Law Justice Amy Coney Barrett denies appeal to block the vaccine mandate at Indiana University

PhitePhan said:
Luckily, this will have little impact on those who choose to educate themselves against medical authoritarianism. Knowledge is power.

IU Expands COVID-19 Vaccine Exemption Policy
Indiana University added an ethical exemption to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, according to university spokesperson Chuck Carney.

Carney said in an email the additional exemption brings the COVID-19 vaccine requirement in line with previous requirements, such as last year’s influenza vaccine. The ethical exemption is in addition to medical and religious exemptions previously allowed by the university, but it does not mean more people are opting out.
https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/iu-expands-covid-19-vaccine-exemption-policy.php
Click to expand...
lol
 
PhitePhan said:
When a recommendation is nonsensical, you’re damn right I discard it, what else should I do?

If people were a bit more skeptical, there would be less opioid addiction and deaths fueled by the medical industry, fewer chronic epilepsy cases related to unnecessary vaccination, and possibly better child mortality and less obesity fueled by erroneous nutrition information, to name just a few.
Click to expand...

So you don't need to quote the WHO or the CDC when they recommend something you agree with since you the layman are the one deciding on what is valid expert opinion and what isn't.
 
Officer Rick said:
232207796_4775215959173904_4841835966867993142_n.jpg
Click to expand...
How convenient, they were just about done with vaccine when the virus escaped a lab.
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
Absolutely true there, the consensus is by no means the truth. What it is though is the most accurate interpretation of the current data by the majority of the experts in the field; it can and will change however when new data is discovered.

You accept expert recommendations when they already fit your narrative, like Vit A supplementation and discard it when it doesn't like their MMR/COVID recommendation.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. There are many examples of the minority being right and the majority wrong in science. And dissent must always be allowed, or else nothing ever changes. How can a consensus change if people are not allowed to state a conflicting argument. There are extremely high profile scientists, doctors, and politicians silenced by big tech and the media right now. This creates an atmosphere of intimidation, which is absolutely toxic to open scientific discourse.
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
You are a layman and picking and choosing what recommendation to follow based on your current narrative so why do you even bother to cite the WHO as an authority on anything?
Click to expand...

Only Sith deal in absolutes. There is nothing wrong with agreeing with someone's conclusion on one thing, and disagreeing with them on another.
 
Hadron90 said:
No it isn't. There are many examples of the minority being right and the majority wrong in science. And dissent must always be allowed, or else nothing ever changes. How can a consensus change if people are not allowed to state a conflicting argument. There are extremely high profile scientists, doctors, and politicians silenced by big tech and the media right now. This creates an atmosphere of intimidation, which is absolutely toxic to open scientific discourse.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, we are talking about the CURRENT data, when new data or a different analysis is presented it can overturn the previous consensus and become the new one.
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
Yes it is, we are talking about the CURRENT data, when new data or a different analysis is presented it can overturn the previous consensus and become the new one.
Click to expand...

Its extremely arrogant to think there is only valid conclusion to draw from a data set, and that no one can debate whether you drew the right one or not. Furthermore, people are censored from questioning the data itself, or presenting their own, or arguing that their isn't even any data. For example, there is not a SINGLE clinical study that backs up the efficacy of masks. Only one study published its results, and they found no statistical significance. Yet simply stating that there is not data that supports mask mandates will get banned from most major social media sites, even if you are a Ph.D immunologist.
 
Hadron90 said:
Only Sith deal in absolutes. There is nothing wrong with agreeing with someone's conclusion on one thing, and disagreeing with them on another.
Click to expand...

When you're a layman and taking WHO/CDC opinion on a topic based on their expertise in the subject matter how can you as a layman then discard their opinion on the same subject matter?

Its extremely arrogant to think there is only valid conclusion to draw from a data set, and that no one can debate whether you drew the right one or not. Furthermore, people are censored from questioning the data itself, or presenting their own.
Click to expand...

It is reasonable for the general public to believe the recommendations of the majority of the experts in the field until such time as their conclusions change. The scientific consensus and recommendations have change numerous times in the past.
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
When you're a layman and taking their opinion on a topic based on their expertise in the subject matter how can you as a layman then discard their opinion on the same subject matter?
Click to expand...
Why should such a thing be logically forbidden? Every person on the planet makes a mixture of true and false statements, so it should never be a fallacy to assert that some of what someone is saying is true, and that some of it is false.

It is reasonable for the general public to believe the recommendations of the majority of the experts in the field until such time as their conclusions change. The scientific consensus and recommendations have change numerous times in the past.
Click to expand...
I have not argued it is unreasonable for you to take the CDC's recommendations. I fully support the availability of the vaccines and I cast no dispersions on people who take them. I am glad they are available to you, and if you feel comfortable following the CDC's advice to take them, that is 100% a fine thing to do. I also think there is a very strong case to made not mandating or compelling anyone to take the vaccine, and I think there are completely reasonable people who are choosing not to take it for a variety of reasons. Like I said, only Sith deal in absolutes. I'm an open-minded guy, and I can see that there are intelligent people who have come to opposite conclusions about whether to take the drug, so I'm not going to shit on anyone for their decisions. All I ask is that people respect my personal decision as well. Which seems to be a very big ask these days.
 
Officer Rick said:
that makes 0 sense.. if thats your takeaway then i seriously doubt your ability to brush your teeth by yourself
Click to expand...

One of the better burns I’ve read on here in a bit. Originality is hard to come by in the war room.
 
Hadron90 said:
Why should such a thing be logically forbidden? Every person on the planet makes a mixture of true and false statements, so it should never be a fallacy to assert that some of what someone is saying is true, and that some of it is false.
Click to expand...

If you had expertise in the subject like an Epidemiologist/Virologist it would be valid (my opinion) for you to agree and disagree with a governing bodies recommendations based on specific understanding of the current data. You as a layman are not doing that, you're basing your agreement and disagreement on something else.

I have not argued it is unreasonable for you to take the CDC's recommendations. I fully support the availability of the vaccines and I cast no dispersions on people who take them. I am glad they are available to you, and if you feel comfortable following the CDC's advice to take them, that is 100% a fine thing to do. I also think there is a very strong case to made not mandating or compelling anyone to take the vaccine, and I think there are completely reasonable people who are choosing not to take it for a variety of reasons. Like I said, only Sith deal in absolutes. I'm an open-minded guy, and I can see that there are intelligent people who have come to opposite conclusions about whether to take the drug, so I'm not going to shit on anyone for their decisions. All I ask is that people respect my personal decision as well. Which seems to be a very big ask these days.
Click to expand...

Like I've always said in our discussions, it's your body and your choice and wished you the best. But we are discussing the validity of our opinions on this forum and we will let each other know when we think they are inconsistent or unreasonable. If you disagree with me then that's fine too.
 
idrankyourbeer said:
back last fall, the maga muppets really seemed to like her and were happy that they rushed her to be sworn in.

what happened? she didnt get rid of obamacare or overturn the election for trump i guess. what a deep state rino that one is!
Click to expand...

No matter what a person has done all their life for their party and for politics, they are free to interpret the Constitution and law FOREVER, once appointed to SCOTUS. I wouldn’t know exactly how it feels, but it must be liberating to no longer have to play politics.
 
Boosters are basically a sure thing at this point. Israel is one of the most vaxxed countries on the planet and is losing control of the pandemic completely. They are scrambling to roll out boosters as fast as they can. Its not hard to predict the US will follow this trajectory. How will all these vax mandates adapt? Are you still covered if you go your two jabs, or are school going to be requiring you get boosters mid-semester?
BiYBhf3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,939
Messages
55,456,137
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top