Placing — James Riley

Why do you take a word like "Placing" out as a quote in isolation? Either quote the sentence/context or just ask your question or make your point.

How can you care so much about others (by getting vaccinated) while at the same time you wear a gun? — Prishon

Asked and answered.

Guns always worsen the situation, especially in the USA, where unheard teenagers make themselves heard by shooting. This disease is slowly spreading the globe. I can get protection (like the vaccine) by getting a gun too, but this only worsens the situation. Likewise you can argue that vaccinating is good for everyone but this is short-term thinking. In the long run it gives weak people, dying already of a cold. — Prishon

"Always" is too big a word for you to use. It makes me want to ignore the rest of your post. It's hyperbole.

If you think the vax is short term thinking, and that, in the long run, letting it run it's course is a good thing, then you could use the same reasoning for guns. Give a gun to everybody and let nature take it's course. Sure, there will be a messy start, but things will settle out and all we'll have left is good people and a polite society.

Placing myself at risk is one thing. Placing others at risk is another.
— James Riley

Yep. Nothing whatsoever to do with the argument you were attempting though, which was that someone who took a risk to their health that they had been previously warned about by some institution should not then seek help from that institution. — Isaac

What is wrong with you Isaac? You asked a question and I answered it. Directly. If you wanted me to address the issue of seeking help from an institution whose adivce was rejected, then you should have asked me a question about that. You did not.

If you want to change that argument to "someone who puts other in a position some institution considers a risk, ought not seek aid from that institution if they get ill", then you'd need some new argument as to why. But let's say, for the sake of argument you have such an argument. The same would apply to fast food outlets, gun shops, tobacconists, car rental firms, ski resorts, diving schools... — Isaac

I'm not changing any argument. Rather, you are failing to keep up. But I will entertain your effort to change the argument back to what we were talking about before you asked me your silly question that I directly answered. In the future, though, if you want me to answer a question about something, then ask the question about that.

Carrying on: Some people won't vax because they don't trust the gubmn't. Those same people say the vax is not FDA approved. The FDA is part of the gubmn't. So they should have the courtesy of not making that argument.

Some people won't vax because the vax is not FDA approved. However, they go to the hospital and are treated by several different drugs that are not FDA approved. Should not the Doctors refuse giving such drugs to people who don't want them?

Some people don't trust doctors. Yet they go to doctors when they get sick.

Whatever. The point here is this, in answer to your argument: Those people should not be treated to the detriment of others who took the vax but got in a car accident or suffered some other illness that demands medical care in a hospitals with limited resources. If a vent is on a person who refused the vaccine, and someone else needs it, that vent should be ripped out of the covid patient's mouth and he/she should be brought to Tucker Carlson's house so he can take care of them.

So, that should answer your question. But let me digress into the nuances of fast food and whatnot: The same analysis should apply. If someone acts against their own interest, that is fine as long as it does not inure to the detriment of someone else. Use the smoking debate for an example. People smoke. That is against their best interests. They know it. The States, who had to pick up the bill for all these sick people, sued the tobacco companies. Regulations and laws were implemented. Taxes on tobacco went through the ceiling. Kids can't legally smoke. People can't smoke in bars and restaurants. Tobacco companies had their contents regulated, and the list goes on and on. But in the end, the government did not outlaw smoking. People can still smoke. It's just that their right to smoke is limited to where it does not adversely impact others. But yes, if they are receiving treatment to the detriment of another patient, they should be pushed to the curb. Just like states charging people for rescue operations when they get lost in the woods.

Here's another distinction: Tobacco, fast food and what not, all have corporations selling their product to people who want to buy it. No one, to my knowledge, wants covid and no one is selling covid on the market.

Finally, when society decides to assume a risk (end prohibition, for example) because people demand it, then that is a conscious decision to assume risk. Society has not decided to assume the risk of Covid. Society is trying to fight covid. See the difference? If society wants to throw in the towel and champion the right of people to not distance, mask or vax, then it can do so. And, quite frankly, it has. It merely wants those who exercise that right to not share their filthy disease with other, innocent third parties.

That is about as far from 'exactly' as it can get. Three words. There's been over two hundred papers on the subject in the main journals alone, and you think three words sums up 'exactly' what they're all saying? Seriously? — Isaac

I already explained to that I (and most definitely you) are not capable of understanding what is in those papers or journals. But we are capable of seeing who says distance/mask/vax and who says don't. The is not far from "exactly" as it can get. It is right the fuck on point.

The people I've quoted in this thread are all more qualified than Dr Fauci, every single one. If you disagree, pick one of my citations and point out the error. — Isaac

I have not seen you quote a single name. And even if I had, I've already told you that I am not qualified to enter the debate between Fauci and his peers. Neither are you. You can't even follow an argument.

We have heard about it. The articles I've cited are published in peer reviewed journals, the main one being the BMJ, one of the world's leading medical journals. — Isaac

What you mean "we" Kimosabi? If any of those articles are saying "don't distance, don't mask and don't vax," then their respective professions are complete failures in taking down charletons like Fauci. Hell, even the Bar Associations have taken down Giuliani. Are you saying the medical profession is allowing Fauci to endanger people's health? As stated, I am not qualified to argue the merits of the discussion between his peers (and neither are you) but I am qualified to judge whether a profession is vetting, supervising, disciplining, guiding and maintaining their own objective standards. Show me where the names you cite are jockying to advise government, be in Fauci's position, and he should be in the street.


.

So do you not do anything the medical system has told you is a risk? Never smoke, drink, eat red meat, exercise too little, get stressed, skip the veggies, engage in sports, ski, drive, breathe city air, travel... — Isaac

Placing myself at risk is one thing. Placing others at risk is another.

ou've just got finished telling us you don't know what the experts are actually saying, nor do you know what the dissenters are actually saying. — Isaac

No, I did not just get done saying that. Let me try again by telling you exactly what I just got done telling you: I know exactly what the experts are saying: Distance, Mask, Vax. I know exactly what the dissenters are saying: No need to do what the experts are saying. Read that again.

You said you trusted the institutions of your government. So this has nothing to do with charlatanism - you're not in a position to judge that. This has to do with choices about who to trust, that's the only thing you personally have any knowledge about. You trust the institutions of your government and what you perceive to be the consensus of scientists. Others don't. That's all you can judge on, because that's all you're qualified to know about the situation. — Isaac

You are wrong. In the military they have a term: "BTDT." And anyone who pretends to have been somewhere or done something when that is not true are called "posers." The law has the same thing, with the various Bar Associations. So too the Medical Community, and a great number of other vetted professions and activities. You know, like a certificate for graduating from kindergarten. One need not be a BTDT or an attorney or a doctor to find out if a person is a BTDT or an attorney or a doctor. The rest are posers, charlatans, or the people who believe posers or charlatans. You can vet an expert, or you can rely upon government, self-regulating entities, degrees, rank, whatever. Dr. Fauci is a vetted professional. If he was not, then you can bet all those who disagree with him and the charlatans would have vetted him and pointed out that he does not have the expert credentials that he says he has. There are others who agree with Dr. Fauci. You know, like your doctor. Have you been to your doctor? What does he/she say?

You, Isaac, are not qualified to challenge Doctor Fauci on the merits of any discussion related to Covid. Likewise all the people that you listen to. If and when a smart person who knows as much as him denounces his recommendations, you can bet we will hear about it. You know why? Because there is no grand conspiracy to shut down the truth. We don't even shut down the lies. If we could shut down the truth then you know we would shut down the stupid people and the liars. Like Faux News. Like Tucker Carlson. Yet they blab away.

As above - do you never engage in any activity the healthcare system has told you is a risk to your health? — Isaac

Asked and answered. Life is not always about me, Isaac. I know that is hard for you to grasp. I don't know how I can explain to you that you should care for other people. Neither does Dr. Fauci. Please stay at home and don't get close to other people. You are a danger.

Slight digression, but instructive: You know how so many conservatives and Republicans are always whining about government regulations? Did you know that no regulation was ever promulgated in a vacuum? Every single regulation was promulgated in response to the failure of someone to protect the rights of others. I think everyone knew that you shouldn't shit in the river. And everyone who didn't know was asked "Please don't shit in the river." But some people, people who are disrespectful, inconsiderate and selfish, continued to shit in the river anyway. Thus, regulations were adopted. Now, we can argue about whether the regulation is properly designed to the task, to broad, to narrow, etc. But it would not exist had everyone abided the pleas of everyone else, the government, the experts.

So, in the instance of covid, the government started out nice. You know, asking. Pleading. Providing incentives, free shit. If disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish people obstinately refuse to be respectful, considerate and helpful, then a regulation will be adopted. Laws. And then the whining and wailing and gnashing of teeth will really start. Imagine NOS and all the libertarians and people who hate government and regulation. They will be apoplectic. And it will all be due to people who can't distance, wear a piece of cloth over their pie hole/snozzle honk, or take a vax. Hell, had we all played ball on the first two, we would not even need a vax.

But you people have been warned: You are bringing what is to come upon yourselves. You do not respect the rights of others.

"They" are the vaccinated — Prishon

So, rewriting, it would say: "Isnt it possible that people getting mad at non-vaccinators . . . are getting mad maybe because the vaccinated are afraid of infecting them? So the vaccinated cant give them a hug anymore?"

Okay, possible. But I don't think that is the primary reason. I'll stick by my other response.

But still people. On who you can get mad. People are irrational. You have to live with that. — Prishon

Agreed. Especially in the U.S. where everyone thinks he's a rebel. :roll:

Isnt it possible that people getting mad at non-vaccinators (and hinestly, I must get one if I wanna go to my family in Italy) are getting mad maybe because they are afraid of infecting them? So they cant give them a hug anymore? — Prishon

I can't make heads or tails of that. I need to know who the "they" is. Making some assumptions about what you meant, I suppose that might be a reason for some. Not me. It's more generalized for me. Here's a tip of the iceberg:

"Here we go, Texas. There is an ER doc from Houston crowdsourcing on a physician Facebook group of 50K doctors. Patient is mid-40s, sick w/ something w/ high probability of death (not COVID) & needs ICU care & GI procedure stat. ER doc can’t find any beds and “will fly anywhere.”

This is why people saying “my choices and personal freedom don’t affect you” drive me insane. When large hospital systems get overwhelmed by largely unvaccinated patients who all of the sudden decide to trust doctors and want non FDA-approved treatment, everyone suffers.

The group of 50.000 doctors came through and he’s on a helicopter. Doc didn’t say where but this dude is really, really sick. I hope he pulls through."
https://twitter.com/dremilyportermd/status/1429222295919337477

Who are you to tell me what to di. You soeak aboht your own views on it all the time. You you and you. STFU and let ne kive in peace. Djeezus... — Prishon

Where did you go to school? Just curious. :lol:

Thats exactly the negative attitude I meant. — Prishon

I think some of the other kids on the playground have schooled you about all the "me me me me" BS. Of course it's going to engender a negative attitude. What, you think negative attitudes are bad? Should we all play nice? Should we all play safe together? If that's what you want, then STFU and get a vax. Think about someone besides you for a change. And if you don't, then don't be surprised when you get negativity, ostracization, consequences, cancelled.

Oh, and if you do get a bullet or some other malady, don't go to the hospital: The beds are for Covid kids. And they may have to vax you to let you in.

Doubtful. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, they won't be able to bend a knee. They will be on a stretcher, begging through gasps and drowning on their own fluids, giving docs permission to treat them with shit that has yet to be approved by the FDA.

They were cannibals. :roll: — frank

We are too, when the need arises. :roll:

That word sounds already very negative. Honestly I dont care if I got sick by the virus ir sick by the vaccination. I just dont want someone to push a needle in my arm and inject some stuff in it. Even it was for my own or others good. Unless the needle contained nice stuff... — Prishon

Here's the deal: You aren't smart enough to know if a needle contained "nice stuff." The dummies who don't vax, get covid and run to the hospital like little hypocritical babies end up getting lots of needles, some full of stuff that has not be FDA approved. All in hopes of saving their selfish lives.

Oh, and I doubt very seriously you pay any taxes that end up funding vax. Just a guess.

In fact, the whole idea of covid vaccination is that one can "go back to normal" once vaccinated. — baker

Doh! No; The whole idea of covid vaccination is that one can "go back to normal" once enough people are vaccinated. As usual, all the Murican Rebels have fucked it up for everyone else. The idiots who didn't distance, mask or vax are rendering the whole program a waste. They don't understand the enemy or how it works.

We don't charge up the hill and take the machine gun nest when half the platoon is arguing about how best to do it or if it should even be done. Then, when those who went end up, undermanned, get shot to shit, those at the bottom say "See! I was right!". Then, when the machine gun sends one though their stupid ass, they want help. But doc is dead. He went up the hill with the real men.

Yeah, you're right Baker. I'm already against the next war so maybe I should be against this one too. Let the chips fall where they may. Hopefully it thins the heard. That's got to be a good thing for the Earth. You guys who know better can let the virus morph and do what it will. Maybe it won't do anything. Maybe we'll get herd immunity after we get rid of all the elderly, immuno-compromised and weak, worthless members of society.

We're discussing your seething hatred of those who didn't use your method for deciding, those who, perhaps, did not trust those institutions, who instead, did read the journals, found enough evidence there to support an alternative position. I'm asking you about your ground for thinking those people so utterly worthless as to be deserving of nothing but to be kicked to the street to die. — Isaac

I've already explained this to you Isaac. Those people you reference don't exist. They are utterly worthless as to be deserving of nothing but to be kicked to the street because that was their choice. So, when it turns out they were wrong, they want to come, on bended knee, to the very system they failed to trust, because they did some penny anti BS research in search of conformation bias, and then found it? Tough. As NOS would say: consequences. They must be made to suffer for their choices or they and no one else can learn. Right? Ask NOS. And here's the kicker: I would not feel so heartless if, in the process of their disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish conduct they had not added to the variants, the full hospital beds, and social costs. You want to be a danger to yourself? Go for it. But don't impose your filthy disease on the rest of us.

So, the real question is, not why these people would refuse the vax, but what kind of society raises people who think they can listen to a charlatan and somehow know better? I'll tell you what kind of society that does that: One that doesn't spend enough on education, teaching people how to think. They are all rebel and no cause.

As I asked you before, if your decision, your chosen method of dealing with your lack of expertise, leads to injury, do you expect to be kicked to the street by those who chose differently? — Isaac

I don't remember you asking me that but I'm happy to answer. It's simple, really: Those who chose differently, yes, I would expect them to kick me to the street. After all, that is the kind of people they are.
But I would NEVER, not in a million years, go to them for treatment.

On the other hand, I would not expect to be kicked to the street by the system that told me to distance, mask and vax. If it turns out they were wrong, I not only expect to be treated by them, but I expect they will be the ones who discovered they were wrong and who have the knowledge and expertise to best treat me. You know: Doctors.

Yes, some people suffer the risk of certain behavior while others learn from their example. While you may blame yourself and society for the conditions of some, I refrain from idealizing my object, and am still capable of knowing that some happen to bear the penalties of their misdeeds.

Is misery not a natural consequence of certain behavior? The assumption that all social suffering is removable, and that it is the duty of the state (never yourself) to remove it, is as artificial as it is false. All you can do is penalize society for the wretchedness of a few. — NOS4A2

I think you miss my point. We have been playing your game, to no avail, since time immemorial. When will you ever learn? Your way does not work. If it did, you would not be opining about this issue and saying the same shit your ilk has been saying forever, and saying it now, again, to no avail.

Nobody said "never yourself". If you don't think those people are suffering for the bad choices they made, then you have no experience with them whatsoever. They suffer greatly, as do their family and friends, and society at large. The question you need to ask yourself is not whether or not they are forced to suffer for their bad choices, or if they maybe have not suffered enough (because, after all, they keep making them). Rather, the question you should ask is, why do they make the bad choices in the first place? You think they make bad choices because they don't have enough evidence around them of what happens when people make bad choices? If that is what you think, then again, you have no experience with them whatsoever.

You should actually relate to them. I mean, here you are, doing the same wrong thing, over and over and over again, to no avail. Yet you want to double down and keep doing it. LOL! And here I am, trying to help you and you, like them, won't learn. You keep smashing your thumb with a hammer and wondering why it hurts. LOL! Stop! Help.

I've used this analogy before: A rider will pick a soft-broke horse out of the remuda every time, over a hard-broke horse. No comparison. But yeah, you let your pony run through the bob war all you want.

Does it still show? Let's look... — Prishon

Yup, still there. I'm not the guy to help. I don't know tech.

I don't know what you are doing, but your quotes come up "6mOptions" and it's disconcerting. Might want to ask some techy what's the hell is going on.

Im not sure what happened. I saw your comment above I think. But it's not there. It involved your reaction to suspiciousness to non-vaccinators. Im not sure now...☺ — Prishon

Well, I did not delete it so I don't know what happened. In any event, I don't think I have argued, in the context of this thread, that Darwin would say it is natural to take away individual rights. It's a good question, though. He might. For instance, I am a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. However, if the exercise of the right ever presented a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state (nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, or exercise of the right to the exclusion of the right of others to bear) then yeah, the right could be infringed. If one were to believe in political Darwinism, then yes, individual rights can be trashed to maintain a state which perpetuates the species beyond the ability of other, competing states that jeopardize the species. But that is a long walk from this thread. Sorry for the digression.

In what scientific peer-reviewed journal is the conclusion that everyone ought to distance, mask, vax reached? What methodology would such an experiment even employ? — Isaac

I think I already explained to you that I am not a peer or an expert. Nor do I read the journals. Nor would I know what methodology any experiment would employ. I listen, rather, to those appointed by and working for institutions that I support as part of my chosen, democratic form of government (You know, like the CDC, Fauci, et al).

In typical internet argumentative fashion, you might ask me to ask you to step up and show me in what scientific peer-reviewed journal is the conclusion that no one needs to distance, mask, vax, or what methodology they used to arrive at their conclusions. But you see, I don't give a shit. I couldn't (or don't want to invest the time, resources and energy necessary to) understand what it is they are saying. I'm not following the evidence. I'm following those who I trust to have followed the evidence. They aren't Tucker Carlson or Isaac.

"
— James Riley

"It's not a matter of "should." It's a function of nature, Darwin, society. "

What do you mean? That it is only Natural to take away individual rights? — Prishon

I've lost the context from which you quoted me. Can you please re-insert it? I *think* I might get your question but I don't want to answer without seeing the context in which I said what you quoted. Thanks.

But you've now three times failed to provide the details of what that 'weight of professional opinion' actually says on the matter. So how do you know it's on your side? — Isaac

No, I have not so failed. You clearly are being obstinate. The details are these, read my words (watch my lips): Distance, mask, vax. Wait, hold on. Let me try saying that again: Distance, mask, vax. Maybe wash your hands once in a while. :roll:

If you want more, go to school, get an advanced degree in the area and engage your peers.

The principle is that there are risks to certain behavior, and if people do not suffer them society will never learn to avoid them. — NOS4A2

You jump from people suffering the risks of certain behavior, to society learning to avoid them. I think that, from the opium dens to nicotine, to alcohol, opioids, meth and beyond, and all the suffering of the people who risk certain behavior, and the friends and family and society around, which likewise suffers therefrom, for hundreds of years, that society might want to finally take a fucking seat and think: "What, exactly, is it about me, society, that keeps producing people who would do this shit to themselves? I mean, I, society, have tried the "stick" and it just doesn't seem to work. Am I, society, fundamentally fucking stupid for continuing to use the stick? For treating a disease like a crime? Why are my citizens the way they are? Do they have hope? Do they have prospects? Are there any other societies around the world trying anything else? How is that working out for them?"

Nah, fuck 'em. Let 'em learn the hard way and die. That'll teach em. Next!

Why would you judge others on the basis of your own unqualified and self-admittedly incomplete assessment of the dissenting scientific opinion? If you don't know (and admit you don't know), then on what grounds the vitriolic judgement? — Isaac

As has been explained, in this or other threads (I'm losing track) I judge others based upon their equally unqualified, incomplete assessment of the prevailing scientific opinion. They don't know, and yet they expose others to their ignorance, possibly at the peril of others. If I don't drive drunk, then at least I've ameliorated the risks (you know, instead of saying it is my body, my right to drive drunk and no one else's concern). Like seat belts, I'm under no illusion that many people could give a shit about me getting hurt in a wreak. But they have a legitimate reason to want to keep their premiums down. There might be people out there who do care about me, and that's the Fauci idea about caring about other people. But beyond that, "the experts say . . . ." and the dissent sound like selfish idiots.

So, yes, I judge because you are not just (possibly) hurting yourself, but you are (possibly) hurting others. And the weight of the professional opinion is on my side.

So yeah, I judge those who are against following the prevailing advice of experts, because it is not simply them they are placing at risk. They are risking others.

Risk yourself. And, at the very least, if you do get sick, for crying out loud, don't go to the fucking doctor.

You want to challenge my empathy because I'm harsh on those who have no empathy, and because I reserve my empathy for those who have empathy? See how far that gets you. Sure, I'll come to your defense, and pay your bills, so long as you haven't refused my help or efforts to pay. But if you have, don't be surprised if I break bad. You brought it on yourself. I still have empathy, just not for you.

.How do you know there is no such dissent if you don't even what the view is there'd be dissent against? — Isaac

I think there is confusion between the merits of the argument and the existence of the argument. I don't know shit about the former, but I am aware of the latter.

I don't know climate science, but I know the view that global warming is, at least in part, man-caused. I know there is dissent, but it has not held up to peer review, outside of Faux News. The people I see in dissent sound like idiots to me, and I'm not even an expert! Likewise Covid. I am aware of the science says take the vaccine. There may very well be some scientists who disagree. But my doctor took it and he advises me to take it and all the dissent I see is on Faux News with no peers. And all those dissenters sound like idiots to me, and I'm not even an expert.

So, I decide to roll the dice and side with those who say man-caused global warming exists, smoking is bad, wear your seat belt, take the vaccine and side with those who appear, from my lay-perspective, to have paid their dues. Especially when the dissent sounds like idiots.

I hope that clears that up for you.

You barely know me, but I am sick, a pussy, selfish, etc., and all the other things you assumed I must do or be. — Tzeentch

Here's where your thinking fails you. I have a saying which is a play on words from another, older saying: "If the shoe doesn't fit, then why the hell are you wearing it?"

Discuss among yourselves.

The ones vaccinated can't get ill no more. — Prishon

Not true. Especially when dummies are propagating new variants all the time. By "dummies", I mean those who think the "vaccinated can't get ill no more."

Dissent to what? What exactly is the view you think the peer-reviewed science supports? — Isaac

That's my point. I don' know. I'm not a "peer." But, like climate change, it seems most peers are on one side of the coin. Right or wrong, I'm throwing my lot in with those who have BTDT, paid their dues, got the schooling and seem to have a consensus. If there are peers who disagree, let them hash it out with their peers. I'm certainly not going to take my que from posers. You know, the ones who pivot from experts on virus one day to Afghan defense experts on the next day.

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

Look to what Neandertals did for each other in and around the cave. That. Space, water, food, clothing, shelter, medical, education, defense.

Pretty fucking simple, really.

A wolf pack will no longer provide any of that to a lone wolf who decides to leave the pack. Unfortunately, we extend the protections to the lone wolf and deny them to ourselves. "Ourselves" will someday wise up and reset. And the lone wolf will whine like a little bitch.

Arguing with some folks on TPF:

https://chrismaley.com/2021/08/03/their-undeserving-little-smiles-are-called-einsatzgruppens/?fbclid=IwAR2PkhSVhRvloL0YuSiHQzdhqhm-fi_sLrXo5ovZOE7Rayt3ngJy3uu007c

You would be far more convicing if you wouldn't behave exactly like a Trumpista.

And you're just providing yet more evidence for God being a Trumpista. — baker

Your argument would have me be far more convincing if I rolled over and let the Trumpista's have their way. Then I could be righteous in my martyrdom. You must be a Michelle Obama lover: "When they go low, we go high." Fuck that. I'd rather give them some of their own medicine. After all, Republicans and conservatives never learn until the chickens come home to roost (Nancy Reagan, Jim Brady, Jim Baker, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, et al).

I don't know where you get the God/Trumpista shit. I'm not in that argument and don't know and don't care what you are talking about. Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person.

When you quoted Fauci your point seemed to be that others should care. From what you've written so far you seem to care little about others yourself. — Tzeentch

That's only because you lack depth of thought, and think only of yourself. Had you any analytic reading skills, you would have seen all the care for others, replete throughout my posts. Fauci's point was not so much an expression of frustration, but a simple acknowledgement that he, like me, lack the ability to teach. We don't have that Tucker Carlesonesqe ability to persuade, to dumb things down for simple people. As I stated, those who know lack confidence (Socrates?) and those who don't know are full of confidence (Tucker Carlson, et al).

A long time ago, archaeologists and anthropologists discovered, along with our innate human capacity to kill each other, and to fear (hate), we also had the ability to care. We'd set bones, or bring food to the wounded and nurture them along. We'd even show reverence for the dead. Fauci was referring to this latter quality. If you can't step up, then he really doesn't know what to do with you. It's not his job. He's done his job. He would help the stupid people if he could. But you can't fix stupid. Covid can, but Faucci can't. Covid can, but I can't.

If you are missing that innate human tendency to feel empathy for, and care for, and work with your fellow man (by and through your own chosen democratic processes) for a common good, then I'm sorry. So you continue to roll coal, fuck the planet, fuck others, for your "convenience." We will continue to take care of you, even in your fundamental stupidity and selfishness. That's just they way we are. If you won't listen to your own fucking doctor, then there is nothing we can do for you. You are sick. We'll just continue to feed you, take care of you, and allow your socialist, parasitic ass to continue to suck off the rest of society.

But if it comes down to my loved ones, or another person acting for his loved ones, then I will support tossing a non-vaxxed Covid patient out the hospital window to make room for a human being. That doesn't make me selfish.

Had you some good science behind you, then you would not take it to the public. You'd take it to your peers. There would be legitimate, peer-reviewed dissent. But all you have is Tucker Carlson, Putin, and their ilk, spinning you up like the little sheep you claim folks like me to be.

I guess we'll just have to wait to find out who was right. Me? I don't know the vax is right. I'm just not a selfish pussy. If the vax kills me, it won't be because I was mislead by charlatans or Jewish space lasers. It will be because my heart was in the right place and I rolled the dice for my fellow man (of which we have way too many).

I understand you believe the sacrifices others must make are benign. Others disagree. But I'm getting the impression you are already past the point of considering the subjectiveness of your own position. — Tzeentch

I know my position is subjective. Entirely. But the fact that others disagree and have every right to be wrong, does not mean they are right. They don't have to distance, mask or vax. But they should stay away from other people who do. They should stay home and hide under the bed. And if they get Covid, they should stay the fuck out of the hospital and away from the people (doctors) who told them how to not get Covid.

I saw a good meme the other day about driving drunk. Yeah, your body, your right. But it affects others. People wear clothes when they don't have to, but they won't wear a mask? Seat belts, helmets, they keep the insurance rates down for everyone.

No one is treading on their rights. They are treading on their privileges'. You don't have right to get a disease any more than you have a right to get meth. You don't have a right spread disease any more than you have a right to deal meth. And it's not about libertarian rights to do what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. It's about society having to pay for your right to come out in public and be an asshole. If you think January 6th was evidence of people getting fed up, you ain't seen nothing yet. You wait and see what happens when this virus continues to mutate because of assholes.

Brilliant. You hate me out of love. — baker

Yes, love for my family, love for Americans, and love for my country. You are an enemy. I hate you. And I hate Trump and all who support him.

You don't even care enough to hate me for the things I said. You hate me for the things you imagine I said. — baker

And here you are, pretending to tell me why I hate you. Pot, kettle, black.

Publicly disavow Trump, disavow the Republican Party, distance, mask, and vax. Then we can try to love. It's going to take a better man than me to love. Where the hell is that Jesus fella when you need him?

When the "other people" are the millions of individuals that have to change their way of life, or when the state is walking the thin and slippery line of infringing upon citizens' right to bodily autonomy by attempting to pressure them into vaccination on the basis of incomplete information, I'm not sure if Fauci believes we should care about that. — Tzeentch

"Have to change there way of life?" By social distancing, wearing a mask and vaxing? How inconvenient. :roll: Fuck the state. The state has not done shit but ask, politely, for people to step up. But would they? No. Not because of "incomplete information." But, rather, because they are inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish, obstinate little babies.

They eat all kinds of food and take all kinds of medicine and do all kinds of shit based solely on their precious "convenience" and based on incomplete information. Like the turd who was interviewed coming out of 30 days in the ICU on vent (to the exclusion of others who needed the bed) and, when asked "Do you wish you would have taken the vax?" He said "No." When asked why, he said "Incomplete information, and not approved by FDA." The doctor (being the kind, considerate, Hippocratic oath guy that he was), did not point this out to the dummy, but mentioned to the camera, that virtually all the drugs that dummy was treated with to save his worthless life were experimental and not approved by the FDA. DOH!

And you watch, just as soon as the FDA approves the vax (tomorrow?) all the little babies will pivot to some other reason for not taking it. And the irony of all this is, a lot of these dummies don't trust government to get the vax but they don't vax because the government hasn't approved it yet. That just shows why this had nothing to do with what the idiots claim. They are un-American cowards who won't step up in a time of war. They might say they would take a bullet for their country but they won't even take a vax for their neighbor.

The government has not forced anyone to do anything. I hope the private sector ostracizes all these people. I hope hospitals turn away all covid patients who didn't get vaxed. But they won't. You know why? Because of the Hippocratic Oath. But you wait, some guy is going "fall down" and "break bad" and I hope he walks and the judge says "Hey, the turd he ripped off the vent and killed to make way for his wife was a parasite."

Hatred justifies everything, doesn't it. — baker

Hatred does not justify love. Love, however, can justify hatred.

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

Such people are rats, snakes, weasels, vermin. And sometimes dealing with vermin is just plain a necessity — tim wood

I don't want to start an argument, but you are being a little harsh on rats, snakes, weasels and vermin. I mean come on! :wink:

Yeah, those Governors of TX and FL are pieces of shit. Wait, that's not fair to shit.

Essentially, changing the rules to a game you are already winning. — Cheshire

Yeah, that's why I don't go down that road. On the other hand, I do remember lessons from biology and ecology about too much of a good thing. They are only winning so long as their prey base is healthy. They are what they eat and if what they eat is not fit, then they won't survive as the fittest. They eat Earth, along with the rest of us.

Which is a more compelling case the threat of harm or the questionable motivations? — Cheshire

If harm were separate from motivation, unintentional, a mistake, then I'd have fewer questions. Science is often wrong, and people are often Guinea Pigs, whether they volunteer or not. I think Doctors and health care workers have good intent, even when they fuck up. I'll roll with them. Doctors are behind the vax and all the politicians and Faux News types are behind it for them and their family. I don't know why they want their constituents to get sick. Though I'm cool with Darwin.

What would worry me, if I thought about it, is that harm and motivation were not separate. If I put on my tin foil hat and assume the $kajillionaires are as smart as me (but have the best science minds in the world to prove I'm right), then they know the human race is far beyond the Earth's carrying capacity. Trying to figure out a good way to thin the herd, when it's this late in the game, might involve a virus, or a vaccine, either one.

If I wanted to play that game, then I'll go back to school, major in the sciences, get an advanced degree in viral immunology, and read all the deep shit that makes 99.9999% of the population's eyes cross and go to sleep (or blather on the news and interwebs about shit that is over their pointed little heads). Then I could know if they are out to get me.

I could let the fear mongers spin me up, or get schooled. I pick the third: which is neither.

So, to answer your question, there is no compelling case for either, or it's over my head if their is.

I think Bob Frost was repairing a New England Wall with his neighbor. The only way to lock in a round rock was with a spell. He'd say something to the effect: "Stay put, until we turn our backs." LOL! Get the shot, turn your back and move on. That's what I say.

I made this thread to divert the mess into a controlled burn. — Cheshire

I get it. To extrapolate, I do have questions, and questions can become misgivings, if you let them. It's just that once I make the call, I don't let them become misgivings. It's too late.

If some bad shit happens because I got the vax, then Baker, et al, can say "I told you so!" But here's the thing: they didn't tell me anything, because they don't know anything. All they did was speculate. They aren't smart enough and don't have the training to tell me anything. All they can do is question, wonder, speculate or regurgitate what others have said to make them scared. There is nothing wrong with that, I guess. But I don't live my life that way.

Again, if I were to take a deep dive on my questions, I could do so. I have several thoughts about what could go wrong, or what the motivation was behind pushing the vax, but I'm not going to give a loaded gun to a toddler.