Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - edgmatt

Pages: [1] 2
The more appropriate phrasing would be "Comply with the law, or we'll seize your assets, take away your freedom of movement, and make you live where we want you to for a significant portion of the rest of your life." Where in extreme cases penalties may go as far as taking your life, either accidentally or intentionally.

I think there's a difference between forcing compliance and setting a standard of rules to enact civilized behavior.

I also think a lot of that difference has to do with the level of power the citizens have in making the laws.  If you have a single person creating laws on their own, then yea, your paragraph above fits.  Kings and tyrants.

If you have what the U.S. (in theory) has, with voting, 3 branches of govt, constitution, becomes much more of a contract of civilized behavior.  "We' agree to these laws and agree that they are good and just.

We shouldn't be okay with ending someone's life for non violent crime.

We aren't.

But we also shouldn't be ok with people's livelihoods and property being destroyed with no penalty. And possibly even being encouraged by the people who's very job it is to prevent such destruction.

When people USED to get killed for looting, or for attempting to destroy someone's home or place of business, we decided, as a civilized society, that this wasn't a good way to do things.  Not that it wasn't effective but it was too draconian.  (Please remember that before we even had this level of society, this draconian one, things were even worse.  Tribes fought tribes for land, murder was a part of life...etc etc....)

So, as several posters have already posted, we turned over some of our power to the "authorities" and we had police who handled that sort of thing with arrests and jail time and fines.  And we had civilization.  And we didn't have massive riots, cause the PENALTIES for such were jail time, court time, fines, etc.

But when the people who have our authority, refuse to use it when people are looting and attempting to destroy someone's home or place of business in the name of a protest, then we have every right to defend our selves and our property, and it is not the fault of the defender if one of the looters/rioters is killed.  Particularly if the rioters/looters are armed with lethal force.

It is draconian.  It is a bad trade; a life for items/property  But it's not as bad as having civilization drop all the way back down to anarchy and small tribal warfare.

And if there is no penalty for looting, robbing, burning, destroying, than we aren't living in a "civilized" country/state.  That is anarchy.  That is warfare. 

I say this in response to anyone who makes comments like "can't be killing someone over a bar of soap and cigarettes" and are using such comments to vilify people like Kyle Rittenhouse.  The majority of people want civilization.  They want the authorities to use their authority given to them by the citizens to protect them.  But if the authorities aren't going to do that, the next best thing is for citizens to take matters into their own hands.

General Comments / Re: Debt Ceiling Filibuster
« on: October 16, 2021, 11:57:17 PM »
Why don't they just raise the debt ceiling to infinite?  Or, if that's too abstract, 900 trillion and set to double every 10 years?

If they are going to raise it, then max out spending, then raise it, then max out spending......year after year, no matter what, no matter who's in charge....why have a debt ceiling at all?

It comes off as a dog and pony show every time this happens.  I don't believe they don't see it coming.  I don't believe the Dems when they are all in a panic wringing their hands claiming catastrophe if we don't pay our debts (why did you vote to spend so much to get us in this much debt in the first place? And not just once, but over and over and over and over again?)  And I don't believe the Republicans when they say "vote for us, cause we won't spend as much".

It's all BS, every last drop of it.

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 20, 2021, 02:49:47 PM »
Good point though:  You perceive me as a threat to your health, so you want to keep me away from you.  How would you react to a large portion of society insisting you spend your time around me, eating, drinking, shaking my hand...etc?  What if the government mandated you to take such action?

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 20, 2021, 02:39:46 PM »
I'm about as unhealthy to you as a vaccinated person is since I already had the virus and have natural anti-bodies.   ;)


General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 20, 2021, 02:01:56 PM »
And judging by the numbers of adverse reaactions and deaths from the shot and my own health and medical history I have judged that the vaccine is unhealthy for me.

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 20, 2021, 01:54:10 PM »
You don't get to make that judgement for me.  That's the point.

Are you aware that I am not against any one taking the shot?  Are you aware that I am arguing against the shot being mandated.

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 20, 2021, 01:06:37 PM »
It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that I have to either trust them all 100% or not at all. (It's also telling into your state of mind that you think this way.  Your concept of 'liberty" and "freedom of thought" seems to be weak if you insist that I "have to" be all in or all out.)   Even more preposterous is to label my stance as "I don't trust them at all" (which is something I have never said) and then have a few posts telling me I'm ridiculous for taking such a stance, and me doing so makes dialog hard.

Will you forgo other medical care as well? If you get sick will you refuse an ICU and oxygen if they are in short supply? Or are you only against preventative medicine?

Even if I were as cynical as you are trying to make me out to be (which is that you think I don't trust these people with my life) in the case of my life being in critical condition, of course I would accept medical care that would potentially save my life because I would have nothing to lose.

But I'm not that cynical, and to suggest that in order to be consistent, I ought to refuse all care simply because I refuse this vaccine is a ridiculous thing to say.

Will you take responsibility if you get sick and infect someone who ends up dead or with hundreds of thousands of medical debt? Or are you completely blame free and not responsible for the consequences of your refusal to reduce your risk to yourself and others?

Will the vaccine producers or the government take responsibility if I end up dead or with hundreds of thousands of medical debt?  Or are they completely blame free and not responsible for the consequences of their insistence I take the shot? The answer to the first question is no, of course, and the second is least for them.  Don't ask me ridiculous questions like that.

The medical field has done wonders for the world and wonders for me.  That doesn't make them infallible.  It doesn't mean they can't make a mistake.  There are three major hospitals near where I live, and each one has a reputation for being real good at a particular thing, and real bad at a separate thing.  It's to the point where if you go to the one hospital to get a surgery, people write on themselves with a marker "this side" or "kidney only".

Here's a list of things *the experts* have been wrong about, just off the top of my head:

-Fat intake
-Cholesterol Intake
-Multi vitamins
-electric shock therapy

Here's an article listing just 10 dangerous drugs that were APPROVED then pulled from the market by the FDA: Link.

How much damage was done in the time these things were on the market, or promoted as "good for you"?  How much damage was done because they banned or promoted things they thought were "bad for you"?   How much damage was done just on people blindly believing what they were told, trusting the experts?

There's such thing as healthy skepticism.  I'm not claiming I can do "whatever I will".  Are you claiming that I have to do whatever "you" will me to do?

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 17, 2021, 11:21:46 AM »
No.  Complete misunderstanding.

- The info out there is not reliable.  Whether the numbers are HIGHER or LOWER in actuality matters not if the only thing I care about is reliability.  It might dead on balls accurate, but we don't know that, and you've supplied evidence yourself why it's probably not accurate.   Since we don't know, the number is unreliable.

- "The numbers" aren't the only set of data that's unreliable. 

- The government has lied to us in a manipulative way.

- Since some data is unreliable, and the government has shown that it will lie to manipulate and

- The people putting pressure on others for a forced vaccine are using this unreliable data and the word of an untrustworthy government as a their source of credibility...

 - Along with everything Serati posted and

- My own belief that forcing an innocent person to take an action against their will is highly immoral...

I won't be taking the vaccine voluntarily, and I am completely against a forced vaccine.  That's it.

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 17, 2021, 08:22:58 AM »
Yes, poison the character of the people who make claims, and you don't have to disprove their claims.  Ezy pzy.  And I wasn't talking about "altering" the medical record.  I'm talking about listing covid as a cause of death, even if they died of pneumonia (for example).  If they had covid, which caused them to get pneumonia, and then die from pneumonia, Covid can be listed as the cause of death. It's a judgement call in many cases.  And that opens the door for grey areas and fraud and mistakes.

There are a million buts and ifs and whys, but it doesn't change the fact the number 600,000 is unreliable.  And that, and a bunch of other at least questionable stuff, like the CDC mistake in reporting the covid numbers in Florida for just one example, is good cause for at least taking a look, being skeptical, and, most importantly, coming to our own personal conclusions about what is right for us or our families.

There are suspicions of fraud, deceit, falsifications, and corruption coming  from, surprise, the government and the pharmaceutical companies.  The government lied about the mask thing back in the beginning because , according to Fauci, "[W]e were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply," said the man touted as the nation's leading epidemiology expert in an interview with the Street. "And we wanted to make sure that the people, namely, the healthcare workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected."   

So they have shown that they will tell us what they want in order to accomplish whatever it is they feel is necessary or important.  Anything else they tell me now is tainted with that and at least suspect.

Any reports of side effects from the vaccine are dismissed, any mistake made with numbers or reporting is shrugged at.  The Drake, just now in this thread said "What has been clearly demonstrated are attempts to deflate the numbers to make things look better than they are."  So reporting inflated numbers is out of the range of possibility of happening, despite the financial and political incentives to do so, but reporting deflated numbers has been clearly demonstrated....and that's perfectly ok with you.  (And really it just supports my initial statement which was:  It's a credibility issue.)

And there's a whole host of things that don't jive and seem to be driven by political purposes and not medical ones.  Or complete hypocrisies.  The same group of people who are insisting  that requiring an i.d. to vote is preposterous, dangerous, and racist.....are perfectly fine with requiring vaccine passports and vaccine proofs to simply go about your daily life.

But mentioning any of this or just simply asking wtf is going on is not acceptable.  Any peep of question or doubt is shut down, dismissed, flagged, has a warning label attached to it, muted, canceled and deleted.   That's a huge red flag.  And  the fact that one side is so adamantly and unshakably sure is just another red flag for a lot of people.

I'll say it again:  There's a credibility issue.  So when people start talking about a mandated vaccine, or manipulating services in such a way that "voluntarily" getting the vaccine will essentially be forced, it's not acceptable to people.  Not because they are crazy, not because they are stupid, not because they want people to die, but because they have reasons aplenty to not trust the people giving the orders.

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 16, 2021, 01:19:22 PM »
Now you are expecting agents with no economic incentive of their own to smudge numbers that dictate the response to a public health crisis, for no personal benefit but only to make money for the corporation that owns their hospital? A large number of which are non profits in the first place, some of which are operated by religious organizations?

It's not "no economic incentive of their own" at all.  They have a job they want to keep.  If the direction comes down to list cause of death as Covid if it falls under X, Y, Z, then that's what they'll do.  Yes, I believe that.   I think it would be a level of naivety to think that this never happens.  I can't even believe your forcing me to defend the argument "people lie to get money".  What planet are you from?

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 15, 2021, 05:19:48 PM »
Right, so that number is just not credible.  We don't really have a grasp of the real number.  It could be 800,000 or it could be 100,000.  THere are things that point in both directions, and that's my point about credibility.

@TheDrake:  It's not an all or nothing belief.  I don't think "all" the hospitals are 100% corrupt.  I don't think that "none" of them are 0% corrupt.

But people are people and incentives are incentives.  If you create a monetary incentive to do something, you have to expect some level of fraud, some level of corruption. 

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 15, 2021, 12:12:40 PM »
The ultimate point being:  We don't know how accurate that 600,000 number is.  It could be very accurate, or very inaccurate.

General Comments / Re: Vaccine Passports
« on: August 15, 2021, 12:11:05 PM »
I think part of the point is "credibility".  If we know for a fact that hospitals get paid more when a death is classified as Covid caused (and we do know's between $12,000-$13,000 'extra', and ~$39,000 if they are put on a ventilator:  and then we hear about even just ONE instance of a death like you just described in Flordia... then the whole system's credibility evaporates, does it not?

From my link to save you time:

“So, hospitals get an extra $13,000 if they diagnose a death as COVID-19,” a widely shared meme on Facebook claimed. “And an additional $39,000 if they use a ventilator!” One post of the meme, shared by hundreds, was captioned: “And then we wonder why the numbers of deaths are embellished…”

The figures cited by Jensen generally square with estimated Medicare payments for COVID-19 hospitalizations, based on average Medicare payments for patients with similar diagnoses.

Medicare — the federal health insurance program for Americans 65 and older, a central at-risk population when it comes to COVID-19 — pays hospitals in part using fixed rates at discharge based off a grouping system known as diagnosis-related groups.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has classified COVID-19 cases with existing groups for respiratory infections and inflammations. A CMS spokesperson told us exact payments vary, depending on a patient’s principal diagnosis and severity, as well as treatments and procedures. There are also geographic variations.

An analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation looked at average Medicare payments for hospital admissions for the existing diagnosis-related groups and noted that the “average Medicare payment for respiratory infections and inflammations with major comorbidities or complications in 2017 … was $13,297. For more severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support for greater than 96 hours, which was $40,218.”

It is true, however, that the government will pay more to hospitals for COVID-19 cases in two senses: By paying an additional 20% on top of traditional Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients during the public health emergency, and by reimbursing hospitals for treating the uninsured patients with the disease (at that enhanced Medicare rate).

Also important however: 

Either way, the fact that government programs are paying hospitals for treating patients who have COVID-19 isn’t on its own representative of anything nefarious.

“There’s an implication here that hospitals are over-reporting their COVID patients because they have an economic advantage of doing so, [which] is really an outrageous claim,” Gerald Kominski, senior fellow at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, told us. And, he said, any suggestion that patients may be put on ventilators out of financial gain, not medical need, “is basically saying physicians are violating their Hippocratic Oath … it would be like providing heart surgery on someone who doesn’t need it.”

Absolutely true, but like I first said, part of the point is a lack of credibility.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 02, 2021, 12:43:56 PM »
Im not anti-vaxx.  I'm against this one being forced into me when I'm young and healthy and already had the Covid.  I don't want it, I don't need it, it creates a risk for my health and provides me with zero.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 02, 2021, 11:58:24 AM »
Vaccinated people need to avoid high risk stuff, because UNVACCINATED PEOPLE are allowed to participate and thus have a high risk of infecting the vaccinated.

But they are vaccinated.  So they have less chance to get it, and less chance of being affected severely, so they have little to fear.  Right?  Or, the vaccine doesn't really help that much.  Which is it?  Cause things are getting confusing.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 02, 2021, 09:36:28 AM »
It is reasonable to allow the refusal to get vaccinated, if they are willing to take other measures that restrict their potential to harm the public.

Note that spread among vaccinated people is largely due to attending superspreader events - going to bars and parties, gyms, etc.

If you are vaccinated and avoid the high risk stuff there is very little chance you will catch COVID or spread it to others.

If you don't get vaccinated, you aren't protected so you shouldn't be allowed to do stuff because you endanger everyone else.

So get the vaccine and you are protected and safe and you protect everyone else....but you still have to wear a mask and cant do stuff cause you endanger everyone else....including the people who are safe and protected by the vaccine, who aren't safe or protected from the vaccine.

 ??? ::) :P

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 09:51:38 PM »
So then wouldn't the correct thing to do be let each person decide for themselves if they want the vaccine?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 09:12:34 PM »
Ie even the lowest risk population - the harm from catching COVID exceeds any theoretical harm from the vaccine.

You don't have enough information to make that claim.  You don't know anything about practically anyone to say what exceeds what for them.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 07:49:50 PM »
We cannot force someone to increase their risk of harm/death to lower that risk for someone else.

We absolutely can, the Supreme Court has ruled on this.

We OUGHT NOT force someone to increase their risk of harm/death to lower that risk for someone else.


General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 07:46:43 PM »
The supreme court is not the arbiter of what is moral and what is not.

They have erred before, they will again.

Also even if we exclude risking harm to others - it is still a net risk reduction for the individual.  Ie even the lowest risk population - the harm from catching COVID exceeds any theoretical harm from the vaccine.

That may be, it might not, only time will tell with this vaccine.  Regardless it would still be immoral to force someone to take it.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 06:54:20 PM »
If what you're saying is that in a certain situation the right thing to do is immoral then I'd say your definition of "immoral" is incoherent and contradictory

I agree that THAT thing you just said would be contradictory.  However I didn't say that.  I didn't say it would be "right" for me to push the guy off the bridge, I said that's what I would do.  I did say it would be immoral, and therefore "not right" by my own definition, and the definition of billions of people. I would VOLUNTARILY take the punishment (if there was one) for taking that immoral action.

I realize this seems contradictory to you, but it's not. 

That being said, you seem to now be saying that you'd do an immoral thing if it saved lots of people.

No, I said if it would save the HUMAN RACE from extinction, then I'd do it.  That's vastly different.  Stop changing what I said, stop saying "so you're saying".  Take my words for what they mean.

By this logic, it seems you're also putting yourself in the position of saying (by the analogy) that vaccinating people against this wishes is immoral, but that if it saves people you'd do it. Is that about right?

No, that is wrong.  You have watered down my position of throwing a man off a bridge to save the human race to something else entirely.  I shouldn't have used such a ridiculous analogy because it would never happen and it's distracting from the reality we are faced with.

Why not just advocate for doing the 'immoral' correct....

Something cannot be both immoral and correct.  Sometimes we voluntarily take on an immoral act, to do what we think is correct, (like the mother who steals bread to save her child from dying), but the act itself is still immoral.

If the government forces someone to take the vaccine, that will be an act of immorality and I will stand against it, and so should you.


Those are adverse events associated with all vaccines, not specific to Pfiser.

I agree.  "Adverse events" are a risk, are they not?  We can't force someone to take that risk.

Anaphylaxis is only life threatening if....

You are helping my case.  Thank you.

So the only known risks with the Pfizer (anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis) are easily remedied, neither is generally fatal even if left untreated (though both should definitely be treated since there is some risk of death if untreated

Thank you, again.

We cannot force someone to increase their risk of harm/death to lower that risk for someone else.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 05:22:11 PM »
And I don't have a problem with that.  I do have a problem with mandates from the government telling me I have to get the shot, or telling business's they can't let people into their store without a shot.

But I actually find this premise curious. How do you come to determine this? What is this exceptionally significant argument based on, if we wanted to go on first principles? Essentially, you're saying that even a one in a billion risk is too much to force someone to take to absolutely for certain prevent certain and material harm to others. For this to be an acceptable premise you would have to be basing it on something so solid that no practical considerations of any kind could trump it. To take an extreme, you'd have to say that even if it meant causing the extinction of the human race, it would still be preferable not to force someone to take a vaccine with a one in a billion chance of averse reaction. So I'd like to know how you come possibly come by the certainty of a position like this; a position, I may add, this is strongly counter-intuitive to apparent most of the human race at present

You want me to explain why:
- forcing someone to take an action against their will is immoral
- putting someone at risk is immoral?   :o

Essentially, you're saying that even a one in a billion risk is too much to force someone to take to absolutely for certain prevent certain and material harm to others.

No, that's not what I said.  I said it'd be immoral.  I'd force someone to jump off a bridge if it meant saving the human race.  It'd still be immoral to do it.  That would be murder and I'd be a murderer.   "Reading comprehension please".  Right, letterip?

But we aren't at the point of "saving the human race" are we?  So what's the point of that analogy?

For this to be an acceptable premise you would have to be basing it on something so solid that no practical considerations of any kind could trump it.

I don't agree with *that* premise.  Why don't you show me a practical consideration where it is NOT immoral to force someone to take an action that puts them at a higher risk for harm/death so that it lowers that same risk for someone else?  I'm open to discussion and learning.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 03:39:27 PM »
Rather, I said "It'd be immoral to force someone to take a risk for themselves just to lower the risk for someone else."

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 03:37:38 PM »
If you want to avoid all risk from medical intervention, you'd have to not have medical intervention.  You definitely have that right, but you don't have the right to insist that everyone else agree to associate with you or not criticize you.

Precisely.  I would even go so far to say it'd be immoral to force someone to take medical intervention against their wishes.  I did say that, twice in this thread.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 03:06:27 PM »
That's a fact.  There is still a risk.

"For public awareness and in the interest of transparency, CDC is providing timely updates on the following serious adverse events of interest:

    Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and has occurred in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States. Severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, can occur after any vaccination. If this occurs, vaccination providers can effectively and immediately treat the reaction. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.
    Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccination is rare. As of July 26, 2021, more than 13 million doses of the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine have been given in the United States. CDC and FDA identified 39 confirmed reports of people who got the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and later developed TTS. Women younger than 50 years old especially should be aware of the rare but increased risk of this adverse event. There are other COVID-19 vaccine options available for which this risk has not been seen. Learn more about J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS.
        To date, two confirmed cases of TTS following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Moderna) have been reported to VAERS after more than 328 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States. Based on available data, there is not an increased risk for TTS after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
    CDC and FDA are monitoring reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in people who have received the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. GBS is a rare disorder where the body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis. Most people fully recover from GBS, but some have permanent nerve damage. After more than 13  million J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine doses administered, there have been around 137 preliminary reports of GBS identified in VAERS as of July 22. These cases have largely been reported about 2 weeks after vaccination and mostly in men, many 50 years and older. CDC will continue to monitor for and evaluate reports of GBS occurring after COVID-19 vaccination and will share more information as it becomes available.
    Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. As of July 26, 2021, VAERS has received 1,194 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. Through follow-up, including medical record reviews, CDC and FDA have confirmed 699 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis. CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis.
    Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 342 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 26, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,340 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths."

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 01, 2021, 01:03:56 PM »

you might work on reading comprehension - younger people has been define as 18 to late 30's.  Ie younger adults not children.

Thank you for the clarification, I'm glad to see he wasn't talking about actual children.  Despite that, most of what I said still applies.  Particularly: "Morally repugnant is pressuring someone or forcing someone to take a risk for themselves so that someone else's risk is lower."

Also there is no known risk  to the mRNA vaccines with 100's of millions having been vaccinated with them

"According to the VAERS report, 472 people died after receiving a Moderna vaccine, while 489 died after receiving a Pfizer vaccine. Additionally, five people died after receiving a jab from an unknown manufacturer."

And that's just deaths.  There have been reports of other side effects and problems people have been developing after getting the shot.  How can you say there is "no known risk" when we actually know about the risk?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: July 30, 2021, 10:24:57 PM »
Even if zero "younger healthy people" ever died, it is still morally repugnant for them to be indifferent to the death they spread to people not in their privileged category.

This needs to be addressed.  This is so ridiculous, so wrong and utterly disgusting.

Let them be ignorant of it.  They have zero control over it, and low comprehension of it.  Why in Gods name would you burden children with such a thing?  *That* is repugnant.

- "the death they spread".   Again, what a horrible, repugnant thing to say.  It's a virus.  People spread it just by being alive.  We all have been doing it for thousands of years.  The way you say this here makes it seem as if the children are guilty of something that no one ought feel guilty for.  What the heck is wrong with you?  What would make you think it'd be ok to put that sort of guilt on anyone, let alone a child?

- "privileged category"  What kind of college prep, twisted Liberal nonsense is this?  Thank God that children seem to be unaffected by this.  What sort of mentality is it to scorn them for that "privilege"?  I can't even believe someone human typed that sentence.

Statistically not that many people die in traffic accidents, but we still fine people for reckless driving. Not because they will injure themselves, but because they will injure the people around them.

What a ridiculous analogy.  Giving someone a fine for reckless driving doesn't make them take a risk.  Getting the shot does have a risk (however small).

Morally repugnant is pressuring someone or forcing someone to take a risk for themselves so that someone else's risk is lower.

Putting that pressure on a child who can't even fully comprehend either the risk to themselves or the risk to someone else is beyond "morally repugnant".  That's pure Evil.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 28, 2021, 02:40:48 PM »
Nah.  You have stuff to read right in front of you, and it's easily verifiable.  If he says something that's wrong, or you don't agree with what he said, say so.  But don't ignore what he wrote up and just say he's wrong cause he's been wrong before.  That's poor.

You can google any amount of pretty much any speech Pres Biden has given since he became president, and it's very, very obvious the man is having cognitive issues, whether it be just senility or alzheimers or dementia or something else.  It's well beyond "stumbling through a sentence or two" or any sort of thing you can attribute to any previous President.

And it doesn't matter *at all* if Crunch was just as critical about Trump, or Obama, or anyone else.  Pres Biden's mental state has exactly zero to do with Crunch's political leanings, or bias's.

"If Trumps communication idiosyncrasy's didn't bother Crunch Biden's should either. "   - bad logic, bad arguing.
"But Crunch has been pushing the dementia angle hard, and by now everyone probably just automatically pushes back against him.  This goes back to that credibility issue mentioned earlier."  - maybe he's been right all along.  Stop automatically pushing back and read what's at hand.
"Glad to see you finally got around to reading Nineteen Eighty-Four, since you obviously hadn't read the book during the Trump years."  - bad arguing.  Google logical fallacy's please.

"He selectively quoted the man.
Crunch gave us a bunch of sound bites without attribution."  - attribution to what?  Context isn't important when pointing to the man's potential cognitive problems.  Unless he made up the quotes which would be easily verifiable, the proof is right there in the pudding.  President Biden struggles to put together a full sentence or a coherent sentence.  And it's not like this is out of thin air; President Biden's mental health has been something of a question for some time, and not just by Crunch.

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 27, 2021, 09:32:58 PM »
Gold Medal for mental gymnastics on this web site. 

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 24, 2021, 09:11:18 PM »
Why does Crunch need credibility here?  He QUOTED the man.

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 21, 2021, 10:32:45 PM »
The only thing I've learned here is:  Don't trust the CDC.

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 21, 2021, 10:30:17 PM »
My responses haven't been condescending - you don't have an even grade school level of immunology.


They have been talked about being vaccines in every public forum for a very long time, and then you boldly assert that they aren't vaccines. You jumped from an incomplete definition of a vaccine to something that was never claimed in your source - that mRNA vaccines aren't also vaccines.

I boldly asserted it because the people in charge of these sorts of things, have the definition on their website.  Wtf conclusion am I supposed to draw?  Again, all you have to do is have a bleeping conversation about it.  That's the POINT of having a discussion.

it isn't a reasonable or rational position.

It's perfectly reasonable and perfectly rational, even if it's misinformed.  Stop being a prick.

Here is a page at the CDC that explains about mRNA vaccines

So YOUR infro from the CDC is legit, but MY info from the VERY SAME SITE should be ignored, cause it's wrong.   :P

I get it.  You're an expert.  Can you tone down the arrogance, for maybe a few paragraphs, and just inform?  Why is that so difficult?

As an analogy someone with little or no understanding of internal combustion vaguely recalls mixing oil with the gasoline for an old two stroke lawn mower insists that oil should be added with gasoline to the fuel tank of a jet airplane.  If you told that to a jet pilot they would be shocked, since that is a good way to cause an engine failure.

What?  This wasn't something I "vaguely recalled".  ***ITS ON THE WEBSITE*** How the hell can you stand there with a straight face and tell me that on ONE page of their website, all information is accurate, but then on another page its completely wrong......and then talk like I'm supposed to be able to see the obvious difference....all while insisting I have zero knowledge on the subject. 

Holy crap.  This was the part of my multi-page response to the question "are you getting the vaccine?" that you grabbed on to?  Remind me to not do "asides" anymore.  What a nightmare.

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 20, 2021, 04:22:08 PM »
as a lay person it is perfectly reasonable for you to think the CDC should have a good definition of a vaccine on their site.

Condescension.  Can you stop that crap?  Please?  Jesus Christ.

I'd give you credit but also put a note that it was a poor definition and you might want to check a difference source for a better one.

You could.....holy crap what a thought....provide one.  Right here, in this forum.   :o

That's called reasonable debate.  Edgmatt says this thing is not a vaccine and provides some reasons why, you say "yea, but look at this".  And then I say  "I see....why does the CDC have that definition?  I mean they are the CDC."  And you say "XYZ" or whatever.  And we have a conversation.

But that's not how it went, was it?  You acted shocked  that someone would call this shot not a vaccine, threw some insults, some condescension....what the F is that?  Look at msquared response above and maybe try to learn how to talk to people.

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 20, 2021, 02:17:59 PM »
I don't like the snark either.  This site has lost its reputation for reasonable debate and instead has become just an echo chamber.   :(

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 20, 2021, 02:16:32 PM »
Well, I was criticized in a different thread for not using "reliable sources" and whoever it was posted "From the CDC's website:"  with info from that site as a rebuttal for whatever argument I was making. ( I forget what thread it was).

So either the site is reliable or it isn't.  It's frustrating to have it used against me, but now be scorned for using it myself.  Hard to argue if the rules keep changing, right?

Whatever.  Call it what you want, that wasn't the crux of any part of my reasons for not getting the shot.  I even said "as an aside...".

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 18, 2021, 10:03:18 PM »
CDC isn't the source for what a vaccine is.  They had someone write up that article and the person did a poor job.

Whatever, I wasn't that hung up on it.  But really....the CDC, the Center for Disease Control....their definition of what a vaccine is shouldn't be taken seriously?

What else on their website should I take with a grain of salt....the effects of the "vaccine" perhaps?

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 18, 2021, 03:23:07 PM »
It's not about what I "think" is a vaccine.  I'm reading the definition, from the CDC website (link above) and seeing that the covid shot doesn't fit the definition.

Does the Covid shot:

- contain the same germs that cause the disease? (No, as far as everything I have read)
- Have these germs been weakened or killed? (no, same as above)
- Does it stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies (according to you, yes it does)
- Does one become immune to the disease after getting injected?  (No)

I'm not saying this shot is a worse or better thing than a vaccine. I'm just saying it isn't a vaccine, according to the definition given by the CDC.

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 18, 2021, 09:14:53 AM »

Definition of vaccine first.

Then just recognize that this covid shot doesn't do this.  It doesn't make your system create antibodies and it doesn't make you immune to the virus.

I don't know EXACTLY what the covid shot does, but from what I've read, it puts your system on alert, so to speak, for the covid.  So if you do get it, your body can fight it better, and you get less effect from the symptoms, which is life saving in many instances.

But it's not a vaccine.

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 18, 2021, 08:20:43 AM »
As an aside, this isn't a vaccine, but whatever....everyone is calling it that so...

But no I am not against all vaccines.

We don't know what all the side effects are yet.  We won't know what they are, or if there are any, for years if not decades.

Except...You have a large number of people with auto-immune and other associated issues who have valid medical reasons to be cautious about being vaccinated,

What's the number of people like this?

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 17, 2021, 11:44:47 PM »
What also almost always goes unmentioned in these analyses of personal safety is the economic effects: if significant numbers of people refuse vaccination, and the effects of COVID-19 are prolonged unnecessarily, then the drag on the economy will also be extended... more people out of work, more business closers than otherwise and a slower recovery in general.

It doesn't have to be that way.  Just open everything up.  (The virus itself isn't what's holding things up, only the people "in charge".  They make the rules, not the virus.)  If only the people who refuse to take the shot are left, then they are the only ones at risk, and they have made clear that they are willing to take the risk.

General Comments / Re: So will you take the vaccine?
« on: June 17, 2021, 11:40:09 PM »
No I will not take the shot because:

- I don't need it.  I am healthy, young, and fit.  I don't need it the same way I don't need blood thinners or an inhaler. (More on this below)
- All the reasons already mentioned by other people on this thread about unknown side effects and being guinea pigs.
- I had corona.  So now I have "better than" the vaccine running through my blood.

Every single thing we put in or on our bodies has an effect, a side effect, or a tradeoff.  Every thing. 

When I eat protein, that makes one part of my body work harder, when I don't eat protein that effects other parts of my body working.

When you take a Tylenol for a headache, that puts stress on one organ, when it's Advil it's another organ.

Drinking too much water or not enough water has an adverse effect on human bodily functions.

Every single medication and medicine in the world has side effects.

There is absolutely ZERO percent chance that this vaccine has NO other effect on our systems.  The question is:  Is the trade off worth it?

Well for me, it doesn't seem to be.  Why would I risk....whatever the risk is since we don't know, instead of the risk of the corona (which I already had) which doesn't seem likely to seriously adversely affect people like me (as described above)?

All that aside, I don't understand the push for others to get the shot if: the only people who will be at risk are the people who choose not to get it and are willing to take the risk.  If you are protected by the shot, what's it to you?

Well those stats are much better than simply pointing to surplus and calling it "good".  One factor of hundreds being (seemingly) positive doesn't mean much in the overall picture.

Let's take it easy with the insults too.  It wasn't a "rando blog source".  The guy writes for California quite a lot and speaks in Cali quite a lot.  There's credibility there.

If one of the dude's stats are wrong, point it out, but don't be a dick about it.

All told, more than a third (35.2%) of state residents were poor or near poor in 2018.

Right, 35% in 2018.  I can't find what it was in 2020 ( I didn't go all out looking for it, but I didn't see it anywhere) but 2020 is when the guy wrote that article, and it's possible it went up 2-3%, making his "nearly 40% claim more reasonable.  I wouldn't say he muffed it, or that his article lacks credibility considering that.

More stats from 2020 have Cali doing well in some places and not so-well in others.

Another link has mixed indications as well.

Some major Liberal issues, like Affordable housing and Income inequality ratio, show California to be well behind the curve.

California is 49 in affordability, no surprise, but #10 in economy and #22 in health.
Texas isn't so much better at 36 in affordability (and getting less affordable all the time), #15 in economy, and a lowly #41 in Health & Education. You know, services that taxes pay for.

Right, when Cali is 49 on an issue, it's no surprise, shrug it off, no biggie.  But when Texas is 13 States better, that's "nearly the same".  (You scoffed when the guy in the article claimed 35% was "nearly 40%" and said he muffed it....but 36 out of 50 is "nearly the same" as 49 out of 50....right?)  Then 41, which is still better than 49, in Health and Education is "lowly".  C'mon man, you're working too hard to convince yourself.

We can go back and forth all day and point to factors for reasons why one state is "doing better" than any other.  Cali has some of the richest people, and richest counties, in the country, and also the most populous.  *Of course* the state will bring in higher revenue.  That has little to do with liberal or conservative policies, that's just math.

So then you can point to education, then I'll point to poverty levels, then you'll point to Gender Wage gap, then I'll point to unemployment....

Seems preemptive and a bit silly to be cheering.

Maybe, maybe not.

"We have over one trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for CalSTRS, CalPRS and the health care system.  Add to that hundreds of billions bonds and other liabilities—with just $21 billion to cover that"

"California is hampered by distinct challenges, most pressing being the shocking income inequality that has developed in recent years. Despite the spectacular income growth California has experienced, homelessness and poverty have also grown rapidly. Indeed, California has the nation’s worst poverty rate, with nearly 40 percent of its residents rated as either poor or “near-poor” by the Census Bureau and the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). As such, the state ended up being ranked a lowly 47th in terms of median annual household income in a study conducted last July by personal financial-services website WalletHub"

So it seems while the government of California is pulling in lots of money (hence the surplus), that doesn't translate to good things for the people of the State.

General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: April 21, 2021, 08:51:03 AM »
If somebody is already bleeding from a mortal wound, it doesn't give someone free reign to stab them because they were gonna die anyway.


General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: April 20, 2021, 08:01:52 PM »
I'm glad he got convicted.  I saw the tape like everyone else when it happened, and I thought "That is just murder, wtf."   :(

I hope his appeal gets turned down too.  As bad as the media is, that's not the reason he was found guilty; his actions were the reason.

General Comments / Re: Border crisis
« on: April 18, 2021, 10:37:19 AM »
Illegal is still illegal.  If' he's accrued money by "dumping waste into a river" ( I don't see how a person could make money if *that* was their business) illegally, or stealing it, or doing whatever other illegal things there are to get it, then of course that's a totally different thing than creating a big business and making money.

Why do you imply that the majority of money made in this country is ill-gotten?

It amazes me how so many people are stuck with the idea that the concept of private property automatically implies unlimited accumulation and domination of the game

Who the hell said anything like that?   That sentence doesn't even make sense.  What game?

Private property means: it's mine not anyone else's, and we've made laws to punish people who try to take it by force or cohersion, or a bunch of other things that we consider a "bad".

And we can't make different rules for different people based on how much money they have.  We can't say edgmatt and fenring can't have their property taken by the rich guy....but fenring and edgmatt can go take the rich guys property. 

It's not a zero sum-game: If a guy has 10 million in a savings account, that doesn't mean there is less money for me and you.  We are perfectly free to earn as much as we can.  This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

General Comments / Re: Border crisis
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:41:46 AM »
Its the CEO's, hedge fund manager, and other finance guys who have wealth measured in the 10's or 100's of millions we need to start chipping away at. Almost all of the economic gains of the last 40 years have been concentrated in the hands of the ultra rich and that is bad for the nation and the long term health of the economy.

"Chipping away at" as if you have a right to go and take that guys money.  I'm not against higher taxes for the very wealthy and lower for the poor, but good god man your mentality about it is horrible.

I don't agree with the second part of that statement, but I don't want to derail this thread into economics discussions.

Thousands of people with no money, no education, and nothing to lose swarming into areas of low to middle income is devastating to those areas.  Crime goes up, homelessness goes up and its overall bad.  So as "humane" as it might be to just let these people go wherever they want, I don't see why it should come at a high cost to the citizens who already live there.  Does the government not have an obligation to help its citizens?

General Comments / Re: Border crisis
« on: April 15, 2021, 02:25:33 PM »
But that fails for the same arguments you made about immigration. OH NO, that might mean some of OUR poor people are worse off!

That's not my argument.  My point was:  We shouldn't be creating incentives for more very poor people to come here by giving them a free house and free education when we already have a lot of people who are citizens here (some of them ex-military who fought for this very country) who we could be giving it too instead.

Also, why the seemingly mocking tone there?  "Our" people being worse off is....what?  Laughable?  Not important?  I don't get what your trying to say there.

But OH NO, that is redistribution of wealth! That could hurt our rich people! What will happen to the American that owns a car dealership, he worked for that business!

Ah, things become a little more clear.  High taxes, even when directed at the very rich, ultimately find there way to the less wealthy in one form or another.  You are right, what does happen to that guy who owns a car dealer?  Does his business close?  Maybe.  Does he lay off workers?  Maybe.  Does he raise the price of his cars?  Maybe.    All of those things effect people of every class, so I don't know why you would say such a thing with such a mocking underlay to it.  You get that the car dealer is a person trying to do exactly what the poor Mexican is trying to do, right?  Earn money to eat and raise a family in relative wealth and happiness.

Your scorn for the working class of this country is a little surprising and a little alarming.

Pages: [1] 2