And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.
It is irrelevant. It's about as relevant saying an orange is round when discussing the shape of the Earth with a flatter.
Communism is about economics, not race, gender, discrimination, etc... And it's pretty funny that you tout the USSR as an example since there was plenty of ethnic discrimination under the old Russian regime. They definitely weren't striving for the woke version of racial or gender equality.
The USSR practised affirmative action and was probably one of the first countries to do so. Look up Korenizatsiia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia?useskin=vector
This ended in 1937... Maybe you should have read more than just the first half of that Wiki link.
Oh, I've read quite a lot more than that about the Soviet Union and China, not just that link. The whole Soviet experiment can even be argued to be a form of affirmative action, but based on class, rather than ethnicity. I merely pointed out a policy they had which was. I could have picked
China and is probably a better example, since it's still somewhat in effect today.
Marxism is not just about economics, it's also social philosophy. Advocating for equal outcome i.e. equity for all ethnicities races, sex/gender, classes etc. is Marxist, by definition of the word.
Then you should have used the correct word (Marxism) in the first place. Communism as practiced by the USSR was not the same as the Marxism envisioned by the German philosopher Karl. Russia was under communist rule for far longer than the short period of idealized Marxism that it started out as.
I did say Marxism. You were the one who brought up communism.
It's true that what was practised in the USSR and China is not what Marx envisioned, but is still the logical conclusion of following Marxist ideology. Humans are individualistic and nature. It's not possible to get everyone to own the means of production and redistribute wealth in equitable manner. Vested interests soon get in the way and the ideology soon becomes corrupted in order for those who gain power to maintain it. We're not an ant or bee colony.
What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability, is at the very core of the scientific method. We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties. (I myself recommend Popperian falsifiability approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego. I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs. We got here by questioning. If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.
I'm not talking about testing in the scientific sense at all. I agree with you there. (Scientific method)
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is someone with a huge audience and power casting doubt on the very scientific method that you and I advocate for. It's a classic tactic of trying to make an unqualified, uninformed, & unscientific opinion (Trump's) equal to that of real scientific researchers. That's the kind of testing and questioning that I'm against.
And yes, scientists have opinions on a topics that are not yet fully resolved. But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.
Trumps comments regarding antiseptic were absurd, but the whole pandemic has not been handled in a scientific manner. Some things pushed by the authorities had the same level of scientific evidence to support them, as those dismissed as dangerous or ineffective. I've completely lost trust in many public health authorities, especially in the UK, US, Canada, Australia etc. I now look towards Sweden and Denmark, who've been more sane.
Vaccines I think it's pretty clear that in general they are effective and that the risk is offset by the benefit, but I absolutely think we should continue to study intensely and I am open to any new information we discover, once again this is how science works, in fact the entire premise of science is based on constantly questioning, testing and trying to prove our theories wrong. That is literally one of the core components of the scientific method. Religion is settled, science is never settled.
The risk vs benefit analysis depends on the individual. Whilst some vaccines there's definitely a positive risk vs benefit analyses in children such as polio, others are less clear-cut.
I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?
"selfish behaviour" is not an absolute thing. What one person can view as selfish another can view as being the opposite, and even have legit reason to back up that view of it not being selfish.
You are falling into the trap of thinking that things are binary, that's almost always never the case in anything.
The mandates never made any sense because the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity and it's certainty doesn't reduce the spread enough to have a significant effect on the number of cases.
The idea everyone needed to have it is not based on any scientific evidence. There is no evidence to suggest it provides any additional protection against severe disease and death, after someone has already been exposed to the virus. Someone who's already had the virus, then recovered would be perfectly rational in refusing the vaccine, because there's no evidence of any benefit. They FDA might as well have just told everyone, who caught it, to take ivermectin. It has the same level of evidence to support it as vaccinating those with natural immunity.