Vaccine mandate propaganda?

 

                    Cartoon by Peter Kuper, The New Yorker, Facebook post, February 4, 2022

Vaccine mandate propaganda?

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

On February 4, 2022, The New Yorker presented a cartoon that smacks of vaccine mandate propaganda. The cartoon depicts two astronauts in outer space and one says, as he’s about to take off his helmet, “I’ve had it with the helmet mandates.”

The cartoon seems to be a visual form of argument (by analogy) in favour of COVID vaccine mandates: COVID vaccine mandates are like space helmets—so the COVID vaccine mandates protect us similarly.

But it’s a weak argument. I see (at least) three relevant dissimilarities that render the analogy deeply problematic from a logic/critical thinking point of view.

Relevant dissimilarity #1

Unlike helmetlessness in space, which kills everyone (as far as we know), COVID doesn’t kill everyone (as far as we know). COVID tends to kill primarily those people who are vulnerable: older folks, immunocompromised people, obese people, people with cardiovascular disease—i.e., people with serious underlying medical conditions.

From World Health Organization: “Most people who fall sick with COVID-19 will experience mild to moderate symptoms and recover without special treatment. However, some will become seriously ill and require medical attention.”

Relevant dissimilarity #2

Unlike the fact that we all need helmets to live in outer space, not all of us need vaccines. In the COVID situation some (many?) people can live without “helmets” (vaccines). Again, as stated by WHO, “Most people who fall sick with COVID-19 will experience mild to moderate symptoms and recover without special treatment.” It also turns out that some (many?) people who have had COVID, and have survived, have developed a non-vaccine-induced immunity.

Relevant dissimilarity #3

Unlike helmetlessness in space, a situation in which it’s clear that helmetlessness is the culprit, it’s often not clear that in the COVID situations that COVID is the culprit. Hospitalizations due to COVID have been over-reported by up to 50%, as has been admitted recently by various medical officials (e.g., Dr. Kieran Moore, Ontario’s chief medical officer). And in recent weeks it’s become clear that health officials have failed to make a distinction between deaths with COVID and deaths because of COVID.

These three dissimilarities make the helmet mandate analogy to COVID vaccine mandates faulty.

So, yes, wear your helmet in outer space, but on earth a thinking cap is prolly enough.

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

 

P.S.  I think the above cartoon of The New Yorker is propaganda for what some have called “vaccine-ism.” For additional thought about the new scientistic ideology called “vaccine-ism,” see Norman Doige’s “Needle Points” on Jordan B. Peterson’s podcast S4: E79. Dr. Norman Doige is a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and author of The Brain That Changes Itself and The Brain’s Way of Healing. He is Executive Director of Health and the Greater Good.  The podcast is a whopping 3.5 hours long. For a link to a transcript of Doige’s paper, which Doige reads on Peterson’s podcast, see here.

P.P.S. Objection: It’s only a cartoon. Reply: Only if you ignore all of the above.

Is being gay like race?

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, June 21, 2012

Is being gay like race?

During Gay Pride Parade seasons I sometimes hear versions of the following argument: Science shows that homosexuals are biologically and genetically determined to be gay, like black people are biologically and genetically determined to be black, so questioning homosexuality is unjust—as racism is unjust.

Here are three reasons for thinking that this argument is problematic from the perspective of critical thinking.

Reason 1. Scientific evidence does not show that homosexual orientation is, like skin colour, wholly biologically or genetically determined. Scientific evidence seems very much to suggest, rather, that homosexual orientation is due to a cluster of interacting factors whose relative weights vary from person to person.

Some factors are biological (e.g., genes or heritable contributions may predispose, not causally determine, a person toward homosexuality; e.g., in some cases it is alleged that a mother's pre-natal antibodies may influence a male fetus's brain development so it is "feminized"). Some factors are social and psychological (e.g., childhood sexual abuse, some particularities of broken family life, or the broader cultural-social environment may play a role in influencing a person toward homosexuality). Some factors have to do with the individual's responses to biological and environmental inputs (responses that unintentionally tend to promote a predisposition).

Two things are clear: (a) same-sex attractions seem not to be due to choice, whereas (b) acting in accordance with or indulging one's sexual attractions is due to choice.

There is more. Psychologist Mark Yarhouse makes a three-tiered distinction between same-sex attractions, homosexual orientation, and gay identity. A person may have same-sex attractions (from time to time) or even a homosexual orientation (i.e., strong, durable, persistent same-sex attractions), yet that person may choose not to subscribe to a gay identity, which Yarhouse calls the "gay script."

The "gay script" reads as follows: Same-sex attractions (however strong, durable, or persistent) constitute the core of one's personhood and engaging in same-sex behaviour is crucial for self-actualization. Yarhouse argues, however, that a person may choose not to construct his/her self-definition in terms of the gay script. Why not? Because, according to Yarhouse, other scripts are available, scripts that don't make one's sexual attractions the core of one's identity as a person.

The upshot: The essential nature of gay identity seems very much to involve a decision.

In other words, whereas race does not involve choices or decisions, indulging in or acting on same-sex attractions and constructing one's self-description via the gay identity/script apparently do.

[For a helpful overview of the scientific understanding of the causal background of homosexuality, and for further explanation of the three-tiered distinction between same-sex attraction, homosexual orientation, and gay identity, see Yarhouse's 2010 book Homosexuality and the Christian: A Guide for Parents, Pastors, and Friends.]

Reason 2. Unlike the impossibility of changing one's race, there are persons who have unwanted homosexual orientation or same-sex attractions and have changed them to significant degrees.

According to the 2009 study What Research Shows, done by the U.S.-based National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (NARTH), “over a century of experiential evidence, clinical reports, and research evidence demonstrate that it is possible for both men and women to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality [and] that efforts to change are not generally harmful.”

Yarhouse cautiously sums up his investigation of the relevant research as follows: "Although some people do experience a change in sexual orientation, most experience modest gains, and many share that they continue to have same-sex attractions at times." Yarhouse adds: "change can occur along a continuum."

In other words, whereas race cannot be changed to any degree, it very much seems to be the case that same-sex orientation and same-sex attractions can be changed to various degrees—at least for some people.

Reason 3. Medical concerns are not usually closely associated with race; however, persons who act on their same-sex sexual propensities (especially men) do have closely associated health concerns.

According to NARTH's above-mentioned study, "Researchers have shown that medical, psychological and relationship pathology within the homosexual community is more prevalent than within the general population." According to the website for the prestigious Mayo Clinic, "All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however."

[Also, according to researcher Thomas Coy, "The risk of HIV from sexual contact for MSM (men who have sex with men) was approximately 150 times greater than the heterosexual male population in 2010." For the sake of perspective, Coy adds: "According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) the risk of  lung cancer for men who smoke is 23 times greater than for men who do not smoke."]

In other words, homosexuality is also different from race, health-wise.

In view of the above three reasons, it is reasonable to conclude that homosexuality and race are significantly dissimilar and so the analogy between homosexuality and race is deeply problematic.

Raising questions about homosexuality, then, is not akin to racism. Rather, in view of the present prevalence of Gay Pride Parades and these parades' apparent purpose of encouraging the larger society to accept and celebrate homosexuality, raising questions about homosexuality is more akin to seeking truth in advertising.

P.S. For the record, my raising of the above concerns about homosexuality does not stem from homophobia (an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals) nor is it an attempt to show disrespect to homosexuals (I believe that all people are made in God's image and deserve respect, so disrespecting people with same-sex attractions is wrong, period). Rather, I am deeply interested in the pursuit of truth. In a democratic society it is important to seek truth—and especially important when it's not fashionable to do so.

[P.P.S. For a helpful online article on science and homosexuality, see psychologist Stanton L. Jones, "Same-Sex Science," First Things, February 2012.]

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Acorns and oak trees...and abortion

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, October 2, 2008)

Acorns and oak trees…and abortion
Because abortionist Dr. Henry Morgentaler has been awarded the Order of Canada, and because I (and many other Canadians) think that in this case the award is a huge mistake, I wish to dismantle another abortion argument, to help show why the award is a mistake.

An oft-heard argument in favor of abortion is the acorn-oak-tree analogy: An acorn isn’t an oak tree, so the fetus isn’t a human being, so abortion is no big deal.

Should we be persuaded by this argument? Answer: No.

To compare an acorn to a fetus and an oak tree to a human being and then conclude that a fetus is not a human being is to draw a false conclusion from a faulty analogy.

The unstated premise consists of the following comparison: acorns are to oak trees as fetuses are to human beings. But this is problematic.

To call an acorn an oak tree is, on a more accurately construed analogy, like calling a fetus an adult. Consequently, to say that a fetus is not a human being on the basis of an acorn not being an oak tree is to say a fetus is not a human being on the basis of a fetus not being an adult. This, of course, is absurd.

In other words, the acorn-oak tree analogy confuses the concepts of kind and developmental stage. Yes, an acorn isn’t an oak tree, that is, a seed isn’t a grown tree. But we need to ask: What kind of seed is the acorn? Answer: Oak.

The acorn is the first developmental stage of the oak. Subsequent developmental stages include sprout, sapling, and tree. Significantly, all the stages are oaks—i.e., oak entities, oak beings.

Now consider the fetus. What kind of fetus are we talking about? Answer: Human.

The fetus is an early developmental stage of the human. The first stage is the zygote (fertilized egg) and subsequent stages include the embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teen, and adult. Significantly, all the stages are human—i.e., human entities, human beings.

An acorn isn’t an oak tree, so the fetus isn’t a human being, so abortion is no big deal? The logic of this argument is just plain nutty. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist the attempt at humor.)

Is it a mistake to call a fetus a human being? No. What is a mistake is to think that only adults are human beings, which is what the faulty acorn-oak-tree analogy would lead us to believe.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, located in Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.)

Morgentaler's abortion of logic

APOLOGIABy Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, September 4, 2008)

Morgentaler’s abortion of logic
Abortionist Henry Morgentaler is apparently going to receive Canada’s highest honour, the Order of Canada. I don’t intend personal disrespect in saying this, but in Dr. Morgentaler’s case, the award must not be for logical merit.

Early in his career while visiting the University of Alberta, Morgentaler justified his abortion practice by arguing as follows: “One brick is obviously not a house. A human being is made up of billions of cells. How can you consider that one cell is a whole house?” (Medicine Hat News, January 18, 1985; a similar justification occurs in his 1983 book, Abortion and Contraception.)

In his argument Morgentaler compares the single cell of conception with a single brick. He then enlightens us with the insignificance of the single cell’s destruction. Just as destroying a single brick is not the same as destroying a whole house, so too destroying the single cell of conception is not the same as destroying a prenatal child, which is a human being. Thus, abortion is permissible.

Morgentaler’s argument has at least four serious problems.

First, it’s false that the single cell of conception isn’t a human being, at least if we’re talking biology. When human sperm and a human egg unite, a new life form begins. This life form is neither mere sperm nor mere egg; it’s a new entity. Nor is it canine or feline; it’s human. It’s a new human life form, a new human entity—a new human being. In fact, it’s the first stage in the series of subsequent developmental stages of being human.

Second, it’s false that all human beings are made up of billions of cells. Only later developmental stages of human beings have such high numbers. Earlier stages are human beings, too.

Third, it’s false that abortion destroys single-celled human beings only. Most aborted fetuses are highly complex, multi-million celled human beings.

Fourth, the analogy between the single cell of conception and the brick is faulty. In reality a single brick does not grow into a whole house, but the single cell of conception does grow into its later stages.

The question arises, then: Should we destroy a brick that has its own blueprint and, when given shelter plus shovels full of building materials, grows itself into a beautiful and unique house, complete with modern heating and plumbing (sometimes leaky), the latest in computer technology, and, say, blue curtains? Probably not.

The Order of Canada for Dr. Morgentaler? Surely not.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, located in Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.)