Credit to our Right-Wingnuts
lord_pabulum said:
... Approximately 18 months ago the US was energy independent.
I don't think you know what that term means.
terp said:
Frankly, the efficacy has been a moving target. Yet people treat what Fauci and Walensky said as gospel. And anyone who questioned them were heretics or members of a"death cult".
That you come into arguments with this type of premise is what makes you seem irrational.
Strawberry also seemed irrational, as he believed people on the board were acting the opposite of your premise.
Redfruit said:
I really get bothered when people like you attack Fauci and Gottlieb and all the top sciences and all the top doctors. It’s just a dangerous game you want to play but luckily MOL has very few readers so it’s hard for you to do much damage.
Many of us have nuanced discussions based on the information we have available, and update our assessments of the risks/benefits as information increases or changes. Approaches/behaviors can be modified in tandem. I don't think either you or Strawberry understand how to do this.
sprout said:
terp said:
Frankly, the efficacy has been a moving target. Yet people treat what Fauci and Walensky said as gospel. And anyone who questioned them were heretics or members of a"death cult".
That you come into arguments with this type of premise is what makes you seem irrational.
Strawberry also seemed irrational, as he believed people on the board were acting the opposite of your premise.
Redfruit said:
I really get bothered when people like you attack Fauci and Gottlieb and all the top sciences and all the top doctors. It’s just a dangerous game you want to play but luckily MOL has very few readers so it’s hard for you to do much damage.Many of us have nuanced discussions based on the information we have available, and update our assessments of the risks/benefits as information increases or changes. Approaches/behaviors can be modified in tandem. I don't think either you or Strawberry understand how to do this.
one of the things about the statements of public health officials that actually makes me NOT treat their word as "gospel" is that they are not typically in the business of presenting all the nuance of the science. What is to be gained by Fauci talking about probabilities and confidence intervals, and hedging about whether or not the current learning will hold up under when new data or new conditions are observed? His job is to give guidelines that will maximize positive public health outcomes. He doesn't have the luxury of telling us to wait for more data. People have to know what is best for them to do right now for their health.
PVW said:
I’d run out of sympathy for COVID skeptics. Then I remembered my father’s stiff neck.
(The Atlantic)
Just read the whole thing. Thanks.
STANV said:
Just read the whole thing. Thanks.
The only Russo novel I've read is Empire Falls. I'm thinking I might enjoy reading more.
ml1 said:
mjc said:
terp said:
The thing you leave out is exactly 0 people were harmed, but you still have your panties in a wad. So I guess there's that.
I'm offended by the lying in itself, lying and thereby exposing other people to risk they're unaware of, the bad example he sets for adult but very young teammates, and the sense of massive privilege he seems to feel (rules are for the little people?). But my panties are just fine, thanks.
sometimes it seems like the politics of COVID are overwhelming some folks ability to critically think about issues. If a person had HIV and wasn't telling sex partners about, and actually lied about their status, it would be a no-brainer to call that unethical behavior (at the very least), even if they didn't infect anyone.
But if it's lying about COVID immunity status -- hey, no harm, no foul.
I agree. I mean there are people who compare having sex knowing you can pass along HIV to going about your every day business without telling your peers you didn't get a vaccine that doesn't even prevent transmission.
mjc said:
terp said:
The thing you leave out is exactly 0 people were harmed, but you still have your panties in a wad. So I guess there's that.
I'm offended by the lying in itself, lying and thereby exposing other people to risk they're unaware of, the bad example he sets for adult but very young teammates, and the sense of massive privilege he seems to feel (rules are for the little people?). But my panties are just fine, thanks.
"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud" - Ayn Rand
ml1 said:
sprout said:
terp said:
Frankly, the efficacy has been a moving target. Yet people treat what Fauci and Walensky said as gospel. And anyone who questioned them were heretics or members of a"death cult".
That you come into arguments with this type of premise is what makes you seem irrational.
Strawberry also seemed irrational, as he believed people on the board were acting the opposite of your premise.
Redfruit said:
I really get bothered when people like you attack Fauci and Gottlieb and all the top sciences and all the top doctors. It’s just a dangerous game you want to play but luckily MOL has very few readers so it’s hard for you to do much damage.Many of us have nuanced discussions based on the information we have available, and update our assessments of the risks/benefits as information increases or changes. Approaches/behaviors can be modified in tandem. I don't think either you or Strawberry understand how to do this.
one of the things about the statements of public health officials that actually makes me NOT treat their word as "gospel" is that they are not typically in the business of presenting all the nuance of the science. What is to be gained by Fauci talking about probabilities and confidence intervals, and hedging about whether or not the current learning will hold up under when new data or new conditions are observed? His job is to give guidelines that will maximize positive public health outcomes. He doesn't have the luxury of telling us to wait for more data. People have to know what is best for them to do right now for their health.
The thing is that when nothing you say stands up to scrutiny you risk eroding the trust in public health. You may even end up censoring those who dare question the courses of action and declare that questioning you is like questioning science or truth.
terp said:
I agree. I mean there are people who compare having sex knowing you can pass along HIV to going about your every day business without telling your peers you didn't get a vaccine that doesn't even prevent transmission.
It was lying about the vaccine AND not following protocols for unvaccinated players. And he did in fact test positive after exposing people to potential infection.
No matter what you may think about vaccinations, it's undeniable that a person can't pass on COVID-19 to reporters from a Zoom press conference.
ml1 said:
terp said:
I agree. I mean there are people who compare having sex knowing you can pass along HIV to going about your every day business without telling your peers you didn't get a vaccine that doesn't even prevent transmission.
It was lying about the vaccine AND not following protocols for unvaccinated players. And he did in fact test positive after exposing people to potential infection.
No matter what you may think about vaccinations, it's undeniable that a person can't pass on COVID-19 to reporters from a Zoom press conference.
Oh my. The protocols for unvaccinated players made no sense. I mean the virus is just as contagious if your vaccinated. If you then believe that vaccinations blunt the effects of the illness, as you surely do, the vaccinated are more likely to spread the disease because they are less likely to think they have the disease.
The fact is that you are trying to find fault because he doesn't obey authority to the level which you would like. That's really it.
terp said:
The fact is that you are trying to find fault because he doesn't obey authority to the level which you would like. That's really it.
No.
I believe people should be transparent and honest with their co-workers. if a person isn't going to follow policies, they shouldn't be dishonest about it.
Apparently you don't agree.
ml1 said:
terp said:
The fact is that you are trying to find fault because he doesn't obey authority to the level which you would like. That's really it.
No.
I believe people should be transparent and honest with their co-workers. if a person isn't going to follow policies, they shouldn't be dishonest about it.
Apparently you don't agree.
Not about everything. Do I expect my teammates to be honest and forthright about work? Sure. Do I expect them to share their medical history and other deeply personal issues? Of course not.
And I do things for my team members all the time that I don't share with leadership. Because our policies are not always right for every situation. So, I will bend/break the rules for certain team members where appropriate. I'm sure other leaders do the same for their teams. It's called being human.
This is just another instance where you need to demonize someone that thinks differently from you. You are fine with people you disagree with being harrassed and marginalized. You have a pretty long track record with that. And again, it's not only you.
Face it. Aaron Rodgers didn't hurt anyone. We're having this inane argument because you won't admit to yourself that you don't like it when people question authority, no matter how ineffective and counterproductive the measures the authorities construct.
terp said:
Not about everything. Do I expect my teammates to be honest and forthright about work? Sure. Do I expect them to share their medical history and other deeply personal issues? Of course not.
And I do things for my team members all the time that I don't share with leadership. Because our policies are not always right for every situation. So, I will bend/break the rules for certain team members where appropriate. I'm sure other leaders do the same for their teams. It's called being human.
This is just another instance where you need to demonize someone that thinks differently from you. You are fine with people you disagree with being harrassed and marginalized. You have a pretty long track record with that. And again, it's not only you.
Face it. Aaron Rodgers didn't hurt anyone. We're having this inane argument because you won't admit to yourself that you don't like it when people question authority, no matter how ineffective and counterproductive the measures the authorities construct.
this fictional version of me that resides in your head is a terrible person. I hate him too.
Yeah. He's bad. But, he's not Aaron Rodgers bad. Or the girl who wanted to go to college and was harrassed because she had a Donald Trump sign(probably racist amirite), or those nasty truckers, or the people who went to the beach during covid, etc.
terp said:
Yeah. He's bad. But, he's not Aaron Rodgers bad. Or the girl who wanted to go to college and was harrassed because she had a Donald Trump sign(probably racist amirite), or those nasty truckers, or the people who went to the beach during covid, etc.
I don't know about all that. But given that he's someone you conjured up, it reveals more about you than it says about me.
terp said:
Or the girl who wanted to go to college and was harrassed because she had a Donald Trump sign
Explain?
GoSlugs said:
terp said:
Or the girl who wanted to go to college and was harrassed because she had a Donald Trump sign
Explain?
this one is even more puzzling to me:
terp said:
the people who went to the beach during covid, etc.
I spent a big chunk of the summers of '20 and '21 on the Asbury Park boardwalk and beach, so I have no idea what that's referring to. Being on the beach was one of the few things that was undeniably safe two years ago.
ml1 said:
I spent a big chunk of the summers of '20 and '21 on the Asbury Park boardwalk and beach, so I have no idea what that's referring to. Being on the beach was one of the few things that was undeniably safe two years ago.
I remember some R shaming of photos of Californians packing beaches.
jimmurphy said:
I remember some R shaming of photos of Californians packing beaches.
sure. But why aim the comment at me?
I guess the fictional version of me he's created is a stand-in for whatever it is that bugs him.
tjohn said:
Pro-Trumpers aren't made to feel particularly welcome on a lot of campuses.
Why do you think that is? MAGAs have done some pretty messed up things. Actions do have consequences.
tjohn said:
GoSlugs said:
terp said:
Or the girl who wanted to go to college and was harrassed because she had a Donald Trump sign
Explain?
Pro-Trumpers aren't made to feel particularly welcome on a lot of campuses.
I don't have the interest to do the research on a story from 3 or 4 years ago, but my recollection is that a young woman claimed to have had her admission to a university rescinded because other accepted students had her "canceled' due to her tiktoks. My vague memory of it is that like so many of those stories there was a lot less to it than she claimed.
How welcome would a person with the viewpoint prevalent here feel on the Campus of Liberty University or even Brigham Young?
Why, you ask, would a person with such a viewpoint want to attend one of those schools?
Why would a Trump supporter want to attend UC Berkeley or Howard?
How would a person with a pro-Putin sign fare on any campus?
STANV said:
How welcome would a person with the viewpoint prevalent here feel on the Campus of Liberty University or even Brigham Young?
Why, you ask, would a person with such a viewpoint want to attend one of those schools?
Why would a Trump supporter want to attend UC Berkeley or Howard?
How would a person with a pro-Putin sign fare on any campus?
Yep. Cancel culture is actually pretty virulent on college campuses - has been for some time.
In 1976, Nguyen Cao Ky was invited to speak at Cornell Univ. He was booed off of the stage.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
sometimes it seems like the politics of COVID are overwhelming some folks ability to critically think about issues. If a person had HIV and wasn't telling sex partners about, and actually lied about their status, it would be a no-brainer to call that unethical behavior (at the very least), even if they didn't infect anyone.
But if it's lying about COVID immunity status -- hey, no harm, no foul.