> Re: the strawman argument, I already clearly stated where you misrepresented my argument
And i disagreed that making a comparison from one thing to another is a misrepresentation provided that one accurately describes the initial thing. As far as i can tell you haven't disputed my counterargument as to what the words misrepresent and comparison mean, as of yet. My evidence is the dictionary.
> Re: "existence of some unnamed person somewhere believing a proposition having any bearing on the truth of the proposition"
> You seem to be making things up now, if you make absurd claims, back it up with evidence. Where did I say such a thing?
I'm responding to "From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety"
To be fair, you did qualify that with weasel words about medical professional & well informed people. They were unnamed though. I should have used the same qualification. I don't think changing it to be "existence of some unnamed medical professional or person somebody deems to be well informed somewhere believing a proposition having any bearing on the truth of the proposition" has any material impact on my argument.
> The fact that it is an exceptional use authorization is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that it is approved and has been in use for over a year. That reduces the uncertainty about long-term effects.
Look at those goal posts shift.
> I brought this up is not to virtue-signal as you seem to have misrepresented but rather to inform you about the sources I'm getting my information from.
Yes, indeed, that's why i compared it to the racism context, since that's how that argument is used in that context too - as an appeal to authority that cannot be assailed because the authority is hidden (or potentially made up) making it very difficult to criticize the authority. Maybe its a bit of an obnoxious comparison since its borderline ad hominem to compare to that subject matter. Nonetheless all the reasons that's an unreasonable argument in that context apply here too.
> In any case, I have not heard anything convincing from your end as to why the people who are holding off of getting the vaccine because of the lack of long term safety data are wrong.
Indeed, the primary point i was arguing is that your position is irrational and inconsistent. This has nothing to do with vaccines. I can't actually tell if you are pro or against it, since you seem to be pro adenovirus vaccines, and most covid vaccines other than moderna or pfizer are adenovirus based. Regardless, you'd be wrong if you were pro, you'd be wrong if you were anti, you'd be wrong if we were talking about what type of shoes to wear. The reasons you're wrong for the most part have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
And i disagreed that making a comparison from one thing to another is a misrepresentation provided that one accurately describes the initial thing. As far as i can tell you haven't disputed my counterargument as to what the words misrepresent and comparison mean, as of yet. My evidence is the dictionary. > Re: "existence of some unnamed person somewhere believing a proposition having any bearing on the truth of the proposition" > You seem to be making things up now, if you make absurd claims, back it up with evidence. Where did I say such a thing?
I'm responding to "From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety"
To be fair, you did qualify that with weasel words about medical professional & well informed people. They were unnamed though. I should have used the same qualification. I don't think changing it to be "existence of some unnamed medical professional or person somebody deems to be well informed somewhere believing a proposition having any bearing on the truth of the proposition" has any material impact on my argument.
> The fact that it is an exceptional use authorization is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that it is approved and has been in use for over a year. That reduces the uncertainty about long-term effects.
Look at those goal posts shift.
> I brought this up is not to virtue-signal as you seem to have misrepresented but rather to inform you about the sources I'm getting my information from.
Yes, indeed, that's why i compared it to the racism context, since that's how that argument is used in that context too - as an appeal to authority that cannot be assailed because the authority is hidden (or potentially made up) making it very difficult to criticize the authority. Maybe its a bit of an obnoxious comparison since its borderline ad hominem to compare to that subject matter. Nonetheless all the reasons that's an unreasonable argument in that context apply here too.
> In any case, I have not heard anything convincing from your end as to why the people who are holding off of getting the vaccine because of the lack of long term safety data are wrong.
Indeed, the primary point i was arguing is that your position is irrational and inconsistent. This has nothing to do with vaccines. I can't actually tell if you are pro or against it, since you seem to be pro adenovirus vaccines, and most covid vaccines other than moderna or pfizer are adenovirus based. Regardless, you'd be wrong if you were pro, you'd be wrong if you were anti, you'd be wrong if we were talking about what type of shoes to wear. The reasons you're wrong for the most part have nothing to do with the subject at hand.