Dave’s last sentence encapsulates my views pretty well. As I see it, the people who refuse to wear masks and who refuse to take the vaccine are putting the rest of society in danger as the virus mutates beyond what the existing medical treatments may be able to handle. If my 97 year old vaccinated father, who lives in Georgia, contracts a variant because somebody thought his liberty was more important than my father’s life, I will be severely displeased. Not to mention the risks my sister,  who is an EMT, faces driving her ambulance every day. As citizens we have an obligation to do what we can to protect others as well as ourselves. 
also, I just read this second that the FDA  has given full approval to the Pfizer vaccine, so there’s’s that. 

starexplorer wrote:

scenario_dave wrote:

starexplorer wrote:

I am really really sorry to hear that Spence-ji. We won’t get any where if we can’t listen to each other, try to understand our differences, and respect where we are each coming from.

I think that it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation on some issues because the two people involved don't have a common set of facts. 

When I hear "I don't trust any government site, or university, or scientific journal, I only trust random people on Facebook," I know it's a waste of time to discuss this particular topic with this person. We just don't share a common frame of reference. They may be intelligent people but they are making decisions based on a different set of facts than I am. 

I am very much a live and let live kind of guy up until the point when someone's decisions might get me or someone I loved killed, directly or indirectly. 
 

Spence’s example may be a sad case where dialog proved impossible, At least so far. But this community has been in thriving existence for many years. And part of that is that we maintain a high level of respect for members opinions and ideas. Where that is too difficult - and it has been very rare over the years - we have even had to lock or terminate threads. This is first and foremost a place devoted to the love of books. There are many other communities available for discussions that won’t fit here.
 

I will be happy to keep talking about CJ's books with any anti-science people as long as they continue to be polite and not abusive. I find disagreeing with someone interesting until it becomes abusive. I love talking politics but I understand this is not the place for it. But when someone says something I find dangerous to society or offensive I must call them on it. I don't expect them to change but there may be a lurker around that might follow bad advice if it is not contradicted. 
 
I named the wrong person in my originial post. I edited out the incorrect name. I Apologize for my error.  

Last edited by scenario_dave (8/23/2021 5:26 pm)

scenario_dave wrote:

starexplorer wrote:

scenario_dave wrote:

I think that it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation on some issues because the two people involved don't have a common set of facts. 

When I hear "I don't trust any government site, or university, or scientific journal, I only trust random people on Facebook," I know it's a waste of time to discuss this particular topic with this person. We just don't share a common frame of reference. They may be intelligent people but they are making decisions based on a different set of facts than I am. 

I am very much a live and let live kind of guy up until the point when someone's decisions might get me or someone I loved killed, directly or indirectly. 
 

Spence’s example may be a sad case where dialog proved impossible, At least so far. But this community has been in thriving existence for many years. And part of that is that we maintain a high level of respect for members opinions and ideas. Where that is too difficult - and it has been very rare over the years - we have even had to lock or terminate threads. This is first and foremost a place devoted to the love of books. There are many other communities available for discussions that won’t fit here.
 

I will be happy to keep talking about CJ's books with Spence or any other anti-science people as long as they continue to be polite and not abusive. I find disagreeing with someone interesting until it becomes abusive. I love talking politics but I understand this is not the place for it. But when someone says something I find dangerous to society or offensive I must call them on it. I don't expect them to change but there may be a lurker around that might follow bad advice if it is not contradicted. 
 

I feel the same way.  IMO we should make this place a no politics zone (and I consider non-fact based covid/vaccination talk to be intensely political). 

nighthawk wrote:

Shall we talk about the weather instead?  I woke up to a thunderstorm, and when I saw that the nearest lightning strike was 0,1 miles away my morning walk was postponed.  Maybe later.

I have been fortunate the past couple weeks, but 3 weeks ago a storm passed by my house. Rain was falling 90 degrees sideways, coming up from under the window sills. 3 tree limbs came down, and a 4th was weakened enough to fall several days later on the road in front of my house.

I live in a valley. A couple hundred feet up the road, the most storm damage anyone had was a few leaves scattered along their yards. Sometimes, it feels like there's just going to be a particular day that I in particular am doomed for not having suffered through enough hardships.

For myself, this thread isn't "political", it's highly personnel. And if I may: personnel just like book preferences.

Last edited by Griffinmoon (8/23/2021 2:05 pm)