I went to the hospital thinking I was in the middle of a medical event ... only for it to be heartburn. Oddly enough it didn't feel like heartburn, but more of a general pain in my chest.
The trained medical personnel would have been far more likely to identify that emergency services was needed.
Those personnel are on site for a reason and it isn't because they're expected to be able to deal personally with every single medical emergency that happens.
Since you've chosen to go with a false equivalency using an apples-to-oranges comparison, lets rewrite that
"If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period"
People shot guns while hunting all the time, therefore the actions of Cheney that led up to him shooting his friend are both acceptable, things we should continue doing, and should under no circumstances be expected to change in future hunts.
^ Because you see ... it doesn't matter that other people have successfully gone hunting and shot guns in the past, what matters are the specific circumstances that led to Cheney shooting another human being.
---
What happens is that people like you want to point to the firing of the gun and argue that firing guns is legal therefore Cheney did nothing wrong.
Everyone understand the flaw in that logic, I don't even have to explain it.
---
FB did nothing wrong everyone! FB is just displaying text on a webpage, something people do all the time!
If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period. What people get backwards is thinking that if the actions that led up to the razing were themselves not ethically problematic, then the result has no bearing on whether or not we should continue allowing said actions.
Then there's the fact that actual FB employee's have gone on record that FB is making things worse in Ethiopia. Or aren't we allowed to take that into account when condemning FB?
Discounting this as being simply "he said/she said" is itself ethically dubious.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that a company with the resources of Facebook are quicker to pull down a post by a practicing medical doctor stating masks aren't 100% effective than they are to pull down a post inciting violence in a country that has been in the middle of such violence for the last 3 years?
The problem with opinions like yours isn't that they're wrong, it's that you've lost all perspective.
Most places have stopped asking me to sign when I make a purchase less than $X with my debit card (Generally around $25). Their thought process is that it's much faster cycling people through and the risk of money loss isn't worth the loss in throughput.
What you quoted is specifically for less than 200 transactions in a calendar year. The implication being that any account involving 200 or more transactions in a calendar year will need that information.
Which brings about two points.
1. Exactly how much money can someone launder buying < 200 csgo skins in a calendar year (are we arguing that they're paying $50k per skin?), and
2. How exactly does the idea that they've decided to take on some risk to decrease friction incompatible with not wanting to deal with NFT's, which *COULD* conceivably go for $50k a pop.
Oddly enough, I've had my fingers knuckle deep in the vagina of my girlfriend, yet for some reason it's not acceptable for me to do it to every single woman I meet.
It's almost as if context makes an action acceptable in one instance and not another.
I think the worst part of your entire post is that your argument boils down to it being irrational to wait until more complete information is known.
Let me quote them again so we're clear on the context that started this conversation.
> ... a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 __does not have a long enough track record to assure safety__.
Lets consider how you responded
"why do you feel more qualified to say it's unsafe than the people who have spent their entire careers focused on it?"
I would love for you to explain why that's a reasonable response to what the other poster said. Or explain how the other posters statement is irrational.
Because that's the major problem people like you have. You even start attacking me for the egregious wrongthink of not calling someone irrational for having the opinion that we can't be assured of its safety __YET__.
And I realize I'm not going to get through to you, but here's an observation for you.
When you start lumping such middle-of-the-road opinions in with people who believe covid can be spread through 5G networks it's possible you're part of the problem.
> When asked, the person I was responding to admitted that they didn't do that but were instead relying on “common sense”. If they had some real data, a concern based on some real mechanism which would explain why it's risky for them personally in a way that doesn't show up in the population-level statistics, etc. that could be something to discuss because there would be a claim which could be evaluated scientifically.
They did exactly that, to quote them:
"I use my common sense to know that a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 does not have a long enough track record to assure safety."
No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks".
My favorite part is how you set the bar to "something that can be evaluated scientifically", without also admitting that __"SCIENCE", IS IN THE MIDDLE OF EVALUATING__.
This is the reason no one trusts people like you, your willingness to dishonesty and misrepresentation makes you untrustworthy. Nothing anyone says will change anything other than the bar you claim others should be clearing, said bar just so happening to cause everyone to land on your opinion.
Not even the CDC takes a stance as strong as yours.
yet interestingly, if they weigh those odds and come down on the side of waiting for more information, you come after them and tell them they're wrong while simultaneously telling them they must weigh the odds.
You don't actually want them weighing the odds, you just want to imply they're wrong without being histrionic about it.
The worst part is the other poster claiming you only believe that because of the misinformation of your news sources, not realizing they also have news sources which could be misinforming them.
It's reasonable to be leery of a vaccine produced in such a small amount of time when most vaccines go through much more rigor.
And making claims such as "it's been thoroughly tested" is balderdash. It's like claiming your software has been thoroughly tested because you push straight to production with minimal testing after someone says they won't use your software because they don't want to be the testers of your software.
We're still learning about both the virus and the vaccine. In 10 years we'll be a lot more confident in our knowledge, and what's "known" about it will be a lot more trustworthy.
I went to the hospital thinking I was in the middle of a medical event ... only for it to be heartburn. Oddly enough it didn't feel like heartburn, but more of a general pain in my chest.