Vacci-Nation [CLOSED DUE TO DISRESPECTFUL, INSULTING, POLITICAL POSTS

[Impureclient]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’m trying to identify and ignore these right wing crazies.

Same, I've identified the left wing crazies.
*Using Wiki as a credible source to figure out something about politics lolololol
https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...p-of-the-facts
Like I said, all this like politics and religion doesn't end with an answer for everybody to be happy with.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Impureclient

Same, I've identified the left wing crazies.
*Using Wiki as a credible source to figure out something about politics lolololol
https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...p-of-the-facts
Like I said, all this like politics and religion doesn't end with an answer for everybody to be happy with.

First BitChute and now Heartland Institute lol You are posting stuff from websites known to support hate groups like white supremisists, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, QAnon, deep state fanatics, UFO wakos, climate deniers, right and libertarian extremists, capital insurrectionists, etc.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...ots-to-policy/

We can go in circles. Why are you here? If everything and everyone is corrupt around you then no one can convince you of anything except when it comes from people in your little circle. That reasoning is a logic fallacy when you appeal to authority. What is worse is you aren’t being intellectually consistent. You post a video where the guy talks about scientific evidence for something, which you accept because it comes from a right wing platform, but then you don’t believe the overwhelming data and scientific consensus on climate change. This is cherry picking or a type of special pleading—another logic fallacy.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

but then you don’t believe the overwhelming data and scientific consensus on climate change. This is cherry picking or a type of special pleading—another logic fallacy.

There are extremists on both sides, and it is fact that both conspiracy theorists are right to be paranoid sometimes and scientists sometimes get it wrong. I suppose at least scientists are usually willing to be convinced and moved to a different argument.

In the end, like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Irace86.2.0]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninasha...think-it-does/

During the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine study, there were 23 study participants who became pregnant during their vaccine trial. There was one pregnancy loss, but this was in a participant who received the placebo, not the vaccine.

On the other hand, the testis have an abundant amount of ACE2 receptor, so COVID infection may be the bigger concern:

https://link.springer.com/article/10...32-020-00261-z


Small study of many studies looking at the effect of COVID on male fertility. We will have to

H&E histomorphology showed three of the six COVID-19 biopsies had normal spermatogenesis while the remaining three had impaired spermatogenesis. TEM showed the COVID-19 virus in testis tissue of one COVID-19 positive autopsy case and the live biopsy, H&E stain on the same autopsy case demonstrated interstitial macrophage and leukocyte infiltration. Immunofluorescent stained slides from six COVID-19 positive men demonstrated a direct association between increased quantitative ACE-2 levels and impairment of spermatogenesis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7752514/

Preliminary findings so far suggest the possibility of both direct and indirect infection of SARS-CoV-2 in the reproductive system of males and possible impact on general health and well-being potentially leading to infertility. Evidence indicates a possible long-term effect of the pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on testicular tissue, which may further impact reproductive performance. Moreover, the possibility of sexual transmission of SARS-CoV-2 cannot be ruled out.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...98/rsob.200347

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

There are extremists on both sides, and it is fact that both conspiracy theorists are on right to be paranoid and scientists sometimes get it wrong. I suppose at least scientists are usually willing to be convinced and moved to a different argument.

In the end, like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Scientists follow the evidence. They aren't bound to dogma. They will readily shift their opinion in light of new and compelling evidence.


I agree there are extremists on both sides, except the extremists on either side have vastly different agendas like one wants to be a supreme race and the other wants transgender people to have bathroom privileges or all races to have equal rights. There are extremists on both sides who share government distrust or are anti-vaxxers, so sometimes the thinking-sickness and irrationality exists on both sides, but I don't think the divide is equal.


The truth can be in the middle, but it can also not be in the middle.

[Impureclient]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This is cherry picking or a type of special pleading—another logic fallacy.

Oh you are informed of logical fallacies...

I agree there are extremists on both sides, except the extremists on either side have vastly different agendas like one wants to be a supreme race and the other wants transgender people to have bathroom privileges or all races to have equal rights.

Say hello to my friend, the strawman. This all gets better every post.

My God is better than your God.
My opinion is better than your opinion.
My science is better than your science.
My politics are better than your politics.

This thread reminds me of politicians calling for unity and then immediately out the other side of their mouth for reeducation camps, removal of rights including speech, extreme censorship and anything to silence their opposition.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Scientists follow the evidence. They aren't bound to dogma. They will readily shift their opinion in light of new and compelling evidence.

"Readily" is probably a little generous, but we're saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I agree there are extremists on both sides, except the extremists on either side have vastly different agendas like one wants to be a supreme race and the other wants transgender people to have bathroom privileges or all races to have equal rights.

Sorry, but you're being a little disingenuous there. What you describe as "far left" is far from it. It's much more mainstream than you, or the press, seems to want folks to believe. I guess it supports your point, but doesn't do you any favors.

Believe it or not, we're on the same page here, but I tend to be more centrist about it I suppose. I truly believe most stories have two sides, and both are typically wrong in some way, shape or form.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Impureclient

Oh you are informed of logical fallacies...


Say hello to my friend, the strawman. This all gets better every post.

My God is better than your God.
My opinion is better than your opinion.
My science is better than your science.
My politics are better than your politics.

This thread reminds me of politicians calling for unity and then immediately out the other side of their mouth for reeducation camps, removal of rights including speech, extreme censorship and anything to silence their opposition.

It isn't an exaggeration if it is true. Those are prevalent ideas in the two "extremes", so those are not strawman--they are examples. The fact that you see them as exaggerations gives me some hope that you may not be a part of such extremists, even if your sources suggest you could be.


Listen, Germany went through a period post WWII that the US never went through, and it would be a good idea if we did. They teach their kids about the atrocities that occurred in their history. They teach their kids about the dangers of fascism and the types of thinking that leads to fascism. They worked hard to censor and reform hate groups. The tried to remove their platform. It worked. We have more people in the states that celebrate the fascist history of Germany than Germany has.


Similarly, we could use racial reform and anti-fascist education. The censorship of people who would incite insurrection has been shown by their actions on our capital to be a real concern to the safety of our country and the members of congress. I don't know who or what rights you are referring to when you claim rights to speech have been taken or what you mean by extreme censorship. As far as I have seen, the censorship has been to the extremists, so this is where I get concerned again about where your thinking is at.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

"Readily" is probably a little generous, but we're saying the same thing.

Time is relative. Contrast it to the changing consensus on other practices that relate to politics, religion, etc. It is "readily".

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Sorry, but you're being a little disingenuous there. What you describe as "far left" is far from it. It's much more mainstream than you, or the press, seems to want folks to believe. I guess it supports your point, but doesn't do you any favors.

Believe it or not, we're on the same page here, but I tend to be more centrist about it I suppose. I truly believe most stories have two sides, and both are typically wrong in some way, shape or form.

I agree and disagree. There are two perspectives. There is the perspective of how the middle sees the two extremes and how the extremes view the other extremes. Ask the far right what are the radial left policies and you might find a list that includes things like having "gay books" that their kids are taught in school or having a mandate to allow transgender people to use the bathroom they identify. You might recall that just 12 years ago Prop 8 was passed, in all places, California. On polar issues, the extremes view the other side as extreme. You might be identifying transgender rights as something that has a more universal or broad consensus, but it is a very polar issue, so I wasn't being disingenuous. See the pew research below:


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...and-democrats/

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The problem with arguing with conspiracy theorists is that there is no changing their mind. Flat Earthers, for instance, can’t be proven wrong in their eyes because all evidence refuting their theories is fake. Anyone trying to present evidence against their theory is clearly apart of the deep state. The logic is very circular.

You summarize the situation perfectly. We live in a time of unprecedented confirmation bias. Many people completely immerse themselves in a digital echo chamber that repeatedly parrots back to them their own preconceived ideas, which become more entrenched and intractable with each repetition.

It might be gracious or even-handed to say that often 'the truth lies in the middle'. Sometimes it might. But while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there is only one set of facts. Data are data. If something is objectively measurable, there is only one version of reality. People on different sides might interpret and have different feelings about reality, but there is still only one version of it.

That's what bothers me the most about the current environment we live in. There are people who are deeply frightened of, and angered by, truth. They see it, and anyone who advocates truth, as an existential threat to their existence. If someone is of that mindset, as you said, there is no reaching them or convincing them of anything other than the fantasy world they are rooted in.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by blackhawkdown

My problem with the vaccine as a soldier is the Gulf War syndrome. For all you young folks out there, when the military decided to invade Iraq in the early 90’s, allot of soldiers were vaccinated with unproven vaccines and experimental vaccines to protect against biological attacks. After returning from the war, soldiers were making babies. A lot of the babies had developmental issues to include mental retardation, deformed appendages, and so forth. There was a big law suit. Some of the soldiers medical records were wiped out clean to hide the traces.

Currently in the Army, i can’t speak for other branches, the vaccine is optional. They even make you sign paperwork before the vaccine. Currently the trend right now for vaccinated soldiers are senior leadership. Junior soldiers are less likely to get the vaccination.

So until it’s fda approved and the Army makes it mandatory, I’m going to pass on this one. Who knows, i am legend just might be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm a little confused on what you are claiming. Some of the things that may have caused Gulf War Syndrome are clearly linked to exposure or prophylactic medications, but not vaccines. From the brief research I found, there seems to be no significant link between Gulf War Syndrome and rates of birth defects. Do you have something like a journal article or something credible that backs your claims about vaccines, or are you saying it was just the pyridostigmine bromide pills?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

but it is a very polar issue, so I wasn't being disingenuous. See the pew research below:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...and-democrats/

Even in this article though, some of the differences boils down to use of language.

Unfortunately English (and most languages as far as I know) use the same term for what I would define as "biological sexual assignment" and "actual sexual assignment".

I do not agree "sex is assigned at birth" as male and female. It is assigned much earlier than that, at the point where sperm meets egg. We cannot change that assignment as it is defined by biology. Our use of language chooses to call that male or female.

I also agree that sexual or gender preference does not always match up with our chromosomal assignment, or with societal norms. I'm perfectly OK with that, and accept it as Truth, and a person's right to be what they want to be.

Depending on how the question is asked of me, you may get very different answers because I hold that both are facts, with rare exception.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

But while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there is only one set of facts. Data are data. If something is objectively measurable, there is only one version of reality. People on different sides might interpret and have different feelings about reality, but there is still only one version of it..

Data may be Data, but it is in the interpretation of that data that things are discovered. Without interpretation, data is pretty meaningless.

2+2 = 4 but there is no value in that unless you have some reason for it to matter. Dogs don't care that 2+2 = 4. It has no meaning to them.

The current trend of the Earth warming is a fact. That humans contribute to that at some level is also a fact. So do cows, and trees, and the natural cycles of the planet itself. We have to take the data and interpret/discover what it is we can do to impact it, but it is very possible we cannot or could not, prevent it over time. I don't believe we really know that.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Even in this article though, some of the differences boils down to use of language.

Unfortunately English (and most languages as far as I know) use the same term for what I would define as "biological sexual assignment" and "actual sexual assignment".

I do not agree "sex is assigned at birth" as male and female. It is assigned much earlier than that, at the point where sperm meets egg. We cannot change that assignment as it is defined by biology. Our use of language chooses to call that male or female.

I also agree that sexual or gender preference does not always match up with our chromosomal assignment, or with societal norms. I'm perfectly OK with that, and accept it as Truth, and a person's right to be what they want to be.

Depending on how the question is asked of me, you may get very different answers because I hold that both are facts, with rare exception.

The difference in language interpretation will change the ratios/percentages in each population subset higher and lower, but should maintain the disparity between subsets, unless you believe these subsets have different language interpretation patterns, so changing the question shouldn't change my point that the issue is polar.


Many trans people care about language and are invested in being labeled the gender that they identify with, but chiefly, they find it odd that people use phenotypic and cultural norms to identify the gender of strangers, and not a genetic litmus test, yet that seems to be the thing people want to use to determine what bathroom they can use.