Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Several-Guarantee655 t1_itw5q2w wrote

He was using critical thinking -

Definition - "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment"

He objectively assessed his own personal situation and formed a judgement that, for him, it would be better to not get the vaccine. He is young and healthy and likely was not overly worried about the virus bringing him much harm. Whereas, even with the risks being very low for side effects, they weren't zero with the vaccine. It's kind of a dance with the devil you know versus the devil you don't. At the time, there was more known about the virus than the vaccine side effects.

As it turns out, in many ways he may have had the correct decision based on information known now and still being questioned.

In my mind, thinking critically means not accepting purely at face value any supposed "consensus". It means to make one's own evaluation, absent of external bias, other than pure facts. How many believe in a certain fact should not come into play. If one person believes one thing and has evidence supporting it, and 1,000 people believe another thing and have evidence supporting their views, the numbers do not matter, only the idea and the supporting evidence. How many times have we seen 95% of people being wrong? The entire history of scientific advancement is basically built on the 1-5% going against the 95% "consensus".

From looking at other comments, I'm wondering if this is a place to discuss topics, or its it just another forum to trash those who don't follow group think? So many comments are just trashing Aaron Rodgers and not even discussing the premise of the article.

Edit: i went back and re-read the article to make sure i fully understood the premise. The writer is using quite a number of logical fallacies in his writing. Clearly Bandwagon Fallacy is at play. One could argue for False Dichotomy and even possibly Straw Manning. The most egregious one is False Equivalence by comparing the story regarding his knowledge of the cosmos, which has little to no bearing to his own body and health, with the situation Aaron Rodgers was faced with that directly affected his own body and health either way he ended up deciding on the issue. The two situations do not even remotely compare with each other, and is disingenuous to even suggest so.

To address those who claim Aaron thinks he's an expert - I'm fairly certain he'd have been plenty happy never talking about the issue publicly. It's only because of the constsnt poking and prodding by the public and reporters basically taunting his beliefs out of him, that forced him to have to say something to quell the ravenous hunger of those after him. I doubt he thinks of himself as an expert on any of the topics at hand. What I'm sure he does believe though is that he weighed the decision critically for himself and his health and made the best decision for himself without succumbing to Bandwagon Fallacy or any other external pressure.

−13

PortalGunHistory t1_itwil9s wrote

“It means to make one’s own evaluation, absent of external bias…”

You are really stretching if you think antivaxxers (or at least Covid deniers) are making their decision “absent of external bias.”

What greater bias than the desire to get back to normal, not be told what to do, and not have your life inconvenienced, disrupted, or in some cases put into financial turmoil?

7

Several-Guarantee655 t1_itwpqs8 wrote

In my mind, there is a difference between those who are overtly and repeatedly speaking out or otherwise being loud in general for years against vaccines(Not just this one vaccine, but the entire concept of vaccines), and those who make very personal decisions about their own health and what they choose to put in their body on a case by case basis in a private manner. The only reason we even know about his situation is that he happens to be a public figure and was no doubt hounded until he spoke on the topic.

I don't recall reading anything about him denying that covid exists. Perhaps i missed it? Beware the straw man.

And to address your third point, there has been some evidence coming to light in the news recently that in fact the vaccines have not been effective at all in stopping transmission of the virus. There has been news and information showing quite the opposite. But I'm not here to have s debate on the efficacy of any vaccine, let alone this one. I'm no expert on the topic. Just relaying some of the data points as i don't accept your statement as an argument without question. Surely there are many asking very tough questions about all of that right now. We'll maybe know more as time goes on.

−1

dragonsmilk t1_itwskfg wrote

My only issue is that vaccines for contagious diseases are not necessarily a personal or private matter.

What if a new strain of covid made your penis fall off with 20% likelihood. And the chances of spreading it were reduced to 0 if vaccinated. Would you be invested in your neighbors getting the vaccine?

I think there'd be broad political support for everybody getting the vaccine so that we could preserve everyone's penises. Even if mandates be required for the crazy, malicious and/or stupid.

Same idea but with the variables slightly tweaked.

3