Coronavirus

Who am I to say? I think people should do what they want with their own bodies.

But I never said otherwise?

Ain't I a stinker? (Although I think that may be an urban myth.)

That's all well and good, but it's kinda beside the point. As you noted, this isn't about compulsion. It's about our reaction to what they decide. Denying someone a choice can be authoritarian. Disapproving of their choice is not, and it's the kind of thing you, me, and everyone else does all the time already.

If someone says something false, and I say "do you think that's true?" it doesn't really address the issue to say "they're allowed to say what they want." That people can decide whether to get the vaccine is true, but it is also true that it seems like a completely unreasonable decision not to in virtually all cases.

You said they "shouldn't get it if they don't want to." This can be read more than one way, as I noted immediately, and immediately asked for clarification on.

I'll make it as plain as I can: if someone has no specific health condition that suggests they will have a bad reaction, should they get the vaccine? If they do not, do you think that's a responsible and rational decision?

Yes, it could be. I remember singing the song & twirling in a circle in my British grade school playground.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

I'm just saying that Trump's public pronouncement that he had the right to override his FDA to approve the vaccine was in the news at the time of the debate, which is precisely why the question was asked and why Harris answered it the way that she did. If Harris just started making stuff up about what Trump might do, then I'd agree that it was inappropriate. And regardless of whether Trump could do what he was claiming he could do, that's probably an important thing for voters to consider that he felt like doing it.


I just don't see her response as you do. I don't see her claiming not to take the vaccine if it comes out under a Trump administration. I think she's saying that she'll take a vaccine that has the approval of the medical community. I find it hard to compare that with anti-vaxxers refusing to take a vaccine because they think Fauci is microchipping people.

It may seem unreasonable to you, and it may seem unreasonable to me, but it only needs to be reasonable to the person making the decision for themself.

I said that after you brought up the word "shouldn't", as if I already used it, which I hadn't. From there, instead of trying to call you out, I was just going for ordinary friendly conversation rather than being argumentative.

That isn't reason in any formal sense of the word.

Well, that's what I'm asking: does it seem unreasonable to you?

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. It only "needs" to be reasonable to them in order for them to make that decision, but that's a tautology, and not what I'm asking.

Arguments can (and should) be friendly. The only reason to think of any of this as unfriendly is if you find it inherently unfriendly to question an idea. I realize a lot of people feel attacked by that sort of thing, but in an ideal world, they wouldn't.

Well I guess you're just smarter than the people who won't get vaccinated and who won't give a proper explanation to your liking.

All the more reason for her to note that he doesn't have that power to begin with.

Basically, she had the opportunity to reassure and inform people or play up Trump's untrustworthiness, and she chose the political attack angle. I'm not surprised this happened in the heat of a campaign, and in the middle of a debate, but we can and should demand better. The top priority in that response has to be reassuring people about the vaccine, a fact which was pretty obvious then and should be glaringly obvious now.

Well, good, because you shouldn't compare them. I've been explicitly saying we should not make that comparison, since it seems a lot of questionable behavior gets overlooked or excused because, hey, look at how bad the other guys are! That's a race to the bottom we've been collectively running for awhile now, and we can see the results.

I think there's probably a lot of very intelligent people who don't want to get vaccinated and have reasons that are understandable. I also think there's a lot of people who have or have not gotten vaccinated that could use quite a bit of help.

I'm just saying it's not up to us to decide for others.

No I didn't feel attacked, but you did respond to me as if I said something about "shouldn't" in regards to vaccination. That's not something I said, but instead of calling you out saying I didn't say those words, I just went along with the conversation and let it go, until it continued and I had to say, that's not what I said.

You're phrasing this kinda sarcastically, but...yes? I mean, do you have any opinions about things people should or shouldn't do, ever? I assume you do. Are you saying in all of those cases you're "smarter" than them?

But it's not about what I think they should do. It's about is it at least understandable why some people don't want to get vaccinated. I don't have to agree with it, but if I can understand it, and in some cases I can, then maybe I can refrain from calling them idiots or bad people. Remember, I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated or that I agree with the reasons that they don't.

This suggests you think there are potentially good and bad explanations for not getting it, yeah? Which means you agree that people's reasons can be reasonable...or not. Could you give me an example of a good (and bad) reason not to get it?

Right, but that's established. I mean, I've made it really clear I'm not asking who decides, so why keep saying it?

Like I said earlier, this is like me asking you if you agree with a statement, and you saying "they have the right to free speech."

Yes, it was me summarizing your position which, frankly, you've been a little cagey about. If you objected to that it would've been fine to say so, but in your reply you said "people shouldn't get it if they don't want to." So I guess it was a fair summation.

When someone says that something is "unreasonable", they don't mean that someone did not have a reason for doing it. They mean that the reason for doing it is not reasonable (formal sense) in that it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

I never said anything about good and bad. Reasonable, is different. Here's a reason not to get it that I would find understandable. The very healthy 21yo who already tested positive and was asymptomatic, works with the two 21yo guys who have gotten very sick from the vaccine, and is now afraid to get vaccinated himself. To me that is understandable. A reason that's not understandable? Well make anything up that you want, there's plenty of people out there who could use some help.

So what is your question?

No, you summarized it incorrectly and made it seem as though I said something that I didn't say, see below.

I get that and I'm not saying I disagree with all of it. Let's just not be calling all of the people who don't want to get vaccinated idiots and bad people. That's not right.

Well, Harris has been known to throw logic aside for kill points (ie Biden and busing). I don't defend her for that. But I also think it is reassuring in the sense that she supports "the doctors" who are making the approval decisions, and that their word is all that counts. Which is how it played out. After all, the vaccines were approved under the Trump administration, but I've never seen anyone use this fact as a reason not to get the vaccine, or to de facto suggest taint. I think the reason for that is that the response from medical professionals have been overwhelmingly supportive.


I think there is something to pointing out that the anti-vaxx crowd have been running with a litany of pretty kooky falsehoods - microchips, magnetism, menstruation anomalies, genetic experimentation, depopulation, etc. This kind of misinformation has a broad effect, and I think has had a substantial influence. I couldn't compare it to the other side if I wanted to because this goes well beyond mere politicization into a realm of hysteria.

Every politician from both sides should have just come out and encouraged people to get the vaccine when it was ready, and also that they were going to take it themselves. That didn't happen.

But you did agree the reasons can be understandable/reasonable or not. Wouldn't that also make some of them "bad"? Do you think a choice can be "unreasonable" but not "bad"? Unreasonableness isn't always bad?

Only if we find willful ignorance understandable. This hypothetical dude could Google some numbers or read any literature at all about it and get a pretty clear picture of the stark differences. So while it may be reasonable for him to think that with the information he currently has, it would still be unreasonable that he made no effort to learn more.

It's kind of a trick, really: if you WANT to believe something, you can look for a reason to believe it, and simply stop there. This is called "confirmation bias." It's the tendency to stop looking at evidence once you've found the evidence you want to find. I guess it's not as actively dishonest, but it's not really honest, either. And it's not genuine/understandable ignorance if they don't even make a good faith effort to inform themselves.

Here's one:
When you replied to this the first time it was just to talk about the "shouldn't" stuff. Speaking of...

I don't think I did. I summarized your position (I think it was clear it wasn't a direct quote), and then in your response you went ahead and said the same thing anyway. That would be a very odd thing to do if you felt I'd summarized your position incorrectly.