Good news for the unvaccinated?

[Shadow Wolf]

Shadow, why does it have to be an anti-vax rhetoric?

I don't know. Why do you keep bringing up those points?
And, again, evidence based conclusions are pro-vax. There is no way around this.

Deciding healthcare decisions for oneself, US propaganda to push the vaccine, and pandemic causing division such as the one you're promoting isn't anti-vax rhetoric any more than (I hope

Those are the anto-vax talking points (trying to pretend what is best for one's health goes against the scientific consensus; erroneously calling the promotion of vaccines propaganda) the same garbage that has failed amd lead to a lot of needless illness, suffering, and death.

You can call me anti-vax all you want but I have better things to do than spark issues just because I disagree with mandates and propaganda.

You don't have to go to that level to be anti-vax. You call evidence-based conclusions about the vaccine propaganda, you seem to think it's a health decision with minimal consequences for others, you even seem to think it's wrong medical organizations promote the vaccine and give them despite not being some one's primary care provider. That stuff is anti-vax.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know. Why do you keep bringing up those points?
And, again, evidence based conclusions are pro-vax. There is no way around this.

I never said they were not.

I said I disagree with how propaganda is used in the US to promote vaccination.

Those are the anto-vax talking points (trying to pretend what is best for one's health goes against the scientific consensus; erroneously calling the promotion of vaccines propaganda) the same garbage that has failed amd lead to a lot of needless illness, suffering, and death.

I never said that.

You're adding silly things that were never mentioned by me personally.

You don't have to go to that level to be anti-vax. You call evidence-based conclusions about the vaccine propaganda, you seem to think it's a health decision with minimal consequences for others, you even seem to think it's wrong medical organizations promote the vaccine and give them despite not being some one's primary care provider. That stuff is anti-vax.

I said the way the vaccine is promoted is propaganda not the evidence for the vaccine.

"Seem to"?? Seems and think are not evidence for facts. You'd have to provide direct statements not insinuations.

I said that the propaganda is what I disagree with.

I understand the promotion.

Without science and experts I would be dead.

So, what you're saying does not apply to me at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Shadow Wolf.

I'll separate my sentences so you can read each one. If it's not a direct statement, it's an assumption or something you're concluding not facts.

Unless you ask for clarification its not evidence for facts. Arguing about your assumptions and conclusions will go no where.

If you have something to add that rebuts my facts I posted and conclusions, that's a better way to go about it than focus on whatever opinions you have about me. The facts stand on their own.

 

[sayak83]

For example there are people on RF who believe mercury is in vaccines. Another believes vaccines change your DNA. While my coworker believes there are chips and they are watching us.

So, yes, there is misinformation but it doesn't apply to everyone. Misinformation mantra is highly effective but not true for all people. It's not a good argument.

The first argument is misinformation that, when believed, causes harm to that person, should be censored from being aired in widely watched or followed public forums (facebook, tv, newspaper etc.) .
The second argument also is advertisements and promotions of something (idea, behavior, product) made for the cause of public service because that something is known to genuinely promote health/wellbeing/interests of the general public cannot be considered to be propaganda. This may be adverts against drunk driving, adverts for vaccination or free health clinics, adverts generating awareness of social services that can be availed etc.
Do you agree or disagree with any of the above two arguments?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I said the way the vaccine is promoted is propaganda not the evidence for the vaccine.

It's not propaganda. The statements are evidence-based, it's not political, and they are solidly grounded in reality.

"Seem to"?? Seems and think are not evidence for facts.

I don't think it appropriate to tell you what what you believe, but rather state what it appear to. The evidence is your calling it propaganda, and how you repeatedly have insisted people must consider their own position and make their own choice from there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The first argument is misinformation that, when believed, causes harm to that person, should be censored from being aired in widely watched or followed public forums (facebook, tv, newspaper etc.) .
The second argument also is advertisements and promotions of something (idea, behavior, product) made for the cause of public service because that something is known to genuinely promote health/wellbeing/interests of the general public cannot be considered to be propaganda. This may be adverts against drunk driving, adverts for vaccination or free health clinics, adverts generating awareness of social services that can be availed etc.
Do you agree or disagree with any of the above two arguments?

The first, yes. Of course. I've repeated it many times. When I think of misinformation I think of things like that not choosing what's best for your health and not taking things for granted.

What's with the drunk driving scenario? That's been repeated by media many times. It doesn't genuinely convince people to vac.

Refusing vaccine is like driving drunk

Log In ‹ Futurism — WordPress

I thought at first people made it up but now I see it's used often.

None the less the argument has always been why not wear a seatbelt to follow the law. The idea isn't following the rules for oneself but protect others. You don't protect the passenger by your seatbelt.

Also, it assumes all unvaccinated "drink and drive" and argued against this fallacy of generalization. To get into an accident one chooses to increase their chance. Unvax didn't increase their chance. It's relative to those vaxed who decreased it.

The push against mandates isn't about the mandate itself just as having a speed sign (another common one) to monitor traffic. Instead it's making a universal speed limit and telling people to obey despite the traffic pattern. In the US you can get ticketed if you're on the interstate and went the speed limit. People think for themselves. Another is crossing the street at the light. In area you go by the cars primarily not just the light. When I thought I was loosing vision that was a must.

If I just went off the law I'd be dead. In areas outside mine they have better cross signals. But if you're not thinking of drivers (they can get hurt if you're not paying attention) and yourself.

The arguments doesn't work

-

No... Going by the context and definition I posted earlier. I've given examples of propaganda. You're changing the context of what I said.

It is definitely propaganda. Not my opinion just how it works throughout history. Media (and president unapologetically) use every means to get people to vax.

Why would that be a problem for provax?

If it gets the job done, which it does, that should be a good thing right?

Can't say you want mandates and free hospital beds for people's choices then say you guys care (imo) by changing the push to advertising.

With advertising, come to think of it, they do market vaccine push just as they do products.

Again.

I'm against the how not the what.

This has nothing to do with vaccine efficiency and listening to science. (The latter is a common one too).

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first, yes. Of course. I've repeated it many times. When I think of misinformation I think of things like that not choosing what's best for your health and not taking things for granted.

What's with the drunk driving scenario? That's been repeated by media many times. It doesn't genuinely convince people to vac.

Refusing vaccine is like driving drunk

Log In ‹ Futurism — WordPress

I thought at first people made it up but now I see it's used often.

None the less the argument has always been why not wear a seatbelt to follow the law. The idea isn't following the rules for oneself but protect others. You don't protect the passenger by your seatbelt.

Also, it assumes all unvaccinated "drink and drive" and argued against this fallacy of generalization. To get into an accident one chooses to increase their chance. Unvax didn't increase their chance. It's relative to those vaxed who decreased it.

The push against mandates isn't about the mandate itself just as having a speed sign (another common one) to monitor traffic. Instead it's making a universal speed limit and telling people to obey despite the traffic pattern. In the US you can get ticketed if you're on the interstate and went the speed limit. People think for themselves. Another is crossing the street at the light. In area you go by the cars primarily not just the light. When I thought I was loosing vision that was a must.

If I just went off the law I'd be dead. I'm areas outside mine they have better cross signals. But if you're not thinking of drivers (they can get hurt if you're not paying attention) and yourself.

The arguments doesn't work

-

No... Going by the context and definition I posted earlier. I've given examples of propaganda. You're changing the context of what I said.

It is definitely propaganda. Not my opinion just how it works thoughout history. Media (and president unapologetically) use every means to get people to vax.

Why would that be a problem for provax?

If it gets the job done, which it does, that should be a good thing right?

Can't say you want mandates and free hospital beds for people's choices then say you guys care (imo) by changing the push to advertising.

With advertising, come to think of it, they do market vaccine push just as they do products.

Again.

I'm against the how not the what.

This has nothing to do with vaccine efficiency and listening to science. (The latter is a common one too).

A minor flaw in an analogy does not mean that it does not work.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A minor flaw in an analogy does not mean that it does not work.

It doesn't work because the argument is not to protect oneself therefore laws but to protect others. It's using the law to determine mandates for unvaccinated but the idea isn't to care for the unvaccinated themselves but the people they say they are putting in danger.

The analogy doesn't work because it focuses on the unvaccinated since the laws apply to the driver not the passenger and pedestrians.

Instead, the vaccinated person decreased their chance of catching and spreading the virus. So far we know now you can still get into an accident despite not drinking and driving. Yes, "some" can take that for granted and end up in a car crash especially if they aren't paying attention.

Unvaxed isn't doing anything to increase their chance of spreading the virus (no drinking and driving). They "would" be if they did things like no social distancing and, say, traveling. You usually increase your risk of catching the virus by things like that. The "universal speed limit" just doesn't work. Its counterproductive and the govern and vaxxed (rather) wonder why there is such a push. I use unvax since people who are exempt from getting the vaccine falls under this too.

The above is my opinion but the propaganda is not. I'm honestly not sure why its a problem for most people?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Subduction Zone I don't know if you do this too just assuming but if my opinions are judged by my being unvaccinated (or antivax if you guys like), why should that change the facts?

When you listen to opinions online you can discern if they tell the truth without needing to know the person's history. You just double check it with another source(s). The fallacy is assuming the person who speaks the fact changes the validity of it. If this happens when watching YouTube videos and talking on RF I'd say the same criteria for fact validity would be used for even opinions from the experts (which they have opinions not just facts).

If you all do this with people online you disagree with wouldn't you be loosing possible information that challenges the vaccine (gives you different perspectives) because of what you think of the people(s) sharing it?

I mean a week ago, I told one RF member that unvaccinated can use authoritative sources too. She said they could manipulate the facts. Facts should stand alone.

If the discussion is based on who said it it's not a productive conversation.

Edit.
In other words, if you judge the validity of a message based on who said it vaxed or not rather than the information itself you discredit other facts that offer different perspectives of the vaccine while treating experts as god that assumes everything they say is 100% correct (even doctors would admit that's not true; they are human).

That was one argument I came across was people would trust the US government more if they admitted they did not know.

 

[Aštra’el]

The first argument is misinformation that, when believed, causes harm to that person, should be censored from being aired in widely watched or followed public forums (facebook, tv, newspaper etc.)

“Should be”? According to whom?

 

[Revoltingest]

Talking with anti-vaxers reminds me of that sissy guy.

 

[sayak83]

“Should be”? According to whom?

Me. It's my argument.

 

[sayak83]

The first, yes. Of course. I've repeated it many times. When I think of misinformation I think of things like that not choosing what's best for your health and not taking things for granted.

What's with the drunk driving scenario? That's been repeated by media many times. It doesn't genuinely convince people to vac.

Refusing vaccine is like driving drunk

Log In ‹ Futurism — WordPress

I thought at first people made it up but now I see it's used often.

None the less the argument has always been why not wear a seatbelt to follow the law. The idea isn't following the rules for oneself but protect others. You don't protect the passenger by your seatbelt.

Also, it assumes all unvaccinated "drink and drive" and argued against this fallacy of generalization. To get into an accident one chooses to increase their chance. Unvax didn't increase their chance. It's relative to those vaxed who decreased it.

The push against mandates isn't about the mandate itself just as having a speed sign (another common one) to monitor traffic. Instead it's making a universal speed limit and telling people to obey despite the traffic pattern. In the US you can get ticketed if you're on the interstate and went the speed limit. People think for themselves. Another is crossing the street at the light. In area you go by the cars primarily not just the light. When I thought I was loosing vision that was a must.

If I just went off the law I'd be dead. In areas outside mine they have better cross signals. But if you're not thinking of drivers (they can get hurt if you're not paying attention) and yourself.

The arguments doesn't work

-

No... Going by the context and definition I posted earlier. I've given examples of propaganda. You're changing the context of what I said.

It is definitely propaganda. Not my opinion just how it works throughout history. Media (and president unapologetically) use every means to get people to vax.

Why would that be a problem for provax?

If it gets the job done, which it does, that should be a good thing right?

Can't say you want mandates and free hospital beds for people's choices then say you guys care (imo) by changing the push to advertising.

With advertising, come to think of it, they do market vaccine push just as they do products.

Again.

I'm against the how not the what.

This has nothing to do with vaccine efficiency and listening to science. (The latter is a common one too).

I am making an entirely different argument. I am saying that since it's well established that drunk driving is very harmful statistically in terms of probability of having accidents, adverts by the govt warning against drunk driving is legitimate. So is censoring opinion or claims that drunk driving is beneficial in widely watched public forums.
Do you disagree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't work because the argument is not to protect oneself therefore laws but to protect others. It's using the law to determine mandates for unvaccinated but the idea isn't to care for the unvaccinated themselves but the people they say they are putting in danger.

The analogy doesn't work because it focuses on the unvaccinated since the laws apply to the driver not the passenger and pedestrians.

Instead, the vaccinated person decreased their chance of catching and spreading the virus. So far we know now you can still get into an accident despite not drinking and driving. Yes, "some" can take that for granted and end up in a car crash especially if they aren't paying attention.

Unvaxed isn't doing anything to increase their chance of spreading the virus (no drinking and driving). They "would" be if they did things like no social distancing and, say, traveling. You usually increase your risk of catching the virus by things like that. The "universal speed limit" just doesn't work. Its counterproductive and the govern and vaxxed (rather) wonder why there is such a push. I use unvax since people who are exempt from getting the vaccine falls under this too.

The above is my opinion but the propaganda is not. I'm honestly not sure why its a problem for most people?

The same laws are used to protect the innocent from drunk drivers. Yes, people should be willing not to drink and drive so that such laws would not be necessary. The real world is not like that. And yes, everyone that can should be happy to get the vaccine. But the real world is not like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone I don't know if you do this too just assuming but if my opinions are judged by my being unvaccinated (or antivax if you guys like), why should that change the facts?

When you listen to opinions online you can discern if they tell the truth without needing to know the person's history. You just double check it with another source(s). The fallacy is assuming the person who speaks the fact changes the validity of it. If this happens when watching YouTube videos and talking on RF I'd say the same criteria for fact validity would be used for even opinions from the experts (which they have opinions not just facts).

If you all do this with people online you disagree with wouldn't you be loosing possible information that challenges the vaccine (gives you different perspectives) because of what you think of the people(s) sharing it?

I mean a week ago, I told one RF member that unvaccinated can use authoritative sources too. She said they could manipulate the facts. Facts should stand alone.

If the discussion is based on who said it it's not a productive conversation.

Edit.
In other words, if you judge the validity of a message based on who said it vaxed or not rather than the information itself you discredit other facts that offer different perspectives of the vaccine while treating experts as god that assumes everything they say is 100% correct (even doctors would admit that's not true; they are human).

That was one argument I came across was people would trust the US government more if they admitted they did not know.

One has to be careful with this reasoning. Yes, facts are facts. It should not matter what the source is. But people can be wrong about the facts or deliberately misinterpret them. I do see a lot of the latter from antivaxxers. As sources they tend not to be reliable due to having a history of this. It does not make them automatically wrong, but they have been wrong so many times that they are not authoritive at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am making an entirely different argument. I am saying that since it's well established that drunk driving is very harmful statistically in terms of probability of having accidents, adverts by the govt warning against drunk driving is legitimate. So is censoring opinion or claims that drunk driving is beneficial in widely watched public forums.
Do you disagree?

Yes, only with drunk driving. No,I don't agree with it when compared to the vaccination argument.

I'm not sure how to relate it to drunk driving because it already puts unvaccinated in a disadvantage not a default position.

Instead, both all people were at the same level of threat. Vac decreased their chances. Unvaxed did not.

The latter didn't do anything to increase their odds. No drunk driving. We are all on the same playing field.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The same laws are used to protect the innocent from drunk drivers. Yes, people should be willing not to drink and drive so that such laws would not be necessary. The real world is not like that. And yes, everyone that can should be happy to get the vaccine. But the real world is not like that.

I don't connect it to drunk driving laws unless we know a person has COVID. The laws doesn't ticket you "just in case" you are drunk. If you are not, they can't cite you.

That's why I'm glad our state gave options for COVID testings. Like the breath test you can't go to work if you get a positive test. If you get a neg result you go

It's based on facts at that moment not probabilities. Unvaccinated aren't ticking time bombs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't connect it to drunk driving laws unless we know a person has COVID. The laws doesn't ticket you "just in case" you are drunk. If you are not, they can't cite you.

That's why I'm glad our state gave options for COVID testings. Like the breath test you can't go to work if you get a positive test. If you get a neg result you go

It's based on facts at that moment not probabilities. Unvaccinated aren't ticking time bombs.

This is just grasping at straws. The law would not punish someone unless they refused to get a vaccination. Refusing to do something is still an act. For example, I watch sovereign citizen videos. Eventually they often get arrested. They almost always they add new charges by not complying. Not complying is arguably not doing anything, but it is still illegal.

 

[Regiomontanus]

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 55513

I love it! The sign in the logo piqued my curiosity. They did it:

https://twitter.com/booneoakley?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author