Fear Is Deadlier Than Viruses

[Charles Austin]

Peter, folks might be faithful, loving, and wise, but not on every single topic. With regard to the virus in the vaccines, they might still be exceedingly foolish.
Furthermore, I need not be tolerant of other peoples decisions who might actually affect my ability to resist the sickness and not die.

[Dan Fienen]

<<snip>>
Furthermore, I need not be tolerant of other peoples decisions who might actually affect my ability to resist the sickness and not die.

Especially if you already know that you are more knowledgeable and wiser than those fools and could not possibly be wrong. Must be nice to be so knowledgeable that you can totally ignore any possibility that the people upon whom you rely for information might be wrong.

By the by, how do the actions of people in Indiana affect your ability to resist the sickness and not die? Are you suggesting that the people around Peter are intending to kill you?

[Brian Stoffregen]

I don’t need to explain any such thing. I simply need to point out that at least some people who refuse the vaccine are exceedingly faithful, loving, and wise Christians who lead lives marked chiefly by self-sacrificial live and service to their neighbor. Given that, your account if things remains implausible if it can only hold up by labeling such people falsely as foolish, selfish, etc.

A good friend's step-father nearly died from COVID, but she, being very active in church, refuses to be vaccinated. I do think her decision is foolish. I think that it's an appropriate label.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Furthermore, I need not be tolerant of other peoples decisions who might actually affect my ability to resist the sickness and not die.

And if that’s what you fear, [Charles], then…

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen:
Especially if you already know that you are more knowledgeable and wiser than those fools and could not possibly be wrong. Must be nice to be so knowledgeable that you can totally ignore any possibility that the people upon whom you rely for information might be wrong.

Me:
I am indeed wiser than some fools. So are you, Pastor Fienen.  If the people I rely on for information happened to be wrong, and of course I have made the decision that they are not wrong, then my efforts to mitigate the impact of the virus may not accomplish anything. And I will have gone to a bit of trouble but may not have been necessary.
But if the fools are wrong, and of course I believe they are, then their foolish refusal to mitigate the effects of the pandemic can have a grave impact upon themselves and the lives of the people around them.
But I have said that before.

[peter_speckhard]

Pastor Speckhard, almost 195,000,000 people in the US have been fully vaccinated and you mention someone you know whose father died from the vaccine. This is an anomaly statistically speaking if this is what happened. It sounds almost like Nikki Minaj pontifically stating on TikTok that her cousin in Trinidad had a friend who was vaccinated and came away impotent with swollen testicles—none of which has been verified. I still say that love of neighbor supercedes any personal viewpoints that the vaccine down the road is going to turn someone into something whatever the imagination floats. It isn't love when someone says that they are going to take their chances.

My point was not about the statistics of deaths. My point was that the people I know who don’t want to be vaccinated are not guilty of things you and Charles attribute to them—lovelessness, foolishness, and selfishness. Until you can understand them, which you can’t, you should limit your opinion to “I don’t understand.” When you go on to say that you don’t understand how they can be so foolish or selfish, you make your own inability to understand into an accusation.

[Charles Austin]

Sometimes, Peter, the when one says “I don’t understand,” the meaning is actually “I do understand and I’m so shocked at what I understand thatI don’t know how the other person can believe this.”
I understand when someone is swayed by or drawn into a cult or a semi cult. I have known such people, and I understand What with them under the spell or into the cult. But when I say I do not understand them, it means that I do not understand how a person such as they, reasonably intelligent, reasonably well educated, can come to such stupid conclusions and do such stupid things.

[peter_speckhard]

Sometimes, Peter, the when one says “I don’t understand,” the meaning is actually “I do understand and I’m so shocked at what I understand thatI don’t know how the other person can believe this.”
I understand when someone is swayed by or drawn into a cult or a semi cult. I have known such people, and I understand What with them under the spell or into the cult. But when I say I do not understand them, it means that I do not understand how a person such as they, reasonably intelligent, reasonably well educated, can come to such stupid conclusions and do such stupid things.

Which is what I said. You have no recourse but to compare such people to cultists because you don’t understand them. Why not just admit that you genuinely don’t understand them without comparing them to cultists, which they manifestly are nothing like? You are terrified much of the time. You regularly post about how frightened you are by various people. Fear doesn’t lead to rational evaluation.

[James S. Rustad]

A good friend's step-father nearly died from COVID, but she, being very active in church, refuses to be vaccinated. I do think her decision is foolish. I think that it's an appropriate label.

I am indeed wiser than some fools. So are you, Pastor Fienen.  If the people I rely on for information happened to be wrong, and of course I have made the decision that they are not wrong, then my efforts to mitigate the impact of the virus may not accomplish anything. And I will have gone to a bit of trouble but may not have been necessary.
But if the fools are wrong, and of course I believe they are, then their foolish refusal to mitigate the effects of the pandemic can have a grave impact upon themselves and the lives of the people around them.
But I have said that before.

And calling people fools sure helps convince them that you are correct.  Thanks for making it harder to convince people to be vaccinated.

[Charles Austin]

For heaven sake’s, Mr. Rustad. I’m not speaking to any of those people here. Furthermore, I’m not trying to convince them of anything. Most of the time, arguing with a fool, while it can be amusing, doesn’t change anyone’s mind.
And I stick with my previous conclusion. Someone links up for a movement or follows a person on one item, and after a time that person is “all in” and has a cultist’s warped sense of “right” or “truth” or “loyalty.” I’m not saying that has happened to everyone here. I’m just saying that certain things can take hold of an otherwise “wise“ being.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Sometimes, Peter, the when one says “I don’t understand,” the meaning is actually “I do understand and I’m so shocked at what I understand thatI don’t know how the other person can believe this.”
I understand when someone is swayed by or drawn into a cult or a semi cult. I have known such people, and I understand What with them under the spell or into the cult. But when I say I do not understand them, it means that I do not understand how a person such as they, reasonably intelligent, reasonably well educated, can come to such stupid conclusions and do such stupid things.

Which is what I said. You have no recourse but to compare such people to cultists because you don’t understand them. Why not just admit that you genuinely don’t understand them without comparing them to cultists, which they manifestly are nothing like? You are terrified much of the time. You regularly post about how frightened you are by various people. Fear doesn’t lead to rational evaluation.

In a discussion on another issue, my opponent said that I couldn't understand his position, because if I did I would agree with him. I then presented what I understood his position to be and the reasons he had for holding them. He admitted that I did understand his position. I reiterated that I still disagreed with it.


We can understand their reasons for refusing the vaccines, and still conclude that they are foolish reasons.


I can understand why people don't want to wear helmets when riding motorcycles. (I've even done it back when I had a motorcycle.) It's not a requirement in Arizona. I can also say that it's foolish to ride a motorcycle without proper protection: helmet, gloves, boots, long pants, jacket. Such foolish and dangerous decisions indicate nothing about a person's faith nor intelligence. Granted, in the years I rode, I never needed the protection of a helmet. Our son has ridden motorcycles for a few years and, thankfully, has never needed the protection of a helmet. To conclude that we no longer need to wear a helmet because we haven't needed it in the past, is foolish logic.

[peter_speckhard]

Sometimes, Peter, the when one says “I don’t understand,” the meaning is actually “I do understand and I’m so shocked at what I understand thatI don’t know how the other person can believe this.”
I understand when someone is swayed by or drawn into a cult or a semi cult. I have known such people, and I understand What with them under the spell or into the cult. But when I say I do not understand them, it means that I do not understand how a person such as they, reasonably intelligent, reasonably well educated, can come to such stupid conclusions and do such stupid things.

Which is what I said. You have no recourse but to compare such people to cultists because you don’t understand them. Why not just admit that you genuinely don’t understand them without comparing them to cultists, which they manifestly are nothing like? You are terrified much of the time. You regularly post about how frightened you are by various people. Fear doesn’t lead to rational evaluation.

In a discussion on another issue, my opponent said that I couldn't understand his position, because if I did I would agree with him. I then presented what I understood his position to be and the reasons he had for holding them. He admitted that I did understand his position. I reiterated that I still disagreed with it.


We can understand their reasons for refusing the vaccines, and still conclude that they are foolish reasons.


I can understand why people don't want to wear helmets when riding motorcycles. (I've even done it back when I had a motorcycle.) It's not a requirement in Arizona. I can also say that it's foolish to ride a motorcycle without proper protection: helmet, gloves, boots, long pants, jacket. Such foolish and dangerous decisions indicate nothing about a person's faith nor intelligence. Granted, in the years I rode, I never needed the protection of a helmet. Our son has ridden motorcycles for a few years and, thankfully, has never needed the protection of a helmet. To conclude that we no longer need to wear a helmet because we haven't needed it in the past, is foolish logic.

You can’t say it is foolish in any particular circumstance unless you know the pros and cons and the values of the person involved. If someone you know to be wise makes a deliberate, considered decision that you think foolish, that should give you pause. Maybe the decision isn’t foolish. And even if you maintain your position that he decided wrongly, you should at least now know that reasonable people can disagree simply because you’ve seen it happen. Not everyone is in the same position or values the same things or fears the same things.

Take a grocery store clerk in spring of 2020. Should they continue working or stay home? Certainly staying home reduced the risk of getting or transmitting Covid. But working in the store also served the neighbor and possibly fulfilled central vocations by providing for a family. People might make either choice in all wisdom and faithfulness depending upon their circumstances and assessment of the pros and cons. Why not let people make their own choices given that only they know all the factors weighing into their decisions? That is especially true of someone’s most personal and intimate health decisions. Unless they’re deliberately harming someone, they should make their own choices.

 

[Dave Benke]

I'm going to try to hunt down a booster shot today - the drug store boosters are experiencing a two to three week wait here in our fair city, host of the "We're Back" in person Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade yesterday.  To the thread topic, fear of the vaccines remains on my mind because hesitancy remains in the air in the black and brown communities, and the fear of being vaccinated outweighs, for those folks, the value of the vaccine.  It's not that these folks are bad or ignorant or foolish.  It's that they're afraid for their health more from taking the vaccine than from getting the virus. 

I personally don't think I can march directly toward the vaccine and receive it, all the shots necessary, and then opine that it's a good or helpful thing not to be vaccinated.  I would be lying about my own belief and motive.  I don't want the virus - having seen its depredations and results - and I want the vaccine because it prevents it and/or keeps the worst of its results from me.  That's just overwhelmingly the fact of the situation, tiny tiny outlier percentages aside.

At the same time, I don't think browbeating those who are not vaccinated works at all as a strategy.  It's a proven loser.  So I and my church leaders practice encouragement without judging, and because there are those who are not vaccinated in the assembly, continue to wear masks in church.  We have not found that simply by stating that we the leadership are vaccinated and encouraging vaccination we have alienated those who aren't.  It's kind of in the followup, the not browbeating, the listening, the continuation of mask policy for safety sake that we are moving forward with a "mixed multitude."  It's a fear mitigation stance.  Guess what?  It's not easy.  Nothing about this whole time period has been.

Dave Benke

[Charles Austin]

In case I haven’t already made it clear, I don’t believe in screaming at individuals, yelling “you’re a fool! You’re selfish! You don’t care about others!“
I’m all for gentle persuasion. I’m also for society as a whole making that persuasion as effective as possible, and sometimes that means leaving the gentle part behind.
Repeat: you won’t hear me yelling at individuals. But you will hear me talking about the various segments of our population that refuse the vaccine, spread erroneous information about the vaccine, and otherwise impede the expansion of the protection the vaccine certainly provides.

[peter_speckhard]

How do you know what information about the vaccine is erroneous? The only thing you know about it is what you've been told. The argument among normal people is not about whether we should spread falsehoods or go by the truth. It is about whom we should trust. And that argument is generally not about individuals but about assumptions and larger frameworks. For example, some people refuse standard medical treatments in favor of natural, holistic care because they think reliance on pharmaceuticals is dangerous. In short, they don't trust the pharmaceutical companies and they reject the whole train of assumptions that says we should treat medical issues with pills. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. It is matter of trust.  They don't reject the science that say this chemical will cause this reaction. They assert that there are more variables in play and more subtle side effects or unforeseen consequences than adding another chemical can account for. There is a whole alternative medical infrastructure to treat cancer without radiation or chemotherapy. Some people mock these subcultures as loony, but people in those subcultures look at patients in mainstream medicine like the old lady who swallowed a fly (and then a spider to catch the fly and so on until dying of swallowing a horse). Everyone knows someone who takes dozens of pills every day. Every one of them is probably proven to do some good. But most of the people swallowing handfuls of pills every day somehow manage not to be in good health. They're taking this one for the nausea caused by that one, and taking that one to help with the side effects of the other one. None of them is necessarily bad in itself. At some point it becomes a matter of whether you trust the whole strategy of treating health issues primarily with medications.

The reason I bring it up is that doctors go crazy trying to separate the medical information from the medical disinformation. But rarely does either side make a statement that is false. They make statements that undermine trust in this or that approach. If you ever read the original Atkins Diet book you see this in spades. His thesis was simple--- all the health issues and weight gain issues that the government and medical community was attributing to fat was really attributable to refined sugars and flours. Many people thought he was a genius. Many people thought he was nuts. He had success stories. He had detractors. He had science on his side. He had science against him.

There is no trusting "the science." Nobody in this forum has conducted any conclusive experiments on this virus. There can only be appeals to trust in individuals, institutions, and large scale ideas. Therefore, there is no way for anyone here to distinguish information from disinformation apart from an appeal to trust.