You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Be an Intelligent Skeptic, not a Conspiracy Theorist
I have submitted vaccine inserts, direct statements from the CDC, and also documented evidence that the journals you reference are subject to massive compromising conflicts of interests. You have dismissed all of these, and have only replied with "my friend says this study is not reliable."
I would like to have a debate on a fair playing field, where "status quo" is not assumed to be an authority of some sort.
If you can pick a moderator I would be more than happy to formally debate this on either my YouTube channel, or a forum of your choice.
Graham, I haven't made this topic part of my identity. I'm willing to go wherever the data leads me, but I don't feel you're genuinely in the same position. From my perspective, you've tied this topic to your voluntaryist identity meaning there isn't much chance you'll easily change views on it as it would involve redefining yourself.
If I link to sources like this, I'm told the CDC isn't a valid source because they all lie. And yet the inserts and statements by the CDC are valid evidence? That's confusing. Inserts for all kinds of medications people consider safe include lists of possible side effects which are either really rare or possibly not connected directly to the drug at all, but listed because they were experienced at the same time the drug was taken during a study.
I mentioned a study of over 95k kids (among other studies), but it seems to me you're attacking the source, not the argument (genetic fallacy). I asked you as we've discussed this privately to provide me with your best, peer-reviewed paper explaining your position. What you gave me directly says right in that paper "there is no research data..." to support your claims. I pointed this out to you and you changed the subject and started talking about how the research process is flawed, how funding doesn't happen for the studies that would show the risks, etc.
This isn't worth my time because it's not a topic I care enough about. What I do care about is having a solid epistemology and properly understanding and avoiding logically fallacies. I've asked you a couple times to explain how you understand and use the appeal to authority fallacy and I'm still not clear on your answer. Talking about epistemology and use of fallacies is interesting to me because it helps me improve my thinking which I use in my every day life. Arguing about fields of study I have no training in isn't very interesting to me. It only matters up to the point where our decisions on the topic impact human wellbeing. It's a difficult topic for us indvidualist thinkers because of the emergent properties of our actions and how those could harm others. I haven't discussed with you your claims about herd immunity because I've looked into it myself, found problems with the evidence you've linked to in the past, and didn't want to go through another frustrating conversation. It's exhausting to bring these to your attention because, from my perspective, you've already made up your mind and the burden of proof (from your perspective) seems to lie with those who trust the research data that does exist instead of with those who are claiming it's all flawed without having solid peer-reviewed evidence to believe so.
So from my perspective, I'd rather move on to topics we both enjoy discussing. Maybe some day the research in this area will be even more clear and then it will be much easier for us to be on the same page for this specific issue.
Much love, Graham. :)