Bull Ring A discussion about the COVID vaccine between Forkup and Task0778

[task0778]

Here's the thing. All sources could be biased. You are the one that has to establish though that they are.

"All sources could be biased." True. "You are the one that has to establish though that they are." False. I don't have to establish nothin'. Do you have to establish that your sources are not biased? No, of course not. Why? Because there's no way to establish that either way. Which means the argument about objective truth is without basis, cuz you cannot establish that whatever you accept as truth really is unbiased any more than I can establish the reverse.

Bias does not determine objective truths. Facts do. And yes you can be at least reasonably certain. But it takes actual effort.

I got facts.

Fact: most of the people who died from COVID were aged and/or had a comorbidity. The risk of dying from COVID is far less and getting smaller for those of us who are young and healthy.

Fact: People who got the vaccine have still contracted COVID.

Fact: People who got the vaccine can pass the virus to someone else.

Fact: The vaccine begins to lose it's effectiveness over time.

Fact: It is unknown at this time whether the vaccine will or won't protect a person from future variants.

Fact: We've been lied to so many times about the masks, the lockdowns, the vaccines, etc.

Maybe you can be reasonably certain of what you think is the objective truth, but there are many others who do not. I'm not saying you're right or wrong or that they are, but it is their right to make that decision for themselves. Based on their experiences and what they see and hear and read, their idea of what is the objective truth differs from yours, and your claim that your concept is the right one is your opinion which you are of course entitled to. As are they.

 

[forkup]

"All sources could be biased." True. "You are the one that has to establish though that they are." False. I don't have to establish nothin'. Do you have to establish that your sources are not biased? No, of course not. Why? Because there's no way to establish that either way. Which means the argument about objective truth is without basis, cuz you cannot establish that whatever you accept as truth really is unbiased any more than I can establish the reverse.




I got facts.

Fact: most of the people who died from COVID were aged and/or had a comorbidity. The risk of dying from COVID is far less and getting smaller for those of us who are young and healthy.

Fact: People who got the vaccine have still contracted COVID.

Fact: People who got the vaccine can pass the virus to someone else.

Fact: The vaccine begins to lose it's effectiveness over time.

Fact: It is unknown at this time whether the vaccine will or won't protect a person from future variants.

Fact: We've been lied to so many times about the masks, the lockdowns, the vaccines, etc.

Maybe you can be reasonably certain of what you think is the objective truth, but there are many others who do not. I'm not saying you're right or wrong or that they are, but it is their right to make that decision for themselves. Based on their experiences and what they see and hear and read, their idea of what is the objective truth differs from yours, and your claim that your concept is the right one is your opinion which you are of course entitled to. As are they.

The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the one making an assertion. In this case the assertion that the sources are biased. I claimed twice in this thread that you gave a biased source. In both cases I provided either a valid explanation by pointing out the inconsistencies in the article, or showed it by looking beyond the highly edited an dishonest assertions made by your source. The fact that you feel that the only prove required is an assertion shows yet another logical fallacy you employ.

Task I say this with all respect. But in the course of this conversation you keep on going to fallacies in order to give counter-arguments. It shows an inherent weakness of your position.

 

[task0778]

The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the one making an assertion. In this case the assertion that the sources are biased. I claimed twice in this thread that you gave a biased source. In both cases I provided either a valid explanation by pointing out the inconsistencies in the article, or showed it by looking beyond the highly edited an dishonest assertions made by your source. The fact that you feel that the only prove required is an assertion shows yet another logical fallacy you employ.

Task I say this with all respect. But in the course of this conversation you keep on going to fallacies in order to give counter-arguments. It shows an inherent weakness of your position.

First of all, there is no proof to be found for bias to exist OR NOT in anything that anyone says or writes. Nor is there proof of what actually is the objective truth. Second, You're making just as many assertions as I am, and the plain fact is that a whole lot of people do not trust your assertions. And yet that fact does not seem to bother you in the least. You have no doubts at all about the correctness of your position? My side is right and your side is wrong because I say so. My explanations are valid but yours are fallacies, and you're saying this with respect? I don't think so.

The COVID vaccines are a health issue that has been politicized, to deny that is to deny reality. And these days any political issue, even one regarding personal and public health is biased and has been ever since Trump banned flights from China and got told he was xenophobic. The facts I listed in #21 are not fallacies. You may dismiss them but they are still true.

Since the debate has devolved to become more personal, it's time to quit. I'm done. I've pretty much said what I wanted to say.

 

[Rigby5]

The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the one making an assertion. In this case the assertion that the sources are biased. I claimed twice in this thread that you gave a biased source. In both cases I provided either a valid explanation by pointing out the inconsistencies in the article, or showed it by looking beyond the highly edited an dishonest assertions made by your source. The fact that you feel that the only prove required is an assertion shows yet another logical fallacy you employ.

Task I say this with all respect. But in the course of this conversation you keep on going to fallacies in order to give counter-arguments. It shows an inherent weakness of your position.

Since task is done, I have to comment that your claims are all entirely false.

Like you claim these mRNA injections have 90% effectiveness, and that clearly is false.
That was the initial claims, but the were readjusted several time, from 90 to 60 and then down to 30%, leaving the only possible fact being that these are not vaccines at all in any way, and while stimulating antibody production, are NOT getting into T-cell memory.
So then any advantage will only last about 3 months, until these antibodies die.
Once they are dead, there will be no advantage from having taken the mRNA injection.

All the evidence so far shows that these mRNA injections also do nothing to reduce infection or spread.
All they do is reduce death, which is an advantage to no one else but the patient.

And they have had horrendous side effect, at least 10 times greater than any so called vaccine of history.
Not only have over 11k died, but many horribly mutilated, with having to have feet and hands amputated.
There are several reasons for this.
One is that these injections are much smaller than a virus, so are much more mobile.
And where ever they migrate to, gets attacked by the immune system.
If they get to the heart or brain, you die.
If they get to the hands or feet, they have to be amputated.
The science says these are not vaccines and are extremely risky.
The CDC site says they work by inserting synthetic viruses with spike proteins that allow them to enter our cells using the ACE2 receptors.
Once inside our cells, they program our own ribosomes to make our own cells grow spike proteins.
That is insanely dangerous, as there is no quantity control, with no spike being produce in some people, but a lethal overdose in others.
Never before has anyone done something so ridiculously bizarre and risky.
These have to be the worst vaccine ideas anyone has ever come up with.

And your abuse of logic is very irritating.
For example with the burden of proof, that rests entirely with those pushing these mRNA injections.
Task had to prove nothing.
And almost everything you wrote was entirely and completely wrong.
Never has a vaccine ever been used to end an epidemic in progress, and that is never likely a viable idea.
All epidemic in all history have only been ended by herd immunity.
Vaccinations and quarantine are how you can prevent the next epidemic, not end one in progress.