Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I can explain it. Tylenol has been around since 1955 and is only demonstrably toxic in overdoses. The mrna based vaccines have been only used for the past couple years, hence long term side effects are unknown.

Not everyone who refuses the vaccine takes supplements. Your comparison is like saying "why don't you take this research chemical ('molly'), you smoke cannabis already".




You didn't explain it, you explained around it.

I didn't ask why specifically about tylenol and supplements, I said explain why the outrage over vaccines and not other things.


You said "The same people who refuse the vaccine take unknown substances in 'supplements' which have no regulation at all. It makes no sense. Explain it." I replied to that point directly.

The "outrage over vaccines and not other things" is in part because the mrna vaccines are new technology. People are hesitant to try something totally new on themselves.


The MMR vaccines are not mRNA. You are completely missing the point. See my other comment in this thread if you want a specific breakdown.


>> "The same people who refuse the vaccine take unknown substances in 'supplements' which have no regulation at all. It makes no sense. Explain it."

>> The "outrage over vaccines and not other things" is in part because the mrna vaccines are new technology. People are hesitant to try something totally new on themselves.

> The MMR vaccines are not mRNA. You are completely missing the point.

Ironic, as you now choose to ignore the explanation.

If you failed to explain an implicit assumption, that's ok, as it's hard to communicate over forums. Introducing MMR (there is no reference to this in "another post") as if there was a misunderstanding on the poster's part is a non-sequitor at best and dishonest at worst.


You missing the entire context of the conversation and replying to a specific part of my response to another person is not a miscommunication, but OK.

I didn't 'introduce' anything. The grandparent post is about 'vaccines' in general. the mRNA vaccine is one of them.


> You missing the entire context of the conversation

The entire comment section of this article can be perused in a few minutes. Cntrl-f and I find all your comments. At this moment there are 5 (4 of which are this thread). There hasn't been some elaborate discussion that's hard to follow.

> replying to a specific part of my response to another person is not a miscommunication,

Plainly dishonest. Got it.


Apparently you have used my comments to 'prove' that I am dishonest for 'introducing' the fact that pluralization means 'more than one'.

Let's break this down with an example:

P1: What don't you like about milks?

P2: I don't like cows.

P1: Goats are not cows.

Is P1 dishonest? If you say yes, I would disagree with you and say that you are attributing to dishonesty what is for you reading comprehension problem. If you say no then I say you are grasping at straws in order to find flaws in my argument because you cannot find a real one.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: