expos4ever
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2008
- 10,745
- 5,799
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
I would like some ranch dressing to go with this word salad.Yes, which is why I am demanding 'good reason' from the qualia of ethics. Do you have a problem with ethical justification? Do you believe your moral beliefs do not require 'good reason'?
Which carries the burden of proof? The one claiming a moral obligation and an action imperative or the one who carries the status quo?
How do material facts translate into imperatives without 'ought' premises? And if you do have 'ought premises, how do you derive them? And why should I agree with your derivation? What qualia do you have for your means of derivation?
And how do you apply ambiguous causal chains towards moral liability, where action and consequence is far removed and not obvious?
All of these questions are what constitute 'good reason'.
'Good reason' is not a synonym for your personal moral dogmas.
Fair enough, I assure you that I am not blocking you and I will no doubt be kept busy correcting your misinformation.Just as a heads-up, I'm blocking you for that assertion. I am serious.
Pasting together big words does not an argument make.A sin of omission would require there to be a moral obligation in the first place, which for the last year and some months has not been demonstrated beyond the assertion of unjustified dogma - without so much a sense that imperatives require justification at all.
This is not very convincing. It seems like you are trying to evade moral culpability for getting vaccinated by questioning the credibility of the guidance from medical experts. That seems reasonable on the surface.It's a matter of conscience and if one questions highly and are strongly doubting the word of people in the medical field they have not sinned.
Don't believe this - evidence please.....it has been well validated that asymptomatic transmission has never been and could not be a driver of this pandemic.
Nonsense, seasoned with more big words to bamboozle the impressionable.This is an example of a particular-universal barrier violation. If all other vaccines did lower death rates, then it still wouldn't be the case that this one does.
Evidence please - which vaccines have increased death rates?And there have been plenty historically that increased death rates directly and perhaps some that have done so indirectly - even when the government isn't doing unethical human experimentation... like with syphilis.
‘No scientific evidence’ ...time will tellBoth the infertility and cancer issues are myths. Here's some real medical opinion on both. The second source (7 Myths) also mentions the issues of fertility and quick development.
Fertility Is it true? Do COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility? | Australian Government Department of Health
Do COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility?Cancer Fact Check: 7 Persistent Myths about COVID-19 Vaccines | Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (mskcc.org)
There is no scientific evidence to support this. None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently under review by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) cause sterilisation/infertility.
The TGA will not approve a vaccine for use in Australia unless it is safe and effective. This includes impacts on fertility.
The theory that COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility is based on the disproven idea that one of the spike proteins in COVID-19 and the Syncytin-1 protein (which help placenta development) are the same. They are not.
The COVID-19 vaccine, like other vaccines, works by training our bodies to develop antibodies to fight against the virus that causes COVID-19, to prevent future illness.
There is currently no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problems with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.
In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that fertility problems are a side effect of ANY vaccine.
People who are trying to become pregnant now or who plan to try in the future may receive the COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available to them.
Myth: The mRNA vaccines change your DNA and could cause cancer.
Truth: None of the vaccines interact with or alter your DNA in any way, and therefore cannot cause cancer.
Messenger RNA (mRNA) is not the same as DNA and cannot be combined with DNA to change your genetic code. Here’s now mRNA vaccines actually work:
The mRNA vaccines use a tiny piece of the coronavirus’ genetic code to teach your immune system how to make a protein that will trigger an immune response if you get infected. The mRNA is fragile, so after it delivers the instructions to your cells, it breaks down and disappears from the body (in about 72 hours). The mRNA never even goes into the nucleus of the cell — the part that contains your DNA.
Therefore, there is no truth to the myth that somehow the mRNA vaccine could inactivate the genes that suppress tumors.
With respect to a connection to infertility, Occam appear to be arguing that the very notion that the vaccine could cause infertility is based on a premise that has been shown to be incorrect. With respect to the matter of cancer, the argument is that Messenger RNA (mRNA) is not the same as DNA and cannot be combined with DNA to change your genetic code.‘No scientific evidence’ ...time will tell
Misleading, of course. What you are not telling us, and what needs to be said, is that even with a 99% survival rate, health care systems will be, and indeed have been, overwhelmed by this pandemic, putting all sorts of other people at risk.
Besides, this 99% figure is a psychological trick. Sure, 99% sounds like almost 100%. But would you get on a plane if you knew that one out of every 100 planes blows up in the sky? No, you would not.
In the USA, this 99% figure still translates into over 600,000 human lives gone.
As the official report shows, only 10 deaths out of 30,000 people vaccinated - that is 1 in 3000 - are suspcious.
If you eating junk food gave me heart disease, yes I would mandate a ban.Heart disease also kills approximately 600k in the US each year. Do you also advocate to mandate a ban on fast/junk food?
No, they are not overwhelming the health care system. They may be needlessly taxing it, but they are not overloading it. Obese people will dribble into the health care system at a pretty steady, predictable rate. Not so with covid - tens of thousands need care all at once.Using your own words, are those people who are overweight and obese not also overwhelming healthcare systems?
How does any of this support your position of vaccine hesitancy?
No. All this shows is how many people have contracted it so far. A medical expert (Dr. Isaac Bogoch) has stated that people who remain unvaccinated will likely eventually get infected.Also some quick math:
33mil Covid cases (unsure if repeats. We'll assume no) out of 331mil population in the US. 10% chance to contract it in the first place.
Some major problems with this:603000 dead out of 33mil. 1% chance to die because of it. So, total, .1% chance of death from this all together.
Right, but what's happening now is people eating junk food now want to dictate what I do or don't put into my body, so basically the same thing.If you eating junk food gave me heart disease, yes I would mandate a ban.
By showing me that I, and most others, have very little to fear from Covid itself so a vaccine isn't necessary.How does any of this support your position of vaccine hesitancy?
No it is not the same thing and you are distorting the relevant facts. Yes, people obviously could reduce their risk of dying from covid by laying off the nachos and ungluing themselves from the couch.Right, but what's happening now is people eating junk food now want to dictate what I do or don't put into my body, so basically the same thing.
But this is manifestly untrue. Every indication we have is that lack of vaccination fuels variants. And the variants, at least some of them, are getting nastier. This is a highly contagious virus. Unless, it is somehow eradicated, which I believe the experts say is unlikely, you, as an unvaccinated person, will likely get covid eventually - it is just a matter of time.By showing me that I, and most others, have very little to fear from Covid itself so a vaccine isn't necessary.
Communicable diseases are different, because dealing with them has to be done by the whole community. That's why things that would otherwise be unaccepted are allowed, e.g. quarantines.@expos4ever
The heart of my issue is the idea that the government, or anyone, should have a say what I put into my body. I say, if we're going to mandate this vaccine, let's not stop there. Go all in. Mandate what we eat, drink, smoke, inject or otherwise injest.
I've given you links to two different reports of a very large, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded, multi-center clinical study of the safety (and efficacy!) of the Pfizer vaccine. That is the absolute gold standard of clinical studies, and no amount of obfuscation on your part will make the study go away. Moreover, each of the other two vaccines currently in use in the US has similar studies of the highest caliber.Oh, you think a briefing with broad strokes constitutes a systematic study.
Even so, I don't think it right to force my belief in my neighbor.Communicable diseases are different, because dealing with them has to be done by the whole community. That's why things that would otherwise be unaccepted are allowed, e.g. quarantines.
Early Christians got a lot of good will because in epidemics they would stay and nurse the ill, whereas many doctors would flee the city. That was certainly risky. But certain forms of modern Christianity seem to about people being able to do whatever they want. I challenge you to find support for that in the Bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?