It is safe as the average person is better off with than without it. It is effective as the average person as less chances to have severe COVID with it than without, and also less chances of transmitting it.

So at this point you are either disputing the reality of these facts, or arguing for different definitions of safe and effective. If the former then we live in a different reality and we won't be able to agree. If the latter then you are just arguing in bad faith to score gotcha points, which I have no interest in.

Not sure why you chose to be insulting but it makes your message less audible. Less noise and more information please.

We were not sold a similar message. We were told that the vaccine reduces risk of severe COVID infection (effective) and that the risk and nature of complications are such that we're better off vaccinated than not vaccinated (safe). I live in Austria but also read international news. If you can provide a link to the kind of propaganda you mention, I'm interested in having a look.

People thought that the right to abortion was here to stay, then some states made it illegal. Are you confident that these same states won't make birth control illegal in the coming years? If yes, based on what?

Only an idiot would understand it like that. Effective means that it has a significant effect, which it does. Significant means it is measured on more than one person, which it was and is.

I don't know about where you live but where I live (Europe), all of this was made very clear, the information was and is openly available and brought to everyone's attention. We nonetheless had (and still have) idiots cherry picking information so that they could make this kind of absurd all-or-nothing argument. It's hard to help people who choose stupidity, as it's hard to help people against their own will. But we shouldn't entertain these people's delusions.

Sure but let's not forget about the value of consensus, best effort and middle ground. Not everything needs to be a conflict or a win/lose scenario. For instance a high hedge might reduce noise.

Not the OP but I live in Austria and the same applies here. I often work from home and sometimes receive parcels for my neighbours. One other option (depending on the delivery company) is delivery to a shop 50m away from my apartment, where I can go and pick up the parcel when I have time. One other option is lockers at the entrance of my building, and a way to open said locker delivered to my mailbox. Yet another option is delivery to 24/7 lockers at the local post office. They're all good options. The delivery guys are given routes that are typically time-infeasible if they go to everyone's apartment, and delivery companies have access to different options, so the recipient doesn't always choose which option is used. But again, they're all good options.

Using the same word "crime" for different behaviours with different motivations is why your argument seems to make sense on a superficial level. But we both know that poor people commit crime because they can't afford shit while rich people commit crime because they're psychopaths who get high on not following the same rules as the plebes.

By "nuclear verdict" do you mean people high in the hierarchy at Facebook going to jail? Is that even possible in the jurisdiction where this is being judged? Because that's what needs to happen if the charges are true.

In a competitive market, you don't exempt of taxes some competitors selectively then claim that their solution is superior.

Define "closer". If we're talking about personal wealth then someone owning 100 millions is way, way closer to a homeless person owning zero than to a billionaire. At least nine times closer.

I have no idea about the legality of such deals but it sounds like it should be illegal in a functioning society, since it gives a competitive advantage to Spotify over their competitors, and encourages monopoly.

Hey who are we to understand people, some Jews love Israel even though it's the least safe country for Jews. At this point it's safe to assume we are all irrational.

My post does not mention belief. Nowadays people eat pork and survive just fine, because the context changed. And at least in some cultures the people who have the most sex before marriage are the people who have the least children, because these days we have good contraception, because again, the context changed. The people having many children are typically the more religious, who are also more likely to not have sex before marriage. Thanks for providing two examples supporting my point: what was potentially good advice in the past does not apply any more. Not sure why you feel the need to call me ignorant in the process and be so condescending.

This is the weirdest argument I've read here. Why would anyone care what some dude thought 2000 years ago? Even if that dude was actually representing God, the context changed and that God would be smart enough to see that. Human society was vastly different, being a human was a vastly different experience. Many things said then don't apply now. It's like the obsession with the founding fathers, very absurd.

Present humans decide how present society evolves into future society. Why would some of these present humans choose to delegate that choice to some past authority? Your God or your founding father won't be responsible for your actions, you will.