Aaron Rodgers and Covid
Imagine reading any other post by terp on MOL when you can just remember this 11-word sentence: “And America up until say Wilson was a pretty libertarian country.”
DaveSchmidt said:
Imagine reading any other post by terp on MOL when you can just remember this 11-word sentence: “And America up until say Wilson was a pretty libertarian country.”
A statement that, depending on your views of libertarianism, is either damingly true or a grotesque slur.
terp said:
Not only that, he now has natural immunity to covid 19. While obviously true, many studies show that natural immunity is more effective and long lasting than any other medical treatment available right now.
Not true.
Another definition of “Terp, Terping” is the 24 hour period where he horseshit-bombs a thread and then fucks off for 3 weeks. Will he come back to horseshit-bomb this thread again, or will he pick a different thread next time? Who knows?
Who really cares?
ridski said:
Another definition of “Terp, Terping” is the 24 hour period where he horseshit-bombs a thread and then fucks off for 3 weeks. Will he come back to horseshit-bomb this thread again, or will he pick a different thread next time? Who knows?
Who really cares?
Usually it's a pandemic-related thread. Which makes sense, I think. Ignore all the questions about vaccines and mandates and all that, and you're still left with the fact that a pandemic is a deeply social thing where, by definition, individuals' action are directly impacting everyone else. It's about as straightforward a demonstration of the limits of "libertarianism" as you'll find. So of course anyone talking about things like "negative vs positive" rights is going to be strongly incentivized to downplay it.
ridski said:
Another definition of “Terp, Terping” is the 24 hour period where he horseshit-bombs a thread and then fucks off for 3 weeks. Will he come back to horseshit-bomb this thread again, or will he pick a different thread next time? Who knows?
Who really cares?
there's always the concern if an anti-vaxxer disappears from the board for a month that maybe he got COVID.
PVW said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Imagine reading any other post by terp on MOL when you can just remember this 11-word sentence: “And America up until say Wilson was a pretty libertarian country.”
A statement that, depending on your views of libertarianism, is either damingly true or a grotesque slur.
Well, it's clearly untrue in many ways. The most obvious is that tens of thousands of residents were enslaved. After Emancipation there were Jim Crow laws which restricted individuals and businesses.
Married women had few rights.
There were Anti-Trust Laws
There were many laws restricting freedom.
STANV said:
Well, it's clearly untrue in many ways. The most obvious is that tens of thousands of residents were enslaved.
And damningly true if your view of libertarianism is that, to echo a locution used in the ivermectin thread, slaveholders gonna slavehold.
PVW said:
ridski said:
Another definition of “Terp, Terping” is the 24 hour period where he horseshit-bombs a thread and then fucks off for 3 weeks. Will he come back to horseshit-bomb this thread again, or will he pick a different thread next time? Who knows?
Who really cares?
Usually it's a pandemic-related thread. Which makes sense, I think. Ignore all the questions about vaccines and mandates and all that, and you're still left with the fact that a pandemic is a deeply social thing where, by definition, individuals' action are directly impacting everyone else. It's about as straightforward a demonstration of the limits of "libertarianism" as you'll find. So of course anyone talking about things like "negative vs positive" rights is going to be strongly incentivized to downplay it.
libertarianism slams hard into the brick wall of public health, doesn't it?
terp said:
I think much of the confusion is that people read into my posts more than what I'm stating. I am not anti-vaxx. However, I do believe that people have the right to choose what they put in their bodies.
In a situation like we are in, I think that it is fair to question and assess your personal situation and that of your family. I have advised some people in my family to take the covid vaccine and others not to. It depends on the risk/reward these treatments provide.
I am against mandatory vaccinations. If a treatment is as safe and effective as these are being touted, they will sell themselves. I am on the record(I believe on this very thread) saying that I hope the vaccines are effective and they work out for all that take them.
Juxtapose that July comment in conversation with PVW’s post this morning in mtierney’s thread.
PVW said:
In an ideal world, vaccines wouldn't be mandated. Self-interest, and a modicum of giving a damn for one's neighbors, would be enough. For some reason, though, it hasn't been, which raises lots of questions. The most pressing question has been how to get enough people vaccinated to bring the risk of death and injury down to acceptable levels.
Unfortunately, I do think various mandates are the answer. I wish there were a different way, and it's really with a good deal of reluctance that I have to admit the necessity of mandates. I suspect many people -- including policy makers, such as Biden -- feel likewise. I was surprised to see the proposed OSHA regulations; I thought we might be able to get to needed vaccination levels by businesses and institutions mandating on their own. Seeing how quickly and effectively mandates have increased vaccination levels, though, it's hard to argue against their role in getting us out of this crisis.
There’s some common ground there. In this case, I’d say, public health is less a brick wall than a muddy area that has hardened around our feet.
PVW said:
ridski said:
Another definition of “Terp, Terping” is the 24 hour period where he horseshit-bombs a thread and then fucks off for 3 weeks. Will he come back to horseshit-bomb this thread again, or will he pick a different thread next time? Who knows?
Who really cares?
Usually it's a pandemic-related thread. Which makes sense, I think. Ignore all the questions about vaccines and mandates and all that, and you're still left with the fact that a pandemic is a deeply social thing where, by definition, individuals' action are directly impacting everyone else. It's about as straightforward a demonstration of the limits of "libertarianism" as you'll find. So of course anyone talking about things like "negative vs positive" rights is going to be strongly incentivized to downplay it.
It is an interesting situation for a libertarian. Also I was a very grumpy ridski at 7.30 this morning and did not expect all that cursing to go un-asterisked.
Ha. Jesus Christ. Do you have lives? Turning over some statement I made who knows when and under what context? And just ignore the many posts where I clearly see slavery as a horror. Schmiddy needs to get a life and get a grip.
And this idea that my mind was made up at the beginning is simply not true. I was right there with you wiping down my groceries and wearing masks. But the proof is in the pudding. The lockdowns, mask mandates, etc have not worked to control the virus. We are almost 2 years into this thing and it doesn't work. Sure, what's the harm. Well mental health is the harm. Drug overdoses are at all time highs, kids are missing school, small businesses close while the tables are tilted from big business.
On the vaccines. I wish they worked like they said they were going to work. "We've got the best people looking at these vaccines. And they are doing great great things. Believe me." But they have not worked as advertised. And what happens, do they stop mandates? No, they tell us the vaccines were never supposed to work that way...basically they gaslight us and move forward with the mandates.
And nobody here seems to care. You are all too scared to think for yourselves. You will continue to do what you are told no matter how little sense it makes. You are scared little children.
terp said:
Ha. Jesus Christ. Do you have lives? Turning over some statement I made who knows when and under what context? And just ignore the many posts where I clearly see slavery as a horror. Schmiddy needs to get a life and get a grip.
And this idea that my mind was made up at the beginning is simply not true. I was right there with you wiping down my groceries and wearing masks. But the proof is in the pudding. The lockdowns, mask mandates, etc have not worked to control the virus. We are almost 2 years into this thing and it doesn't work. Sure, what's the harm. Well mental health is the harm. Drug overdoses are at all time highs, kids are missing school, small businesses close while the tables are tilted from big business.
On the vaccines. I wish they worked like they said they were going to work. "We've got the best people looking at these vaccines. And they are doing great great things. Believe me." But they have not worked as advertised. And what happens, do they stop mandates? No, they tell us the vaccines were never supposed to work that way...basically they gaslight us and move forward with the mandates.
And nobody here seems to care. You are all too scared to think for yourselves. You will continue to do what you are told no matter how little sense it makes. You are scared little children.
If you've been surprised by the way the vaccines worked, then all I can conclude is that you should be following better sources of news.
wendyn said:
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html
Explain Sweden. Notice they don't talk about Sweden any longer.
#Covid mortality in Sweden vs other European countries pic.twitter.com/n0sFl99KBy
— Martin Kulldorff (@MartinKulldorff) November 14, 2021
terp said:
One thing I still don't understand about your stance is what, exactly, your understanding of the pandemic is. Do you think that the virus spreads easily but that it's not actually that dangerous, and that the stats on deaths and serious illness are faked? Do you think that it is dangerous, but it doesn't actually spread easily and so measures like social distancing weren't needed? Do you think it spreads easily and is dangerous but think that's the price we should pay to avoid government restrictions? It's never really been clear to me.
wendyn said:
Also you might not want to move there yet as they are putting restrictions in place.
Did it say that the center left government was going to try and move a bill through the legislature? That is soooooo 2019.
PVW said:
terp said:
One thing I still don't understand about your stance is what, exactly, your understanding of the pandemic is. Do you think that the virus spreads easily but that it's not actually that dangerous, and that the stats on deaths and serious illness are faked? Do you think that it is dangerous, but it doesn't actually spread easily and so measures like social distancing weren't needed? Do you think it spreads easily and is dangerous but think that's the price we should pay to avoid government restrictions? It's never really been clear to me.
First my stance is this. An individual owns their body. A guy doesn't get to make a speech and then people need to take a medical treatment because he says so...or they become 2nd class citizens. First and foremost, I am not ok with that.
Second, we have a ton of data at this point. We know who is at risk. It is the old and the sick. This is crystal clear in the numbers. We should take measures to protect those people. What we should not be doing is telling everyone that they have to be jabbed. Further, we should not be pushing these treatments on young children who face a remote risk(despite the hype of this past summer). Other than that, we should let people live their lives as they see fit. If the business owner wants people to wear masks, show proof of vaccination, or what have you, then go nuts. The other business owners should not be punished. People can choose who they do and do not want to do business with accordingly.
But in typical fashion the left needs to go full authoritarian and the same solution has to apply to everybody. And the once evil pharmaceuticals are now essentially charities run by saints. BTW: did anyone see that Pfizer is trying to delay their full data release for 55 years?
If one has a product that everyone has to take and they can't sue you if it hurts them, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that one would push the necessity of repeated use of this hear product. Gotta get that YoY growth going!
terp said:
First my stance is this. An individual owns their body. A guy doesn't get to make a speech and then people need to take a medical treatment because he says so...or they become 2nd class citizens. First and foremost, I am not ok with that....
You may need to find better examples to support your stance.
In addition to the upcoming vax pass, Sweden's already got a crazy high vaccination rate against COVID, and they have historically had programs that encourage some of the highest vaccination rates against other diseases.
terp said:
First my stance is this. An individual owns their body. A guy doesn't get to make a speech and then people need to take a medical treatment because he says so...or they become 2nd class citizens. First and foremost, I am not ok with that.
Second, we have a ton of data at this point. We know who is at risk. It is the old and the sick. This is crystal clear in the numbers. We should take measures to protect those people. What we should not be doing is telling everyone that they have to be jabbed. Further, we should not be pushing these treatments on young children who face a remote risk(despite the hype of this past summer). Other than that, we should let people live their lives as they see fit. If the business owner wants people to wear masks, show proof of vaccination, or what have you, then go nuts. The other business owners should not be punished. People can choose who they do and do not want to do business with accordingly.
But in typical fashion the left needs to go full authoritarian and the same solution has to apply to everybody. And the once evil pharmaceuticals are now essentially charities run by saints. BTW: did anyone see that Pfizer is trying to delay their full data release for 55 years?
If one has a product that everyone has to take and they can't sue you if it hurts them, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that one would push the necessity of repeated use of this hear product. Gotta get that YoY growth going!
A lot of this stance really hinges on your belief that it is "the old and sick" who are at risk. Let's say you're wrong -- it makes the rest of your stance untenable, doesn't it? After all, an individual owns their body. If that means they have the right to refuse a vaccine, then that surely also means they have the right to refuse exposure to a potentially deadly virus, right? And if I'm a business owner, don't my property rights means I have the right to refuse employment to people threatening to spread a deadly virus among my workforce?
Why should someone refusing a vaccine have more rights than someone refusing infection by a deadly virus? Doesn't that make the vaccine refusers super-first-class citizens place everyone else in the sort of second-class status you say you oppose?
So the question of real risk seems pretty critical here. We've had multiple threads going over this, so I'm not especially eager for another round -- if you insist on ranting about authoritarianism and rights, we're just going to be talking past each other since we so drastically disagree on the basic facts of how dangerous the virus is.
It's pretty evident that Mr. Terp bases his arguments on information that is at best outdated, and more often just incorrect. So it's not worth arguing with the resulting GIGO.
PVW said:
A lot of this stance really hinges on your belief that it is "the old and sick" who are at risk. Let's say you're wrong -- it makes the rest of your stance untenable, doesn't it? After all, an individual owns their body. If that means they have the right to refuse a vaccine, then that surely also means they have the right to refuse exposure to a potentially deadly virus, right? And if I'm a business owner, don't my property rights means I have the right to refuse employment to people threatening to spread a deadly virus among my workforce?
Why should someone refusing a vaccine have more rights than someone refusing infection by a deadly virus? Doesn't that make the vaccine refusers super-first-class citizens place everyone else in the sort of second-class status you say you oppose?
So the question of real risk seems pretty critical here. We've had multiple threads going over this, so I'm not especially eager for another round -- if you insist on ranting about authoritarianism and rights, we're just going to be talking past each other since we so drastically disagree on the basic facts of how dangerous the virus is.
even if it were true that only older and other at-risk people are vulnerable, don't their qualities of life count? We're supposed to tell them to curtail their activities and live less of a life so that others can refuse vaccines and mitigation efforts?
ml1 said:
even if it were true that only older and other at-risk people are vulnerable, don't their qualities of life count? We're supposed to tell them to curtail their activities and live less of a life so that others can refuse vaccines and mitigation efforts?
They should live as "second class citizens" so First Class people like Mr. Terp don't have to wear masks or get another vaccination.
terp said:
BTW: did anyone see that Pfizer is trying to delay their full data release for 55 years?
Well, ya got that one wrong. Can you not read, or do you just have crappy sources?
ml1 said:
even if it were true that only older and other at-risk people are vulnerable, don't their qualities of life count? We're supposed to tell them to curtail their activities and live less of a life so that others can refuse vaccines and mitigation efforts?
Yes, that's the obvious follow up question. Basically, someone in terp's position could respond to me in two ways. They could say that even if the virus is as deadly as claimed, it's still doesn't justify mitigation measures and that people dying is a necessary price for freedom. In which case, the risk to older people and others at greater risk is moot.
Or, they could concede the point but insist that the risk really is only high for people who are older or have health issues. At which point the questions becomes, ok, how do you think such people should be people should be protected, and how large do you think that population is, exactly?
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
is he on quaaludes?