Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How can we break our addiction to contempt?

freakonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 212 posts

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#171

Post by caylus »

maxerickson wrote: post #142
caylus wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that areas of lower vaccination coverage are seeing higher infection rates? That does not seem to be the case under rigorous analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/ That's the problem with "reality" - the reality you see is driven by the media that reports the reality to you. Presumably the media you read likes to run stories like "lots of cases in Florida" to score points aga…

"rigorous analysis"

It seems hard to get much more rigorous than a peer reviewed scientific article in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#172

Post by etherael »

newbie789 wrote: post #128
etherael wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isnt this argument predicated on the supposition that the only reason they are opposed to coercive experimental gene therapy is because they want to "own the libs?" I mean, maybe that's right but it seems unlikely when there are other much more obvious things to explain the reasons for the actions in question. That they then post hoc express schadenfreude for the party who they perceive to be responsible for the situ…

I didn’t mention anything about gene therapy or whatever other bananas theory that can be inserted into literally any conversation nowadays. What I did bring up is the fact that people are willing to deny themselves, their families and neighbors the ability to leave their own homes to get food and medicine in order to “own the libs.” While this sort of Markov-chain sounding word salad about… whatever, must indicate t…

All you're doing here is re-stating your original argument, seemingly without actually understanding my criticism of it. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by that, but it strikes me as very strange.

Look, let's say we observe an employee and employer undertaking a discussion that goes something like this.

"Take this medicine"

"No I don't want to"

"Take it or else you're fired"

"I'm not going to take it, fire me if you have to."

"OK, you're fired"

"That's going to turn out poorly for the people who must now suffer the consequences of not having people available to do my job"

I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion that the reason the employee refuses to take the medicine is so they can have that last line of dialogue, rather than that they don't want to take the medicine.

Enlighten me?

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#173

Post by md8z »

etherael wrote: post #169
md8z wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're saying this is your opinion, but just to be clear: Vaccine mandates are not coercive, the vaccine is not experimental, and vaccines in general are not gene therapy. To elaborate: You can consider work vaccine mandates to be similar to any other job requirement. The COVID vaccines have received a huge amount of studies and trials. And "gene therapy" usually refers to use of things like CRISPR-Ca…

It's not my opinion, it's a fact that; Mandates are coercive by definition, that's the entire point of them, putting whatever magical word in front of them you like doesn't change that. The medication to which the "Vaccine mandates" refer is not the same as traditional inactivated virus vaccines, and before this whole fiasco started, was always referred to as what it actually is which is gene therapy. https://www.ncb…

I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements. (Sorry to be blunt.) You're saying it's coercive when they're part of a job requirement? No, I explained this farther down. Please check my other post, thanks. If your presence being there is going to cause the company's insurance rates to rise to the point where they can't afford you anymore, then they're going to dismiss you. That's unfortunately the way it's been at a lot of companies I've seen for a very long time, for many other things besides vaccines as well.

Also that paper seems to suggest that mRNA could generally be used as a component in gene therapy. It does not say that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. You're getting several things mixed up. Let me know if you want clarification, or if you want some helping finding a biologist or doctor who could answer more of your questions. But mRNA vaccines are probably not "coercive experimental gene therapy" unless you really want to stretch that definition.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#174

Post by etherael »

md8z wrote: post #173
etherael wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my opinion, it's a fact that; Mandates are coercive by definition, that's the entire point of them, putting whatever magical word in front of them you like doesn't change that. The medication to which the "Vaccine mandates" refer is not the same as traditional inactivated virus vaccines, and before this whole fiasco started, was always referred to as what it actually is which is gene therapy. https://www.ncb…

I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements. (Sorry to be blunt.) You're saying it's coercive when they're part of a job requirement? No, I explained this farther down. Please check my other post, thanks. If your presence being there is going to cause the company's insurance rates to rise to the point where they can't afford you anymore, then they're going to dismiss you. That's u…

I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#175

Post by md8z »

etherael wrote: post #174
md8z wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements. (Sorry to be blunt.) You're saying it's coercive when they're part of a job requirement? No, I explained this farther down. Please check my other post, thanks. If your presence being there is going to cause the company's insurance rates to rise to the point where they can't afford you anymore, then they're going to dismiss you. That's u…

I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements.

If you believe so then it would help to demonstrate why. Otherwise let me know if you want some clarification on what I said, thanks.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#176

Post by googlryas »

CalChris wrote: post #158
googlryas wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ruling(which Maddow won): https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDO... The specific details are Maddow was talking about a journalist from another network(OAN), and said something like "This person is literally paid by the Russian government to produce news stories". Maddow's team argued that it isn't slander because no reasonable viewer of her show would take that statement to be truthful desp…

Krauss was in fact working for OAN and Sputnik at the same time and Sputnik is funded by the Russian government. Maddow even won attorney fees in that case. Rouz is a propagandist; quotes in the decision amply demonstrate that. Quoting the appeals decision, The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story. Equating Maddow’s exaggeration with Jones and Carlson is just ran…

If they actually are on the payroll, how is it an "obvious exaggeration" to say that they are getting paid by the Russian government? If something is demonstrably true, why would one need to hide behind the "No reasonable person would believe this to be true" defense?

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#177

Post by etherael »

md8z wrote: post #175
etherael wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements.

If you believe so then it would help to demonstrate why. Otherwise let me know if you want some clarification on what I said, thanks.

Because the definition of coercion doesn't change when you put a bunch of qualifiers in front of it and say it's for the greater good. It's still coercion. Sometimes coercion is necessary, psychopaths will kill random people absent coercion not to do so for example, but it's still coercion that stops them from doing so.

Your objection basically boils down to "I don't like the way 'coercive experimental gene therapy' makes what my team is presently doing sound like". That's not an argument, it's just an attempt to force people not to use accurate language you disapprove of. Maybe coercive experimental gene therapy is exactly what's needed, just like coercive physical restraint is just what's needed when it comes to dealing with violent psychopaths. But in both cases, refusing to call a spade a spade doesn't change it from being a spade.

When you respond with stuff like "I wouldn't say any of that is a fact, merely incorrect statements" then you're begging your opposition to simply make the exact same statement back to you.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#178

Post by md8z »

etherael wrote: post #177
md8z wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe so then it would help to demonstrate why. Otherwise let me know if you want some clarification on what I said, thanks.

Because the definition of coercion doesn't change when you put a bunch of qualifiers in front of it and say it's for the greater good. It's still coercion. Sometimes coercion is necessary, psychopaths will kill random people absent coercion not to do so for example, but it's still coercion that stops them from doing so. Your objection basically boils down to "I don't like the way 'coercive experimental gene therapy'…

We are not in opposition, please stop. I really don't want to get into a heated argument with you, you and I both know that's not the way to convince anyone. Also I am not on any "team" and I don't represent anyone, these are my own statements. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make these assumptions about me, thanks.

I am sympathetic to people who can't get vaccines for medical reasons but there are companies that simply are not equipped to employ those people safely. There's nothing coercive about that, everything else you're saying about that is not related to what I'm saying. For a lot of these companies it's a matter of either they require the vaccine, or they go back to having long lines, reduced hours, occupancy limits, strict mask requirements, and other things that are inconvenient and cost money and hurt the business. This stuff is unfortunate because it also applies to immunocompromised people with whom the vaccine is not effective, I don't really know a solution that could work for them on a large scale.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#179

Post by etherael »

md8z wrote: post #178
etherael wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the definition of coercion doesn't change when you put a bunch of qualifiers in front of it and say it's for the greater good. It's still coercion. Sometimes coercion is necessary, psychopaths will kill random people absent coercion not to do so for example, but it's still coercion that stops them from doing so. Your objection basically boils down to "I don't like the way 'coercive experimental gene therapy'…

We are not in opposition, please stop. I really don't want to get into a heated argument with you, you and I both know that's not the way to convince anyone. Also I am not on any "team" and I don't represent anyone, these are my own statements. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make these assumptions about me, thanks. I am sympathetic to people who can't get vaccines for medical reasons but there are companies that sim…

> We are not in opposition

Yes we are, you are continuously making the argument that if you can give good reasons for coercion, it is no longer accurate to refer to it as coercion. This is false.

Examples;

> For a lot of these companies it's a matter of either they require the vaccine, or they go back to having long lines, reduced hours, occupancy limits, strict mask requirements, and other things that are inconvenient and cost money and hurt the business.

> there are companies that simply are not equipped to employ those people safely.

And many other times.

Further, you're refusing to acknowledge that the vaccines under the vaccine mandates are experimental gene therapy, with the justification;

> Also that paper seems to suggest that mRNA could generally be used as a component in gene therapy. It does not say that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy.

The paper is from 2015, the "mRNA vaccines" were not a thing at the time and thus this paper discussing what mRNA gene therapy is would of course not refer to things not released for six years to come/ "mRNA vaccines" is just a new label on the underlying technology discussed in the paper, which they clearly point out is actually gene therapy.

It's coercive experimental gene therapy. Maybe it's good, maybe it's necessary, whatever. It's still coercive experimental gene therapy.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#180

Post by md8z »

etherael wrote: post #179
md8z wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not in opposition, please stop. I really don't want to get into a heated argument with you, you and I both know that's not the way to convince anyone. Also I am not on any "team" and I don't represent anyone, these are my own statements. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make these assumptions about me, thanks. I am sympathetic to people who can't get vaccines for medical reasons but there are companies that sim…

> We are not in opposition Yes we are, you are continuously making the argument that if you can give good reasons for coercion, it is no longer accurate to refer to it as coercion. This is false. Examples; > For a lot of these companies it's a matter of either they require the vaccine, or they go back to having long lines, reduced hours, occupancy limits, strict mask requirements, and other things that are inconvenie…

Actually I have explained multiple times why it's not coercion and why your description is incorrect. Some companies simply are unable to safely employ people who are unvaccinated. If you feel you are opposed to me then I would ask that you stop that, it's going to prevent us from having a reasonable discussion. I will tell you right now, I am not in opposition to you, I just see you may have some misconceptions and I'd like to help clear that up, if you are willing to let me do so. If not then please mention that and we can end the conversation.

Otherwise I'll try to use an analogy. Would you call it coercion if a construction company had all its welding equipment malfunction, break, and become unsafe, and as a result had to let all its welders go? Or would you call it coercion if a trucking company refused to hire people that didn't have trucking licenses, on the basis that it wouldn't be safe for them to drive a truck that they weren't trained for? Or if you're a nurse and you get let go for not being vaccinated, in a hospital where the entire job description is that you can't infect the patients with more diseases?

On your comment about gene therapy, AFAIK mRNA vaccines are not a new label on the underlying technology there. They are a different technology from the purpose described in that paper. Please see my other comment for what is generally referred to as gene therapy. Again we can contact a biologist or doctor for more information about this if you'd like to do that.

Edit: The paper you posted has a good citation that explains it better. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4278

"The FDA definition of gene therapy is as follows: '... modification of the genetic material of living cells. Cells may be modified ex vivo for subsequent administration to humans, or may be altered in vivo by gene therapy given directly to the subject. When the genetic manipulation is performed ex vivo on cells which are then administered to the patient, this is also a form of somatic cell therapy ... Recombinant DNA materials used to transfer genetic material for such therapy are considered components of gene therapy.' As RNA does not result in 'modification of the genetic material of living cells', one would anticipate that its administration will not be classified as a gene therapy in the United States."

Post reply on HN