It is possible to accept that one can’t know the absolute, complete, detailed truth without giving up on identifying and rejecting lies.

That’s the whole authoritarian / fascist shtick: if you can’t be 100% certain that no formulation of any vaccine has ever increased illness, then “vaccines kill people” is just as true as “vaccines save lives”.

I don’t need to have personally reviewed all records of every single version of every single vaccine to confidently assert the two statements are not remotely equivalent in accuracy.

Both statements as written are true: vaccines do kill people and vaccines do save lives.

If you insert the implicit “all”, then both are false: not all vaccines save lives and not all vaccines kill people.

But your knowledge of medicine is quite deep if you know the relative rates of vaccines with zero deaths ever versus the rate at which defective vaccines are produced. Do you have a good source you can share?

So many fallacies. To be charitable, I will assume you are just trying to wind people up with nonsensical rhetoric.

There are no zero-death vaccines, as you know. There are also no zero-death diseases, as you probably know. The relative rates of death between the two are not even close, as you know.

relativism is indeed wrong, but thinking that because knowing the truth is somehow “hard”, that you should throw out objectivism is also wrong.

Thank you for reminding me of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9299539

and here I was just going to say that math requires numbers, and numbers are often made up

Unless you get your eyes open to Intuitionist Math and then you realize math isn't "true".

Then again... where in the trillion or so parameters of any LLM is The Law of the Excluded Middle that classical math requires to be "true".

Even more comical is that there are certainly embeddings in there _about_ an excluded middle. With thousands of dimensions and billions of values in each one.

Lord help us all... Lol