Consept

No bro im not saying that because you dont agree with the CDC youre not open or youre completely right. I said that if you dont deem any reasons to be valid (which is what you confirmed) then there are only two possibilities, one is that you are completely right and there are no valid reasons or two there are valid reasons but you are not open to them. You rejected the idea that youre not open so therefore the only other option is that youre completely right. The CDC list was used to cover multiple reasons that you would hear or that might be brought up in the thread.

Yeah i suspected as much, no worries glad we sorted it out. The list was from the CDC btw so i couldnt give you better reasons than that and if you think theyre all wrong I dont think id be able to convince you otherwise. As i said either youre either completely right or youre not open, so im taking it as you consider yourself the former, so well done on that.

OK well my point is that there wont be a reason that you deem good enough, but we can experiment, i found this list online, let me know which you deem good enough, if there arent any then i think it would be pointless extending the thread - COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting COVID-19 All COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States have been shown to be safe and effective at preventing COVID-19. Learn more about the different COVID-19 vaccines. All COVID-19 vaccines that are in development are being carefully evaluated in clinical trials and will be authorized or approved only if they make it substantially less likely you will get COVID-19. Learn more about how federal partners are ensuring COVID-19 vaccines work. Based on what we know about vaccines for other diseases and early data from clinical trials, experts believe that getting a COVID-19 vaccine also helps keep you from getting seriously ill even if you do get COVID-19. Getting vaccinated yourself may also protect people around you, particularly people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Experts continue to conduct studies to learn more about how COVID-19 vaccination may reduce spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. Once you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing more After you are fully vaccinated for COVID-19, you may be able to start doing some things that you stopped doing because of the pandemic. For example, you can gather indoors without masks with other people who are fully vaccinated. We are still learning how vaccines will affect the spread of COVID-19. Until we know more about how vaccines will affect the spread of COVID-19, people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 should keep taking precautions in public places like wearing a mask, staying 6 feet apart from others, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces, and washing your hands often. People are not considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after their second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, or two weeks after a single-dose Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. You should keep using all the tools available to protect yourself and others until you are fully vaccinated. COVID-19 vaccination is a safer way to help build protection COVID-19 can have serious, life-threatening complications, and there is no way to know how COVID-19 will affect you. And if you get sick, you could spread the disease to friends, family, and others around you. Clinical trials for all vaccines must first show they are safe and effective before any vaccine can be authorized or approved for use, including COVID-19 vaccines. The known and potential benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine must outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine before it is used under what is known as an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Watch a video explaining an EUA. Getting COVID-19 may offer some protection, known as natural immunity. Current evidence suggests that reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19 is uncommon in the months after initial infection, but may increase with time. The risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 far outweighs any benefits of natural immunity. COVID-19 vaccination will help protect you by creating an antibody (immune system) response without having to experience sickness. Both natural immunity and immunity produced by a vaccine are important parts of COVID-19 disease that experts are trying to learn more about, and CDC will keep the public informed as new evidence becomes available. COVID-19 vaccination will be an important tool to help stop the pandemic Wearing masks and staying 6 feet apart from others help reduce your chance of being exposed to the virus or spreading it to others, but these measures are not enough. Vaccines will work with your immune system so it will be ready to fight the virus if you are exposed. A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to be infected without showing symptoms (called an asymptomatic infection) and potentially less likely to spread the virus that causes COVID-19 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing. Stopping a pandemic requires using all the tools we have available. As experts learn more about how COVID-19 vaccination may help reduce spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, CDC will continue to update its recommendations to protect communities using the latest science. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective We understand that some people may be concerned about getting vaccinated now that COVID-19 vaccines are available in the United States. While more COVID-19 vaccines are being developed as quickly as possible, routine processes and procedures remain in place to ensure the safety of any vaccine that is authorized or approved for use. Safety is a top priority, and there are many reasons to get vaccinated. None of the COVID-19 vaccines can make you sick with COVID-19 None of the COVID-19 vaccines contain the live virus that causes COVID-19 so a COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19. Learn more

Well lets just play a game of perspectives, if you had to make the argument for the vaccine, what would your reasons be? Im asking because there have been several reasons that you havent deemed good enough, so its important to know what could be a good reason. If you yourself cant think of any then its either there arent any, in which case, well done you win, or that youre not open to any, one of the two

Well why dont we do it this way, what would you consider good reasons to take a vaccine that helps stop the spread of a contagious disease?

OK so what do you want out of this thread, what would helpful information look like to you?

@Forestluv Excellent breakdown my friend, if anyone is trying to genuinely open their mind and realise what it is to take on new perspectives they should definitely read that. I would just add for @Mannyb that these arguments seemingly against you are not necessarily saying youre wrong, its more theyre just looking at the whole picture and trying to let you know that theres more to the topic than you realise. If you think about it taking any strong position doesnt really make sense, right and wrong opinions are arbitrary, meaning that there can be some truth in everything but nothing is 100% true. So when you take a strong position what youre doing basically is dismissing anything that isnt that position and creating a polarity of right and wrong. Many people have this type of thinking, religion, politics, social issues, favourite music whatever. if you notice a lot of the way youve framed your arguments could be interchanged with another completely different position. For example a religious person might say "Why is it wrong to trust in people's track record and to question the same record of these big institutions who have all come out with shitty “research” for decades?" when talking about trusting religious leaders track records and questioning atheists or scientists. What makes the research 'shitty' is that it goes against the core belief of the religious person. However a meta view could see where religion makes sense but also why it doesnt make sense to believe it in a fundamental way.

It's basically because he has no attachment to outcome. The only reason why we get so nervous is because we go into the interaction only thinking its a success if we get a desired outcome, number etc. If you go into it just to have fun you'll actually get better outcomes. I once did speed dating and what I noticed is, after a few 'dates' you start not caring at all about the outcome, you realise some girls will like you and some just won't, so I started having fun and just saying the first thing that came to mind. I'd try ones where I'd purposefully make it awkward by not talking for the first minute. Basically without attachment to outcome you're completely free just to have fun.

In my opinion it's a survival mechanism, everything you have in life, as far as your part of your brain is concerned, has contributed to your survival so far. If something is lost that could affect your survival. Notice this is also the case with change, even if that change could ultimately be positive, for example there could be fear over applying for a new job that is better than your current one. It's almost like there's a mechanism that aims to keep as at a certain point and not improve. Of course this has its uses but it also needs to be overridden for us to get anywhere. The other thing is you could switch how you see things from scared of loss to gratefulness of abundance. Personally I've found this to be a great way of looking at things. So if you look at it like you could have had any experience as a human, you could be dirt poor, you could have health issues, all your family could've died, literally anything, but you happened to have your experience and I think you can be grateful and feel lucky for anything you do have. It's like when someone dies people are upset that they don't get more time with that person, but you can look at it like you didn't have to get anytime with that person. But in general we mostly live in scarcity and need to shift to abundance.

You can't see how it's faulty because you want to hold on to your position. I would be happy to talk about the reality of the situation but then if you dismiss it because as you said you don't know anyone who has it then it would be necessary to use an example or a hypothetical, but then you dismiss that by saying it's not reality. So you can see that it's basically impossible to discuss on any meaningful level

Well no, I haven't actually stated my position in this conversation. I'm just saying it's faulty logic, but I notice that there hasn't been an actual reply that focuses on my points from either of you, its just the usual attack on character or criticising the use of examples lol that's a new one. Also it's a long thread and I haven't seen what you said Leo saying, but just because it's Leo it wouldn't stop me from addressing it, I've disagreed with plenty he's said before. So I'm not sure what you're advocating for, are you saying faulty logic shouldn't be questioned?

It's a poor argument for a couple reasons. Let's say everyone took up your logic and let's say covid is as serious as is being made out. Using your logic only those directly affected would take it seriously or take any precautions, that means when it first started and say only a few million people had it, by the rest of the population not taking it seriously it means that it will spread quicker and become more serious in terms of hospitals being backed up, as well as deaths, illness etc. Which means your logic will always lead to the situation being worse. The other thing is let's say you had a disease and this disease affected 5% of the population. It was disease that can seriously impact your life. Would it make sense to you if people doubted that the disease existed or was as severe as you, who has the disease claim? Because of this doubt there isn't funding for research and people who maybe carry it asymptomatically refuse to take any precautions or even get tested, simply because they don't know anyone that has it. As humans we are all connected as much as you think youre completely individual it just doesn't play out like that. It's like one branch of the tree saying 'the tree getting cut down doesn't affect me because I'm not getting cut down'

It's not about whether cancer is contagious, your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that part of the reason you don't think covid is an issue or at least as much of an issue as has been made out, is because in your experience of people in your town and proximity they haven't had the negative effects that have been outlined by other commentators. So what I'm saying, is using your logic that if you don't see anyone in your vicinity with certain effects from a condition, I could in theory make the same argument that I haven't seen anyone with cancer so therefore cancer is not an issue. I'm sure you don't need me to say you can change out cancer for any condition. A better example might be I don't know anyone with malaria so therefore there shouldn't be a need for a vaccine in Africa, maybe it isn't really that bad because I haven't seen it personally. It's not a personal attack on you, it's just a very poor argument.

I think this is possibly the weakest argument I've heard and keep hearing. By your logic if you don't know anyone with cancer then cancer isn't a valid issue and we should stop researching into it.

It's good for a foundation, but once you get into marketing and niche areas within that, your experience is more valuable than the books because you know first hand what will work. It's not like you can just read the books and automatically that means you can be successful at it, if that was the case it would be pretty easy

It depends, lets say for example you agree that there is no evidence for a link to autism, none has been found so its not a stretch, and lets say Wakefield agrees, which he also has. Then it follows that his character is highly questionable, not so much for doing the research itself but from his actions apart from the research. Actions such as championing Anti-vaxxers and 'documentaries' such Vaxxed which are is basically anti-vax propaganda and doesnt have any scientific merit. As well, the implication is that this is just a scientist asking the hard questions and was thrown out of the medical establishment because of that, but this is not the case, there is a solid paper trail in which Wakefield stood to profit specifically from the mmr - autism link - https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/vaccines/24293 Even now he does speaking arrangements and is paid well by anti-vaxxers to legitimise the position, if he was being honest he wouldnt do this, as he would say that there isnt actually a link. So is the defamation justified, i would say yes, if someones profiting off research that was thrown out and that they cant even say the conclusions are true then that would lead me to question the persons character. This is an interesting video -

What would be key to this argument is if there is actual evidence that vaccines are linked to autism. Wakefield himself said something along the lines that he couldn't see a link but he should be able to investigate it. Do you have any evidence on the link?

No problem, it was a good read ? Would be interesting to get your insights on the experiences you had with conspirituality, I think it's one of those things that's there but not really discussed

I read your article, very interesting story but its great that you went through that journey and you feel lighter and happier now. What happened at the spiritual community though, i didnt see anything about that? Yeah its a real trend, Rebel Wisdom called it 'conspirituality'. ive never vibed with the new age devotees either, there seems to be a lot of almost religious, fundamentalist beliefs in it as well as a lot of ego especially when their whole identity is based around it. But there are some positives and if they can just drop some of the beliefs theyll probably see things slightly different. Rebel Wisdom actually talk about this phenomenon, have a search on youtube for it

Yeah i guess they would change or evolve might be a better way to say it. In the same way the purple values of being able to hunt are not really relevant anymore in terms of attraction. But of course we're not in that abundance at the moment and probably if society collapsed and you did need to be able to hunt, that would probably be attractive again. So it really depends on where society is, but no specific thing is necessarily hard wired and cant change.

I'm not sure it's just orange, at higher levels it's not the main factor but I'd still say it's necessary. Remember higher levels still incorporate lower levels and being able to gather resources is in important foundation

It's interesting what triggers people

Nice I dont think anyone lacks fear, i just think some people dont let fear dominate them or dont give into it, but the same impulses you have one someone confronts you is similar to what he would have, hes just mastered it to an extent. Part of that mastery is to be confident and positive, there of course some genetic factors in this and amount of serotonin you have but im more talking about what is in your relative control in terms of mindset. We dont know how Arnold would react in an actual violent situation, also as far as i know hes not actually trained to fight. So these are two different situations youre talking about, the egg situation is very different to being physically challenged. The comparison is more with other politicians in a similar situation and in comparison to them id say hes more self developed and theres something to be learnt within that. Just for a comparison -

I dont think it's as simple although what you said might play into it. There are many politicians who react very badly to eggs or things like that thrown at them. His reaction seemed like someone who was very confident and positive and genuinely believes in the system. I've always thought Schawzebenegger had a great mindset, key to that is not blaming people and you can see he didn't here

I would say it's more nature than nurture, simply because if you look at animals they still have certain dynamics between the genders. Although they may differ from ours they have very clearly defined male and female roles. Quick example would be a gorilla where the male is 50% bigger than female, this is said to be because of their social structure in which there tends to be one alpha male and he has to fight off other males to be the one to reproduce with all the females, so therefore it's the one who's the biggest and strongest that reproduces. All primates including us, have size differences between male and females because of reason along these lines. So it's not really a social construct its something that has worked and been part of our evolution forever. In fact it's worked so well that, we apparently don't need it anymore for survival. So when feminists say they want to tear it down what they miss is that they're only able to consider tearing it down because it worked and gave them that freedom. What they're doing is throwing the baby out with the bath water, because there are aspects that we can improve of course, but there were also aspects that were essential for us, such as looking after a kid with both positive masculine and feminine influence.