P.S. I should add that it is much cheaper to purchase two politicians than ten.

Let's all be sure to exalt form over substance. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Boy would I love to be able to trace Covid by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. But that's the thing about viruses: some filthy POS can spread it all over hell and gone and not be caught. That's why suing is fundamentally stupid, like those who would propose it under current scopes and standards of review and burdens of proof. That's why government comes in and forces the filthy POS to isolate, mask or vax. Government IS the solution in this case.

Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too. — Xtrix

Are you saying I shouldn't take horse deewormer and shit my pants in the grocery store? Or end up shitting all over the ER?

The two parties have rigged the system, including outright legislation, that makes it difficult for a another camel to get his nose under the tent. I hear NY has toyed with run-off elections recently and it worked. Short answer: The people have to stand up on their hind legs and stop with the "lesser of two evils" BS. It's still evil. I was hoping Sanders and Trump would have cut ties and ruined the D and R parties, but, like they say, hope in one hand and shit in the other. Let me know what you get.

I hadn't heard anything about it. — frank

The more I think about it, the left was the side complaining because the right was proposing limited liability for keeping their slaughter houses open and their illegal immigrants working hard in Covid-infested environments. They didn't want to be open and providing essential meat to the country if the workers could sue them for getting sick if they were forced to work instead of stay home. Or mask. Or something.

My bust.

Just in case something unforeseen arose, no CEO wanted to make his or her hospital vulnerable to a class action lawsuit. — frank

I don't know whatever came of it, but I thought federal legislation was proposed a long time ago providing a liability shield? There was quite the uproar about that.

We'll probably come out of this crappy storm better off, just got to weather it... — Derrick Huestis

I hope so. I've seen some social media memes that I thought were good in that regard. There are some folks out there looking at making a good thing out of this. As one elder said, it could be a hole to fall into, or a door to walk through. It's up to us. I just don't want to see a mass exodus from the city out to the empty quarter. My nearest neighbor is 2.5 klicks away and I like it.

You've obviously never met people who live in the country, there's a lot out there to kill someone, but doesn't stop them one bit. — Derrick Huestis

Born and raised. And I know us rural folk are the first to run to Uncle Sugar's tit, and we rely on anti-biotics like crazy (for us, not just livestock). As to happiness, I've found it's relative presence rather evenly spread around the world. You are correct, though: I wouldn't trade the sticks for city living. Freedom ain't worth shit if you don't have a place to be free in. Some folks just like the company of other people. I want to keep them there, and not out here. One way to do that, is to help them weather this shit storm.

If someone doesn’t want to put it in their body they shouldn’t be forced to do so, — NOS4A2

I don't know why you would prohibit government from forcing the vaccine on you, but you would not prohibit individuals from forcing the virus on you. If the government has vaccines and should keep them out of you, then shouldn't the individual who has the virus also keep it out of you? And, where the burden is upon government to prove safety of the vaccine, shouldn't the burden be placed on the individual to prove they are safe from the virus? Like a driver's license? You can't get on the road without it. You shouldn't be allowed in public until you prove you aren't injecting the virus into others.

As far as history, the individual has fucked over the individual way more than government has. Hence Constitutions, statutes, regulations, and policies. Has the government fucked over people? Yes, but the people elected the government so they fucked themselves if they didn't do anything about it. In general, the government is relatively benign, only regulating people who fail to regulate themselves, to the detriment of others.

So, yeah, I'm in favor of locking you out of the public until such time as you prove you aren't running around injecting others with virus.

I just won't hate them while I do it. — Cheshire

I agree. Hate is the difference between dehumanization and devaluation. The professional has a hard time looking objectively at the job that needs to be done when he's got his hate all spun up. But the job that needs to be done can be misinterpreted as hate, especially by those who are uncomfortable with crushing a lot of what the other side seeks to do, not to mention how the other side perceives it when their pet privileges is getting crushed. Notice how they then pivot from tough-guy-asshole to "reasonable, moderate, let's-all be calm and logical as we approach this." Some even take up the banner of peace and forgiveness. Fine. But your shit still needs to be crushed.

Simply, don't become the monster you seek to defeat. — Cheshire

Better yet, don't create the monster that you don't want to fight.

I'm not just talking about covid and vax. I'm talking about the way the right treats the left when the right is in charge. What goes around, comes around. Try a little compassion, empathy, consideration, respect. Otherwise you end up creating people like me: not really the touchy-feely lib.

To argue that both sides are equally irrational is irrational. — Xtrix

:100:

"Both sides" is the media's veiled "whataboutism." They don't do it when the should (Iraq) and do it when they shouldn't (Trump).

People going to such lengths over masking up have more than just lost perspective (if they ever had any). Sure, they'd have to be way out extremists. — jorndoe

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/241993676_1229838880854483_7035579705140754664_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=2EKPt-ha7_UAX8ZfbqG&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=900995b7c8f46c55369e470a920ca1ef&oe=61438079

Morality needs no justification, but you can justify it without religion. However, you can't justify religion without morality. Religion is dope to help some cope.

Thank you bison bull. As you lay there on that blonde hillside, taking in hot sun on black hide, chewing cud, ruminating, swatting flies; you remind me that vulnerability is no reason not to rest. There is time. Lots of it.

Why would I want to do that? — protonoia

So you'd learn some humility and be in the company of your kind.

Tell me who you hired. — protonoia

Every swinging dick and tit at the CDC and all their affiliates. Oh, and my doctor!

And you didn't. — protonoia

Nope, I didn't. I hired experts. You couldn't carry the corn in their shit.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fifunny.co%2Fpicture%2Fnobody-is-doing-their-own-research-all-you-re-doing-V2PZMZpt8&psig=AOvVaw3wjUB7ms7RC-4RNOXlSvBb&ust=1631506383961000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAsQjRxqFwoTCIj-1obJ-PICFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

Why do they all sound the same? — Xtrix

Because they did their own research. :rofl:

Pathetic, naïve, ignorant morons — protonoia

:rofl:

Or we could just reduce our population down to carrying capacity. But yeah, government action is better than expecting environmentalists to reduce consumption, thus increasing supply, thus lowering price, thus stimulating demand, thus bearing all the burden while Rush Limbaugh and company roll coal and party down. It's kind of like responding when .gov asks nicely to distance, mask and vax: we don't do it and the hammer comes down. Only with climate, Mother Nature holds the hammer.

It's always the foot-dragging assholes that cause the hammer.

It's like whack a mole. :rofl:

:100: :up: I got it April 1st but I had waited until those more vulnerable and the health care workers had had a fair shot. I didn't want to take up a shot from those who need it more. I self isolate real well and masks don't bother me. But once it was clear they had plenty, I got it. Wife and kid too.

Were you selling something to Sally? Or was she selling something to you? — frank

I wasn't selling anything to Salle. Sally was trying to sell me on the idea that 5 + 5 + 10.

Why are you exempt from the valuation process? — frank

I'm not exempt. I told you that you are free to value me. As is anyone else. I'm not selling anything to me.

It's ashame that you think non-medical criteria should bear on the question. I think we've covered this ground sufficiently. — frank

It's a shame that you consider failure to take the medical advice and the vax as non-medical criteria. We did cover that.

What's your evaluation of your own life? — frank

I've never thought about it and I wouldn't hazard a guess. You are free to do so, though, if you wish. But I'm sure you would find me invaluable. LOL!

wut — frank

Well, since you think there is no way to put a value on a life, you should probably steer clear of industries that do it all the time, as a matter of course. Eyes, fingers, arms, toes, lives, etc. You also should not be placed in a position where, say, OBL and some SEAL are having a disagreement. Or a Nuremburg Judge and a Nazi. Or a single poor girl with a rapist uncle's baby in her belly or . . . etc. I mean, it's already a shame that you'd place me on equal footing with an anti-vaxer when we both need a vent. But you be you.

There's no way to put a value on a life. — frank

Okey Dokey. I guess Hitler and Mother Terresa are of equal value. One thing is for sure, you need to keep your day job and not try for the life insurance industry, or Worker's Compensation, or . . . etc.

As a clarification I'm stating the valuation of the widget and the person selling it should be separate matters. So, just because my widget is worth less than I'm asking; it doesn't me I am worth less because of it. — Cheshire

While they may be separate matters, they can inform each other. Someone who is selling meth does indeed have a different valuation than the meth itself. I never said they tracked equally.

It just doesn't mean anything to me to value people one way or the other. — frank

Do you find all people invaluable?

:up: :strong:

You've got quite the cosmic scale working there. Interesting. — frank

The me in me says we all do it, whether we admit it or know it or not. But then, that's me. Perhaps there are some real Boy Scouts out there, some real Mother Teresa's that don't value people. For them, even Hitlers, are invaluable.

You're going to devalue him because he was mistaken? — frank

Relative to little Sally who nailed it, yes.

How does that make sense? — frank

It makes sense because I'm not going to hold little Johnny to the same standard of value as I would for an adult anti-vaxxer who should know better. I accord little Johnny a much higher value. Nevertheless, not as high as little Sally.

Of course, there would be other factors at play. Did little Johnny assume five adult males + five adult females, one of each which procreated and had one child for a total of 11 people? Hmmm. Did he ask "5 what + 5 what? And what do you mean by +? And what do you mean by = ?" Then I would value little Johnny more. But if he was fucking off in class and not paying attention and actually thought 5 apples + 5 apples made for 11 apples, then not so much.

I believe that sincere intellectual curiosity would have one move beyond what "their guy" said, and "research" what the "other guy" said about what "their guy" said. If you just stop at "your guy" and hammer on that and what he said about what the other guy said, then you should at least stipulate to his relative position in the fray.

Like me, for instance, I just stop at my guy and note that he is in the majority of experts, and relied upon by those in authority who have money and power to access the best and who have no obvious reason to BS. But if I was a "researcher" who wanted more, I'd find out what the other guy said about what my guy says, including any reasonable issues surrounding BS.

There is little intellectual rigor coming from these "researchers." That might be because it is difficult to find what the other guy said about what your guy said, especially if your guy is so marginalized as to not be worthy of the other guy's time; but that is rare in academia. If your guy has any traction whatsoever, some body is going to have to take him on. Find that, "researcher."

:100:

So we aren't devaluing people, but rather attitudes, beliefs, and so on. Works for me. — frank

I may have edited on my P.S. subsequent to your response. In any event, I do devalue people who own ideas that I likewise devalue. I believe in personal responsibility. Academic philosophy might allow a divorce, but in the real world, not so much. Parties, people, ideas (groups, platforms, members) can marry each other and, like felony murder, the driver who did not pull the trigger was still on board for the killing.

I agree that both sides do it. I know for a fact that I and my opinions are both devalued, all the time. While I am not a member of any group, per se, and while I believe "liberal" is not a person but a position, I can understand why I am deemed to be married and I accept that view unless and until I disown my spouse.

In the end, though, valuation is a consideration when deciding how much we want to spend; how valuable an idea, a group or an individual is. You, as a health care provider, may not want to distinguish between someone who honors, respects and looks up to your efforts, and another who thinks you are part of a conspiracy, full of shit and not worth listening to. That's fine. I only devalue you and your position to the extent you believe all ideas, groups and individuals are equal on your gurney. I disagree. That doesn't mean I think your value is zero. Far from it.

It doesn't have much of a practical effect to devalue people, does it?

It's mostly like venting behind someone's back, right? — frank

Actually, it does. Every time people get up before the podium and devalue the position of the opposition, people take that under advisement for the voting booth. Same with editorials. Don't even get me started on war.

It's not all venting behind people's back, either. For instance, you are here endeavoring to devalue my position on devaluing. Granted, you are not doing it to my face, but you aren't exactly doing it behind my back either. And rest assured, you could do it to my face with impunity. Sticks, stones, all that.

P.S. If you would like to distinguish between the position and the person, just remember what I've already said on that point: Ownership of the party (platform/position) reflects on the person. Not because I want it to, but because they want it to.

On point with devaluation. I'm not devaluing until they tell me to:

https://www.facebook.com/TheIronSnowflake/photos/a.156018051569910/1229235150914856/?__cft__[0]=AZUnIRGF0EOAdqgrtaPQvTmSKgbkRPq9bqfXpP2QPfiP-8_HUtHwazBVE4IbWj-DB0cQ0f4F2Pj4Nhfg6rZylsZcjn8gu3P1xPPVj2HMK-zs5pyOfQ__-ORUAgK4F-kSaI32HtzfoI7tNLaQWPj78pHL&__tn__=EH-R

This about sums it up:

https://www.facebook.com/TheIronSnowflake/photos/a.156018051569910/1229385930899778/?__cft__[0]=AZX0qYdsLHlTE7oY1jfkxEDWY8jQLTn8tm_95uBh36D1SEPkjDrYDrtRA5ysN7IaBaXqqBSPRmUEKcejrIUc5xOVq2bWb15JXSKYf2WeJCmN8fI-QvMaT7scLQ_5wnS-gQweFE8gDRDuYBpqtlzH8qTA&__tn__=EH-R

And this:

https://www.facebook.com/TheIronSnowflake/photos/a.156018051569910/1229410574230647/?__cft__[0]=AZXdy3HRlRMz9FkddNOHk64AxCDtgYC6FLKXB-u5svbxo7kIjsbXerQ0jFV8C0jNb73SCCk32xTGgIG77KVdPOpCNBJftcrNcbSQc7ZbzgUdiuk0LSz3d8dOpdfFGI0sSl6QxZcKNNo-AGOc1rJlLo5W&__tn__=EH-R

I don't know if it's forbidden to post links like that, but if so, I'll stop. It seems kind of weak, like I'm not thinking on my own two feet, but some folks just say it better.

Effective at changing minds? Surely.

If I have to engage in endless debate while the planet burns around me, in the name of goodwill, then no— I don’t want to be effective in that way. — Xtrix

Don't worry, cancel culture, consequences, ostracization, passports, mandates, sickness and death will be effective. They'll cry like little puppies about big bad authoritarian gubmn't treading on them, but they had their chance to debate politely on the merits of the science and consider what the experts had to say about what the experts had to say about what the experts had to say. Their bed may be uncomfortable, but they made it.

Patience and empathy have their limits. If you don’t listen to reason, evidence, and argument — you leave little recourse. — Xtrix

For me it's about more than that. I will confess to being a child in this regard. I remember all too well listening to all their shit when they were in the cat bird seat. They had their chance to reason, evidence and argument. Too late. Maybe next time. You notice how Nancy Reagan supported baby stem cells once Ronny got oldtimers? Or Jim Brady got gun control once shot in the head? And Jim Baker got all inconvenient big gubmn't regulation once he lost his kin? Or Newt and Dick are soft on lesbians when it's their sister or daughter? The list can go on about how these people only get empathy when the shit comes home. Until then, everybody is on their own and fuck them. Well, guess what . . .

And now they threaten backlash when that is what they are currently getting. The problem for them is, they always lose the backlash game. Two steps forward, one step back, the long and gentle arc of history, justice, etc. And it only progresses when the left has finally had enough.

The position I'm putting forward is the attitude of critical rationalism. To see every person as a source of knowledge for the sake of working closer to the truth. Devaluing people is counter this particular philosophy. — Cheshire

There is your extreme again, assuming devaluation is the assessment of no value. Just because I think your widget isn't worth what you are asking for it, doesn't mean I think it's worthless.