See, I don't believe you when you talk about respecting other people's principled stances.

Ok. That's fine. You can not believe me. I don't care.

I think you mostly respect numberology and measurements, which is why you're out here fighting some kind of one-man war for their honour.

"Numberology?" You mean math and science? Yes, I respect math and science. I also respect principled stands, which is why when someone says they won't get the vaccine our of principle, I don't argue with them. That's fine. I disagree with them, but if they feel that out of principle against state mandates as infringement on their liberty, I'm not arguing against their position on that. The proof of that is in the pudding.

I'm fighting out here against misinformation. If someone says, "I won't take the vaccine because I won't be coerced or socially pressured," I don't care. That's an honest take.

But when people spread falsehoods that other people might believe, falsehoods based on lies, then, yes, I will fight that fight against falsehood, manipulation, and disinformation. It is dishonest and unethical to lie. I will fight against that.

hat should it matter to you how someone else is manipulating numbers?

I care about the truth. Further, it is a threat to the health of the community I live in, not to mention the health of people who are close to me and more at-risk of contracting severe, life-threatening infection.

ost charitably, you want to shore up people's arguments against expertism-driven dismissal by urging them to adhere to the common rituals, but it would better to shortcut that process entirely by simply abolishing credentialed men from the public sphere entirely.

What the hell are you even talking about? What "credentialed men" are you talking about. I cite credentialed men and even some women ALL THE TIME.

There are bunch here that I site:

Effectiveness of COVID vaccines

I haven't seen in any response to me a single "credentialed man" cited. The article I criticized was not by a "credentialed man," but an uncredentialed liar. I have no patience for uncredentialed liars.

hen we wouldn't have to bother about their cult rituals one bit.

Ummm....ok. I'm not sure you are actually sane. No, it's science, it's not a "cult ritual."

nd I understand "math" well enough - enough to know that it's treated as a different discipline from "stats" at any rate

No, actually you don't. There was no statistical analyses done on those numbers. I am talking about math, straight up numbers. How many of these vs how many of those. Just math, yes math that used some very simple stats (like percentages), but no stats to determine causation or even correlation. So I think you don't know much about either math or statistics.

the only people who think otherwise are mathematicians, but they think everything's math

Everything does come down to math. The problem with statisticians is they don't rationalize the denominator. I just can't even go there.

I just think it's stupid.

Math is stupid? ok. That doesn't actually go against my position that anti-vaxxers don't understand math.

See, I don't believe you when you talk about respecting other people's principled stances.

Ok. That's fine. You can not believe me. I don't care.

I think you mostly respect numberology and measurements, which is why you're out here fighting some kind of one-man war for their honour.

"Numberology?" You mean math and science? Yes, I respect math and science. I also respect principled stands, which is why when someone says they won't get the vaccine our of principle, I don't argue with them. That's fine. I disagree with them, but if they feel that out of principle against state mandates as infringement on their liberty, I'm not arguing against their position on that. The proof of that is in the pudding.

I'm fighting out here against misinformation. If someone says, "I won't take the vaccine because I won't be coerced or socially pressured," I don't care. That's an honest take.

But when people spread falsehoods that other people might believe, falsehoods based on lies, then, yes, I will fight that fight against falsehood, manipulation, and disinformation. It is dishonest and unethical to lie. I will fight against that.

hat should it matter to you how someone else is manipulating numbers?

I care about the truth. Further, it is a threat to the health of the community I live in, not to mention the health of people who are close to me and more at-risk of contracting severe, life-threatening infection.

ost charitably, you want to shore up people's arguments against expertism-driven dismissal by urging them to adhere to the common rituals, but it would better to shortcut that process entirely by simply abolishing credentialed men from the public sphere entirely.

What the hell are you even talking about? What "credentialed men" are you talking about. I cite credentialed men and even some women ALL THE TIME.

There are bunch here that I site:

Effectiveness of COVID vaccines

I haven't seen in any response to me a single "credentialed man" cited. The article I criticized was not by a "credentialed man," but an uncredentialed liar. I have no patience for uncredentialed liars.

hen we wouldn't have to bother about their cult rituals one bit.

Ummm....ok. I'm not sure you are actually sane. No, it's science, it's not a "cult ritual."

nd I understand "math" well enough - enough to know that it's treated as a different discipline from "stats" at any rate

No, actually you don't. There was no statistical analyses done on those numbers. I am talking about math, straight up numbers. How many of these vs how many of those. Just math, yes math that used some very simple stats (like percentages), but no stats to determine causation or even correlation. So I think you don't know much about either math or statistics.

I just think it's stupid.

Math is stupid? ok. That doesn't actually go against my position that anti-vaxxers don't understand math.