Many fine people on both sides calling each other assholes and liars ITT? Anyway, seems like the purpose of the thread at this point. Have at it imo, godspeed. Can’t promise other moderators will see it the same way so proceed with this line of inquiry at your own risk.
Thanks! It seems like responding in kind must be ok after all my flags yesterday were dismissed with prejudice!
I literally quoted your own post back to you, and presented data from your own source.
Please be kind and please stop name-calling.
Lol sp(Ikes)? Ramble on.
1 Like
Literally quoted your own posts back to you.
I’m not going to engage in name-calling and pointless bickering. If you want to stoop to that level, have at it.
I would very much prefer if you be kind and stop name calling. As you know I’m not allowed to ask you to stop anything.
Oh JT I’m barely reading your ramblings. That stood out as ridiculous, as this post does
Have you considered the possibility that people don’t understand your position because you’re bad at communicating it clearly?
2 Likes
What’s your purpose in arguing? Are you trying to establish what should be the inputs for determining public policy? For determining personal behavior? Is your primary goal to deny the credibility of other posters? Do you just enjoy arguing?
Same questions for the other side.
1 Like
This is just the start. How people answer this determines the follow-up questions.
The people involved probably see this debate as an objective contest about whose facts are better, but I see it as a more subjective contest about whose narrative is better. Looking at underlying assumptions is my way of trying to move the debate away from a repetitive back-and-forth.
I’m working on the idea that one side is operating based on the narrative that the most important thing is for people to get vaccinated as a matter of public policy and that any belief that could be used to harm that narrative needs to be pushed back against, even if espoused by someone who believes in making people get vaccinated, while the other side is operating based on the narrative that personal behavior is most important and that any belief that could be used by someone to justify becoming more lax in their personal behavior needs to be pushed back against, even if espoused by someone in the top 1% of carefulness.
Without a narrative to create a context for arguments, it becomes confusing because it becomes unclear which direction people are trying to go. I don’t think I am switching the subject, but I am asking for perhaps a radical reframing to create a more coherent context for the subject.
1 Like
This post was 914 words (at least before the edit, no idea what is now). Part of the problem is it is impossible to engage in a conversation with you because trying to respond to every point you make in a post requires ever escalating novels, and I am confident that the majority of users scroll right past it. Then you get mad when posters pick one or two things out of your post but don’t try to respond to every single thing you’ve just written, because it is impossible to do so. This is not meant as an attack.
yeah, this isn’t our position, and surely that clarification will stop this spewing.
To correct something, you got told about germ theory when you posited that you couldn’t tell if vaccine slowed spread if it demonstrated protection against infection. That remains true.
We did not say that. It’s a misunderstanding by you brought on by your lack of knowledge that you refuse to let go.
(this is the part where JT finds a quote that says something else entirely, and the cycle repeats)
1 Like
I don’t want you contained. I’m not sure how you came up with that perception. I don’t want anyone contained or permanently banned. I didn’t think Inso or Sabo or Sklansky should have been banned.
Maybe you don’t need to respond to every point? Try to understand JT’s worldview. One incorrect point doesn’t invalidate that worldview. Narratives are flexible and can adjust around disproven points.
And what’s wrong with long posts? This isn’t Twitter.
What would you say your position is?
JT is referring to a discussion where the point was whether or not the effectiveness in the initial studies of the covid vaccine showing protection against symptomatic disease was evidence that the vaccines prevented transmission. The concern was that was not what the study directly looked at.
However, because of how respiratory viruses and germ theory works, prevention of symptomatic disease is strong evidence against transmission.
JT doesn’t understand what those words means in his quotes above and isn’t humble enough to listen when someone tells him that he’s mistaken, we get the same horseshit over and over again.
I’m contemplating an RFC on whether mods should have the power to contain users. I think it might be good for the community to discuss whether mod power should be explicitly limited or confirmed in that regard.
Also worth remembering we do not yet know whether the vaccine stops you catching and spreading covid or whether it just stops you getting sick
Is what started that chain of responses with Churchill that you quote. I’m sure an apology is incoming.