[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

1 - I will just accept your version as if it is undoubtedly true. Still, what risk is there to vaccinated people? Everyone who wants a vaccine and has embraced the fear narrative, has one in the United States. The small chance their vaccine doesn't work (unless you believe it's a big chance, in which case it's a pretty pointless vaccine) x the small chance I am infected and contagious x the small chance that someone will suffer severe consequences = a real and present danger to you? Once again, recurring theme here, people are worrying about statistical possibilities that are absolutely tiny. How do you live life taking action against any risk of this tiny, tiny, tiny odds? There's limited value in repeating these circles, many in this thread are scared of very unlikely events (even using the statistics and figures from the pro-fear faction without any critical analysis but simply taking them at straight face value), I and others are not. You may do as you see fit, I get to do as I see fit. Ain't freedom beautiful?

The point of my initial response was to show that your claim, “New science to replace the old science happened after the narrative switch, not before,” is not correct. Period.

Yet, you deflect and make more false claims. “Embraced the fear narrative.” Really? You don’t think people are capable of getting the vaccine without embracing the fear narrative? “(M)any in this thread are scared of very unlikely events (even using the statistics and figures from the pro-fear faction without any critical analysis but simply taking them at straight face value)?” Again, those in favor of the vaccine are in favor because they’re “scared?” We came to our conclusion “without any critical analysis?” And you know this how, exactly? Is it your Aristotelian thinking that enables you to make these judgements?

But, tell you what. I’ll allow you to deflect and I’ll discuss why I got the vaccine. There are two reasons that come readily to mind.

Reason 1. My wife and my father. Even though I’m 67, I’m in good health with no health issues. I’m not concerned about myself. My wife is a couple of years older than me, has asthma and high blood pressure. I got the shots for her. My dad is 91. Is three years removed from bladder cancer. Has high blood pressure and had a stroke 1-1/2 years ago. I got the shots for him.

Reason 2. To help stop mutations. As the virus continues to spread, it continues to mutate. As it continues to mutate, it increases the chances of it becoming even more deadly and more resistant to the vaccine. You may call that “the fear narrative,” I call it a potential reality. The sooner we can stop it, the better.

Originally Posted by G1911

2- I'll again just assume you are 100% unconditionally correct, I don't feel like digging through the scholarship to find counter examples. Unless you are alleging that scientific consensus has never been wrong (a difficult position to take as it is constantly shifting), it makes absolutely no difference to what I am saying, it just removes the symmetry of a rhetorical example used.

The point of my initial response was to show that your claim that people were told to fear a coming ice age did not apply to the scientists. Period.

But again, you deflect and ponder if I’m alleging scientific consensus has never been wrong. How in the world could that possibly follow from what I wrote?

I agree with you regarding the potential use of fear mongering to sell a particular point. It has been done many times and will probably continue to be practiced because it is so successful. However, I don’t agree that Climate Change is one of them. I happen to believe that man’s actions are causing the climate to change. Instead, I would use some of the following as examples of fear mongering: (a) an invading migrant horde attacking us from the south, (b) buy all the guns you can now because elected officials are coming after your guns, (c) voting for X is voting for socialism. Those appear to be very popular “fear narratives,” especially during election cycles.

Originally Posted by G1911

3 - I don't 'consider' that censorship. It's not an opinion. The state telling a person or group what they cannot say, or that they cannot say it in certain settings is, definitionally, censorship. You seem to think censorship is a good thing. That's fine. I do not. I am against the censorship of speech. No if's, no and's, no but's. I don't support free speech only when I agree with the speaker. People say things that are factually incorrect or I think are stupid and even dangerous all the time. I do not think I, you, or the state should be able to remove the ability of others to agree or disagree, no matter what.

The point of my initial response was to provide an example counter to your claim, “I have never in my life seen such censorship as there is of anything even questioning the narrative of Covid.” Basically, we agree, it is censorship. Yet even though we’ve had 50 years of cigarette ads being censored from reaching the public via TV, you don’t think that’s as bad as a few months of censoring false information from some social sites? Interesting.

“You seem to think censorship is a good thing.” I do in some limited instances. It depends upon the circumstances, primarily if lives are in danger.

Originally Posted by G1911

I hate smoking. I think it's stupid. I think people who make their living selling cancer sticks to addicts (who are in the end 100% responsible for their addiction and actions) are scum. I watched my grandfather die slowly of smoking-induced lung cancer. I have never touched a cigarette in my life. I do collect T cards. But my thoughts are merely my thoughts, and I am not so vain or self-important as to think that my thoughts should be the only thoughts allowed in the public sphere. My natural-born right to speech is the same natural-born right to speech that an executive for a cigarette company has.

Wow, anyone who agrees with the decision to restrict false information from social media is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees with the decision that people should be censored from screaming “FIRE!!” in a darkened theater is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees that during wartime, certain information should be censored to keep it out of the enemy’s hands is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees that cigarettes should not be peddled to people, including kids, on TV is “vain or self-important.”

Originally Posted by G1911

One example for you is the censorship and banning by big tech of anyone who endorsed the theory that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab. Censorship that was ended within a day of Fauci changing his mind and saying it is quite possible, as the government now seems to be shifting to support of this theory the last couple weeks. Yesterdays dangerous misinformation, so dangerous it must be censored from the public sphere, is today's plausible and state-allowed, possibly endorsed, theory.

As I said earlier, I’m not on social media so I don’t know everything that was censored. I’ll accept your premise that people who only claimed the virus escaped from a Chinese lab were censored. I’ll also accept your premise that that particular censorship ended the day after Fauci changed his mind. I do not think that the claim that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab kept/is keeping people from getting the vaccine. Therefore, I don’t think that particular piece of information/misinformation (whatever it turns out to be) should have been censored.

Originally Posted by G1911

If you want the state and big corporations to censor whatever they consider misinformation, that view is your right. I think it is a terrible idea, a threat to freedom and the foundational values of the Republic, but I believe in free speech, no matter how much I disagree. The natural born right to say what you think protects even those who are against free speech itself. I'm sure that censorship of opposing ideas will only be used justly by the state and big tech, being the shining beacons of morality, fairness, and factual accuracy that they are.

Again, you’re making gross assumptions in order to conjure up a strawman argument. I never said I “want the state and big corporations to censor whatever they consider misinformation.” Taking one single example and generalizing it to an all-encompassing view is cheap and lazy. Your arguments against something I never said are a complete waste of time.

Originally Posted by G1911

4 - No. I will not wear a virtue signal because I am declining to be a test subject for an experimental vaccine. I do not have a duty to ignore my own thoughts and to replace them with yours. I do not have a duty to muzzle myself because you are scared of a statistically minuscule risk. I am not going to stay 6 feet away from my friends, wear a face shield or mask, or change my life in any way whatsoever over a tiny, tiny, tiny risk no greater than numerous risks all of us have ignored in our lives until now. This conversation was already had a couple weeks ago, and actually led to a pretty good open debate. My views are unchanged since then, I see limited possible value in doing it again with the exact same talking points on each side.

Even though you see limited possible value in continuing the discussion, I see none. Trying to have a discussion with someone who takes pride in attacking strawmen is not beneficial to anyone. But, before I take my vain, self-important, scared, non-critical thinking self and walk away from this discussion with you, let me leave you with this.

In your mind, you envision a better country, better than what we have now. And in that country kids wake up on Saturday mornings to watch cartoons filled with commercials from cigarette companies extolling the virtues of smoking – smoking makes you better looking, it makes you smarter, it makes you live longer, it makes you stronger, etc. Because to do otherwise, is “a threat to freedom and the foundational values of the Republic.”

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get these damn keys off my forehead.