It’s not a strawman. We already require a variety of vaccinations so the “requiring people to consume a medical product is wrong” argument is bunk. The only differentiation is that this vaccine has yet to receive full approval. I’m simply focusing on the only relevant part of the argument that is being made here, and pointing out that in 6 weeks it won’t hold any water anymore.
They do effectively prevent transmissions, against the strains to which they were tailored. They still do a pretty good job against strains to which they were not specifically tailored. The problem is that not enough people have them.
The side effects that are able to be actually substantiated by credible sources have been generally quite mild and very, very rare.
Not anymore… California repealed its law, and Illinois is in the process of doing the same. You can knowingly transmit HIV to someone in California without telling them anything, and its not a crime.
No it doesn't; you are not having fundamental rights such as free movement abolished. Now have another go at comprehending the analogy now that its basic mechanics have been explained to you in simple terms and consider that your inability to grasp the analogy demonstrates a moral or intellectual (or both) failing on your part that you seriously need to address. You are demanding the abolition of the right to free movement, god only knows what you'll want next.
Just as they had a good idea that vaccinating would effectively make the virus transmissible, just as they had a good idea about masks working and not working, just as they...
Not sure what point you are making, but vaccines work and are neutralizing the pandemic in places with sufficient coverage. The Delta variant does spread more aggressively to recovered or vaccinated people, but very, very rarely sends them to the hospital.
> I am not asking the world: I am asking you, an individual human who assuredly stands for something (and hell: we know you at least stand for this, as you decided to stop using Firefox over it ;P).
How about standing for leaving politics at the door of the work environment and freedom of expression?
> FWIW, I would presume the answer is "because most people don't realize that companies might be doing that"; however, I also take issue with the example: not going out of your way to display support for something is, in fact, different than actively taking action to undermine it... someone who doesn't show a flag might still support something, but someone who actively donates against something clearly doesn't.
Once you've gone out of the way to show it on one account, going out of the way to not do it on another is essentially the same thing and hasn't drawn ire.
> You do realize that no one has suggested deleting all the copies of Firefox,
You're feigning ignorance and creating a strawman. The movement that forced Eich out advocates for censorship and destruction of ideas and information. You were the one who made up the story about deleting all copies of Firefox.
> Remember both that CTO is a a very public position for an organization like that
Now that is an argument. If the organisation has made efforts to climb into bed with a modern religion and the CTO commits a sin then yes, removal makes sense but it should never have got to this point.
> By saying that you have decided to stop using Firefox because the employees of Firefox should not have revolted against Brandon Eich, you are thereby not only cancelling the work of a number of people you disagree with
No "cancelling" as you put it and most likely as the person you are replying to understands it involves mob justice forcing people out of careers and forcing the removal of ideas from platforms. Deciding not to use something is a personal choice.
> Truly: all of your fretting over people destroying the work of the "evil pagans" is off topic, whether it makes you feel better to frame it like that or not.
When you make a three paragraph strawman argument it can seem that way but while "your truth" may be that it is unrelated, the reality is different.
> Ummm... are you missing that Brandon Eich made the first move here, taking action against gay people by fiscally
He expressed his political opinion through excepted channels. He didn't incite a mob. Again there's an argument he couldn't be at the head of an organisation with the religious connections it has but again it should never have got to that stage.
Some in the world are capable of working without being emotionally incapacitated by the thought that those they work with don't agree with all that they believe in.
Mozilla is there to build browsers. Politics should have been left at the door.
Instead it wasn't and so Firefox happened and then Brave happened.
> Mozilla is there to build browsers. Politics should have been left at the door.
I think you misunderstand Mozilla. Just have a look at their mission statement[0], and their manifesto[1]. Mozilla's goal is not "build the best browser and get the most market share". Their goals are inherently political, and building a browser is just part of how they try to achieve their goals. To expect that the people working for such a political organization with such a strong ideology is pretty bizarre to me.
Perhaps it would be better for me to say ostensibly there to build browsers (and other software).
In response to the manifesto I'll ask how recent that manifesto and mission statement is? Surely they weren't always a politics first, software second organisation? They must have started out as free software and then morphed into what they are now at some point.
Or was it that case that the politics was there but it was that that changed?
The manifesto exists since 2007, but they describe principles that Mozilla has held since it was founded in 1998[0]. I wouldn't personally describe them as a "politics first, software second" organization, but that's mostly because I think the distinction between "politics first, software second" and "software first, politics second" is pretty vague and useless. Perhaps you would describe them as such, and if so, they've probably been like that since the start, or at least since before the start of their market-share decline.
Would you say the same about iFixit backing right to repair, or the FSF/EFF etc fighting for privacy and software freedoms while also developing their core products? I feel like "politics" has a very selective definition in this forum.
This is the paragraph that Barrin92 is trying to missrepresent.
> Let me be clear: The horror of Mao’s China was singular. I am not making a comparison to the death and destruction it caused or to the severity of the punishment that the mobs imposed. Instead, I am drawing a parallel (one that various journalists and commentators, including the pseudonymous Chinese-American academic, Xiao Li, have made before) to an instinct—the inclination to humiliate and terrorize
Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers. A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis, and a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue.
I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers?
> A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis
My peers have told me that chemistry and biology also suffer from results that are difficult to reproduce, and I've certainly read a number of articles here that decry the lack of reproducibility in computer science too.
> a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue.
I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to. If it's in relation to psychology experimental methods, then I believe you're incorrect. Methods that involve actively deceiving subjects would be rejected by ethics boards (at least, it would in the UK). On top of that, there are many papers that do not use observations of human behaviour, and so would not find use in lying to them - for example, many neuropsychology papers discuss the physical makeup of body parts.
Psychology has been around for a long time, and some psychology results have deeply influenced society. Some of these papers cover the placebo effect, and various mental health conditions. If you are dismissing all psychology papers, do you also reject these influential papers?
I'm sorry if this reply is a bit full-on, but dismissing a claim's provided evidence by dismissing an entire academic field seems a bit extreme to me.
> I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers?
Following the reproducibility crisis they can't be trusted on face value. When used to promote SJW and progressivist causes they can be almost certainly dismissed.
> I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to
That was in reference to progressivism, hence why I stated that in the comment.
> Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers.
