways to prevent getting sick, even when one has the virus.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Since you made that personal to me, I prefer to make suggestions, not orders. It may be wise or unwise not to follow "rules."


does this apply to all rules, or just the ones we fee like not following? Seems there is room to exercise some choice, but people also seem to disagree about where this "room" extends.



> I would say what is recommended depends on the situation.


and when we don't all read the "situation" the same?



> True, but we can follow statistics. I prefer to look both ways before crossing the street. * I don't have to. There is no mandate.* I just prefer to take the best odds.


It's safer not to drive in a car, but so many of us do because it suits us. The Best odds are to not do this at all. As to looking both ways, you aren't imposing on others when you do so. Would you seek to mandate it, seems like a logical step to take, why not make that choice for others?



> Again I'm not following what you're saying. I'm not addicted (so far). I don't want to take methadone just in case I do get addicted later. Besides, last time I heard, methadone itself is addicting. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Some people don't believe they will get infected with Covid Either, so they don't want to take a vaccine they thusly think they don't need. It's starting to look like we will be perpetually taking covid shots, a new addiction?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Laws are not going to prevent crimes, just like a COVID vaccine is not going to prevent COVID from getting transmitted. To live with it means to accept it, and not force or mandate people to vaccinate.


so why should we have laws?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> so why should we have laws?


Laws are there so that the "right ways" to run society are passed from generation to generation, and that people have a common standard with which to conduct themselves. The same reason why people demand themselves to get up for work every morning, exercise daily, study before exams, and to pay attention to what they eat, and want future generations to also pay attention to these things, so that the "right ways" to run society can continue, instead of being forgotten.

People need to learn to live with COVID. Living with COVID means to find ways to coexist, not forcing or mandating vaccinations, as well as lockdowns. Previously, there are AIDS and SARS drug cocktails that treat the disease quite effectively, and there are newer drugs on the market helping to treat the disease. There are also many ways to prevent getting sick, even when one has the virus.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Sparky said:


> Hi, living with COVID means to find ways to coexist, not forcing or mandating vaccinations, as well as lockdowns. Previously, there are AIDS and SARS drug cocktails that treat the disease quite effectively, and there are newer drugs on the market helping to treat the disease.


You say previously there are "drug cocktails that treat the disease quite effectively." How can you take those cocktails or newer drugs without a mandate or at least strong urging? 



Sparky said:


> There are also many ways to prevent getting sick, even when one has the virus.


How? Once you have the virus, you can spread it to unsuspecting others. Also, how do you know you have the virus if you have no symptoms yet? You have to take a test, right? If you have to take a test, why not take the shot ... almost the same.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> does this apply to all rules, or just the ones we fee like not following? Seems there is room to exercise some choice, but people also seem to disagree about where this "room" extends.


Agreed. But there are all kinds of suggestions, rules, curfews, mandates and laws. Some are more urgent than others. The less urgent ones we can decide for ourselves if we want to follow. The more urgent ones are more urgent because supposedly "wiser" lawmakers have decided we should follow them. Statistics show it is better to wear seat belts in cars than not. You take a bigger chance if you don't wear seat belts. I don't decide curfews. I can disobey them but at the same time don't want to get shot by a bullet. Same with getting a Covid shot. I didn't decide that. The virology scientists made the ruling. Virology scientists don't make the mandates, but they do urge the shots. Lawmakers or politicians make the mandates.


chad86tsi said:


> It's safer not to drive in a car, but so many of us do because it suits us. The Best odds are to not do this at all.


We drive in cars because we balance the reward against the risk. Life requires risk. 



chad86tsi said:


> As to looking both ways, you aren't imposing on others when you do so. Would you seek to mandate it, seems like a logical step to take, why not make that choice for others?


Ah but if you get hit because you didn't look, you ARE imposing on others. Your loved ones will have to take care of you. All sorts of paper work is generated. It means time and trouble for others. Others have to pay for your casket although you may get nice flowers. Law makers put out a mandate for no jaywalking but it is not enforced so much. When to enforce laws or not is a whole big thing.



chad86tsi said:


> Some people don't believe they will get infected with Covid Either, so they don't want to take a vaccine they thusly think they don't need. It's starting to look like we will be perpetually taking covid shots, a new addiction?


People can believe and think wrongly. Covid is a disease where scientists are the experts. They know better than our own "thinking." Politicians are like us. They want to go their own way. There are unwise and wise politicians. I say better to follow the wise ones. How do you tell? Get educated. Listen. Follow the experts until you find out the experts can be wrong.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> You say previously there are "drug cocktails that treat the disease quite effectively." How can you take those cocktails or newer drugs without a mandate or at least strong urging?
> 
> 
> How? Once you have the virus, you can spread it to unsuspecting others. Also, how do you know you have the virus if you have no symptoms yet? You have to take a test, right? If you have to take a test, why not take the shot ... almost the same.


Hi, a test does not involve a needle, so it's less invasive than vaccination.

People need to live with the virus, which means no forced or mandated vaccination, and no lockdowns. The sooner people coexist with COVID, the better for everyone.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I just had a brainstorm. If this Omicron virus isn't as lethal as the Delta, why not deliberately spread it around and fewer people will die. I hear virus mutations tend to get weaker (@NIHM where are you when we need you?) The new virus would act like a vaccine and we would beat it at its own game.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

Let people live in peace my god .... All this mental illness is because of these maniacal defenders of nonsense.

People are smarter than they think , they don't need to be told every 30 min about covid , and they will fail because they know nothing about the human .


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

superloco3000 said:


> they don't need to be told every 30 min about covid ,


You don't think so? Until new habits are formed, this

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> Let people live in peace my god .... All this mental illness is because of these maniacal defenders of nonsense.
> 
> People are smarter than they think , they don't need to be told every 30 min about covid , and they will fail because they know nothing about the human .


Smart people need to be reminded of positive behaviors. 

It has nothing to do with intelligence.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> Here's the thing. Picture a field with thousands of rats. They feed and multiply ... until there is no more food. Then they start to die until all are gone. That's what happens if all are vaccinated and there are lockdowns. The virus has no more food. The virus can last for many hours if not days, but eventually dies because there is no more food. Same with newer strains. As the present strain dies, there is less virus to have the chance to mutate. What is left can mutate all it wants, but there is no more food because all the people are either isolated away from it or immune.
> 
> All it takes is *one group* of unmasked, unvaccinated people and the virus finds them and lives on. It's like the dying rats found food. Hide the food and the hungry virus dies.


Where does your confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccines come from?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

ENFPathetic said:


> Where does your confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccines come from?


my friend who is on immune suppressants had 2 doses of moderna, and she got covid-19 two weeks ago. She suffered from Covid-19 but is pulling through.

Her right-wing family and her actually "regretted" that she got the vaccine until she got covid-19...

I can only imagine if she didn't have the vaccine.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ENFPathetic said:


> Where does your confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccines come from?


This is an excellent question. It is a science question. First of all there are "experts" and they could be wrong. All the experts I hear on the news favor the vaccine's effectiveness. I don't hear exceptions. Now by "effectiveness" there is a measure of that. It depends on how many shots. With all three shots, the claim is 95 percent. 95 percent of what? It depends on antibody amount in the body (@NIHM needed to verify that or look it up.) If one is auto-immune, it's harder to get the antibody count up there as the body doesn't get as good a chance to manufacture antibodies. It's all a matter of risk. Also age matters.

My personal confidence is a matter of favorable or unfavorable odds. If the odds are 95 percent, I'll take that. If the odds are 50-50, I'm worried. Another issue is what an "expert" says and how he or she says it. If they are technical and give a lot of scientific explanations and I can follow it, I have more confidence. If the speaker skirts over reasons for effectiveness and I see possible holes in their statements, then I wonder. Details matter because they all have be consistent. The more consistent, the closer to the truth. 

It helps to know how science works. Sometimes simplicity is better if the logic holds up. Sometimes simplicity skirts over cause and effect and we have to doubt. Sometimes complexity can fool one if the conspirator spends a lot of effort concocting something. Then one has to examine the details for flaws.

Did I answer your Q? It's a good one.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> our prime minister said, in the parliament, that being intubated outside of the ICU is not a problem and there's no evidence to suggest these people have higher mortality 🤩


Sounds like he was elected by people who read a bs report about vaccine death?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Laws are there so that the "right ways" to run society are passed from generation to generation, and that people have a common standard with which to conduct themselves. The same reason why people demand themselves to get up for work every morning, exercise daily, study before exams, and to pay attention to what they eat, and want future generations to also pay attention to these things, so that the "right ways" to run society can continue, instead of being forgotten.
> 
> People need to learn to live with COVID. Living with COVID means to find ways to coexist, not forcing or mandating vaccinations, as well as lockdowns. Previously, there are AIDS and SARS drug cocktails that treat the disease quite effectively, and there are newer drugs on the market helping to treat the disease. There are also many ways to prevent getting sick, even when one has the virus.


So why can't wearing a mask be the "right way" to run a society during a pandemic?

why can't get everyone vaccinated to be the right way to run a society?

Obviously learning the "right way" to conduct yourself prevents unwanted behavior (AKA crime)..


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Your control issues are not my problem.


It is called being responsible. Something adults learned how to do.

When I send out information, I do my best to make sure it is accurate.


I do not care what your personal opinions are. All I care about is when you write your little posts, make sure you at least read the articles or that they are accurate. The forum will thank you.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> This is an excellent question. It is a science question. First of all there are "experts" and they could be wrong. All the experts I hear on the news favor the vaccine's effectiveness. I don't hear exceptions. Now by "effectiveness" there is a measure of that. It depends on how many shots. With all three shots, the claim is 95 percent. 95 percent of what? It depends on antibody amount in the body (@NIHM needed to verify that or look it up.) If one is auto-immune, it's harder to get the antibody count up there as the body doesn't get as good a chance to manufacture antibodies. It's all a matter of risk. Also age matters.
> 
> My personal confidence is a matter of favorable or unfavorable odds. If the odds are 95 percent, I'll take that. If the odds are 50-50, I'm worried. Another issue is what an "expert" says and how he or she says it. If they are technical and give a lot of scientific explanations and I can follow it, I have more confidence. If the speaker skirts over reasons for effectiveness and I see possible holes in their statements, then I wonder. Details matter because they all have be consistent. The more consistent, the closer to the truth.
> 
> ...


Yes, but as you might imagine, it's only left me with more questions. Did you check these "experts" out? Their credentials? Their track record when it comes to being truthful? And most importantly, have you had a chance to look at the studies that led them to conclude that the vaccine is 95% effective after a third booster? Also for clarity's sake, is it a 95% chance you will survive if you catch it, or is it a 95% chance you won't catch it at all? If you have sources at hand that you could easily share, that would be a big help.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

General Lee Awesome said:


> my friend who is on immune suppressants had 2 doses of moderna, and she got covid-19 two weeks ago. She suffered from Covid-19 but is pulling through.
> 
> Her right-wing family and her actually "regretted" that she got the vaccine until she got covid-19...
> 
> I can only imagine if she didn't have the vaccine.


I'm glad she's ok.

I'm sure people want to trust that there is a reliable way of dealing with threats to the health of their loved ones. They're just afraid because of how irresponsible and deceptive the government and the news outlets have been for a long time.

If leaders lead by example, and news outlets report the fact checked honest truth, less people will die in times of crisis.

If leaders feign servitude and camaraderie but attend parties while telling you that you cannot visit your loved ones for the greater good. If news outlets report emotive and divisive propaganda while pretending to be impartial. If this is the case, then it's unreasonable to expect any free person to then be so intimately trusting towards their leaders or their news outlets.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ENFPathetic said:


> Yes, but as you might imagine, it's only left me with more questions. Did you check these "experts" out? Their credentials? Their track record when it comes to being truthful? And most importantly, have you had a chance to look at the studies that led them to conclude that the vaccine is 95% effective after a third booster? Also for clarity's sake, is it a 95% chance you will survive if you catch it, or is it a 95% chance you won't catch it at all? If you have sources at hand that you could easily share, that would be a big help.


My personal stake in this is just that, personal. I am little better than the average poster here and have no "expert" reputation to uphold, so I don't care that much, except for being logical.

My favorite expert is Dr. Scott Gottlieb. I just grabbed this link and it is old (Nov. 2021) about Omicron, but it shows how detailed he is. He gives no statistics here. You tell me if you see him as someone not to be trusted. I see him as cool.









Transcript: Dr. Scott Gottlieb on "Face the Nation," November 28, 2021


The following is a transcript of an interview with former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb on Sunday, November 28, 2021.




www.cbsnews.com





The 95 percent refers to not catching it at all. I have no link. While it is true a lie repeated over and over is taken as truth, I don't have time to find a confirming link. My impression is the CDC constantly takes statistics so effectiveness of a vaccine against a changing virus doesn't stay constant. Also the spokespeople say if you do catch Covid it isn't nearly as bad as having no or only two shots. 

This is enough for me to want to get all three shots and I have. If someone comes out to say the above is not true, I'm waiting ... . One has to keep their eyes and ears open about all this.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ENFPathetic said:


> If leaders feign servitude and camaraderie but attend parties while telling you that you cannot visit your loved ones for the greater good. If news outlets report emotive and divisive propaganda while pretending to be impartial. If this is the case, then it's unreasonable to expect any free person to then be so intimately trusting towards their leaders or their news outlets.


Leaders in what? Science leaders are not the same as political leaders. Political leaders are not only flawed human beings, but they want to take measures against lockdowns which hurt people in the pocketbook. Science leaders have a reputation they don't want to lose so they try to be impartial. The dishonest scientists are quickly exposed by their competitors.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> My personal stake in this is just that, personal. I am little better than the average poster here and have no "expert" reputation to uphold, so I don't care that much, except for being logical.
> 
> My favorite expert is Dr. Scott Gottlieb. I just grabbed this link and it is old (Nov. 2021) about Omicron, but it shows how detailed he is. He gives no statistics here. You tell me if you see him as someone not to be trusted. I see him as cool.
> 
> ...


Makes sense. You don't see a reason not to trust this doctor. I can't say I know of a reason why you shouldn't trust him. At the same time I don't know him well enough to take him at his word. This is not on him. I'm just not familiar with the medical community.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> Leaders in what? Science leaders are not the same as political leaders. Political leaders are not only flawed human beings, but they want to take measures against lockdowns which hurt people in the pocketbook. Science leaders have a reputation they don't want to lose so they try to be impartial. The dishonest scientists are quickly exposed by their competitors.


This is true. However, it is the political leaders who are enforcing restrictions and aggressively pushing the vaccines.

Has the medical community reached a consensus regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines? Or is there a difference of opinion among the experts?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ENFPathetic said:


> You don't see a reason not to trust this doctor. I can't say I know of a reason why you shouldn't trust him. At the same time I don't know him well enough to take him at his word. This is not on him. I'm just not familiar with the medical community.


Sure. I don't trust him just because he's a doctor though. He happens to be a leader of doctors in his field. I have no reason to trust him the first time I hear him. I try to listen, take it in, and see if he is consistent in what he says. (Gottlieb appears to be). When a speaker vacillates, you now can't be sure. Don't trust anyone just because there is an M.D. after his name. Some of then are idiots. Some of them are trying to sell something. Gottlieb doesn't advertise as far as I know. He gets interviews. Interviews are good because a good interviewer will raise questions. Then you have to check out how confident and consistent they are in their answers.



ENFPathetic said:


> However, it is the political leaders who are enforcing restrictions and aggressively pushing the vaccines.
> 
> Has the medical community reached a consensus regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines? Or is there a difference of opinion among the experts?


Not all political leaders. Some are anti-vaxers, but nowadays more and more are going along with the vaccine crowd.

Yes the medical community more or less all agree. I watch the news though to try to keep up with changing conditions. For example the new Omicron virus everyone agrees it spreads more easily. What they are now trying to check out is, is this virus milder when you do catch it? And how much milder. That is yet to be determined.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> Sure. I don't trust him just because he's a doctor though. He happens to be a leader of doctors in his field. I have no reason to trust him the first time I hear him. I try to listen, take it in, and see if he is consistent in what he says. (Gottlieb appears to be). When a speaker vacillates, you now can't be sure. Don't trust anyone just because there is an M.D. after his name. Some of then are idiots. Some of them are trying to sell something. Gottlieb doesn't advertise as far as I know. He gets interviews. Interviews are good because a good interviewer will raise questions. Then you have to check out how confident and consistent they are in their answers.
> 
> 
> Not all political leaders. Some are anti-vaxers, but nowadays more and more are going along with the vaccine crowd.
> ...


A consensus in the medical community is very reassuring. You've convinced me that it's worth thoroughly researching and potentially taking the vaccine. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## Ssenptni (Mar 26, 2021)

.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Ssenptni said:


> But the idea that there is consensus is simply false.


There seems to be a consensus to me. Where do you get that?



Ssenptni said:


> What is the risk that says a vaccine is necessary?
> Research this, and it all falls apart immediately.


A vaccine is not "necessary." It's just that the side effects of this vaccine are about the same as for most any other common vaccine: minimal. The side effects of Covid (which you get by not taking the vaccine) are long term disabilities, death, and spreading to family and others.



Ssenptni said:


> What do case, hospitalization, and death counts mean?


They are, as above, the side effects of not getting the shots. The counts are undesirably high.



Ssenptni said:


> They have nothing to do with risk, nothing to do with causality.


Can you explain that? They represent the bad outcome possibility. The good outcome would be you get lucky. Let me explain "causality." Flipping a coin is the cause of getting half heads and half tails.



Ssenptni said:


> There is no coherent notion of the risk you face from cov. So what reason is there to take a vaccine.


How so? You don't know what happens if you get Covid. It gets into your body and you are contagious?

I hope I've overcome your objections. Any more issues?


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Can you explain that? They represent the bad outcome possibility. The good outcome would be you get lucky. Let me explain "causality." Flipping a coin is the cause of getting half heads and half tails.


THe figures vary, but it is said that about 10% of men are gay, what does that say about you?

In the most recent US high school graduation year, the graduation rate was 86%. What does that say about my daughters likelihood of graduating? If you really think about all the factors that goes in to whether or not a student graduates, the "average" has very little meaning to any individual student's outcome. It is merely the mathematical result of every singles persons individual actions, and individual variables played out to conclusion.

If we were playing a game of heads or tails and it has been heads 75 times in a row, what are the chances it will be tails this time?

I look at numbers, and understand they can be useful, but that usefulness has limits. Their meaning can be also misapplied when emotions enter the formula.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> So why can't wearing a mask be the "right way" to run a society during a pandemic?
> 
> why can't get everyone vaccinated to be the right way to run a society?
> 
> Obviously learning the "right way" to conduct yourself prevents unwanted behavior (AKA crime)..


You tend to think that if everyone wears a mask or gets a vaccination, then there would not be any COVID. This is not facing reality.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Your post is about probability and its theory.



chad86tsi said:


> THe figures vary, but it is said that about 10% of men are gay, what does that say about you?


How much do you know about me already? Am I male? If you don't know that, you have zero information from what you said. If you know only that I am male, the odds are 10%.



chad86tsi said:


> In the most recent US high school graduation year, the graduation rate was 86%. What does that say about my daughters likelihood of graduating?


86% if you didn't know she was your daughter. 



chad86tsi said:


> If you really think about all the factors that goes in to whether or not a student graduates, the "average" has very little meaning to any individual student's outcome. It is merely the mathematical result of every singles persons individual actions, and individual variables played out to conclusion.


The more you know about a person (sex, background of parents, neighborhood, quality of school, etc.), the more you can adjust the odds of graduating. The average is meaningful when you don't know* anything.*



chad86tsi said:


> If we were playing a game of heads or tails and it has been heads 75 times in a row, what are the chances it will be tails this time?


What kind of coin? Is it unbiased? The odds are fifty-fifty. But if you get 75 in a row, you are allowed to be suspicious.



chad86tsi said:


> I look at numbers, and understand they can be useful, but that usefulness has limits. Their meaning can be also misapplied when emotions enter the formula.


True enough. How do we make our judgments? Science is supposed to avoid emotional decisions. Is it good science or bad science? Looking at emotions themselves is another special kind of science. Just look at how court legal trials operate. How are they decided? There are specialists who help lawyers pick a jury. Lawyers try to appeal to the jury's emotions.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> You tend to think that if everyone wears a mask or gets a vaccination, then there would not be any COVID. This is not facing reality.


Good thing I didn't say that.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

ENFPathetic said:


> I'm glad she's ok.
> 
> I'm sure people want to trust that there is a reliable way of dealing with threats to the health of their loved ones. They're just afraid because of how irresponsible and deceptive the government and the news outlets have been for a long time.
> 
> ...


The leaders themselves took the vaccine. If they are not leading by example, I don't know who is.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Your post is about probability and its theory.


is this side discussion of numbers about covid numbers, or about something else? are covid numbers used to convey probability?



> How much do you know about me already? Am I male? If you don't know that, you have zero information from what you said. If you know only that I am male, the odds are 10%.


Good questions, it seems the numbers don't say much of you.




> 86% if you didn't know she was your daughter.


but I do. Thus the number has little meaning to me or to her.



> The more you know about a person (sex, background of parents, neighborhood, quality of school, etc.), the more you can adjust the odds of graduating. The average is meaningful when you don't know* anything.*


Good points, this is how I use the numbers. They can influence decision making, but they have not already determined my future. Just because a number is true does not mean that number applies to me.



> What kind of coin? Is it unbiased? The odds are fifty-fifty. But if you get 75 in a row, you are allowed to be suspicious.


Meddling with the object? Unbiased ? than never happens... 





> True enough. How do we make our judgments? Science is supposed to avoid emotional decisions. Is it good science or bad science? Looking at emotions themselves is another special kind of science. Just look at how court legal trials operate. How are they decided? There are specialists who help lawyers pick a jury. Lawyers try to appeal to the jury's emotions.


Interesting parallel. So when 2 different truths are presented that can't both be true, we use various methods to eliminate the falsehoods. Does it always work? Is it susceptible to manipulation/corruption? Have we seen un-just justice From from such a system. Has anyone ever been hurt by it?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

BigApplePi said:


> True enough. How do we make our judgments? Science is supposed to avoid emotional decisions. Is it good science or bad science? Looking at emotions themselves is another special kind of science. Just look at how court legal trials operate. How are they decided? There are specialists who help lawyers pick a jury. Lawyers try to appeal to the jury's emotions.





chad86tsi said:


> Interesting parallel. So when 2 different truths are presented that can't both be true, we use various methods to eliminate the falsehoods. Does it always work? Is it susceptible to manipulation/corruption? Have we seen un-just justice From from such a system. Has anyone ever been hurt by it?


"2 different truths"? It's hard enough to get one. Who knows what the truth is about political decisions, jury trials, any human decision for the best? These all are situations with lots of variables ... too many for a controlled scientific study. We are left with looking at as many variables as we can, evaluating them the best we can and noting how exceptions can cause things to go all wrong. Sometimes there is a black swan or a lightning hit. 

Yes there is room for corruption/ manipulation. Who is making the decisions? Are they for themselves or the public? How informed are they? Is there a fight over who makes the decision above and beyond the subject of the decision?

My opinion for the Covid problem is to wear a mask if you have some and spread around the vaccines all over the world to try to stay ahead of mutations. Do I think I'm right? You tell me. I am not in control but I can make recommendations.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> "2 different truths"? It's hard enough to get one. Who knows what the truth is about political decisions, jury trials, any human decision for the best? These all are situations with lots of variables ... too many for a controlled scientific study. We are left with looking at as many variables as we can, evaluating them the best we can and noting how exceptions can cause things to go all wrong. Sometimes there is a black swan or a lightning hit.
> 
> Yes there is room for corruption/ manipulation. Who is making the decisions? Are they for themselves or the public? How informed are they? Is there a fight over who makes the decision above and beyond the subject of the decision?
> 
> My opinion for the Covid problem is to wear a mask if you have some and spread around the vaccines all over the world to try to stay ahead of mutations. Do I think I'm right? You tell me. I am not in control but I can make recommendations.


With a court system, judges are elected, or appointed by those whom were elected, and all can also be removed. In major issues, the Jury of my peers decides what the "truth" is, and a judge is just there to steer the process "fairly". There is also an appeal process and lots of well defined law to rely upon, much of which can be voted upon and/or repealed. There are also real consequences for cheaters and corruption, and a process to use to find them and prosecute them. A system of accountability built right in to the whole process.

Does ^this^ exist in the whole "covid" thing? I can see why some get pretty angsty and defiant about the whole thing.

I wear a mask even when others won't, seems silly not to. Science and numbers don't dictate this decision, common sense does.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Speaking of numbers :

"We don't have any faith in the numbers on the CDC website, and we never refer to them," a spokesman for the Philadelphia Department of Public Health told the outlet.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdc-over-counted-number-people-190840487.html


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

rosesandgold said:


> There are so many people who seem to rebel against the government, last weekend there even was a big gathering in my country where people believed they were "fighting for their freedom" against the measures. The Covid positives have been going up again, we have had some new measures, a partial lockdown, and yet there are so many people gathering together and going to clubs and bars and party.
> 
> What is the psychology behind this behaviour?
> Are these people just stupid, are they scared, do they just have no compassion and empathy for others? Do they not want to understand how Covid has impacted people's lives and do they not care?
> ...


Coz forcing people to vaxx or constricting them to their homes for long periods amount of time is a breach of their freedom, not hard to understand. You could easily argue that COVID lockdown = house arrest and forcing vaccines without giving people enough time to monitor long term effects is not ideal.

Obviously getting the COVID is less than ideal and spreading it is worse but the vaccine hardly solves the COVID problem, it just gets your body to create spiked proteins so your immune system would recognize them when you do catch the COVID, it's not full proof, you have to keep taking booster shots forever and theres a very low chance you could get cardiac arrest and die from the Vaccine itself, albiet at a much lower rate than COVID which is already very low at roughly 1%.

If you look at the larger picture and consider the thoughts of everyone you can easily see that no situation is ideal, you either force people to sacrifice their freedoms to try "fight" COVID or you let everyone do w/e and spread COVID. At the end of the day COVID is just nature's way to remind us survival of the fittest so you're obviously going to have a divide in opinions.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Good thing I didn't say that.


People need to face reality, that COVID is not going away just because everyone gets a mask or a vaccine.

The sooner society returns to normal operations, the better.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ENTJudgement said:


> Coz forcing people to vaxx or constricting them to their homes for long periods amount of time is a breach of their freedom, not hard to understand. You could easily argue that COVID lockdown = house arrest and forcing vaccines without giving people enough time to monitor long term effects is not ideal.


Is it force or just strongly recommended? You don't HAVE to look both ways crossing the street, but it's recommended to look. Sweeping up your dead and mangled body is a pain.



ENTJudgement said:


> You could easily argue that COVID lockdown = house arrest and forcing vaccines without giving people enough time to monitor long term effects is not ideal.


What long term effects? Are you going to take science training to study long term? I thought the long term was you get to live a healthy life. Short term you get sick and spread sickness.

Take the vaccine and you stop the spread. Then you won't need any lockdowns.



ENTJudgement said:


> you have to keep taking booster shots forever


No you don't. Not if 90 percent of the population becomes immune for a time period. As soon as no one has it, you can't catch it because it isn't there.



ENTJudgement said:


> At the end of the day COVID is just nature's way to remind us survival of the fittest so you're obviously going to have a divide in opinions.


You are okay with survival of the fittest? Some would disagree. What about those who survive with blood clots, loss of smell and other disabilities?


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Is it force or just strongly recommended?


It's "do it or else". So long as there is "or else" attached, it feels like force. The "or else" varies by city/county/state, but it exists in some form almost everywhere, and the fed is actively trying to push it through nationally as well.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> People need to face reality, that COVID is not going away just because everyone gets a mask or a vaccine.
> 
> The sooner society returns to normal operations, the better.



And part of being prepared for reality is to get vaccinated. I do not see how they are mutually exclusive. The more people get vaccinated, the easier it will be to transition to normal operations.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> And part of being prepared for reality is to get vaccinated. I do not see how they are mutually exclusive.


I can understand your argument for hospital workers, though for the general population, and the world at large, it's not realistic.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> I can understand your argument for hospital workers, though for the general population, and the world at large, it's not realistic.


How is getting vaccinated not part of facing the reality?

It is like wearing a seatbelt, or putting a helmet on while biking. You accept the risk of those activities, but also prepare for them.

We have the capacity to make enough vaccines for everyone, and all we need is to have laws to guide them.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> How is getting vaccinated not part of facing the reality?
> 
> It is like wearing a seatbelt, or putting a helmet on while biking. You accept the risk of those activities, but also prepare for them.


Getting vaccinated for something you might not have, is like replacing your limbs with synthetic ones, so as to prevent injuring them in the event of an emergency. You might think it's a good idea, though others would consider such an action foolish, especially when you consider how the limbs affect a person's memory and even mood, because of the skin and sensory organs.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Getting vaccinated for something you might not have, is like replacing your limbs with synthetic ones, so as to prevent injuring them in the event of an emergency. You might think it's a good idea, though others would consider such an action foolish, especially when you consider how the limbs affect a person's memory and even mood, because of the skin and sensory organs.


Are you replacing something when you got the vaccine?

BTW, I love your force analogies.. It is almost as good as certain someone's bs report.


Getting a vaccine is more like having an invisible shield that does not affect you or change you in any way. If Vaccination was like removing your limbs for synthetic ones, then you might have a point.

Here is an advice, next time when you come up with a "good" argument, run it through your head a few more times before you write it down. I will be most thankful.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Are you replacing something when you got the vaccine?
> 
> BTW, I love your force analogies.. It is almost as good as certain someone's bs report.
> 
> ...


I can understand your argument for having hospital workers getting vaccinated, though it's very unrealistic for the entire population to get vaccinated. COVID is not going away just because of vaccination, like the flu.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> I can understand your argument for having hospital workers getting vaccinated, though it's very unrealistic for the entire population to get vaccinated. COVID is not going away just because of vaccination, like the flu.


Why is it unrealistic to get the entire population vaccinated? We did it for smallpox, polio, measles..etc etc etc..

We don't need to worry about Covid-19 staying if we are all vaccinated. It would become an endemic like the seasonal flu.


----------



## Ssenptni (Mar 26, 2021)

.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Why is it unrealistic to get the entire population vaccinated? We did it for smallpox, polio, measles..etc etc etc..
> 
> We don't need to worry about Covid-19 staying if we are all vaccinated. It would become an endemic like the seasonal flu.


The other vaccinations are effective, because their viruses do not mutate as fast, or can only transmit to other people once they show symptoms. COVID can be transmitted without showing symptoms, and it's fast mutating. It's the same reason you don't vaccinate entire populations with the flu vaccine.


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

Well let me tell you, it's a combination of (or btw only read the OP) the unusual timing of covid (e.g., china was having some pretty big protests that were making national headlines....until Covid hit...).

Distrust in the government, when you get white-washed (and before that seems racist this is the term I am using):

"a deliberate concealment of someone's mistakes or faults in order to clear their name.
"the opposition called the report “a whitewash”

Lingering hard feelings over 9/11 and the greatest call to patriotism that our generation (and by that I mean people living in the last 50 years, not like pearl harbor or other generations faced, there is a gap), all of it building resentment and distrust in our government. Goes with the above narrative, "Vietnam! and Bush did 9/11."

Social and sensational medias growing in popularity, only reinforcing one's own ideal, and therefore one's own intelligence (shit's making us dumber people). 

Older advocates have more time on their hands than new ones. So people like Jane Fonda are coming back into popularity at the same time it's triggering older folks who actually remember going through those difficulties (and the lack of support they found when they came home). 

Lack of communal moral standards that are causing us to create our own, through the government, which is a basic "nono" for those who interpreted the constitution to mean, we are only legally accountable to the government, not morally/spiritually. And that government should only be concerned in government matters, not philosophies. 

The belief that those exact philosophies are EXACTLY what our government represents and that the archaic rules of the past are no longer relevant. 

The economy, no longer in the US (maybe world) can you support a family on a single income. Most people need to rely on two income parents, friends, families, or daycares to help care for their children. As such lessons can be learned from very early on. About history, about dissatisfaction and rebelliousness against the government, because most of the teaching people were "boomers" or "hippies". 

And the fact that political parties have been transitioned into thinkers vs. feelers (or prickles and goo, lol). If you're republican you love cold hard cash. If you're democrat you value people's experiences and want everyone to want to help them out. 

And finally trolls. People who say absurd things so elegantly that it causes you to question what's possible. 

So what we're essentially looking at is 2 groups offered a red pill or a blue pill, but regardless of what you chose you'll still be in the matrix. Some want freedom of choice. And the more that's restricted the more they will fight for it. Some are desperate for the government to step in and DO something to save the lives of their loved ones. 










We need a nation wide pow-wow. So we can all take a step back and see how our differences align, and how we're different. Rather than being all BPD and shit and saying it's all black and white.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> The other vaccinations are effective, because their viruses do not mutate as fast, or can only transmit to other people once they show symptoms. COVID can be transmitted without showing symptoms, and it's fast mutating. It's the same reason you don't vaccinate entire populations with the flu vaccine.


Why not vaccine everyone against the flu? let's say the deadly flu like the Spanish flu shows up. Why wouldn't you vaccine everyone against it?

What is preventing you from vaccinating everyone?

Even if the virus can mutate, having some immunity is better than having none. So it is still good to a vaccine against the virus. This is why most flu do not send us to the the graves because we have partial immunity against them. Flu shots are based on this principle. 

What we need is to convert Covid-19 to the flu, where it is still annoying but not deadly. So we need everyone to have some immunity. This will make the Covid-19 an edemic.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

I was going to read this whole thread, but then I realized I had only made it through one page of 14 and said fuck this. What's everybody so worried about; when China and the US finally have their little nuclear war, Covid will be the last thing on anybody's mind. Talk to me about vaccines when you're dragging your skin behind you.

@chad86tsi , I so missed your reasonableness.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

AnneM said:


> I was going to read this whole thread, but then I realized I had only made it through one page of 14 and said fuck this. What's everybody so worried about; when China and the US finally have their little nuclear war, Covid will be the last thing on anybody's mind. Talk to me about vaccines when you're dragging your skin behind you.
> 
> @chad86tsi , I so missed your reasonableness.


These people want you to feel afraid, so you sell your individual rights without anything in return.
They all criticize an individual who didn't want to wear a mask as if he was the most immoral being of all, but they don't talk about the fact that the CCP hid and made the virus spread faster, with false information.

Everyone has to act so that the virus spreads less but certain people act as if they have been handed the magic wand of superior morals and cannot go 1 day without talking about what others should do.
Also all the mistakes that happened in the Who because of political interests, only makes me more reluctant to the official discourse.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

@superloco3000 Yeah, what you said.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Why not vaccine everyone against the flu? let's say the deadly flu like the Spanish flu shows up. Why wouldn't you vaccine everyone against it?
> 
> What is preventing you from vaccinating everyone?
> 
> ...


That's like asking, why don't everyone just replace their limbs with synthetic ones, because synthetic ones can be made stronger and are easily fixable in case of damage. However, natural limbs are part of the sensory system, and can enhance once mood, improve memory, and energy levels.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> That's like asking, why don't everyone just replace their limbs with synthetic ones, because synthetic ones can be made stronger and are easily fixable in case of damage. However, natural limbs are part of the sensory system, and can enhance once mood, improve memory, and energy levels.


See this is what happens when you do not take my advice. I told you to stop making forced analogies that are not comparable.

How is getting a vaccine the same as replacing your limbs? does taking the vaccine make you lose something? NO?

The downside of the vaccine is much smaller than the downside of replacing your limbs. Get a grip.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> See this is what happens when you do not take my advice. I told you to stop making forced analogies that are not comparable.
> 
> How is getting a vaccine the same as replacing your limbs? does taking the vaccine make you lose something? NO?
> 
> It is like saying having people wear a seatbelt to drive is like saying you will HAVE to wear a suit of armor before you can drive. No.


The COVID vaccine actually changes something in your DNA using RNA, so it's actually a very invasive procedure. The alternative is to inject your body with a weakened HIV-like virus, neither is pleasant.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> The COVID vaccine actually changes something in your DNA using RNA, so it's actually a very invasive procedure. The alternative is to inject your body with a weakened HIV-like virus, neither is pleasant.


no it does not. What are you talking about

Can you tell me the process where RNA can be used to change your DNA without reverse transcriptase? Please


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> no it does not. What are you talking about
> 
> Can you tell me the process where RNA can be used to change your DNA without reverse transcriptase? Please


Also, a seatbelt will stop you from flying forward at 40 miles per hour, when your car suddenly stops when it crashes into something, while an armor will not stop you from flying into your windshield at that speed.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Also, a seatbelt will stop you from flying forward at 40 miles per hour, when your car suddenly stops when it crashes into something, while an armor will not stop you from flying into your windshield at that speed.


and synthetic limbs don't stop viruses.. vaccine does. What is your point?

like dude enough. your argument is crap. Just stop.

Prove that mRNA vaccine change your DNA


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> and synthetic limbs don't stop viruses.. vaccine does. What is your point?
> 
> like dude enough. your argument is crap. Just stop.
> 
> Prove that mRNA vaccine change your DNA


DNA makes proteins, and the COVID vaccine triggers cells to make a protein, which means it changes the DNA:









Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines


Learn how mRNA vaccines trigger an immune response against COVID-19.




www.cdc.gov


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> DNA makes proteins, and the COVID vaccine triggers cells to make a protein, which means it changes the DNA:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol man did you read the article you sent me?

How does protein synthesis actually work? Let me break it down for you.
Normal process:
*DNA*=> Transcription=> *mRNA *=> Translation => *protein *

Vaccine:

*Vaccine mRNA is taken up by the cell* => translation =>*protein *

What this means is that you can bypass the process of transcription where DNA is copied into mRNA by injecting your own mRNA. The mRNA you inject will directly go into the translation phase which will produce the protein. The mRNA does not need to alter the DNA to produce the protein, because mRNA is the messenger that your cells use to produce proteins.

DNA creates protein is what you learn in grade 6...

DNA creates mRNA and mRNA is turned into protein is what you learn in grade 10.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

superloco3000 said:


> These people want you to feel afraid, so you sell your individual rights without anything in return.


I agree.

Like @AnneM I read page 1 and was like ... page 14 OMG! Dare I chime in?



superloco3000 said:


> They all criticize an individual who didn't want to wear a mask as if he was the most immoral being of all, but they don't talk about the fact that the CCP hid and made the virus spread faster, with false information.


It's FAR FAR FAR worse than that I'm afraid. More on that in a second.



superloco3000 said:


> Everyone has to act so that the virus spreads less but certain people act as if they have been handed the magic wand of superior morals and cannot go 1 day without talking about what others should do.


Exactly, make your OWN choice. But accept that as moral duty, not as flippant.



superloco3000 said:


> Also all the mistakes that happened in the Who because of political interests, only makes me more reluctant to the official discourse.


Agreed. The WHO seems to rather OBVIOUSLY pander to the wishes of China. They are deeply compromised. I am not really a conservative and even I see this clearly, even from liberal news. Again, it is OBVIOUS.

And here is the more later ...

COVID seems to me to be a biological weapon. It was EITHER accidentally or intentionally released (opinion). My gut instinct is that it was intentionally and repeatedly released. The spread waves (again gut and data I've found concerning different strains) could not really result from natural spread. It almost had to be intentional. There are even spread waves in the initial COVID times that were OTHER contamination strains from the Wuhan lab (on record as such). It very hard to remain credulous in the belief that this is not being intended. 

And then the INSANE pressure to get vaccinated. Yeah ... right. Anyone speaking of trust (in policymaking, ruling entities) in such an environment is not awake, not sufficiently doubtful. I am HAPPY to suffer all chance. We all must suffer these billions of immoral choices of others and still, live, learn, earn wisdom, and evolve. Mandating choices is deeply immoral, attempting to usurp the burden of choice Love guarantees to all moral agents. Life and the earning of wisdom requires RISK. Let the risk increase. With greater suffering can arrive greater wisdom. Of course the wise only wish to increase NECESSARY suffering, making any possible intentional release(r) of COVID a deeply immoral actor on the world stage. 

It is risky these days to even speak or write openly about these issues because they are so polarizing. 

If someone wants to talk about a person's right to choose (and I do) when life and death hang in the balance, let them also realize that choice is offered to anyone when life and death hang in the balance. It IS about choice.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

@series0 yep and yep. My mom made me get vaccinated. Since i was planning to kill myself at the time I didn't care.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> Of course the wise only wish to increase NECESSARY suffering, making any possible intentional release(r) of COVID a deeply immoral actor on the world stage.


Things are not that complex. It's really simple. Do we do what keeps the individual free from pressure or do we do what keeps the crowd free from pressure? It's individual versus crowd. Which morality is to be picked?


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

BigApplePi said:


> Things are not that complex. It's really simple. Do we do what keeps the individual free from pressure or do we do what keeps the crowd free from pressure? It's individual versus crowd. Which morality is to be picked?


Apple Bottomed Brain, can ANYONE EVER be free from pressure???? Say it is so.







"People without masks.....dee do dee do....it's the terror of knowing they're not even vaxxed..."


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

AnneM said:


> Apple Bottomed Brain, can ANYONE EVER be free from pressure???? Say it is so.


To get anywhere, spring into action. Then relax and enjoy.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

BigApplePi said:


> To get anywhere, spring into action. Then relax and enjoy.


Those innuendoes, OMG. Im telling your wife. Hey, did yall ever move into a bigger apt or are you still fighting about it?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Lol man did you read the article you sent me?
> 
> How does protein synthesis actually work? Let me break it down for you.
> Normal process:
> ...


Yes, though the DNA has to have a sequence that matches with the mRNA to allow the transcription to take place. This means that whatever mRNA is introduced, there has to be a matching sequence on the DNA, and so, the DNA must be altered before the mRNA can be used.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Things are not that complex. It's really simple. Do we do what keeps the individual free from pressure or do we do what keeps the crowd free from pressure? It's individual versus crowd. Which morality is to be picked?


Everyone in that crowd is an individual.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

AnneM said:


> Those innuendoes, OMG. Im telling your wife. Hey, did yall ever move into a bigger apt or are you still fighting about it?


We are arguing about whether to let you in or not. Fierce. I haven't decided and she has not made up her mind. Everything is pending in limbo if you don't intervene.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> Everyone in that crowd is an individual.


What? Help! Are they on an island or do they know their fellows are all around them?


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

BigApplePi said:


> We are arguing about whether to let you in or not. Fierce. I haven't decided and she has not made up her mind. Everything is pending in limbo if you don't intervene.


OK, now in all seriousness Pi, don't let me ruin your marriage. Ok??? I can't handle the guilt. I have so much guilt already. Put her on the phone.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

BigApplePi said:


> What? Help! Are they on an island or do they know their fellows are all around them?


GOD BLESS US, EVERY ONE!!!!


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Yes, though the DNA has to have a sequence that matches with the mRNA to allow the transcription to take place. This means that whatever mRNA is introduced, there has to be a matching sequence on the DNA, and so, the DNA must be altered before the mRNA can be used.


When the mRNA is directly taken up by the cell, it bypasses the transcription stage. Stop making shit up.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> What? Help! Are they on an island or do they know their fellows are all around them?


Do you believe in minority/individual rights, or shall we say majority rules?


* *




Now apply that answer to various social/racial/religious/ethnic/medical choice/etc. minority rights causes,


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

chad86tsi said:


> Do you believe in minority/individual rights, or shall we say majority rules?
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


I hate the feeling of gaining respect for people, then losing it, then getting it back, then losing it again. What a rollercoaster. God, I hate politics.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> Do you believe in minority/individual rights, or shall we say majority rules?
> Now apply that answer to various social/racial/religious/ethnic/medical choice/etc. minority rights causes,


People were created as social animals just like many other mammals. They survive on account of each other. (How would you like to post here if everyone else left???) When the crowd clobbers minorities and individuals, why would it do that? Did the individual do something anti-crowd (like not take the shots)? Did the minority have the audacity to compete with the majority (like anti-vax versus vax)? Does the majority believe in something so crude as "might makes right" or will they stop to look at what the minority has to offer?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

I wish people protect the right of those people who think it is ok to perform human sacrifice.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

AnneM said:


> God, I hate politics.


God let people breed until there were enough of them to create a mess. Politicians put their feet in the mess while you only need worry.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

General Lee Awesome said:


> I wish people protect the right of those people who think it is ok to perform human sacrifice.


Speaking of worry, you don't have to worry. You have the right ... and you are next.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

BigApplePi said:


> God let people breed until there were enough of them to create a mess. Politicians put their feet in the mess while you worry.


Don't blame this on God.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

BigApplePi said:


> People were created as social animals just like many other mammals. They survive on account of each other. (How would you like to post here if everyone else left???) When the crowd clobbers minorities and individuals, why would it do that? Did the individual do something anti-crowd (like not take the shots)? Did the minority have the audacity to compete with the majority (like anti-vax versus vax)? Does the majority believe in something so crude as "might makes right" or will they stop to look at what the minority has to offer?


Stop. STOOOOOOOOP. I want to keep loving you, but you're making me want to barf right now.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

AnneM said:


> Stop. STOOOOOOOOP. I want to keep loving you, but you're making me want to barf right now.


How so? It's okay to disagree. "I admit I said it. Ask me what I meant." I can certainly foul up. (You don't have to answer.)


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

BigApplePi said:


> How so? It's okay to disagree. "I admit I said it. Ask me what I meant." I can certainly foul up. (You don't have to answer.)


You can have any opinion you want. I just hate democrats these days.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

AnneM said:


> I just hate democrats these days.


Demoncrats? I'm an independent.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

BigApplePi said:


> Demoncrats? I'm an independent.


Sorry. See, even I'm susceptible to stereotypes.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> You are right, we shouldn't ignore the issue because billions were spent.. you shouldn't worry about it because it is next to impossible. We have a good understanding of how mRNA works.


Just because someone spent a billion dollars researching the mRNA vaccine, does not mean that retro-transposons do not exist, or do not do what they're created to do, which is to write mRNA back into DNA. It also does not mean that it's impossible for mRNA to be written back into DNA by retro-transposons.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> So the counter to "do what I say or else" is that if I don't want your "or else, to "just do what I say". That you aren't forcing my hand, I still got a choice so your are held harmless...


If I tell my child he is not to run out into the street after his ball, he won't if he remembers and respects me. If he forgets, I'm not so sure I'm held harmless.



chad86tsi said:


> lets say "X" is get vaccinated against your wishes. You provide an answer. I then change X to = something else and we see if your reasoning still stands. Is your reasoning emotional or logical.


I don't know what's wrong with me. That still washes over my head. Too many things going on at once.



chad86tsi said:


> What is the difference between this hypothetical fetus and you when you were in the same sage of development? Every member on this forum shares something in common with this hypothetical "Child".


Difference to the fetus? Answer: non then. There is a difference now.



chad86tsi said:


> If we feel the will of the individual (mother) can be weighed higher against another (fetus) because that "others" scenario is all hypothetical, unrealized, future, we can see soon realize the same applies to forcing a person to get a vaccine they believe will harm them and violate their autonomy only to prevent some unrealized future, based on hypotheticals.


The hypothesis is wrong. A vaccine will *not* harm them. (For exceptions, see your doctor.)



chad86tsi said:


> For every successful abortion, a minimum on one human dies, and sometimes more than one. For every un-vaccinated person, we aren't really sure if any harm will happen to anyone, and statistically averaging things out, the death rate is pretty low as a % . 100+% vs >1%?. There are more abortions per year than covid deaths per year, and abortion is a protected right.


A fetus is an unrealized person having no certain value to society. For un-vaccinated persons, we are already certain 800,000 have died (USA) and I don't know how many have Long Covid.



chad86tsi said:


> And if the religion involves a bunch of hypothetical "maybes" why will we treat it like absolutes? Some terrorist are Islamic. Do we treat all practicers of Islam as terrorist? Seems the compromise has been to live and let live until someone gets hurt, hypothetical risk isn't actionable. Islamic terrorist killed a bunch of people in NY back in 2001, and we didn't have their religion "stopped", and when some tried, they were eventually shut down in their efforts to apply such blanket rules. It's handled on a case by case basis, but a legal process with checks and balances, and due process, and appeal, and all the other trappings of our legal system.


Agreed.



chad86tsi said:


> And when they lie? By lie, I define that is "knowingly saying a false thing, even if it has a noble purpose". If, when they lie, can we stop trusting them, and not blindly adhere to their edicts?
> 
> Who is the representative for mothers that want abortions?
> who is the representative for anti-vaxxers?
> ...


Each group deserves representatives. We have a free press and some of the press lies.

Battle it out. Decide. I'm for pro-vaxxers as they have the stronger, much stronger case.



chad86tsi said:


> So if the government in Texas makes some new laws, we ought to just trust and respect that new law they come up with? If the government intrudes on what we hold as sacred personal rights, shouldn't we resist? If that leads to "consequences" levied upon people defending their beliefs, do we just stand by, because "it's the government".


It's a tough battle with so many on each side. The USA government set up state's rights. Texas decides what it wants. I don't want to live in Texas, but maybe I'm lucky. Some Texans like their law. Personally, I want to know what the majority in Texas want. If I lived there, I could speak up, but at the same time I don't know about Texans. I hear they are plenty tough. I might have to respect the law there, but I also might not respect their state government.



chad86tsi said:


> So we need to focus on the bad ones that actually harm people, not all of them? Sounds like a good idea.


There is a good absolute. Focus on the bad ones, but also look into social conditions that cause them. As we know, there are bad people AND bad governments.



chad86tsi said:


> I now need a vaccination to be an electrical engineer. It wasn't' the case when I was hired.


Covid is here now, not back then. Are you going to get vaccinated if you aren't already? I have three months to go before I'd like a fourth shot. If it turns out Omicron gives only mild symptoms I'll reconsider waiting. Since I don't know, I trust the shot more at this point. I don't even know if Omicron preempts Delta. Delta is a baddie.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Just because someone spent a billion dollars researching the mRNA vaccine, does not mean that retro-transposons do not exist, or do not do what they're created to do, which is to write mRNA back into DNA. It also does not mean that it's impossible for mRNA to be written back into DNA by retro-transposons.


and how is this the same as hacking off your arms and legs?

you are saying you are worried about next to the impossible chance of reverse transcription from the vaccine over the virus? WOW.. ?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> and how is this the same as hacking off your arms and legs?


Just that mRNA vaccination is a very invasive procedure, with the risk of permanently altering the human DNA.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Just that mRNA vaccination is a very invasive procedure, with the risk of permanently altering the human DNA.


First of all, it won't change your genome. It will change the DNA of a few cells tops.

Secondly, DNA is constantly mutating, so the DNA in your cells is constantly being altered.

Thirdly, you have a much higher chance of getting your DNA altered by a flu infection.

Finally, how high is the risk? :d? and is the HARM from this the same as chopping your arm and legs off?

Eating BBQ has or walking in the sun has a chance of changing your DNA. I guess you shouldn't do that..


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> First of all, it won't change your genome. It will change the DNA of a few cells tops.
> 
> Secondly, DNA is constantly mutating
> 
> ...


The fact that mRNA can be written back into DNA is enough warning about the risks of mRNA vaccine altering human DNA.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> The fact that mRNA can be written back into DNA is enough warning about the risks of mRNA vaccine altering human DNA.


not really, because walking in the sun has a chance of altering your DNA.

You better not do that.

Am I debating a kid? or what's going on.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> not really, because walking in the sun has a chance of altering your DNA.
> 
> You better not do that.
> 
> Am I debating a kid? or what's going on.


You might want to have your DNA altered by mRNA vaccine, though other people need to have a similar right in saying no to that.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> If I tell my child he is not to run out into the street after his ball, he won't if he remembers and respects me. If he forgets, I'm not so sure I'm held harmless.


Do you expect that works with strangers that are your equals? You have authority over your child, and your child sees you as their guardian, and you have certain specific legal duties to them.



> Difference to the fetus? Answer: non then. There is a difference now.


do we respect the individuals that make it to "person-hood" more than a fetus? Does person-hood grant an individual certain inalienable rights?



> The hypothesis is wrong. A vaccine will *not* harm them. (For exceptions, see your doctor.)


Define harm

I watched it harm my wife, she was sick for 8 weeks, all kinds of symptoms. Her Dr has instructed her to not get a booster.



> A fetus is an unrealized person having no certain value to society. For un-vaccinated persons, we are already certain 800,000 have died (USA) and I don't know how many have Long Covid.


What are an unvaccinated persons certain chances of killing someone? I am certain that abortions kill no less than 100% of the time.

I get that it's easy to minimize a fetus because of the unknown impact. We don't know how many great people have been aborted, perhaps we allowed the death of a scientist that would have discovered an actual cure for this covid thing. We'll never know, it's all hypothetical conjecture. We also don't know which unvaccinated individuals will kill others. The easy way to account for the unknown un-vaxxed risk is to just vax them all. Why not do the same for the unborn and save them all?




> Each group deserves representatives. We have a free press and some of the press lies.


And some of the top authorities lie, and the large elements of press cover for them because the lies are bad for their objective. Well intentioned lies are still lies. Coverups are even worse. Lies and coverups are good rational cause to disbelieve and rebel against those authorities.



> Battle it out. Decide. I'm for pro-vaxxers as they have the stronger, much stronger case.


The scientist in me says the same is true of atheist, yet as a society we respect and protect religion, and I back that 100%.



> It's a tough battle with so many on each side. The USA government set up state's rights. Texas decides what it wants. I don't want to live in Texas, but maybe I'm lucky. Some Texans like their law. Personally, I want to know what the majority in Texas want. If I lived there, I could speak up, but at the same time I don't know about Texans. I hear they are plenty tough. I might have to respect the law there, but I also might not respect their state government.


So the women in need of an abortion can just move? Where can I move to escape my vaccination mandate?




> There is a good absolute. Focus on the bad ones, but also look into social conditions that cause them. As we know, there are bad people AND bad governments.


The laws and rules aren't that discriminating, that's the problem some have with it. I work from home these days, and have no human contact as a function of my job, but I need vaccinated because I work for a large company. The people that work for small companies that work directly with public or in close contact with many others don't have to be vaccinated. The rules and laws aren't even hitting the target, literally.




> Covid is here now, not back then. Are you going to get vaccinated if you aren't already? I have three months to go before I'd like a fourth shot. If it turns out Omicron gives only mild symptoms I'll reconsider waiting. Since I don't know, I trust the shot more at this point. I don't even know if Omicron preempts Delta. Delta is a baddie.


I've been vaccinated since it was made available.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> You might want to have your DNA altered by mRNA vaccine, though other people need to have a similar right in saying no to that.


It is like saying how can you mandate the seatbelt when there is a tiny chance a freak accident can occur where wearing the seatbelt or a helmet could kill you.

Is it possible? yes.
Is it highly unlikely? yes
Is the benefit far outweigh the risk? YES

Unlike seatbelts, even if the "gene" got altered, there is no real harm as outlined by the source you cited.

and I hope the same people don't walk outside in the sun, or eat bbq.. or breathe oxygen... because oxygen is a powerful oxidizer that can damage and change your DNA.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> It is like saying how can you mandate the seatbelt when there is a tiny chance a freak accident can occur where wearing the seatbelt or a helmet could kill you.
> 
> and I hope the same people don't walk outside in the sun, or eat bbq.. or breathe oxygen... because oxygen is a powerful oxidizer that can damage your DNA.


People need to do more research on the safety of mRNA vaccines, instead of saying "we've already spent billions of dollars on this mRNA research, so let's just get the vaccine to market, because no one will care if some DNA is altered".


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> People need to do more research on the safety of mRNA vaccines, instead of saying "we've already spent billions of dollars on this mRNA research, so let's just get the vaccine to market, because no one is going to care if some DNA is altered".


we did, and the risk is of changing your DNA is infinitely small, because we understand how mRNA works.

Even your sources said it is infinitely small. And according to your source, even if the alteration is theoretically possible, there will be no harm from it.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> we did, and the risk is of changing your DNA is infinitely small, because we understand how mRNA works.
> 
> Even your sources said it is infinitely small.


Then people need to do more research, instead of saying "billions are spent on mRNA vaccine, so let's just get it to market, because whatever harm is infinitely small, whatever that means".


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Then people need to do more research, instead of saying "billions are spent on mRNA vaccine, so let's just get it to market, because whatever harm is infinitely small, whatever that means".


Yes, people did a lot of research. We know how mRNA works.

Since the risk is very small and carries no harm, why should we worry about it?

Do you worry about something that carries no harm, and happens very rarely?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Yes, people did a lot of research. We know how mRNA works.
> 
> Since the risk is very small and carries no harm, why should we worry about it?


That's like asking, "the risk of the world going to end is infinitely small, so why not just cut down all the rainforests, why worry about it"?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> That's like asking, the risk of the world going to end is infinitely small, so why not just cut down all the rainforests, why worry about it?


HUH? like I previously said, before you type out your "arguments", run it in your head a few more times so it will actually make sense. 

I will give you a chance to fix it.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> HUH? like I previously said, before you type out your "arguments", run it in your head a few more times so it will actually make sense.
> 
> I will give you a chance to fix it.


If you have a question, just ask it directly, don't beat around the bush.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> If you have a question, just ask it directly, don't beat around the bush.


your argument is a non-sequitur. It does not make sense. Fix it


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> your argument is a non-sequitur. Fix it


What's your question?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> What's your question?


What is the point you are trying to make? Can you fix your argument in a more coherent way so people can respond? 

That's my question


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Again, how can we jail someone for murder if we can't know for sure the "person" he killed is not a simulation?
> 
> Can they do it? I am asking for your opinion.


It doesn't matter what he thinks, it's just what the justice system thinks. He can either choose the death penalty, and have all his property be sold and given to the victim's family, or he can choose to work as a slave inside a prison system, with all his earnings be given to the victim's family, for life.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> It doesn't matter what he thinks, it's just what the justice system thinks. He can either choose the death penalty, and have all his property be sold and given to the victim's family, or he can choose to work as a slave inside a prison system, with all his earnings be given to the victim's family, for life.


how can the justice system be justified in jailing someone for murder if they can't prove for sure that the person he killed is real? Do you think this is problematic?

Do you agree that there is a non-zero chance the person he killed is a simulation? 

Also, can hospitals put unvaccinated at the back of the line for treatments? I am asking for your opinion.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> how can the justice system be justified in jailing someone for murder if they can't prove for sure that the person he killed is real? Do you think this is problematic?
> 
> Also, can hospitals put unvaccinated at the back of the line for treatments? I am asking for your opinion.


Listening to a person complaining about his victim being a simulation is like listening to a child complaining to his parent about not having the latest toy, not worth it.

Whether hospitals put unvaccinated people at the back of the line for treatments depends on the hospital's policy.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Listening to a person complaining about his victim being a simulation is like listening to a child complaining to his parent about not having the latest toy, not worth it.
> 
> Whether hospitlas put unvaccinated people at the back of the line for treatments depends on the hospital's policy.


Why is that? listening to people complaining that the vaccine can change their DNA is like listening to a child complaining to his parents not having the latest toy.. not worth it.

Again, I am asking you for your opinion.. if you were to set the policy for your hospital. Would you put them at the back of the line or no.

I know you are trying very hard to dodge the questions, so please, just answer them.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Why is that? listening to people complaining that the vaccine can change their DNA is like listening to a child complaining to his parents not having the latest toy.. not worth it.
> 
> Again, I am asking you for your opinion.. if you were to set the policy for your hospital.


The mRNA vaccine carries the risk of changing a person's DNA through retro-transposons, so people have the right to say no to that.

A person complaining about his victim being a simulation is like a person warning about the sky going to fall. What's more important is whether he chooses the death penalty, or to work as a slave for life inside a prison factory.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> The mRNA vaccine carries the risk of changing a person's DNA through retro-transposons, so people have the right to say no to that.
> 
> A person complaining about his victim being a simulation is like a person warning about the sky going to fall. What's more important is whether he chooses the death penalty, or to work as a slave for life inside a prison factory.


jailing someone for murder carries the risk that you falsely jailed them for killing a simulation. Are you ok with wrongful imprisonment? 

Can you tell me that there is absolutely no chance the person he killed is a simulation?

Again, what would your policies be if you were to run a hospital? would you put the unvaccinated at the back of the line?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> jailing someone for murder carries the risk that you falsely jailed them for killing a simulation. Are you ok with wrongful imprisonment?
> 
> Can you tell me that there is absolutely no chance the person he killed is a simulation?
> 
> Again, what would your policies be if you were to run a hospital? would you put the unvaccinated at the back of the line?


That's like saying, "it's okay to kill people just because you believe the sky is going to fall tomorrow". This makes absolutely no sense, and is utterly crazy.

If I were to run a hospital, I would treat people on a first come first serve basis, not really about whether they refused a vaccination that does not work 100%, and carries the risk of altering someone's DNA through retro-transposons.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> That's like saying, "it's okay to kill people just because you believe the sky is going to fall tomorrow". This makes absolutely no sense, and is utterly crazy.
> 
> If I were to run a hospital, I would treat people on a first come first serve basis, not really about whether they refused a vaccination that does not work 100%, and carries the risk of altering someone's DNA through retro-transposons.


jailing people for murder carry the risk that you will wrongfully jail them. Do you agree or disagree? 

so people who do the right thing get punished in your hospital?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> jailing people for murder carry the risk that you will wrongfully jail them. Do you agree or disagree?
> 
> so people who do the right thing get punished in your hospital?


It does not matter whether they think the sky is going to fall, they are living in a simulation, or their victim is a zombie, what matters is that the justice system can help the victim's family find comfort, by either giving the death penalty and dividing the murderer's property, or having the murderer work as a slave inside the prison factory for life, so that his earnings can pay the victim's family.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> It does not matter whether they think the sky is going to fall, they are living in a simulation, or their victim is a zombie, what matters is that the justice system can help the victim's family find comfort, by either giving the death penalty and dividing the murderer's property, or having the murderer work as a slave inside the prison factory for life, so that his earnings can pay the victim's family.


Do you agree that jailing someone will carry the risk of wrongful imprisonment?

So, you don't mind punishing people who do the right thing?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Do you agree that jailing someone will carry the risk of wrongful imprisonment?
> 
> So, don't mind punishing people who do the right thing?


It does not matter whether they think the sky is going to fall, they are living in a simulation, or their victim is a zombie, what matters is that the justice system can help the victim's family find comfort, by either giving the death penalty and dividing the murderer's property, or having the murderer work as a slave inside the prison factory for life, so that his earnings can pay the victim's family.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> It does not matter whether they think the sky is going to fall, they are living in a simulation, or their victim is a zombie, what matters is that the justice system can help the victim's family find comfort, by either giving the death penalty and dividing the murderer's property, or having the murderer work as a slave inside the prison factory for life, so that his earnings can pay the victim's family.


No one said anything about living in a simulation. I am talking about the actual criminal justice system where people actually went to jail for crimes they didn't do.

Do you think it is right to jail someone falsely just to provide comfort to the victim's family?

Can you prove, for sure that this person committed this crime?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> No one said anything about living in a simulation. I am talking about the actual criminal justice system where people actually went to jail for crimes they didn't do.
> 
> Do you think it is right to jail someone falsely just to provide comfort to the victim's family?


I believe that the criminal justice system has the ability to find the right people who committed the crimes.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> I believe that the criminal justice system has the ability to find the right people who committed the crimes.


But they don't always do it. You certainly can't prove 100% that this person committed the crime. 

There is always a chance this person didn't do it. Do you feel comfortable jailing the wrong person?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> But they don't always do it. You certainly can't prove 100% that this person committed the crime.
> 
> There is always a chance this person didn't do it. Do you feel comfortable jailing the wrong person?


Mistakes do happen, though it's a pretty rare occurence, and the person usually get compensated.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Mistakes do happen, though it's a pretty rare occurence, and the person usually get compensated.


Well, what if the mistake is undetected? are you comfortable with jailing the wrong person?

How rare? 1 in 1000? 1 in million? or 1 in 1 trillion chance? Do you know the exact number or are you guessing?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Well, what if the mistake is undetected? are you comfortable with jailing the wrong person?
> 
> How rare? 1 in 1000? 1 in million? or 1 in 1 trillion chance? Do you know the exact number or are you guessing?


Yes, it's better to jail the wrong person, then to let a murderer go free.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Yes, it's better to jail the wrong person, then to let a murderer go free.


How many wrongful imprisonments justify catching 1 murderer? 

Therefore, it is ok for people to be required to get the vaccine and risk the tiny chance of alteration to your DNA


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> How many wrongful imprisonments justify catching 1 murderer?
> 
> Therefore, it is ok for people to be required to get the vaccine and risk the tiny chance of alteration to your DNA


It's not okay to risk alteration to your DNA through retro-transposons, because people have the right to say no.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> It's not okay to risk alteration to your DNA through retro-transposons, because people have the right to say no.


if we require them to get it, then they don't have the right to say no


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> if we require them to get it, then they don't have the right to say no


That's like saying "if people are required to replace their limbs with synthetic ones, then they don't have a right to say no." It's a good thing that you are not in charge, and hopefully, people like you never will be.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> That's like saying "if people are required to replace their limbs with synthetic ones, then they don't have a right to say no." It's a good thing that you are not in charge, and hopefully, people like you never will be.


Too bad replacing your limbs is not the same as getting the vaccine. force analogy again.

Also, I am not the one willing to falsely imprison people.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Too bad replacing your limbs is not the same as getting the vaccine. force analogy again.
> 
> Also, I am not the one willing to falsely imprison people.


I don't falsely imprison people. However, you want to force people to alter their DNA through retro-transposons using mRNA vaccine.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> I don't falsely imprison people. However, you want to force people to alter their DNA through retro-transposons using mRNA vaccine.


You have no problem with a system that risks falsely imprisoning people. why is that? because the benefit outweighs the risk.

I believe requiring the vaccine outweigh the risk.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> You have no problem with a system that risks falsely imprisoning people. why is that? because the benefit outweighs the risk.
> 
> Just like the risk of altering your DNA is so low, regardless of what you believe, ergo we can require the vaccine.


You want to force people to alter their DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA vaccine. That's a problem right there, though maybe not for people like you, so you can be the guinea pig.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> You want to force people to alter their DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA vaccine. That's a problem right there.


you want to jail innocent people, that is a huge problem.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> you want to jail innocent people, that is a huge problem.


Where did you read that? 

You can change your DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA technology all you want, though don't force others to follow your idiocy.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Where did you read that?
> 
> You can change your DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA technology all you want, though don't force others to follow your idiocy.


you said it yourself, it is better to jail the wrong person than to let a murderer go free... which in itself is a paradox since jailing the wrong person means you are letting some criminals go free.. but your logic is often half-baked. 


Why do you support a system that risks false imprisonment?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> you said it yourself, it is better to jail the wrong person than to let a murderer go free... which in itself is a paradox since jailing the wrong person means you are letting some criminals go free.. but your logic is often half-baked.
> 
> 
> Why do you support a system that risks false imprisonment?


A mistake in jailing someone is not the same as purposefully jailing an innocent person.

You can change your DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA technology all you want, though don't force others to follow your idiocy.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> A mistake in jailing someone is not the same as purposefully jailing an innocent person.
> 
> You can change your DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA technology all you want, though don't force others to follow your idiocy.


but you want to jail the innocent, in order to catch a murderer

why is that ok?

When mRNA gets transcribed to DNA, it is also a mistake.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> but you want to jail the innocent, in order to catch a murderer
> 
> why is that ok?


Mistake in jailing someone is not the same as purposefully jailing an innocent person, or forcing a murderer to show himself.

You can change your DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA technology all you want, though don't force others to follow your idiocy.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Mistake in jailing someone is not the same as purposefully jailing an innocent person, or forcing a murderer to show himself.
> 
> You can change your DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA technology all you want, though don't force others to follow your idiocy.


I want everyone to be vaccinated, and if there are some mistakes where mRNA gets transcribed into DNA occurring in some people, so be it.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> I want everyone to be vaccinated, and if there are some mistakes where mRNA gets transcribed into DNA in some people, so be it.


You can change your DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA technology all you want, though don't force others to do the same.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> You can change your DNA through retrotransposons using mRNA technology all you want, though don't force others to do the same.



And you can risk jailing innocent people if you have the criminal justice system that we have. You shouldn't be allowed to force people to participate in that process. If you want to, then by all means, but we should be able to refuse.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> And you can risk jailing innocent people if you have the criminal justice system that we have. You shouldn't be allowed to force people to participate in that process. If you want to, then by all means, but we should be able to refuse.


Yes, you can move to a country without a criminal justice system, like Somalia, if you want.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Yes, you can move to a country without a criminal justice system, like Somalia, if you want.


yes, and you can move to a country that doesn't require vaccines, like Somalia, if you want.

There, you solved your own problem. Good job.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> yes, and you can move to a country that doesn't require vaccines, like Somalia, if you want.


Yes, it's a good thing that there are no countries forcing people to take the mRNA vaccine, and hopefully, never will be.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Yes, it's a good thing that there are no countries forcing people to take the vaccine, and hopefully, never will be.


Once they make it a requirement, would you move?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Once they make it a requirement, would you move?


Would you move to a country or area without a criminal justice system?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Would you move to a country or area without a criminal justice system?


why would I? I support the criminal justice system even if it has a risk of a mistake happening because the benefit outweighs the risk.

In the same way, I support requiring the vaccine, even if there is a risk of a mistake happening because the benefit outweighs the risk.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> why would I? I support the criminal justice system even if it has a risk of a mistake happening because the benefit outweighs the risk.
> 
> In the same way, I support requiring the vaccine, even if there is a risk of a mistake happening because the benefit outweighs the risk.


Retro-transposons are a natural part of the body, and its job is to write mRNA back into DNA, so this is not "a risk of a mistake happening".

You can change your DNA through retro-transposons using mRNA technology all you want, though it's wrong to force others to do the same.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Retro-transposons are a natural part of the body, and its job is to write mRNA back into DNA, so this is not "a risk of a mistake happening".
> 
> You can change your DNA through retro-transposons using mRNA technology all you want, though it's wrong to force others to do the same.


Mistakes can occur naturally. Even if it is natural, it is not the intention, ergo it is a mistake.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Mistakes can occur naturally. Even if it is natural, it is not the intention, ergo it is a mistake.


Still, you can change your DNA through retro-transposons using mRNA technology all you want, though it's wrong to force others to do the same.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Still, you can change your DNA through retro-transposons using mRNA technology all you want, though it's wrong to force others to do the same.


thats fine, as long as it is a mistake, and like you said before, mistakes happen.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> thats fine, as long as it is a mistake, and like you said before, mistakes happen.


Changing the DNA might affect future generations, or lead to abnormal development, so this is not just "any mistake".


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Changing the DNA might affect future generations, or lead to abnormal development, so this is not just "any mistake".


getting thrown into jail or executed for a crime you didn't do is also not just "any mistake". 

As you said, mistakes happen. Owell!


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> getting thrown into jail or executed for a crime you didn't do is also not just "any mistake".
> 
> As you said, mistakes happen. Owell!


Something that effects millions of people and their descendants is not just "any mistake".


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

General lee undercover nazi Detected 🤣 .


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Something that effects millions of people and their descendants is not just "any mistake".


But it is a mistake, and like you said, mistakes happens :d


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

General Lee Awesome said:


> But it is a mistake, and like you said, mistakes happens :d


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> General lee undercover nazi Detected 🤣 .


oh? did Nazis have a vaccination campaign in Europe to stop the spread of a highly infectious virus? 

If that's the worst they did, man, why are people hating on them?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> View attachment 892333


Do you support having a criminal justice system where people can be sent to jail for crimes?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

General Lee Awesome said:


> But it is a mistake, and like you said, mistakes happens :d


There are many levels of mistakes, for example, a typo mistake is not the same as a mistake on the math quiz, which is not on the same level of mistake as bankrupting a company through poor decisions, which is not the same level of mistake as starting a nuclear war. 

Getting anything requires following the right path or doing the right things, and pushing something to the market, just because there are billions spent on research, and not considering the long term consequences is a sure thing to dystopia.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

You are a totalitarian masquerading as a social righteous, those who have very little developed ethics but talk and talk about good.

You can easily smell that from afar, it must be a projection of your unconscious in any case.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Sparky said:


> There are many levels of mistakes, for example, a typo mistake is not the same as a mistake on the math quiz, which is not on the same level of mistake as bankrupting a company through poor decisions, which is not the same level of mistake as starting a nuclear war.
> 
> Getting anything requires following the right path or doing the right things, and pushing something to the market, just because there are billions spent on research, and not considering the long term consequences is a sure thing to dystopia.


and you think wrongful imprisonment and excution is just "some mistake"?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> You are a totalitarian masquerading as a social righteous, those who have very little developed ethics but talk and talk about good.
> 
> You can easily smell that from afar, it must be a projection of your unconscious in any case.


is it totalitarian to require people to wear a seatbelt that has the potential of killing them?


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

General Lee Awesome said:


> is it totalitarian to require people to wear a seatbelt that has the potential of killing them?


Yeah, the fear of death is what makes you extreme in those discussions and you try to manifest it externally in different aspects.

A lackey of the feudal patrons , you spread their speeches that alludes to sentimental morality , And the weak minded who is full of fear and feelings , only falls into the web .

So concerned about the people you are, that you are willing to take away everything that makes them human, facing death is part of life, you stay in the cave if you want but leave the rest in peace.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> Yeah, the fear of death is what makes you extreme in those discussions and you try to manifest it externally in different aspects.
> 
> A lackey of the feudal patrons , you spread their speeches that alludes to sentimental morality , And the weak minded who is full of fear and feelings , only falls into the web .
> 
> So concerned about the people you are, that you are willing to take away everything that makes them human, facing death is part of life, you stay in the cave if you want but leave the rest in peace.


do you support having a police force that sometimes kill innocent people?


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

General Lee Awesome said:


> do you support having a police force that sometimes kill innocent people?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> View attachment 892334


let me dumb it down.

Do you think we should have the police force?

Do you America is Nazi Germany now that we require people to wear seatbelts?

Do you America is Nazi Germany because we require people to get vaccines like smallpox, MMR..etc etc?


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

General Lee Awesome said:


> let me dumb it down.
> 
> Do you think we should have the police force?
> 
> ...


Are you an Infp ? As I studied art I knew quite a few of them , Very good at talking about their morality as brave warriors but very bad at understanding how the world really works.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> Are you an Infp ? As I studied art I knew quite a few of them , Very good at talking about their morality as brave warriors but very bad at understanding how the world really works.


I guess you can't answer the questions?

Is requiring the MMR vaccine Nazism? 

Is requiring the seatbelt Nazism? 

Is requiring people to drive sober Nazism?


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

General Lee Awesome said:


> I guess you can't answer the questions?
> 
> Is requiring the MMR vaccine Nazism?
> 
> ...


20 pages and you keep talking the same things , You don't even understand what others write and you lock yourself in your own little world .

Ask better questions if you want me to answer you.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

General Lee Awesome said:


> I guess you can't answer the questions?
> 
> Is requiring the MMR vaccine Nazism?
> 
> ...


History test for you 

the Nazis are famous for actually doing one of these things, see if you can figure out which one it is.

injecting experimental drugs into unwilling victims in the name of science and for the belief it was good for their country.
making people drive safely.
making people respect the safety of others.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> History test for you
> 
> the Nazis are famous for actually doing one of these things, see if you can figure out which one it is.
> 
> ...


Are we injecting people with experimental drugs?

Can you please define what experimental drugs mean?

Also, today's "experimental" drugs have to go through all sorts of safety and efficacy testing before it was given emergency authorization. Did that happen in Nazi Germany where they injected all sorts of crazy shit just to see what's going on? Your premise is entirely fallacious.

The lacking of a basic understanding of how mRNA vaccines work is not a justification not to use it.

Mr. @Sparky here lacks a basic understanding of how mRNA works, which leads him to misrepresent the science. When we have keyboard scientists who never once cracked open a book and make shit up, obviously it is going to feel scary. However, as I pointed out before, we have a good understanding of how mRNA works, and even though mRNA becoming DNA is theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely. It is more likely to have your DNA altered by walking under the sun on a hot summer day.

Why is the mRNA vaccine highly unlikely to become DNA? several factors need to be met.

1. You have RNA transposition intermediate in your cell's cytoplasm which is already very rare.
2. the transposition element just happens to latch onto the mRNA from the vaccine out of hundreds of thousands of other mRNA molecules.
3. Everything will have to happen very quickly because RNA degrades very fast.
4. The "cDNA" made from mRNA needs to somehow get back into the nucleus
5. Even if the mRNA manages to splice into our DNA, it is unlikely it will cause much damage because we have a lot of junk DNA in our genomes. It would have to be spliced into a critical part to cause damage.

So given all that we know, the risk of mRNA changing your DNA and causing a harmful effect is astronomically low.

Also, what is completely illogical is that these "people" seem to be ok with the virus itself even though the risk of altering your DNA is much HIGHER if you got the viral infection. You must understand that the vaccine is given in the backdrop of a global pandemic where it is assumed that everyone will come in contact with the virus at some point in their life. So if there is a small chance of altering your DNA using the vaccine, then having unvaccinated people getting the virus will have a much great chance of altering your DNA. We are not just injecting people for shits and giggle. It is a choice between the virus or the vaccine and not a choice between the vaccine or no vaccine. People need to take this into consideration. Whatever the risk the vaccine has, getting the virus will be a lot worse. 



If "absolute" no risk is the threshold, then we will have to remove A lot of things from our society.

Please leave this discussion to people who have the expertise. Don't worry, when we have a question about how to shovel coal, we will definitely ask for your expert opinion.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> 20 pages and you keep talking the same things , You don't even understand what others write and you lock yourself in your own little world .
> 
> Ask better questions if you want me to answer you.


Oh please, Mr. Iammyboss'sright-handman in the coal mine, anything you type, I can easily understand.

please answer the question, does requiring the MMR vaccine mean you live in a Nazi state?

Lol also, seatbelts is a hotly contested topic back when it was first mandated. How can you mandate something that carries the risk of killing you?


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Ssenptni said:


> Worth researching, yes.
> But the idea that there is consensus is simply false.
> 
> What is the risk that says a vaccine is necessary?
> ...


Thank you for sharing your thoughts. What are some examples of people in the medical community who disagree with the effectiveness of the vaccines?


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

General Lee Awesome said:


> The leaders themselves took the vaccine. If they are not leading by example, I don't know who is.


That's only one side of the coin. Where I'm from in the UK, politicians have been caught attending and hosting parties of far more than six individuals. Crucially, this was at times when they were asking the British public to keep gatherings to six people or less. Failure at that level breeds distrust among the public. So much so that it may lead one to wonder if these leaders are lying about taking the vaccines when they say they have. "If you can lie about this, you can lie about that".


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

ENFPathetic said:


> That's only one side of the coin. Where I'm from in the UK, politicians have been caught attending and hosting parties of far more than six individuals. Crucially, this was at times when they were asking the British public to keep gatherings to six people or less. Failure at that level breeds distrust among the public. So much so that it may lead one to wonder if these leaders are lying about taking the vaccines when they say they have. "If you can lie about this, you can lie about that".


Some leaders also speed, does it mean we shouldn't have driving laws?

Maybe the law of physics is all a big lie? Speed DOESN'T KILL!

I get your point.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Some leaders also speed, does it mean we shouldn't have driving laws?
> 
> Maybe the law of physics is all a big lie? Speed DOESN'T KILL!


That's entirely beside the point. If the people who lead don't follow the rules, don't pull a surprised Pikachu face when the people who follow start to think the rules are bullshit.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

ENFPathetic said:


> That's entirely beside the point. If the people who lead don't follow the rules, don't pull a surprised Pikachu face when the people who follow start to think the rules are bullshit.


If you base your life on the mantra of monkeys see, monkeys do, then you should refund your brain.

Physics does not suddenly turn off because a fallible politician decides to break the rule, neither does medical science. These are just excuses people use to justify their own bad behaviours.

It is true that people with authority need to behave in a responsible manner, but at the same time, we also need to be critical thinkers. Should we stop recycling because one politician tossed some recyclables into the trash? NO, that's idiotic.

People need to stop being stupid and stop making excuses for themselves. When I heard that the Californian governor broke his own rules, did that change my perspectives on the pandemic? NO, because I follow medical science and not the actions of a faliable man.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

General Lee Awesome said:


> If you base your life on the mantra of monkeys see, monkeys do, then you should refund your brain.
> 
> Physics does not suddenly turn off because a fallible politician decides to break the rule, neither does medical science. These are just excuses people use to justify their own bad behaviours.
> 
> ...


I get the impression you understood my point and are just arguing for the sake of it lol. In case I'm wrong I'll respond to your general point.

Eh. It's not a monkey see, monkey do situation. It's a matter of not trusting people who don't walk their talk. A pretty reasonable motto.

I agree that people should seek out the opinions of people of knowledge. However, one of the issues is laziness. It's far easier to tune in for the evening news than it is to research what the medical experts have to say.

The biggest issue is trust, or the lack thereof. When people who are vaccinated are still catching COVID in droves, it makes people wonder if these vaccines are truly effective. When the pharmaceutical companies developing the vaccines want immunity from potential lawsuits, it makes people wonder if these vaccines are safe.

Look. I'm leaning towards taking the vaccine at this moment in time. But to pretend that having concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines is an indication of stupidity or lack of critical thinking is at best down right ignorant.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Are we injecting people with experimental drugs?
> 
> Can you please define what experimental drugs mean?
> 
> ...


You talk and talk without much understanding the other points , it is not about the vaccine , it is about the advance of the state over the individual , freedom , private property , exortorsion , theft , ect.

But you lack light feets to extrapolate your little system to the macro , but it is understandable you are socialist right ? you add 2 + 2 = 3 .

Let's see if you learn more about history and analyze what happens when the state takes advantage of the crisis to advance against the individual, that's why I called you a Nazi and not for the silly example of the seat belt.

Hey all!!! do not fall into the big mouth of modern rationalism , it lacks sustenance , vitality , truth , everything.


General Lee Awesome said:


> Oh please, Mr. Iammyboss'sright-handman in the coal mine, anything you type, I can easily understand.
> 
> please answer the question, does requiring the MMR vaccine mean you live in a Nazi state?
> 
> Lol also, seatbelts is a hotly contested topic back when it was first mandated. How can you mandate something that carries the risk of killing you?


Well with a music degree life is difficult, helping to manage a company is an unforgettable experience to know something about how the private sector reacted during the crisis.

You only demonstrate totalitarianism without knowing how the individual agents actually behaved , and you still promise vaccination as the garden of eden .... Lies and more lies .
You are one of those who are willing to sacrifice freedom and constitutions , one of those who hide against danger , the one who wags his tail to his master ....
If you don't see this in yourself , don't worry , many do .


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> You talk and talk without much understanding the other points , it is not about the vaccine , it is about the advance of the state over the individual , freedom , private property , exortorsion , theft , ect.
> 
> But you lack light feets to extrapolate your little system to the macro , but it is understandable you are socialist right ? you add 2 + 2 = 3 .
> 
> ...


If it is not about the vaccine like you claim, then maybe you shouldn't drive sober? because the government is literally threatening you with JAIL if you refuse. Time to fight for the freedom to drive stone COLD HAMMERED. Fk the cowards who are worried about getting run over by a drunk driver. 

Next time we need an expert on digging coal, we will talk.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

ENFPathetic said:


> I get the impression you understood my point and are just arguing for the sake of it lol. In case I'm wrong I'll respond to your general point.
> 
> Eh. It's not a monkey see, monkey do situation. It's a matter of not trusting people who don't walk their talk. A pretty reasonable motto.
> 
> ...


Do you drive dangerously if a politician does it? or do you use your own damn brain and look at the evidence? the science?

If you want the answer, there are plenty out there. If people have the critical thinking skills you claim to have, I wonder WHY they are still looking to see what the politicians are doing?

I could care less what the prime minister is doing here in Canada because I am not a brainless monkey. My decision can't be easily swayed because of some politician's lapse in judgment. I recognize that there will always be some lapses in judgments even among the best of us and I am smart enough to understand that. I am not going to use that to make excuses for myself. I take responsibility for my actions. 

It would be different if they are consistently and publically flaunting the rules, but that's not happening, is it?


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

General Lee Awesome said:


> Do you drive dangerously if a politician does it? or do you use your own damn brain and look at the evidence? the science?
> 
> Or are you a monkey?
> 
> If you want the answer, there are plenty out there. If you have the critical thinking skills you claim to have, I wonder WHY you are still looking to see what politicians are doing?


Look. I got nothing against trolling, but you have to do better than that. No one is as stupid as you're pretending to be.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

ENFPathetic said:


> Look. I got nothing against trolling, but you have to do better than that. No one is as stupid as you're pretending to be.


He is just a charlatan with an inflated ego, well he is a socialist .... state theologians and political hucksters (they don't know much).

The good thing that people are not going to follow lunatics like this one. ,


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Sily said:


> INFP here.
> 
> I wasn’t one to get the flu vaccine “much”.
> 
> ...





Red Panda said:


> I know and that was my point, her perspective was very american-centered.
> 
> I've given some examples in a previous post.
> 
> ...





Sily said:


> Well I’ll be damned. How do you like them apples. “Compulsory”
> 
> *Austria plans compulsory Covid vaccination for all*
> “Country goes into third lockdown amid soaring cases and announces jab mandate from February 2022
> ...


Australia then Austria...

Are they going through the alphabet now...


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Thanks for calling me dumb as well as people such as Robert Malone or Maria Ressa, on the motive that you don't understand us. Guess what intelligence is about? Bingo, an understanding of the situation.

So you're not looking for evidences that the sarscov-2 was made and released on purpose by the vaccine industry, how their pseudovaccines are much worse than the virus, etc, and I must thank you for that because I'm not willing to spoon feed anyone today.

To answer your question, I befriended hundreds of antipass people this year. Among the antipass and antijabs, I witnessed all levels of intellect, not only people who can't perform basic logic such as enneagram and grant stack believers. That is also mostly true with projabs, but not with propass. The propass have a low reasoning ceilling. The projabs also lack a lil something to really cover the full spectrum and I'll elaborate soon enough.

I looked for common factors in projabs versus antijabs. It occured to me that the pros share one : a conviction of indebtedness towards the health industry. Sometimes like a stockholm syndrome. The jabbed are typically scared of being abandonned by healthcare workers, left on their own. It runs deep and most aren't aware of how much it affects their reason.

At the opposite, the antipass are either


those who tend to rely as little as possible on others' help, they like to figure out things, solve problems on their own and keep the credits.
those who are disappointed or have been betrayed in/by the health industry,
Those who just want to believe in wacko spiritual medecine instead or some religion involving impossible conspiracies.

The common symptom is they don't feel like they owe something to healthcare workers and aren't afraid to antagonize them. Only the first type, the self-solvers, aren't prone to come up with stupid reasons and take decisions based on fear.

To summarize, the duller the sense of individual responsibility one has, the more likely to obey to somebody who acts as their exogenous source of morality. Be it the government, the WHO or some dubious shaman in a yurt : they need to share culpability, and a saviour. They are cowards, trying to run away from their political responsibility, which leads to either take the jab or not depending on their made-up excuses.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

ENFPathetic said:


> Look. I got nothing against trolling, but you have to do better than that. No one is as stupid as you're pretending to be.


don't be so defensive. No one is calling you stupid. Chill.

However, there are a lot of people out there who do not think critically and they should actually start doing it. 

Had Trump won the election, more Democrats would not have taken the vaccine, because they do not trust Trump. This is idiotic to the bone? that's not critical thinking. Do you not see this is a problem? or do you think this is trolling?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> Imagine you are a black man in the early 1900's and have been apprehended by 100 members of the KKK. You are about to be lynched, and they believe you deserve it. What are the odds they are right? 100:1 mind you...


Yeah. However the KKK in the South have to contend with a* larger group*. That group believes all humans should get a fair shake regardless of skin color. Then there is more to the KKK than just lynching.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Yeah. However the KKK in the South have to contend with a* larger group*. That group believes all humans should get a fair shake regardless of skin color. Then there is more to the KKK than just lynching.


Your describe how it is now. What about the time frame I cited? 

Or are you intending to demonstrate that what majority thinks today is subject to future correction?

How many times have there been "corrections" to this covid story? When will they get it right, and how will we know?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@chad86tsi "Your describe how it is now. What about the time frame I cited? " Same time frame except those in the North didn't care to do anything about it.

The rest of your message is not clear. Can you quote me and hit "reply" so your message is not mixed up with mine? Thank you.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> @chad86tsi "Your describe how it is now. What about the time frame I cited? " Same time frame except those in the North didn't care to do anything about it.
> 
> The rest of your message is not clear. Can you quote me and hit "reply" so your message is not mixed up with mine? Thank you.


made an edit to the post to correct a formatting error.

did the north not care about the issue, or just see it as a local issue to be dealt with by locals. The KKK existed in the north in that era as well. They weren't well liked in many, but were tolerated all over the country for quite a while. There were numerous places where they were the majority on a small local community basis. If you lived in such a community would you say just let them have their way, they are the majority here?

Some pockets of different ideologies exists in many social realms, beliefs in different religions, sexuality tolerance, pro-choice and pro-life groups. Do we defer to "simple majority" in all of these matters? On what scale do we apply these rules? city, county, state, federal? There are important examples of social change that happened despite majority being against these measures. If "the people" want something, do we just let them have it?


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

It is not a philosophical problem of individualism vs. collectivism, it is a problem of nefarious institutions that are close to the money making machine.

The pandemic produced one of the largest movements of money from the poorest to the richest, god ... the same system finances the creation of technologies like A.i.... the war for Taiwan is nothing more than the power of the chips.

Shouldn't socialism die and start asking real questions...?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> did the north not care about the issue, or just see it as a local issue to be dealt with by locals.





chad86tsi said:


> but were tolerated [the KKK] all over the country for quite a while. There were numerous places where they were the majority on a small local community basis. If you lived in such a community would you say just let them have their way, they are the majority here?





chad86tsi said:


> Do we defer to "simple majority" in all of these matters?





chad86tsi said:


> On what scale do we apply these rules? city, county, state, federal?


I tried to select lines of yours that caught my attention. If I'm not responding to what you're after let me know.

It's hard to generalize. Actually one can't. It depends on where one is at. For example you asked about me in a KKK community. I would have to ask myself do I want to hide in my house or do I want to be an activist? How would I approach the KKK? My answer is very carefully. I wouldn't care to have them become my enemy so they would attack my family and burn my house down. I could try to move to a more agreeable neighborhood, but would that be cowardice or self-protection on my part?

Another approach would be to write something to newspapers or my congressmen about ill treatment of people of color. Another is to advise others to fight and lawyer up to fight.

This assumes I am anti-KKK. One has to realize the KKK represent a group that was once on top and now is threatened with equality competition. Do you think these people are not wounded? I am wont to say something has to be said to them to relieve their belief that people of another color are a threat. 

I recently saw an Australian film (@beth x - have you seen it?) called, "Romper Stomper". This film illustrates the situation like the KKK does.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> I tried to select lines of yours that caught my attention. If I'm not responding to what you're after let me know.
> 
> It's hard to generalize. Actually one can't. It depends on where one is at. For example you asked about me in a KKK community. I would have to ask myself do I want to hide in my house or do I want to be an activist? How would I approach the KKK? My answer is very carefully. I wouldn't care to have them become my enemy so they would attack my family and burn my house down. I could try to move to a more agreeable neighborhood, but would that be cowardice or self-protection on my part?
> 
> ...


It's more simple than that, does a majority rule, even when the majority is wrong or is using poor and/or immoral justification? Does the crowd outweigh the individual because : majority = better?

You seem to be able to articulate cases where an individual has a duty and a right to stand up to the crowd even when the crowd outnumbers the individual, and methods which that individual use might fight back. Why should society listen to this individual? Why not just shut this individual down and shut them up for the good of the majority? Does an "uppity (insert cause) activist" have any rights when most don't want to hear what they have to say? 

Seems like "because the crowd says so" is subject to "it depends"...


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> It's more simple than that, does a majority rule, even when the majority is wrong or is using poor and/or immoral justification? Does the crowd outweigh the individual because : majority = better?
> 
> You seem to be able to articulate cases where an individual has a duty and a right to stand up to the crowd, even when the crown outnumbers the individual, and methods which that individual use might fight back. Why should society listen to this individual? Why not just shut this individual down and shut them up for the good of the majority?


Okay. You ask about the majority. The majority has a morality of its own. To take a simple majority, a family of five has a morality. If two children gang up on a third, would the parents side with those two? Not in my book. They would think of all the children as a whole. They would work out something for all three children. They would not rule against the minority.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Okay. You ask about the majority. The majority has a morality of its own. To take a simple majority, a family of five has a morality. If two children gang up on a third, would the parents side with those two? Not in my book. They would think of all the children as a whole. They would work out something for all three children. They would not rule against the minority.


Got it. 

Parents bring home a puppy for their 3 kids. 2 kids say the 3rd can't pet it because they don't think they do it right. Do the parents cut the puppy into 1/3'ds, yield to majority, yield to the minority, or take the puppy back?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> Parents bring home a puppy for their 3 kids. 2 kids say the 3rd can't pet it because they don't think they do it right. Do the parents cut the puppy into 1/3'ds, yield to majority, yield to the minority, or take the puppy back?


Beautiful! That was for a simple family group. Next step is to work it out for a village, a community and for a nation which has a minority in it. The minority could be ordinary people, some weird but harmless religion, or the KKK. How would one put this into general words? Maybe when one jumps on any minority, one has to ask, what are they about? Why does this minority have their own individuality? Do we want to take care of that minority because that "taking care" is meaningful and helpful to the majority? Does that minority have a poison within it that could harm the majority or, on the other hand, can the poison be removed without creating a greater poison?

What is the philosophy of this minority? Are they harmless to the majority or is their very purpose to destroy other minorities? There are tragic movies about this kind of thing. See "American History X" with Edward Norton and "Romper Stomper" with Russell Crowe.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> It is not a philosophical problem of individualism vs. collectivism, it is a problem of nefarious institutions that are close to the money making machine.
> 
> The pandemic produced one of the largest movements of money from the poorest to the richest, god ... the same system finances the creation of technologies like A.i.... the war for Taiwan is nothing more than the power of the chips.
> 
> Shouldn't socialism die and start asking real questions...?


even if this is true, it does not mean the vaccine doesn't work, or Covid-19 is not a pain in the ass. I would still take the vaccine.

I don't give a crap about people's political leaning or ideals or tinfoil hats. This is about medical science and not your political takes.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Beautiful! That was for a simple family group. Next step is to work it out for a village, a community and for a nation which has a minority in it. The minority could be ordinary people, some weird but harmless religion, or the KKK. How would one put this into general words? Maybe when one jumps on any minority, one has to ask, what are they about? Why does this minority have their own individuality? Do we want to take care of that minority because that "taking care" is meaningful and helpful to the majority? Does that minority have a poison within it that could harm the majority or, on the other hand, can the poison be removed without creating a greater poison?
> 
> What is the philosophy of this minority? Are they harmless to the majority or is their very purpose to destroy other minorities? There are tragic movies about this kind of thing. See "American History X" with Edward Norton and "Romper Stomper" with Russell Crowe.


^ Equally beautiful ! 

The idea that the weight (value) of a person or belief depends on the circumstances that deem it must be weighed.

Weighing things seems easy until we start looking at the measuring system(s) like this.

Sometimes we are presented with two weights that are about equal, but the pivot point on the scale is off center. Should we argue about the weights themselves, the location of the pivot point, or both?


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

We saw this early in the pandemic figures as well, and apparently haven't yet learned how to discern the difference when reporting statistics for public policy decision.

_A significant proportion of people hospitalized with COVID-19 in recent weeks were admitted for other reasons, according to health officials and government data.

The exact scale of the phenomenon in the US is not recorded in federal statistics, but has been noted anecdotally.

And Dr. Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the White House, described the phenomenon, specifically in children, in a Wednesday night interview with MSNBC.

Since all hospital admissions are tested for COVID-19, Fauci said, many are "hospitalized with COVID, as opposed to because of COVID." The real reason for hospitalization might be "a broken leg, or appendicitis, or something like that," he continued.











Loading…






www.yahoo.com





Other countries have produced data noting the same phenomenon of "incidental" COVID cases. In data published Friday by the UK National Health Service, 33% of the 8,321 COVID-positive cases in England on December 28 were admitted to the hospital for a different reason._
:

_In South Africa, the first nation to record a surge in Omicron cases, a report from its Medical Research Council also found a high rate of incidental cases.

The council noted that in a study of a hospital complex in Tshwane, a city in the hard-hit Gauteng province, 76% of the 166 patients admitted between November 14 and 29 had incidental COVID cases._


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Yeah. However the KKK in the South have to contend with a* larger group*. That group believes all humans should get a fair shake regardless of skin color. Then there is more to the KKK than just lynching.


You are delusional if you think the fair shake group is larger. Wisdom is ALWAYS the smaller portion of a population by its nature.

Most so-called race activists are racists. They ARE NOT after a fair shake. They are after the #OurTurn UNFAIRNESS they believe (for example) white males have enjoyed. This delusion denies the moral truth of the innate fairness of love and the burden of choice. Since suffering brings great opportunity for earning wisdom, suffering is, in general, what we all must bear. If you think love allows anyone privilege, you are immorally incorrect in that belief. 

I should also point out that if the ODDS that they were right are 100:1 that means they are 100 times as likely to be RIGHT, or morally correct, than they are to be wrong (as stated @chad86tsi). I KNOW what you meant. You meant that they are 100 times as likely to be WRONG, or morally incorrect. But that is also wrong.

In many many cases the basis of judgment is correct. It is the enactment of punishment that is immoral. Only relatively few times is anyone at all effectively blameless. But the systemic power of some is always greater than that of others, and this power will be used to enact immoral punishment upon the less powerful. NO ONE IS BLAMELESS in the scenario. No one is perfect.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

series0 said:


> I should also point out that if the ODDS that they were right are 100:1 that means they are 100 times as likely to be RIGHT, or morally correct, than they are to be wrong (as stated @chad86tsi). I KNOW what you meant. You meant that they are 100 times as likely to be WRONG, or morally incorrect. But that is also wrong.


"Odds", or as I was also stating it, "majority", has no bearing on what the truth really is, or isn't. How many people believe a truth has no actual influence on that truth.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> You are delusional if you think the fair shake group is larger. Wisdom is ALWAYS the smaller portion of a population by its nature.
> 
> Most so-called race activists are racists. They ARE NOT after a fair shake.


Are you sure? This guy was an activist I think:

"Dr. KING: I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."








Read Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech in its entirety


Americans across the U.S. are celebrating King's legacy this weekend. One way to reflect on his life and message is by revisiting his celebrated 1963 speech delivered at the Lincoln Memorial.




www.npr.org


----------



## Mr.NoBody (Jan 2, 2022)

rosesandgold said:


> There are so many people who seem to rebel against the government, last weekend there even was a big gathering in my country where people believed they were "fighting for their freedom" against the measures. The Covid positives have been going up again, we have had some new measures, a partial lockdown, and yet there are so many people gathering together and going to clubs and bars and party.
> 
> What is the psychology behind this behaviour?
> Are these people just stupid, are they scared, do they just have no compassion and empathy for others? Do they not want to understand how Covid has impacted people's lives and do they not care?
> ...


I am going to ask a clarifying question, while it may seem obviously redundant, please consider. “what is the subject of the question? 
I have reread your post several times and contemplated it over two cups of coffee. While I do not know what country you’re in the subject of “Government” becomes somewhat illusory. You are projecting something far more significant than the subject matter; the subject is simply the impetus exposing the root question, however the subject will not get you an answer for the root question.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Are you sure? This guy was an activist I think:
> 
> "Dr. KING: I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."
> 
> ...


Again, you prove MY point, not yours.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> Again, you prove MY point, not yours.


Looks like you are one up on me then. However it flies by me then as I wasn't sure of your point in the first place.

This proves something but not much: #7


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Looks like you are one up on me then. However it flies by me then as I wasn't sure of your point in the first place.


So, you show me an exemplar of humanity, Dr King, to 'prove' that most people 'get' wisdom. NOPE. Most of his followers still do not understand his message. That is true of any wise sage. They will post and meme and blah blah, and recite that which is lauded to virtue signal, ALL while not understanding the real meaning of it. 

Even so, at least they/you are offering up an example that does have some wisdom in its real meaning. 

To demonstrate this point, just consider the Socratic claim that weak minds discuss people and events, whereas great minds discuss ideas. If you had posted the debate on the idea RATHER than making a reference to Dr King, then we, the readers could understand that you understand the idea. But if you post about Dr King or an event he starred in, was a part of, etc, a movement, then we have no idea whether you actually get it or not.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> If you had posted the debate on the idea RATHER than making a reference to Dr King, then we, the readers could understand that you understand the idea.


Guilty as charged. I'd like to return to my possible delusion:



series0 said:


> You are delusional if you think the fair shake group is larger. Wisdom is ALWAYS the smaller portion of a population by its nature.


Although wisdom may reside in a "people", I would still like to know if the fair shake group is larger than the KKK. I see that as imbedding an idea. I do not know if either of us (we are a "people") is wise enough to make such a judgment but I'd like to try.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Guilty as charged. I'd like to return to my possible delusion:
> 
> 
> Although wisdom may reside in a "people", I would still like to know if the fair shake group is larger than the KKK. I see that as imbedding an idea. I do not know if either of us (we are a "people") is wise enough to make such a judgment but I'd like to try.


In their actual day, the KKK was the rank and file to a large extent, the system's backdoor truth. It was the wink-wink good-ole-boy network with all the trimmings. 

These days the virtue-signaling crowd could be said to be every bit as bad for today. They pretend to virtue, all the while involved in all manner of addictions, self-indulgences, and deeply prejudicial behavior based on memes and trends rather than, again, ACTUAL understanding of wisdom. I mean there are a LOT of people out there who believe in subjectivism :ROFL.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> In their actual day, the KKK was the rank and file to a large extent, the system's backdoor truth. It was the wink-wink good-ole-boy network with all the trimmings.
> 
> These days the virtue-signaling crowd could be said to be every bit as bad for today. They pretend to virtue, all the while involved in all manner of addictions, self-indulgences, and deeply prejudicial behavior based on memes and trends rather than, again, ACTUAL understanding of wisdom. I mean there are a LOT of people out there who believe in subjectivism :ROFL.


Yep. Subjectivism. I'm sure if you ask a KKK member today, they will approve of themselves. The KKK has KKK truth. I'm also almost sure the KKK won't mind too much if they cross someone outside of their group. Maybe we should ask some non-KKK members how they feel about crossing a KKK person. There has got to be non-KKK truth.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Yep. Subjectivism. I'm sure if you ask a KKK member today, they will approve of themselves. The KKK has KKK truth. I'm also almost sure the KKK won't mind too much if they cross someone outside of their group. Maybe we should ask some non-KKK members how they feel about crossing a KKK person. There has got to be non-KKK truth.


To which of course I say, there is only truth, one truth, and then subjective viewpoints that are NOT truth, all of them. But between any two of them, one is always BETTER than any other. That is because it is closer to the objective truth and intuition and observation allow us to suss that out.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> To which of course I say, there is only truth, one truth, and then subjective viewpoints that are NOT truth, all of them. But between any two of them, one is always BETTER than any other. That is because it is closer to the objective truth and intuition and observation allow us to suss that out.


I agree, sort of. I would put it differently though. There is only one truth at the "top" ... for all. The thing is the "top" has lower levels which form a built up hierarchy. 

If the KKK is not at the top, neither is water. Would you say there is only one truth about water when water presides over oxygen and hydrogen? Do not those gases each have their own truth?


----------

