Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Daggers

What grinds my gears...

By Daggers, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

shade

shade

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What definition would "critical thinking" take in this case?

it's a nonsensical statement, implying that because humans are the only species supposedly capable of homophobia that it must be wrong. we're also the only species capable of long division, what does that tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, shade said:

it's a nonsensical statement, implying that because humans are the only species supposedly capable of homophobia that it must be wrong. we're also the only species capable of long division, what does that tell you.

Fair point.

 

There are numerous very good arguments as to why homophobia is wrong without relying on that one.

 

Though, I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure why this much supposed "Devils Advocate" arguing on the behalf of homophobes is required. Isn't it enough to just say that their arguments have no moral merit and have done with it?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
On 18/12/2021 at 08:17, shade said:

I mean, I could put up a straw man argument just for the sake of debate that homosexual men are far more likely to engage in dangerous sexual activity and spread a (until recently) deadly disease through the population, and so morally you could say there was something wrong with it. I don't believe that, I'm just pointing out that talking in absolutes is difficult.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shade

shade

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Fair point.

 

There are numerous very good arguments as to why homophobia is wrong without relying on that one.

 

Though, I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure why this much supposed "Devils Advocate" arguing on the behalf of homophobes is required. Isn't it enough to just say that their arguments have no moral merit and have done with it?

 

It's not devil's advocate, I think denying opinion on the grounds of moral absolutism is a plague in modern society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Buce

Buce

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
22 minutes ago, shade said:

Just wait until you guys find out that I'm unvaccinated and also feel that "taking the knee" is insidious as it advances victim culture and actively disempowers people, the scenes will be chaotic.

 

Well, knock me down with a feather.

 

Who would have guessed?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, shade said:

It's not devil's advocate, I think denying opinion on the grounds of moral absolutism is a plague in modern society.

...who said anything about denial of opinion?

 

I'm referring to (very) short consideration followed by dismissal of opinion, which isn't the same - as much as those who have those opinions would like to think they're being silenced and play the victim themselves would like it to be.

 

All opinions should be allowed to be heard and considered - just some don't need to be considered for particularly long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, StanSP said:

The vaccine isn't designed to prevent you getting COVID. It's to prevent you getting serious illness from it...

I’m double vaccinated, I’m currently isolating until tomorrow.

Haven't had a single symptom, apart from maybe fatigue but I think that could also be that I needed a rest.

The vaccine does work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, shade said:

pretty much everyone, until the narrative slowly changed.

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n888

Did you only read the headline?

 

If you read the first line...

 

Vaccination with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine reduces infections by 90%, while a single dose confers 80% protection, shows a study led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that followed essential workers through the worst months of the pandemic.

 

and

 

 

Of 172 infections detected, 161 occurred in the unvaccinated arm of the trial, which saw a rate of 1.38 infections per 1000 person days. Among participants who had received only one shot at least 14 days previously, the rate was 0.19 infections per 1000 person days. Among those who had received a second shot at least 14 days previously, it was 0.04 per 1000 person days. 

This translated to an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 90% with full immunisation (95% confidence interval 68% to 97%) and of 80% with partial immunisation (59% to 90%). Adjustment for age, sex, race, or study location barely changed these results.

 

 

While it's a small sample size (as is acknowledged in the article), it quite clearly shows the correlation between vaccination and reduction of infection...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shade

shade

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Did you only read the headline?

 

If you read the first line...

 

Vaccination with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine reduces infections by 90%, while a single dose confers 80% protection, shows a study led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that followed essential workers through the worst months of the pandemic.

 

and

 

 

Of 172 infections detected, 161 occurred in the unvaccinated arm of the trial, which saw a rate of 1.38 infections per 1000 person days. Among participants who had received only one shot at least 14 days previously, the rate was 0.19 infections per 1000 person days. Among those who had received a second shot at least 14 days previously, it was 0.04 per 1000 person days. 

This translated to an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 90% with full immunisation (95% confidence interval 68% to 97%) and of 80% with partial immunisation (59% to 90%). Adjustment for age, sex, race, or study location barely changed these results.

 

 

While it's a small sample size (as is acknowledged in the article), it quite clearly shows the correlation between vaccination and reduction of infection...

That's my point, the narrative was "do your bit for society, prevent the spread" which we know isn't true from real world data. The government's own figures show you're twice as likely to contract covid if you're vaccinated in the 40-49 age bracket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...