Vaccine or not?

#24,201
#24,201
ButchPlz said:
Again, I'm not struggling to see anything. In literally every thread, you bring nothing but wanting everyone to shut up by dragging out some kind of idiotic something like "Q nuts".

"Asking questions" literally cannot be a strawman, but I can see why a sensitive little man like you thinks it is. You are incapable of using that wad of flesh behind your eyes.
Click to expand...

If you don't know what a strawman is just say that, no need to throw a hissy fit. I don't want anyone to shut up, I love seeing you get so triggered you can't respond in a remotely coherent way
 
#24,202
#24,202
NashVol11 said:
If you don't know what a strawman is just say that, no need to throw a hissy fit
Click to expand...
I know watching an event happen and asking a question about said event isn't a strawman.

Like a few people said, it's no wonder "science" and thought are dead. You've got community college lit school washouts trying to throw around definitions they learned two decades ago and telling us asking questions is bad news.

Beep boop!
 
#24,204
#24,204
ButchPlz said:
I know watching an event happen and asking a question about said event isn't a strawman.

Like a few people said, it's no wonder "science" and thought are dead. You've got community college lit school washouts trying to throw around definitions they learned two decades ago and telling us asking questions is bad news.

Beep boop!
Click to expand...

Talking about how "innocently asking about his vaccination status is making the left so angry because science is dying" when you know full well that the anger was largely in response to the BS politicized gloating that started immediately is a strawman, galaxy brain
 
#24,206
#24,206
Ttucke11 said:
I have no opinion or insight as to whether the vaccine contributed to Hamlin's cardiac arrest, but it's bizarre how irate people become when questions are asked now.

"Science" used to embrace a challenging viewpoint. Now it's just hysterical screaming, deflection, and insults.
Click to expand...

It doesn't help when there are some on one side that will look at this case and basically proclaim "It's the shot you idiots!" while on the other side there are many (actually a huge amount) of people that counter with "It can't possibly be the shot you idiots!". Science isn't something either of those sides can honestly count on being in their corner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ttucke11
#24,207
#24,207
hndog609 said:
It doesn't help when there are some on one side that will look at this case and basically proclaim "It's the shot you idiots!" while on the other side there are many (actually a huge amount) of people that counter with "It can't possibly be the shot you idiots!". Science isn't something either of those sides can honestly count on being in their corner.
Click to expand...
Correct.

But only one side is saying you can't even ask the question- and they have a history of it (see: "settled science"). Look at the pants-on-head guy that's accusing anyone of wondering about vaccination status as a "gloating Q nut".
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne and Ttucke11
#24,208
#24,208
ButchPlz said:
Correct.

But only one side is saying you can't even ask the question- and they have a history of it (see: "settled science"). Look at the pants-on-head guy that's accusing anyone of wondering about vaccination status as a "gloating Q nut".
Click to expand...

I've posted this before but when "science" comes up it's something I always try to keep in mind. From Michael Crichton at a CalTech lecture.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol, VolinWayne and ButchPlz
#24,209
#24,209
hndog609 said:
I've posted this before but when "science" comes up it's something I always try to keep in mind. From Michael Crichton at a CalTech lecture.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Click to expand...
Absolutely nailed it.

Longstanding theories and beliefs have been challenged and changed as technology improves, new information comes to light, or both. The only people who want to stop the "challenge" of continuing questions and investigation are people after power and control, full stop.

I can't imagine the suspension of disbelief one has to go through to latch on to politicians and this idea of "settled science" and then have the nuts to get irate about it when people do nothing more than ask questions.
 
#24,210
#24,210
It’s almost like questions arise when a shot is pushed that has not been properly trialed and no long term safety data has been achieved.

Also when the government got involved coercing private businesses mandate the aforementioned shot.

Who woulda thunk….🤪
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#24,212
#24,212
Jxn Vol said:
It’s almost like questions arise when a shot is pushed that has not been properly trialed and no long term safety data has been achieved.

Also when the government got involved coercing private businesses mandate the aforementioned shot.

Who woulda thunk….🤪
Click to expand...

I forget, did leagues like the NFL make this mandatory for players? If so, sheesh…..how effing stupid.
 
#24,213
#24,213
Ttucke11 said:
Well now we are talking about 2 different things. I didn't gloat about anything. Nor am I a Q nut.

Wanting to know more about why a prime 24 year old athlete had such a freak incident happen that hasn't happened in the 100+ years of the NFL isn't some grand conspiracy. Was it CC? Idk, never heard of it until now. Seems plausible though. Did myocarditis contribute to this? Also seems plausible.

Asking questions isn't offensive. And everything you disagree with isn't orchestrated by the boogeyman Q.
Click to expand...


NashVol11 said:
The bolded was never at any point an "accepted stance"
Click to expand...


When and where did this happen?
 
#24,214
#24,214
hndog609 said:
I've posted this before but when "science" comes up it's something I always try to keep in mind. From Michael Crichton at a CalTech lecture.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Click to expand...
Not trying to crap on your reasonable post, but this isn’t a scientific discussion, is it?

We’re basically debating the possibility of a specific cause for a witnessed event, in light of available information, some of which was gathered using scientific methods.
 
#24,215
#24,215
RockyTop85 said:
Not trying to crap on your reasonable post, but this isn’t a scientific discussion, is it?

We’re basically debating the possibility of a specific cause for a witnessed event, in light of available information, some of which was gathered using scientific methods.
Click to expand...

That particular post was more germane to the poster to which it was sent. I think you're take is more in line with what my post just above that one.
 
#24,217
#24,217
Jxn Vol said:
It’s almost like questions arise when a shot is pushed that has not been properly trialed and no long term safety data has been achieved.

Also when the government got involved coercing private businesses mandate the aforementioned shot.

Who woulda thunk….🤪
Click to expand...
The strange thing is that "LIBERALs" seem to be the most OK with this. We should probably come up with a different name for them, if this is their new position. I can think of a few ...
 
#24,218
#24,218
To summarize:

1. Experimental treatment with known risk of myocarditis/CV effects forcibly administered to young athletes

2. Athlete(s) has/have fatal or life-threatening event(s) on field

3. Anyone suggesting that we should evaluate other athletes for potential CV effects/risks is obviously Q.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and SpaceCoastVol
#24,219
#24,219
kiddiedoc said:
Look up and read the Pfizer EUA report for children yourself. I'm not wasting more time on you.
Click to expand...

1672855406498.png
Do I need to go to NFL.com and see how many 5-11 year olds are in the league? I feel like even one would have made the news.

Wasn’t there a pre-vaccine study that found significant occurrence of myocarditis in college athletes? How do you reconcile that?
 
#24,222
#24,222
RockyTop85 said:
That there is a risk of myocarditis from the vaccine isn’t the issue I raised, but your attempt to mislead is noted.
Click to expand...
I'm not attempting to mislead squat, you're just a disagreeable, argumentative person.

Athletes should be screened for CV side effects if they have been given the mRNA shots. That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and VolinWayne
#24,223
#24,223
RockyTop85 said:
That there is a risk of myocarditis from the vaccine isn’t the issue I raised, but your attempt to mislead is noted.
Click to expand...
Yeah... you muddied the waters early on when you created your strawman.

RockyTop85 said:
I need some guidance for understanding the new developments in this thread.

Am I supposed to forget that “young healthy people have nothing to fear from Covid” or forget that Covid is roughly 7 times more likely to cause myocarditis?
Click to expand...

No one was making the argument that COVID is more likely to cause myocarditis. That was not the point of the discussion at all. It was about the dangers of the vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top