Lurker > adjl

LinkPizza posted...

Right. But for something to be in my mind, wouldnt I have to know about it?

Not at all. Our minds do a ton of stuff subconsciously, including stuff that affects us physically. We constantly regulate our breathing with no conscious input based on what our minds notice about our surroundings and physical state.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Though just because something is "all in the mind" doesn't mean that the distress isn't real for that person. If you have trouble breathing in masks then you have trouble breathing in masks.

This is very true. As tempting as it is to dismiss difficulty breathing as "just an anxiety response," being an anxiety response doesn't make it any less real. It does, however, mean that difficulty isn't a physical phenomenon that can be generalized to anyone that doesn't have that anxiety response. It also means it's a problem you can recover from, and the first step in that recovery is to recognize that the issue is anxiety and not actual suffocation (and, by extension, stop perpetuating this "masks make it hard to breathe!" thing that so many anti-maskers are latching on to to justify their position).

You won't necessarily be able to simply "think yourself better," since that's just not how mental illness works (though where this is a relatively mild, specific anxiety response based on misinformation and not a full-blown disorder, that's more plausible than it might be for more formal illness), but it is necessary to accept mental illness for what it is before you can recover from it. The fact of the matter is that masks themselves do not limit your ability to get the air you need (unless you don't clean them properly and you're breathing mold, cleaning chemicals, or other respiratory irritants, but that's a separate issue from the masks themselves). The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can figure out how to breathe comfortably (at least, as comfortably as anyone can) with a mask on.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'm honestly not surprised. Nearly the entire audience for the show would have been nostalgic adult fans of the original, but expecting Disney to produce anything that's not primarily aimed at kids is inevitably going to be disappointing. The successor to That's So Raven really illustrated this: It's generally actually a pretty decent show that captures the spirit of the original in a way that's genuinely entertaining for adults, but it's really bogged down by trying to fit into the generic Disney Channel tween comedy mold (starting with the god-awful theme song) whenever it focuses on the kids instead of the adults (which happens a lot). If Duff/Minisky weren't interested in making the show primarily about Lizzie's kids and their wacky hijinks (which is sounds like they weren't, since they were more interested in developing the original characters), I'm not surprised Disney didn't buy into it.

That said, if they were to independently produce a show about, say, Tizzie McDyre living her adult life, I'm sure they could satisfy the people that were looking for a real successor. There's also a part of me that kind of wants to see them do a frame-for-frame remake of the original, except everyone's 20 years older for no reason and nobody ever acknowledges that, but I recognize that the novelty of that would wear off too fast for it to be worthwhile.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Smarkil posted...

PH had something like 117 incidents in their entire catalogue whereas each of those other sites number in the tens of thousands. Has Visa stopped doing business with any of them? Or are they just picking this one site because of an article in the NYT?

The latter. It's very obviously a PR move, not an actual moral stance. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make such a PR move, though.

Smarkil posted...

And no, contrary to what you said earlier, it's not feasible for an internet site to operate independently of their transaction processing. There's no possible way for a company to succeed in that market through the internet. You MIGHT be able to do it for a brick and mortar store, but not on the internet. Don't be obtuse.

Which is a reason to break up their monopoly, not to prohibit them from making their own choices on which businesses to work with (as I've said). It is indeed a problem that nearly the entire world of online commerce depends on two companies.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I guess the whole "we shouldn't vote, just to spite the libruls" thing didn't take off >.>

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

6'4, so well above average.

TaKun782 posted...

Im just at 5'10. I swear to fucking god though, where I live? Its like every guy I ever come across is like fucking 6 feet or more taller then me.

Even if you are right at the median height, half of the guys you see are going to be taller than you, and if you notice that each time (while not noticing shorter guys), that's easily going to seem like a majority. Good ol' selection bias.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Being prejudice is about as low of a quality (aka trashy) as a person can get.

I'm pretty sure there are far worse things a person can do than prejudging people. Like littering. Or genocide.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Untitled Goose Game.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

I think a lot of that comes down to the fact that what he did was clearly wrong, but it then went to the question of whether it was actually illegal rather than simply being immoral. Given the nature of what he did, authorities felt that he needed to be punished but for obvious reasons there's nothing close to a law about this on the books because it's so weirdly specific. Honestly, if he had a better lawyer, I expect he could have got the whole thing tossed out because what he did was so weird that it doesn't neatly fit within the confines of any law.

I think there's probably a bit of that, but I'm not entirely sure. I'm fairly certain sexual assault laws already cover tricking somebody into sexual activity they didn't consent to, or at least that the concept of "sexual deception" is already made illegal via other laws (such as charging people for failing to disclose STI's). I could definitely believe that they aimed high with human trafficking more because they really wanted to drive home that this guy's a terrible person than because it's really a clear trafficking case, but if it were really just about finding a law they could charge him under, I don't think they had to look that hard.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BlackScythe0 posted...

every time I see someone with actual breathing problems they always wear a mask because they know if they catch it they're gonna die.

Yeah, "I have a medical reason that makes it hard for me to breathe" is a reason to be more careful about not catching Covid, not less.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Breathing hard can still be psychosomatic. I will also say that I often find myself altering my breathing (mostly breathing more shallowly) in an effort to cut down on how much my glasses fog up, which could also qualify. Regardless, it factually is not a matter of not being able to get enough air into one's lungs.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Huh. Interesting. Wouldn't really affect specific requests like this one, but I guess I've learned something new today. Nifty.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

British mall Santas give kids what they ask for?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

wwinterj25 posted...

I'm aware they take their kids to a mall to see a even faker santa and expect free gifts.

Uhh, mall Santas don't usually give out presents, dude. Well, aside from candy canes. Everyone knows this; the whole thing is a charade for the benefit of the kids' belief in Santa and the parents' entertainment.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

Barely... I always end up breathing really hard when wearing them...

I've literally put one on during an asthma attack and had no problems breathing. Countless people have worn pulse oximeters for entire days of wearing a mask and seen no deviation from normal O2 saturation values. Any difficulty breathing you have because of masks is purely psychosomatic.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

wwinterj25 posted...

The parents took their kids to a santa expecting something sure. Sometimes things don't go as expected. Again the parents can just go and buy THEIR child said gift. Freebies don't always work out.

... Are you aware that Santa's not actually real and it's the parents buying the gift either way?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

FatalAccident posted...

Thought it was 2 weeks?

2 weeks is the maximum incubation/asymptomatic transmission phase. The actual infection can last months, in some cases.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

Maybe. Though, this was probably easily avoidable. Saying yes instead would be better. Even a maybe. Saying no seems like the wrong thing to say...

Probably, but that's still hardly justification for firing him unless he made a habit of it (which he may have, we don't know). All of this "he should be fired over this!" is pretty much purely people that are angry that somebody was allowed to say anything anti-gun to children (also known as "cancel culture," though this his comments are substantially more defensible than a lot of things whiny babies apply that label to).

wwinterj25 posted...

It's not mall Santas job to please your kids.

It's mall Santa's job to sell you pictures of your kids sitting with him, so in that sense it kind of is. People are generally going to be more inclined to buy pictures with their children smiling, after all. It's also mall Santa's job to make kids excited to go to the mall so they can bug their parents to buy them more crap, which, again, works better if he makes the kids happy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

dud posted...

I've literally never heard of a real "Switch Pro" outside of gamefaqs. While I might have just missed that, cause it does yield some results from fairly significant outlets, it still smells pretty far fetched to me. They're all like "some rumors say it could be 4K 60 FPS in handheld mode... okay maybe when docked... 4K 30 FPS docked... but everyone's saying different things so we don't really know, but SOME kind of Switch Pro is definitely real!"

There's been nothing official on such a thing at all. Everyone's been expecting since the console first launched that there'd be further revisions, as Nintendo handhelds often see, but I don't really see what they could do differently now that the Lite is out. A half-gen upgrade a la PS4 Pro/XboneX isn't impossible, but seems really unlikely given how much the New 3DS flopped (a whole 1 exclusive title and marginal improvements in half a dozen others, ~10 million shipped, compared to 76 million for the whole 3DS family) and the fact that Nintendo really isn't trying to maintain hardware parity with anyone else. There's virtually no chance that any of those 4K fantasies will come true (not that there's any point at all to 4K on the handheld screen, given its size).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

I feel that mall Santas probably shouldnt make children cry when asking for a toy...

Generally not, no, but you'd be hard pressed to find a mall Santa that's never made a kid cry. Kids will cry over just about anything.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

Yeah it totally says "tell innocent children no" in the job description for being Santa.

It probably doesn't say "breathe" in the job description, either. Most people will do things not explicitly mentioned in their job descriptions.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Hospy posted...

I think the problem is describing a sex act as anything that gets someone aroused is a bit a of dangerous precedent.

What if theoretically someones fetish was to have people mow his lawn, or deliver groceries, or drive him around?

Or, to use a much more common example of an innocuous activity that people are sometimes aroused by, getting a massage. It does set a bit of an odd precedent, and I'm not sure where exactly the line should be drawn. Here, he's partially naked throughout the process and they're clearly working with his sex organs, so wherever the line is drawn, I think it's safe to say he's crossed it. The question of where to draw that line is, however, a very interesting one.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

I never been big on vague laws like this...

I'm inclined to agree, but also, it does make sense. You're manipulating somebody into performing a sexual act for money without their consent. That's a completely reasonable description of what's happening here, and it also clearly falls under the umbrella of human trafficking. The only shaky point is that he isn't personally profiting from the trafficking, when it is usually presumed that human trafficking is a commercial endeavour, but one could argue that he's deriving non-monetary benefits (sexytimes). I think it's a reasonable enough interpretation.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

"Deck" makes it sound like hitting him is all that matters. A more reasonable response would be to employ whatever violence was necessary to effect a citizen's arrest.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Human trafficking laws include hiring people to change your diaper under false pretenses.

I suppose you are effectively turning them into prostitutes by paying them to perform a sexual act. It's a weird logical leap, but I can see it, and I'm generally okay with relying on weird logical leaps to make sure scumbags like this guy have stronger cases against them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's what "making empty promises" means

No, that means you're making promises you have no intention of keeping. It does not mean you have to (however emptily) promise everything they ask for.

Revelation34 posted...

So you're saying people who don't do their job deserve to get paid.

If you can show me where in his job description it says "say yes to everything they ask for," you might have a point. Presumably, it actually says something much more vague, like "make children happy," which everyone recognizes is impossible to do all of the time and therefore it is not justified to fire somebody for failing to do so one time.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Chocolate. Anything else is just a wannabe milkshake.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

Being nice to children and making empty promises.

You can do that without capitulating to everything they ask for.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Judging people you don't know is more trashy.

People who deliberately litter are litterally (>.>) trashy, without exception. You don't have to know them to judge them as such.

BUMPED2002 posted...

A few years ago I had jury duty so as we were sitting in the jury pool room, this one white woman said if she were picked to be a juror and the case involved a Black defendant, she was automatically gonna vote guilty without even weighing the evidence or charges so this is a mindset sadly that a lot of white people have in regards to Black people even though most won't admit it.

Luckily this woman was no selected because we were there to weigh evidence and make a decision on guilt or innocence not judging people based on skin color.

Not that I remotely doubt that there are people out there who would genuinely be proud to announce that, but I have a feeling she just said that because she knew it would get her out of actually performing jury duty. Most of the people who really feel that way and would jump at the opportunity to put an innocent black person behind bars know better than to announce it during juror selection, since doing so would take that chance away from them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

I just want to spend my money on what I want to spend my money on...

At the end of the day, enabling you to do so is the responsibility of the business selling you that product/service. If Visa/Mastercard doesn't want to work with them, for whatever reason, then finding an alternative payment method is on them. As I said, nobody's stopping you from mailing a $20 to Mindgeek, if they're set up to process such payments.

Now, should Visa/Mastercard have such a monopoly on online commerce that capricious decisions to stop doing business with a company can effectively torpedo it? Probably not. That's a rather precarious situation that gives them more power than they probably ought to have, as much as that monopoly is convenient for both consumers and business owners. But fixing that is going to entail breaking up the monopoly, not making it illegal for Visa/Mastercard to refuse business.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

There has to be some way somebody can sue the companies for not allowing you to spend your money that way.

Visa/Mastercard aren't prohibiting you from spending your money. They're just not enabling you to do so. Hypothetically, there's no reason you couldn't stick $20 into an envelope and mail it to Mindgeek if you really want to spend money on PH, provided they give you the option of processing your payment that way (which they likely would, if given no other choice). Visa/Mastercard provide a service that makes spending money - particularly online - much more convenient than that, which is why they're overwhelmingly people's preferred means of conducting business, but they are far from being the only possible option. As autonomous businesses, they do have the right to refuse to do business with whoever they want. If that means dissociating themselves from a site with a reputation for hosting child porn, that's fair game, and you'll just have to find some other way to pay that site if you want to do so.

Really, the issue is less a question of whether or not Visa and Mastercard should be allowed to make decisions on who they do business with and more a question of whether or not their monopoly (well, bipoly, I guess, but that's not a word) should be allowed to continue. Being the only game in town means decisions like that carry a lot more weight than they otherwise would.

Smarkil posted...

I also find it odd that Visa, Mastercard, and Discover appear to be in lockstep with each other.

It's not all that odd. They all know that if only one of them cuts ties with a business, the others will near-seamlessly take over and mitigate any effect their decision might have had while also taking all of the revenue, so none of them are going to make such a decision unless they can be fairly certain the others will follow suit. In this case, it reflects really poorly on Mastercard if Visa says "we're not doing business with rape peddlers anymore" and Mastercard says "but we will!," so as soon as one declares they're pulling out, the other can be expected to follow suit immediately.

I'd be surprised if there's truly no collusion at all, but I'm guessing it's more in the sense of "we're thinking of pulling out, how about you guys?" to limit the risk of being left out in the cold, rather than in the sense of "let's conspire to hurt this one business."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Crapping in general keeps you regular.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

Do you have to register them to your account if you want to keep them/download them or are they permanently removed when they're removed?

If you've got an active NSO account, you can download NES and SNES apps to add to the system menu. When you start them up, they bring you to a menu of NES/SNES games you can play. If your NSO subscription lapses, you won't be able to open those apps anymore (it also periodically connects to the Internet to verify that you can still use them, so you can be unable to get in if you haven't used them in a while and you aren't currently connected). It's never a matter of picking out specific games to download and save, your subscription just offers you access to the catalog.

Revelation34 posted...

Also should I get a Switch now or wait for the Pro?

Realistically, after the general failure of a half-gen that was the New 3DS and the fact that the Switch's small form factor prevents it from being genuinely able to keep up with competitors' specs and share future multiplat games (which would be the main purpose of a "Pro" version), I wouldn't expect a Switch Pro. The best you're going to see is another form factor revision along the lines of the Lite, and even then there isn't much room for meaningful revisions short of hypothetically ditching the system's screen and allowing it to broadcast wirelessly to phones and the like for actual portability (which would be a stretch). Maybe hold off until next E3 season to be sure (if they are going to do a revision, they'll likely announce it there, since the Switch's successor will likely be announced at the E3 after that), but if you happen to see a decent sale on one before then, I'd carpe that diem.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Natural immunity seems to only be lasting for about 3 months in most people. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there are plans to give recently-recovered people a booster shot of some sort of extend that further, but for now, you are correct that there's little point in vaccinating somebody that has recently had it, and I expect such people will be among the lowest priority recipients for the vaccines that are rolling out now.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

He was on the job and didn't do the job he was paid to do.

And what job is that?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

darkknight109 posted...

Pointing guns at kids is a really good way to do that.

The kids were even white, too. What were they thinking? Everyone knows you can only point guns at black kids if you want to avoid negative public opinion.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

I read the Santa lost his job. Which is great news. Yes is wrong.

"Cancel culture is bad! People shouldn't lose their jobs for expressing obviously harmful opinions!"
"I'm glad this guy got fired for saying guns are bad."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I clipped a lady's mirror with my mirror once while pulling into a parking spot ahead of her. No actual damage, just knocked the mirror slightly out of place and it was easy to fix. Upon subsequent inspection, she was parked weirdly far out from the curb and that's probably why I misjudged the distance, but where there was no damage done and I still shouldn't have hit it (plus she was - quite understandably - pretty upset), I wasn't about to push the issue.

Other than that, my only accidents have been me getting rear-ended at stop lights when it's been 100% their fault (I stopped long before they hit me). That's happened twice. One time there was no damage to either car, the other there was no damage to mine, but her front license plate had a large dent in it from my trailer hitch.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

And here I'm still using my i5 2500K at stock speed, 9 years later.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Why is everyone acting like this is the death of amateur content? Verified amateurs are a thing. Even if they currently aren't, the verification system can very easily be updated to allow it (and will be, because PH knows how popular their amateur stuff is).

The bottom line here is that the ability to upload content completely anonymously is being abused for criminal purposes. Removing that anonymity makes such criminal activity significantly riskier (since they're uploading illegal content under their own identity), at the cost of a couple extra bureaucratic hoops for legitimate users to jump through. That's not unreasonable, really.

deoxxys posted...

The government could just create one big catalog of underage videos for the pornsites to use to cross-reference their uploaded videos and have those automatically rejected whenever someone tries to upload one so that there would never be repeat offenses.

This should probably happen at least for the sake of preventing revenge porn and the like from remaining in circulation. With actual CP/trafficking content being shared for commercial purposes, the people sharing it will likely be able to bypass that detection, but people that are just reuploading somebody else's video that got taken down generally won't put such effort in because they're just doing it for fun. That would at least help make revenge porn a little less persistent, since as it stands, victims basically have to commit themselves full-time to harassing porn sites in order to keep squashing reuploads. That would also make it a lot easier for somebody that wants to get out of doing porn to erase their presence, as an added bonus.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Or, get this, they're not a charity.

Their job is to promote firearms, so obviously they want to do their job. Why would they just buy a kid a toy without any return?

Oh, you.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

There are a number of places that offer different sizes. I also need larger masks if I don't want my nose to pop out after three seconds of talking.

Revelation34 posted...

They fog up my glasses no matter what style of mask.

I occasionally see success tucking the edge of the mask under my glasses, but fog is definitely a problem for me as well.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Shadowbird_RH posted...

If they wanted to do something nice for a child, they could have bought him the toy and left it at that. Snapping at the opportunity to create a 4 year old NRA poster child shows how much more they care about their ulterior motive than the happiness of a child during the holiday season.

Pretty much. Giving him a Nerf gun, cool. Making a big show out of it? That's just ridiculous and kind of disturbing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Judgmenl posted...

Why fire someone who only has 1 month of employment left?

Because it's about the only thing the impotent little cheeto can still do.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Muscles posted...

what dbs said was an appeal to authority,

adjl posted...

"He's right because he's a doctor" is fallacious, because it relies entirely on his status as an authority figure to validate his opinion. "He's more credible than you because he's spent decades studying this matter and publishing works on it which any of us can read while you saw a youtube video once" is not fallacious. That's just the basic concept of evaluating sources before citing them.

Doctors and epidemiologists are not always right, but the only alternative we have to listening to them is to make it all up ourselves, and that's just dumb. The best option we have is to listen to them and trust that they're operating based on the best available data until they are found not to be.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Muscles posted...

Regardless of how good experts think something is it can still backfire, look at the titanic for example

No experts thought the Titanic was unsinkable. That was marketing.

Muscles posted...

I didn't say it was completely untested, but guess what, stuff can fall through the cracks when you take a small sample size like that

Clinical trials never really compare to the full scale of usage that a drug will see once it hits the market. That simply isn't possible. Instead, the FDA (and similar agencies in other countries) has a threshold that must be met to be able to reasonably infer that it won't cause issues. It won't catch one-in-a-million side effects, but neither will 999,999 people per million doses administered, so that's just not a reasonable standard.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Not surprising, given that Barr has publicly conceded Trump's defeat. Kind surprising it took this long, actually, given that he did so a couple weeks ago.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'd eat those.

Man, now I want oatmeal cookies. All I've got baking-wise are a few costco chocolate chip cookies and some bread pudding (with a really delightful orange toffee sauce, plus I had some last night with some mulled apple cider, which was amazing), which are each good in their own rights, but neither scratch that particular itch.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ReturnOfFa posted...

we HAVE given people the vaccines. period. So how is it in truth that he isn't wrong about it being UNTESTED?

Oh, he is wrong about that. Objectively so. Just not in the more general sense that there isn't data until people start getting vaccinated, which is a moot point now because that started months ago.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ReturnOfFa posted...

You can say "we literally have nothing until we start giving to people the vaccine" but we HAVE literally done SOMEthing and people HAVE been given the vaccine in studies, dating back MANY months.

In truth, he's not wrong that we have nothing until we start giving people the vaccines (excepting animal trials, which are often a good starting point but fall short as a true proxy for human ones), but that's true of literally every clinical trial ever.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Conner4REAL posted...

Due to the lack of availability for the vast majority of the population early on the whole uncertainty will have largely gone away because those who come in contact with the disease the most will have taken the vaccine and documented any potential remaining undetected side effects.

so unless you are a doctor nurse or first responder the vaccine isnt even an option for you, and by the time it becomes available more and more people will have taken it from the various forms form diff companies.

due to the unique nature of the circumstances the problem of vaccine fears will work itself out by itself.

This is basically my stance on it. I'm skeptical because of how quickly the vaccine has been railroaded through the usual steps, but by the time I even have the option of taking it, vastly more people will have taken it than ever would in a normal vaccine trial and I won't need to be skeptical anymore. Relying on vulnerable people and front-line workers to test it for me like that isn't particularly ethical, but I don't really have much choice with how the whole situation is going to play out. All I can do is roll with it.

Muscles posted...

"Arguments from authority carry little weight authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."

Here's a quote from Carl Sagan for you, since you think I don't know what I'm saying

"He's right because he's a doctor" is fallacious, because it relies entirely on his status as an authority figure to validate his opinion. "He's more credible than you because he's spent decades studying this matter and publishing works on it which any of us can read while you saw a youtube video once" is not fallacious. That's just the basic concept of evaluating sources before citing them.

Doctors and epidemiologists are not always right, but the only alternative we have to listening to them is to make it all up ourselves, and that's just dumb. The best option we have is to listen to them and trust that they're operating based on the best available data until they are found not to be.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.