I honestly don't recall the last time I discussed divorce. I have no issue calling out hypocrisy. If a hypocrite makes a point that's correct, though, it doesn't invalidate their point. It doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to hypocrisy, nor does it mean we negate their correct points in spite of their hypocrisy.AGC said:PacifistAg said:Exactly. They may be a hypocrite, but that doesn't make them wrong. If, for example, a womanizing politician came out talking about the importance of honoring the sanctity of marriage, he'd be absolutely right. He'd also be a raging hypocrite, but it wouldn't impact the validity of his point.dargscisyhp said:And I was pointing out that hypocrisy is a bad reason to discredit experts in their field of expertise, and when we see it happening it should be called out as such.AGC said:dargscisyhp said:AGC said:
How's it lazy to think that the people creating policy don't believe their own statements if that's how they act?
Because it's a tu quoque.
My point was that experts and politicians have blown their credibility with hypocrisy, not that Ferguson is an idiot or wrong or doesn't believe it. We're being asked why credentialism is failing and it's largely self inflicted. Its deficient leadership by people who want to be followed.
Or if George Whitefield preached about how all men, regardless of race, are created in the divine image of God and should be treated with respect, he'd be right. But he'd also be a raging hypocrite, as he owned human beings and denied them the respect that he preached.
You regularly take 'the church' to task on divorce and hypocrisy in this very forum. Does this mean you won't going forward?
Question for Episcopalians
9,034 Views |
171 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by UTExan
dargscisyhp said:And I was pointing out that hypocrisy is a bad reason to discredit experts in their field of expertise, and when we see it happening it should be called out as such.AGC said:dargscisyhp said:AGC said:
How's it lazy to think that the people creating policy don't believe their own statements if that's how they act?
Because it's a tu quoque.
My point was that experts and politicians have blown their credibility with hypocrisy, not that Ferguson is an idiot or wrong or doesn't believe it. We're being asked why credentialism is failing and it's largely self inflicted. Its deficient leadership by people who want to be followed.
Experts discredit themselves with hypocrisy. This isn't something done to them. It's done by them. You can't blame others for their actions or simply expect people to blindly follow; that's unrealistic and hypocrisy should indeed make one question the validity of what's preached, especially if we're calling it life or death.
I have issue with every sentence you've written. Mostly for reasons already stated, so unless there's something else I'll stop at this point.AGC said:dargscisyhp said:And I was pointing out that hypocrisy is a bad reason to discredit experts in their field of expertise, and when we see it happening it should be called out as such.AGC said:dargscisyhp said:AGC said:
How's it lazy to think that the people creating policy don't believe their own statements if that's how they act?
Because it's a tu quoque.
My point was that experts and politicians have blown their credibility with hypocrisy, not that Ferguson is an idiot or wrong or doesn't believe it. We're being asked why credentialism is failing and it's largely self inflicted. Its deficient leadership by people who want to be followed.
Experts discredit themselves with hypocrisy. This isn't something done to them. It's done by them. You can't blame others for their actions or simply expect people to blindly follow; that's unrealistic and hypocrisy should indeed make one question the validity of what's preached, especially if we're calling it life or death.
dargscisyhp said:I have issue with every sentence you've written. Mostly for reasons already stated, so unless there's something else I'll stop at this point.AGC said:dargscisyhp said:And I was pointing out that hypocrisy is a bad reason to discredit experts in their field of expertise, and when we see it happening it should be called out as such.AGC said:dargscisyhp said:AGC said:
How's it lazy to think that the people creating policy don't believe their own statements if that's how they act?
Because it's a tu quoque.
My point was that experts and politicians have blown their credibility with hypocrisy, not that Ferguson is an idiot or wrong or doesn't believe it. We're being asked why credentialism is failing and it's largely self inflicted. Its deficient leadership by people who want to be followed.
Experts discredit themselves with hypocrisy. This isn't something done to them. It's done by them. You can't blame others for their actions or simply expect people to blindly follow; that's unrealistic and hypocrisy should indeed make one question the validity of what's preached, especially if we're calling it life or death.
We'll leave most of it behind then but how is hypocrisy not self-inflicted? I agree with you that objective truth exists and is knowable. However I think this falls into a different category. Think of the word 'trustworthy'. This is not something that can be earned, it can only be given. I don't have to consider someone trustworthy just because they demand it or ask. I can withhold it as long as I please. It has nothing to do with you and everything to do with me. Likewise hypocrisy is not something someone else does to you, it's something you do to yourself. It is your actions that cast doubt on your statements, not someone else's.
Ferguson could entirely be correct that he's not in an at risk group and poses no threat by going out alone, and thus not a hypocrite. You might agree as well and all the data and numbers may back up the measures and his belief. But it's not just hypocrisy now but also equality and liberty (think the recent debate with Jordan and faucci). Much of our response touches on multiple areas of government and shared values. Asking others to suppress their liberties but not your own has raised a moral question about how important your liberties are relative to others. He needs skin in the game.
You're right, hypocrisy is self-inflicted, but the non-sequitur of others in going from identifying the hypocrisy of a person to questioning the validity of that person's intellectual output is not. To be perfectly clear in what I mean, Neil Ferguson could have developed a highly potent variant of Covid-19, converted it into an aerosolized weapon, swallowed that weapon, gone to Time Square, and fire-breathed that aerosolized ultramega-coronavirus on anyone and everyone in a one-mile radius and it would not have diminished his prior work or made his prior recommendations any more or less valid. His work should be judged on its merit, not by the character of its creator. Bringing up his personal foibles when discussing the validity of his work is a red-herring, and is 100% on whoever is doing that. I think some of the people who are doing that are doing so knowingly. It's fallacious, deceptive, disingenuous, evil, and should be called out as such every single time.
Your Christianity should not be judged based on whether or not you have been vaccinated. You don't know the reasons why people choose not to. It is their choice and you can try to convince them otherwise. Calling them bad Christians certainly won't make them more likely to get vaccinated, they will just dig their heals into the sand.
What if they tell us their reasons?
Yes, I agree with you not every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be interpreting scientific literature, but to say its unreadable by anyone outside of their field is just wrong. Or that you can't just read the abstract, findings, and conclusions like 90% of researchers doing a first pass on meta analysis are doing anyway. Fields get small really quick and dissenting opinions can be subject to all sorts of pressures during a peer review. Things someone with a simple masters level understanding of statistics would point out could have purposefully been left unstated. And formally bringing up dissenting opinions (like the anecdotal nature of mask efficacy studies) can put you on a short list of being a conservative or 'science denier' within a field. Shoot there's a whole panel of scientists saying they couldn't publish dissenting opinions about the vaccine in the united states this last year.AstroAg17 said:
It has nothing to do with intelligence. You don't have the time to become an expert in a scientific field as a hobby. Nobody does. Reading a paper can take a week. Certain papers could take a year if you were starting from scratch.
There are certain people who do a decent job of it. I think Zobel is one. But in aggregate the behavior makes the world worse, not better. There are too many morons like OP (it's not bad to be uninformed, but it is bad to think you're informed when you're not. I think that part is related to intelligence).
I don't know if you've spent anytime with academia up close and personal, but its not always the bastion people make it out to be. There are special interests, taboos, groups you can't associate with, and people who control your fate/research dollars/publication access. As well as bad data, and misleading data analysis to get statistical significance.
To blindly follow the first round of experts publicizations is to give up your own autonomy here. There's vested interests behind every position. To scoff at people's apprehensions here is asinine. There are long term implications that could not have been studied. People have the right to set their own level of risk here.
They have the right, but they probably lack the ability in aggregate.
I'm against de-platforming, too easy to silence dissenting opinions for power gains.
I agree there are many people spreading misinformation and crap studies on the internet. But I would like to figure it out myself and not trust Facebook or Twitter to do it for me.
I agree there are many people spreading misinformation and crap studies on the internet. But I would like to figure it out myself and not trust Facebook or Twitter to do it for me.
Thank you Mr. Master Plumber, I know that you're the expert here, but I'd like to figure out the problem for myself.
AstroAg17 said:
The people "figuring it out for themselves" are the ones spreading misinformation and crap studies on the internet.
De-platform the press!
AstroAg17 said:
The people "figuring it out for themselves" are the ones spreading misinformation and crap studies on the internet.
It is the conflicting information from scientists at the CDC that drives mistrust. All the aerosol anti microbial spraying and the "deep cleaning" of surfaces were one aspect my microbiologist wife told me were largely unnecessary. The viable virus was carried in droplets to mostly be deposited within a 3 ft radius of the carrier (sneezes excepted) and the virus itself was just not super-viable because it is an enveloped virus. The guidance early in from the CDC was confusing because you had spokespersons speculating. So perhaps some of these folks who worry about the vaccines need to be given a little grace until they are comfortable with the medical evidence.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
"Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, says he doesn't regret advising Americans against wearing masks early on in the COVID-19 pandemic."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7%3Famp
Except then he did, big time.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7%3Famp
Except then he did, big time.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
Nailed it. The Danish study is by far the best mask study based on methodology.AgLiving06 said:
The table is laughable.
It relies on anecdotal evidence at best.
Lets take self reported mask wearing which represents 36% of the "interventions." Wanna bet those who are willing to self report are taking far more precautions than just wearing a mask? So how are you going to isolate for the impacts of a mask?
I also notice they didn't bother to put California on the chart? Who had enforced mandatory mask mandates, yet got absolutely wrecked this winter.
And then there's this sentence from the article:Quote:
These studies did not distinguish the types of masks (cloth, surgical, or N95) used in the community. This association is strengthened because, in many cases, other mitigation strategies (eg, school and workplace closures, recommendations for social distancing, hand hygiene) had already been deployed before enactment of mask wearing policies, after which the reductions were observed.
They also have to set out to disprove the Denmark study which did not show any tangible benefit of masks
So no, this article does nothing to further "science."
Edit to add: This is why the focus should have been on "get the vaccine and go back to your life." Instead, it's get the vaccine and stay in hiding.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Good find.Zobel said:
By March? This was published March 16 2020. Go ahead and read it, it is a fascinating piece in hindsight.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
My thoughts from the start were to quarantine the vulnerable as I think it is untenable to quarantine or socially distance everyone.
And I think we would have reached herd immunity much quicker and had fewer fatalities.
The whole mask thing to me is ridiculous on its face and has done much to damage trust in what the CDC is saying and also distrust of the vaccine.
And I am pro vaccine but after all the double speak I can understand the reluctance of some people to want to take the vaccine.
As far as masks go, the best uncontrolled studies are comparing states with strict mask mandates and those without. Hard to refute what is actually playing out in real life before our eyes. And that leads to distrust as people are not stupid.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:
The whole mask thing to me is ridiculous on its face
I guarantee it's more ridiculous on the chin. Keep it on the face I say.
dargscisyhp said:dermdoc said:
The whole mask thing to me is ridiculous on its face
I guarantee it's more ridiculous on the chin. Keep it on the face I say.
I laughed. Thanks.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
My reluctance to taking the vaccine is twofold:
1. I've probably already had the virus just a couple months ago.
2. We don't know the long term effects. Is this not the reason the vaccines are still under EUA? I'll grant that the likelihood of there being any significant effects may be low, but the risk/reward is just not there for me, a person in an age and health group for which the risk of complications from the virus is extremely low to begin with.
I'm all for people making up their own minds on this, and have no issue with people who decide the vaccine is for them. Both of my parents have taken the vaccine. Given the purported high efficacy of the vaccine and the low IFR of the virus in the first place, I do not believe that by not taking the vaccine I am putting anyone at significant risk.
1. I've probably already had the virus just a couple months ago.
2. We don't know the long term effects. Is this not the reason the vaccines are still under EUA? I'll grant that the likelihood of there being any significant effects may be low, but the risk/reward is just not there for me, a person in an age and health group for which the risk of complications from the virus is extremely low to begin with.
I'm all for people making up their own minds on this, and have no issue with people who decide the vaccine is for them. Both of my parents have taken the vaccine. Given the purported high efficacy of the vaccine and the low IFR of the virus in the first place, I do not believe that by not taking the vaccine I am putting anyone at significant risk.
Low IFR compared to what?Quote:
Given the purported high efficacy of the vaccine and the low IFR of the virus in the first place, I do not believe that by not taking the vaccine I am putting anyone at significant risk.
These kinds of statements are baffling to me. One of the reasons for you not wanting to get the vaccine is because it has high efficacy? You may end up getting sick and passing the virus onto others but that's fine because other people have been vaccinated? And if others take your free rider stance then what?
Well, according to the doctor in this article https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/emergency-use-authorization-fda-approval-vaccines-fact-check/65-7391e595-cee0-4a00-8468-194a6e0a21a4
(Dr. William Schaffner- Professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and an affiliate of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices)
(Dr. William Schaffner- Professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and an affiliate of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices)
So, yes, that is exactly the reason why the vaccines are still not under full authorization.Quote:
"The only difference really between the emergency use and the licensure is that volunteers are observed for a longer period of time to see the duration of protection, and if there might be rare adverse events that occurred down the road,"
No, the point is the vaccines are effective enough that me not getting it has virtually no impact on anyone else's health if they choose to take the vaccine. This is not one of the reasons for me not taking the vaccine, it's a moral justification, which was the original question posed by the OP.craigernaught said:Low IFR compared to what?Quote:
Given the purported high efficacy of the vaccine and the low IFR of the virus in the first place, I do not believe that by not taking the vaccine I am putting anyone at significant risk.
These kinds of statements are baffling to me. One of the reasons for you not wanting to get the vaccine is because it has high efficacy? You may end up getting sick and passing the virus onto others but that's fine because other people have been vaccinated? And if others take your free rider stance then what?
Except that not everyone can or will choose to take the vaccine and taking the vaccine can stop transmission to other people.Quote:
No, the point is the vaccines are effective enough that me not getting it has virtually no impact on anyone else's health if they choose to take the vaccine. This is not one of the reasons for me not taking the vaccine, it's a moral justification, which was the original question posed by the OP.
If everyone who had a "low IFR", however you want to define "low", decided not to take the vaccine, then the virus can still spread rapidly throughout the population. Given that I live outside the US and widespread vaccination here may not be possible here for years (just like many other places), the continued spread is particularly dangerous. The virus clearly does not respect borders.
You're choosing to greatly overstate the risk of the vaccine and understate the risk of the virus just so you don't have to get a shot that is far less dangerous to you than the virus.
But that's exactly wrong - I've most likely already had the virus. There is essentially no risk to me from the virus going forward, nor of me spreading it, at least until immunity wears off. From what I've read this is still an unknown. This is the first of the two reasons I gave in my original post, which you seem to ignore. There is some risk associated with long-term complications. As I said, I'll grant you that it's likely very low, but the risk is still greater from it than the virus for me.Quote:Except that not everyone can or will choose to take the vaccine and taking the vaccine can stop transmission to other people.Quote:
No, the point is the vaccines are effective enough that me not getting it has virtually no impact on anyone else's health if they choose to take the vaccine. This is not one of the reasons for me not taking the vaccine, it's a moral justification, which was the original question posed by the OP.
If everyone who had a "low IFR", however you want to define "low", decided not to take the vaccine, then the virus can still spread rapidly throughout the population. Given that I live outside the US and widespread vaccination here may not be possible here for years (just like many other places), the continued spread is particularly dangerous. The virus clearly does not respect borders.
You're choosing to greatly overstate the risk of the vaccine and understating the risk of the virus just so you don't have to get a shot that is far less dangerous to you than the virus.
I didn't ignore it. You don't know if you had it or not. Even if you had it, getting the vaccine is still beneficial.
Just baffling.
The risk of the vaccine to you is essentially zero. You don't know if you had the virus. You don't know what kind of immunity "likely having it" offers. You don't know if you can spread it to others.
This whole argument is lazy and bad.
Just baffling.
Quote:
but the risk is still greater from it than the virus for me.
The risk of the vaccine to you is essentially zero. You don't know if you had the virus. You don't know what kind of immunity "likely having it" offers. You don't know if you can spread it to others.
This whole argument is lazy and bad.
You can't possibly know that the risk of the vaccine is "essentially zero." The whole point is we don't know what the risk is long-term! I will revisit my position once the full authorization has been granted, but that has not happened yet.Quote:
I didn't ignore it. You don't know if you had it or not. Even if you had it, getting the vaccine is still beneficial.
Just baffling.Quote:
but the risk is still greater from it than the virus for me.
The risk of the vaccine to you is essentially zero. You don't know if you had the virus. You don't know what kind of immunity "likely having it" offers. You don't know if you can spread it to others.
This whole argument is lazy and bad.
Also, if you're aware of another disease going around that causes fever, chills, cough, body aches, and a runny nose, please let me know. As we all know, the flu is not a thing this year.
Featured Stories
See All
5:53
4h ago
1.0k
9:10
5h ago
1.1k
Rapid Reaction: No. 1 Texas A&M drops series in Baton Rouge
by David Sandhop
6:15
13h ago
1.6k
7:30
6h ago
783
#15 Aggies advance to super regionals after dispatching Toreros
by Luke Evangelist
30:01
1d ago
2.1k
Maroon&Fight
FINAL from Baton Rouge: Louisiana State 6, No. 1 Texas A&M 4 (Saturday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
Aldo the Apache
Why is it taboo to mention concerns with A&M sports?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4