Being judgemental is a compliment.
I knew I’d re-find this eventually.
Being judgemental is a compliment.
I knew I’d re-find this eventually.
Completely ignores all the vaccine reaction and damage cases but fine.
There was a study of mothers and their vaccine attitude, the rejecting mothers had higher average IQ. It was a minor point mentioned once.
The lower IQ tend to take all available medicines because they’re free or cheap and they trust the doctors.
The smarter people say “why should I risk my child for yours”?
And there is no rationally valid answer to this.
Doctors make mistakes.
It all comes down to emotional appeal.
The phrasing of ‘vaccine rejection’ implies they are the default. In medicine, there is no default treatment.
Every treatment must be tailored to the patient, and if there’s nothing wrong with them in the first place, there is no medical need for a treatment. Due to the legal protections of the companies and doctors’ kickbacks dispensing these vaccines, and the secrecy and fraud of medical research, there is a seriously imbalanced power dynamic. They’d hold down these kids screaming if they could get away with it. Would violating an adult’s body be treated so leniently by the law? Do children not have human rights?
There are many counter-indicators for vaccination, and this is what the parents reference.
For example, a history of chemical reactions and vaccine damage in the family point to a genetic vulnerability, unstudied. No amount of words is going to alter that.
Pregnancy is another one but sure, get the flu jab!
As covered previously, the ‘herd immunity’ hypothesis has been demonstrated as false. They are seriously suggesting 100% of people get them. Who TF are they protecting? Oh, but there’s a tiny asterisk to it – all who can get it.
Technically, we can all get it.
This is an is/ought problem. You can get it, but that doesn’t change the true Q: should you?
If Parent B’s kid dies, it isn’t Parent A’s fault. It is Parent A for putting them in the contaminating situation (if knowingly) and the Doctors’ faults for failing to treat it (AKA their job).
Shifting the blame makes them look impotent.
It is a parent’s obligation to protect their child. Their own. Beyond that, the responsibility ends. I am no more responsible for some random person in Africa than they are for me.
Nobody else has this duty to the individual child. Not the doctors, the manufacturers, the researchers or the lawmakers.
Naturally there will be a big T-rex size bone of contention.
Ad hominem along the lines of stupid all the way up to evil just makes the ‘professionals’ look like they don’t know what they’re doing, and confidence drops further. When they refuse to do a double-blind 50:50 split longitudinal study with placebos, who would trust them? They say it’s unethical but look at who’s talking – they’ve
bribed finagled it so they, a company, cannot be sued. They are not negligent legally and can maintain secrecy for withdrawn vaccines (the reasons), for example. The manufacture and testing procedure for vaccines does not follow the scientific method, so it is not scientific. They dodge the law and ideally, their service rendered is unnecessary.
None of these facts is accounted for in ‘soothing’ discussions.
The risk is taken onto the child using the parent’s ignorance. Because let’s face it, you’re going in blind.
There is a sin of omission argument they are trying to use.
Refusing an unnecessary chemical intervention is not a sin.
And who gets to decide who is worthy of the herd immunity protection? Who really deserves to be exempt?
Because that’s the real judgement they’re making, isn’t it?
‘Your healthy child isn’t worthy of this protection.
In my opinion, the risk of their pain and lifelong suffering is worth sparing this other, already-diseased child/adult.’
Forgive me for not killing/hurting MY (hypothetical) child so some deranged pozzed pig can fuck around at orgies a few more years before ODing.
As Anonymous Conservative has spent literally a whole book intoning, the only thing r-type idiots understand is mockery and rejection from the ingroup. If mocked well and enough, they will go quiet. Perhaps some of the brighter ones will do some research or listen to counterarguments. You are doing them a favour by mocking them. Don’t be cruel, there is rarely a need, but don’t be a pushover either.
One of the worst things you could do is treat them as your intellectual equal, they haven’t the merit. They cannot process what you say on the whole, just what you do. If you must speak reason, talk down to them until they’ve made it clear they understand (read: never, if they got it they’d believe it too). If you’ve reached the end of your tether, remember their flavoured choice of terrible decision-making will give them a terrible life, decades of suffering and you can’t say they don’t deserve it if they’re the brattish entitled type who starts these things. You don’t have a duty to go around rescuing people from themselves (unless you literally do, in which case I say: be HIGHLY selective and expend the resource of your time as if it has value, you aren’t a tax-exempt charity, you’re a human being).
The internet has acted as a microphone to the most attention-whoring vapid segments of society which would otherwise go unheard by the rest of us. This is why I often cover the content of other people, preferential to my own. It isn’t arrogance or keeping myself back from the fray, I would rather draws on hundreds of perspectives for empirical reasons.
If you are concerned in a misanthropic vein, the advice I would give is to recollect how rare this present situation is and how few in number these (loud) people truly are. Cultural, political, sociosexual etc. All they have is noise. We are in the eye of the storm, through the looking glass, down the rabbithole etc. Change is the only inevitability in history. Will you adapt? Darwin states you will survive. What are you worrying about? Why have empathy for people who wish your destruction? Did their pleas of the ‘nobility’ of self-loathing affect you? Would you put a gun to your own head for them? What are we fighting for here?
You owe it to yourself to answer these questions in your mind and decide on sufficient convictions. I shan’t tell you what to think.
I like this guy’s voice btw. Good RP, OP. Accent game strong.
When your opponent isn’t using logic? Or reality? Or objectivity?
(Logical rudeness)…Unlike a petitio, it does not purport to justify a conclusion or belief; it purports to justify believers in disregarding criticism of their beliefs as if such criticism were inapplicable, irrelevant, or symptomatic of error. This is not self-justification in the manner of a petitio, in which assumed premises can validly imply the disputed conclusion.“…
Sum: If somebody isn’t playing by the rules of formal debate, they bring the whole thing down and might be excluded.
…”Philosophers have no equivalent of default except the presumption that the silent or rude theorist has no answer on the merits to offer, and (qua individual proponent) may be presumed ignorant or incorrect and dismissed. This presumption, however, is very legalistic, and in many cases will be false.”…
Practice of Law =/= ” ” Science
It may seem that the imputation of a foible or fault to a critic simply qua critic is always optional, never necessary to preserve the consistency of the theory or the good faith of the proponent. But this is not true. First, there is the case of the brazen theory which includes as a tenet the forthright equation of disagreement and error. This tenet is not as rare, nor probably as naive, as one might at first suspect. It may be called (using legal jargon) the “exclusivity clause” of the theory. Any theory may have an exclusivity clause, and most theories may have them without contradicting their own content. The “clause” merely states that the set of tenets comprising the theory is the truth and the only truth on its precise subject. It does not imply completeness; but it does imply that propositions inconsistent with the theory are false. It may be tacit and understood, and indeed it does seem to follow from the mere claim of truth according to the principle of excluded middle (tacit in many theories) and most classical notions of truth. If a theory contains an exclusivity clause, even a tacit one, it impels the good faith proponent to equate disagreement and error. Critics may courteously be indulged in the realm of debate, and cajoled into seeing the light, if possible, but that would be supererogatory under the canons of logic and good faith. One premise of “civilized” debate —that any contender might be speaking the truth and debate is one way to tell who— is not shared by all the contenders. For this reason it is disturbing to note that almost any claim to truth may bear a tacit exclusivity clause.
If you are being purely logical and the other person comes up with a personal story, you can, in most instances, rightfully call them an idiot for using that as a parry to your point. It’s like bringing a spoon to a knife fight.
Even more disturbing is the case of philosophical systems. The paradigm of good philosophy for several western traditions —the complete, consistent system— is impelled to be rude….
If the system is supposed to be complete as well as true, then the good faith proponent must believe the critic in error, and therefore must apply the system’s explanation of error to her. Note that mere belief in the completeness and truth of the system suffices here to justify the conclusion that disagreement is error. The good faith proponent need not immediately act on this belief in the critic’s error, but neither can he escape concluding it, any more than he could willingly suspend judgment on the truth of his beliefs. Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness. [DS: rude people tell the truth] They must defend their beliefs either by appeal to premises and principles from outside the system, which they believe are false, or by appeal to premises and principles from withing the system, which is question-begging and liable to be very rude. [demonstration of depth of explanation] This may be called the dilemma of systematic self-defense. To ask such a believer to be logically polite “just for the sake of argument” is equivalent to asking him to give up some tenets of the faith he wishes to defend just to enter a realm of debate to defend it. This is why systems with pretensions to completeness have traditionally seemed rude, have traditionally authorized rude defenses in their proponents, or have gone undefended at fundamental levels….
…Logical rudeness may be considered a complex form of ad hominem argument. It tells critics and dissenters that they are defective human beings whose ignorance or error is well explained as frailty, fault, foible, or the absence of a boon. Moreover, this form of ad hominem is justified by the theory under attack. When our questions are answered by ad hominem assaults, we are angered. Our anger cannot be reduced to hurt feelings because we were not merely wounded in our dignity; we were put off in our inquiries for truth by a refusal to cooperate. A rude response can therefore trigger three levels of indignation: personal affront, thwarted cooperation, and crippled inquiry. The first is personal, the second social and political, and the third epistemic. …
..Some form of rudeness seems inevitable. Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to know the truth, [as if equally capable of understanding, psychometrics be damned] or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game. These two fundamental types of rudeness can be barred only by one another. To secure some courtesies, then, we must impose other rude principles. There is something Gödelian about this result. No system of logical etiquette can be both complete and consistent. For every such system there will be a permissible but rude theory. ….
…..The automatic inference of falsehood from rudeness or undebatability may be called the fallacy of petulance —in which we peevishly allow our hurt feelings to supersede our better judgement. The fallacy of petulance is to use the criteria of courtesy as criteria (or as a subset of the criteria) of truth. Sociability in debate may be important for many reasons, even for the fundamental epistemic reason of keeping debate a fruitful avenue of inquiry and for basic ethical duties to other inquirers; but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth. ……
….The danger of legislating a style of thinking in order to secure a form of cooperation is real. ….
Trigger warnings, anyone?
pdf of paper here; it will doubtless be implied this is behind the gains of the Right Wing in Europe.
1. Methodical outcome. Communal>Individual benefit.
2. Pragmatism. ABC>DEF = G.
I think this works because we imagine trains of thought as spatial physical pathways, and walking alongside someone as they explain the latter creates an ingroup rapport. Walk a mile in their shoes applied to right-thinkers, contrary to the historical merit of shouting down your opponent. Too abstract for me.
Because there’s a wrong way to do things and we need to defend it.
“Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.” [DS: good]
“Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.” [ehh, sorta]
“Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. [that’s poor reasoning and should be discounted from pure theory]
Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion … favour conclusions for which arguments can be found.”