If you are under 18 you are not permitted to submit personal information to us or use this website. If discovered you will be banned.
We will ban and report anyone posting illegal content.
We will ban any forum user who breaks our terms.
Freedom of speech should be wide open as long as it doesn't incite violence.
We have a 15 year old thriving community here with 400,000+ members and hundreds of people online at any given moment, we encourage you to join!, there are 1000's of topics to discuss. Please be aware before registering and read our terms of service and privacy policy.
By dismissing this notice and proceeding, you agree to the above.
Yes i've had most of the tried and tested ones but i wouldn't have that Covid one it was still under trial when they where more or less making you take it. (place i worked at said no jab no job but i stuck to my guns. I'm not to coin the media term what all the sheople repeated an "Anti Vaxer"
This is exactly how one learns though. You clearly know very little about the real world and need to get your nose out of those books you barely understand.
There's no clinical trials nor evidence that indicates vaccines work without causing harm.
Confirmation bias ≠ "learning". Try again.
Harm = temporary side effects for most vaccines. Benefits far outweigh the "harm".
Harm= Deaths. There hasn't been a single vaccine on record that didn't cause a death.
If you have a bad experience it may lead to distrust. This is how we learn to avoid things like poisonous snakes or even bees and their stings. How is this not "learning"?
Most of the "harm" isn't deaths. The greatest risk is that of anaphylaxis (severe reaction to the vaccine's foreign components). Anaphylaxis is extremely rare for most vaccines.
Confirmation bias is a real psychological phenomenon the OP is trapped in. The correct way is to build premises based on evidence/reasoning and then make a conclusion, and not the other way around (a priori conclusions are stupid, like religious doctrines).
I disagree with all of this. Evidence and reasoning are not universal. What you might call evidence, another might call misinformation. There's not a thing wrong with a priori conclusions, most of the world's current governmental systems were established in this manner.
Your statements are filled with fallacies, as usual.
Suggest an alternative ethical framework then.
Viruses do exist and vaccines can work but never flawlessly.
Just to irritate you and it's working as expected.
Ethics is a whole 'nother discussion. What you and I may find ethical, others may not. For example, I think slavery is perfectly fine. Some humans should be exclusively relegated to manual forced labor. Many people agree with this, but many do not, but nobody on this entire planet is qualified or has the right to dispute that belief. What they can do is unite in numbers that outnumber others and bend society's behavior to their will.
That's wishful and naive thinking. They don't have to work flawlessly, only good enough to provide more benefit than harm, which they do.
Wrong. Your initial statement inevitably boils down to ethics: should we use vaccines if they're not perfect but save many lives? That's an ethical question.
No, they should not. Let nature run its course.
And let hundreds of thousands die? Not to mention massive morbidity toll most diseases carry + enormous economic losses.
So what? Yes, let hundreds of thousands die, this planet is overpopulated anyway. The economic losses? I doubt it, less mouths to feed. There's nothing to define. We need to stop meddling. Humans used to live hundreds of years and look at we've done. People are lucky to make it past seventy-five because of all the tinkering we've done.
Nihilism/pessimism isn't an ethical framework.
Yes there is if you're a rational person. You answered the question whether one should use vaccines on the populus, but didn't give any ethical reasoning. No one will accept your view. It's utterly illogical.
Red herring.
The ethical reason for not using vaccines on the populace (learn to spell, faggot) is that vaccines are not perfect. Measles still exists. Chicken Pox still exists. No vaccine in the history of vaccines has had a zero mortality rate or a one-hundred percent success rate. Tampering with nature has unintended consequences, such as the shortening of the global life span from several hundred years to less than a hundred years. Deformities and cognitive dysfunction have been reported as a consequence of vaccines. There's simply no need for it.
The word "populus" comes from Latin and means "people". It's a textbook term but real, you three-time debate loser (this will be your third).
As I said before, they don't have to be perfect. The benefit to harm (side effects/deaths) ratio of most vaccines is easily 100,000:1, even higher for many others.
"Several hundreds years"... nonsense.
Extremely rare (plus not all vaccines have those effects, cognitive ones like autism from the measles vaccine is a myth). Doesn't justify vaccine withdrawal.
False. Vaccines don't kill people "intentionally" (that's murder). Deaths are extremely rare and are unpredictable (you don't know who will definitely die, if any). That's not intentional. Fallacious ethics.
