Covid Vaccines

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because they are too superficial. I have an interesting conversation with 2 (clearly GOP) coworkers on Friday and they clearly were in the Trump is an a**, but they liked what he did over say Biden or Obama šŸ˜­šŸ˜²

That said the extreme GOP are all the social media nut bags that would rather believe some BS unknown or invalidated source on the Internet (because hey it was on the Internet so it must be true) rather than an establish news source becasue well, they have been poisoned by those social media people that the news media is lying. There are days I am glad I am 60 as I can't even imagine what this place looks like in 50 years (heck even 10-20).
I get that but the thing is in all the polling I've seen at least 50% of the Republican(Trump) party believe the election was stolen, trump's by far their most popular politician and often beats both Reagan and Lincoln being rated their best president ever. The Democrats also have an issue with the extreme left but that's more like 15% to maybe 20% of the party. The problem is their the very vocal "woke" who prowl Twitter looking to be offended constantly and not enough people stand up to them by either ignoring them or just telling them to shut up.
So I don't give the greedy , cynical well off any kind of pass especially if they still support him after his attempt to overturn the election. Traitors....
 
I get that but the thing is in all the polling I've seen at least 50% of the Republican(Trump) party believe the election was stolen, trump's by far their most popular politician and often beats both Reagan and Lincoln being rated their best president ever. The Democrats also have an issue with the extreme left but that's more like 15% to maybe 20% of the party. The problem is their the very vocal "woke" who prowl Twitter looking to be offended constantly and not enough people stand up to them by either ignoring them or just telling them to shut up.
So I don't give the greedy , cynical well off any kind of pass especially if they still support him after his attempt to overturn the election. Traitors....


I would like to see the questions about the stolen election. I can see that some states and localities flirted the laws and rules in an extreme situation and in theory some might consider that may have influenced the results, and in their mind was stolen. Also as we have seen those that answer polls do not represent reality as the polls showed Biden win in a landslide pretty much and it was a nail biting squeaker.

I also agree the extreme DEMs tend to push the moderates more GOP than the Trump BS pushes some to DEM. If the GOP were not so damn nuts right now I am really frustrated with the DEMs. Karma is a b!t#h and it always comes back to haunt the DEMs more than the GOP. Tired of the WOKE and over reaction to things people did years ago. We all say/do stupid things in out past and we are being held to 2021 standards for things we did decades ago. Darn millennials are overly sensitive and all due to how my generation raised them, everyone is a winner, special and the world owes you and if are are good life will treat you right. What a bunch of hogwash.
 
I would like to see the questions about the stolen election. I can see that some states and localities flirted the laws and rules in an extreme situation and in theory some might consider that may have influenced the results, and in their mind was stolen. Also as we have seen those that answer polls do not represent reality as the polls showed Biden win in a landslide pretty much and it was a nail biting squeaker.

I also agree the extreme DEMs tend to push the moderates more GOP than the Trump BS pushes some to DEM. If the GOP were not so damn nuts right now I am really frustrated with the DEMs. Karma is a b!t#h and it always comes back to haunt the DEMs more than the GOP. Tired of the WOKE and over reaction to things people did years ago. We all say/do stupid things in out past and we are being held to 2021 standards for things we did decades ago. Darn millennials are overly sensitive and all due to how my generation raised them, everyone is a winner, special and the world owes you and if are are good life will treat you right. What a bunch of hogwash.
I actually think it is to an extent the generation after the millennials but the woke armies, as annoying as they are, don't seem as threatening as the side which basically doesn't believe in democracy anymore. They're rewriting laws right now to try to ensure the next election victory. I say things on a daily basis that would probably get me canceled......šŸ˜‚ But again that is a relatively small percentage and when you look on the other side with the percentage of Republicans that seem to believe in Q'Anon conspiracies. Who actually believed that Joe Biden gets up in the morning and eats a baby before his daily defense briefing..... Well that's just another level all together. I mean could you see someone like Mitt Romney winning the nomination now? The only way that would be possible is if there were like five or six Q'Anon trumper candidates who split up the crazy vote.
 
I actually think it is to an extent the generation after the millennials but the woke armies, as annoying as they are, don't seem as threatening as the side which basically doesn't believe in democracy anymore. They're rewriting laws right now to try to ensure the next election victory. I say things on a daily basis that would probably get me canceled......šŸ˜‚ But again that is a relatively small percentage and when you look on the other side with the percentage of Republicans that seem to believe in Q'Anon conspiracies. Who actually believed that Joe Biden gets up in the morning and eats a baby before his daily defense briefing..... Well that's just another level all together. I mean could you see someone like Mitt Romney winning the nomination now? The only way that would be possible is if there were like five or six Q'Anon trumper candidates who split up the crazy vote.

Agreed, the folks dismantling democracy are scary and far too many "patriots" are just following along in the name of staying power. If this does not change for the better in the next few years I fear our democracy slowly fades and could happen in my remaining life span(20-25 years left at best). I get what the founding father did in the constitution, but there are clear safe guards missing. And I am all about State's rights, but if the founding fathers knew this was what would happen I am pretty sure they may have put some addiotnal restrictions and safe guards in place.

I get in 1776 the thought of every person's vote being counted in 1776 was daunting and that the information available to the average person was limited and "all politics is local" concept. But they never could have foresaw information at the speed of light, all the flood of information (good and bad). Th electoral college is a very flawed systems. Easy fix would be to proportionally distribute electoral votes based on vote results in each state. A few states do that, but more need to. Or give each congressional district a vote and majority wins. Of course you have to address gerrymanding first in that case.

Goes back to my earlier post about term limits, money in politics and restricting people from being in power too long.

The cynical side of me says. I never had kids, I have 20-30 years left so screw them all.
 
" but if the founding fathers knew this was what would happen I am pretty sure they may have put some addiotnal restrictions and safe guards in place. " Not so sure about this. Even given the mythology that the FF's were hugely enlightened personalities, they still restricted eligibility to about 6% of the population (white males w/ property). "States rights" was a much more ephemeral notion than "landholder rights" at the time. It reminds me of the joke about what George Washington would say if he time traveled to 2021 - "You freed the what?!?!". They rejected monarchy, but embraced a bunch of other retrograde feudal governance notions.

" Easy fix would be to proportionally distribute electoral votes based on vote results in each state. " Good idea. Now lets do the Senate. :)
 
Last edited:
" but if the founding fathers knew this was what would happen I am pretty sure they may have put some addiotnal restrictions and safe guards in place. " Not so sure about this. Even given the mythology that the FF's were hugely enlightened personalities, they still restricted eligibility to about 6% of the population (white males w/ property). "States rights" was a much more ephemeral notion than "landholder rights" at the time. It reminds me of the joke about what George Washington would say if he time traveled to 2021 - "You freed the what?!?!". They rejected monarchy, but embraced a bunch of other retrograde feudal governance notions.

" Easy fix would be to proportionally distribute electoral votes based on vote results in each state. " Good idea. Now lets do the Senate. :)

ā€˜Agreed, but I understand the Senate, giving small population states equal representation, that just needs to move to super majority to fix it.
 
" I understand the Senate, giving small population states equal representation, "

Why? Why are arbitrary lines drawn on a map meaningful as a way to determine representation? It's a notion smuggled in with the heritage of landholding as the primary political unit. It's also a time function - the eastern states were built when we hadn't populated the west. Western states were built from larger chunks of land per actual citizen. The HoR represents people, the Senate represents dirt.

If the logic is that "we can't have the majority oppress the minority", the solution shouldn't be "so lets have the minority oppress the majority". Currently, the Dem side of the Senate represents 50m more people than the GOP side. The least populated 23 states, representing 46 electoral votes, have the same population as California, with 2. It's not right. It's clearly and obviously not producing good solutions.

IMO, do away w/ the Senate structure - replace it with a proportionally determined number of Senators who have to run state-wide (ie, no districts/gerrymandering like in the house). It can still be a senior house. Retain a pop vote for electoral college, nuke Cit U (I'm actually a little uncomfortable about this), and you don't even have to worry about term limits. (I think term limits are a bad solution for a serious problem - if you fix gerrymandering, term limits are much less of a problem and allow for long term relationship building. )

It's late and I'm tired - apologies if I'm curt or in any way disrespectful - I don't mean to come across that way.
 
" I understand the Senate, giving small population states equal representation, "

Why? Why are arbitrary lines drawn on a map meaningful as a way to determine representation? It's a notion smuggled in with the heritage of landholding as the primary political unit. It's also a time function - the eastern states were built when we hadn't populated the west. Western states were built from larger chunks of land per actual citizen. The HoR represents people, the Senate represents dirt.

If the logic is that "we can't have the majority oppress the minority", the solution shouldn't be "so lets have the minority oppress the majority". Currently, the Dem side of the Senate represents 50m more people than the GOP side. The least populated 23 states, representing 46 electoral votes, have the same population as California, with 2. It's not right. It's clearly and obviously not producing good solutions.

IMO, do away w/ the Senate structure - replace it with a proportionally determined number of Senators who have to run state-wide (ie, no districts/gerrymandering like in the house). It can still be a senior house. Retain a pop vote for electoral college, nuke Cit U (I'm actually a little uncomfortable about this), and you don't even have to worry about term limits. (I think term limits are a bad solution for a serious problem - if you fix gerrymandering, term limits are much less of a problem and allow for long term relationship building. )

It's late and I'm tired - apologies if I'm curt or in any way disrespectful - I don't mean to come across that way.

I believe because you penalize people like farmers in favor of city dwellers. I agree the current system has a small population dictating for the majority. But if you fix gerrymandering and impose term limits I think the problem goes away. I think lack of term limits causing people to become addicted to the power the have and they try to maintain and grow that power. Even if you take most of the money out of politics there will still be the dark money/favors that will,exist. Limiting terms limits that abuse of power. People donā€™t want term limits because they like their ā€œguy/galā€™ and they want the rules to apply to everyone else not their candidate. Sadly these issues wonā€™t be fixed in my lifetime and the erosion of our democracy (I donā€™t think 5 years ago any of would think our democracy was in trouble) seems to be a real possibility. I have always been amazed by how the people that are all for this erosion are the ones hurt the most and those of us that would be less impacted are more concerned.
 
" but if the founding fathers knew this was what would happen I am pretty sure they may have put some addiotnal restrictions and safe guards in place. " Not so sure about this. Even given the mythology that the FF's were hugely enlightened personalities, they still restricted eligibility to about 6% of the population (white males w/ property). "States rights" was a much more ephemeral notion than "landholder rights" at the time. It reminds me of the joke about what George Washington would say if he time traveled to 2021 - "You freed the what?!?!". They rejected monarchy, but embraced a bunch of other retrograde feudal governance notions.

" Easy fix would be to proportionally distribute electoral votes based on vote results in each state. " Good idea. Now lets do the Senate. :)
People in politics are complicated. There were founding fathers who objected to slavery and some were conflicted because they were slave owners themselves and they knew it was wrong and wouldn't last..... The reality is though if they would have included liberating slaves at the time of the revolution it wouldn't have happened. You would have still had slavery AND a monarchy. I think there was a bit of do as I say not as I do going on but they weren't a monolithic block enthusiastic about slavery. I try not to judge people from 50 years ago by today's standards let alone 250. It's relative.
Regarding the Senate I agree to an extent. I mean the idea that North Dakota has as many senators as California is a bit ridiculous but everything has its plus and minuses. There is the argument that people in rural areas that provide the vast majority of the food we eat would have very little representation in contrast to their overrepresentation now .
 
I believe because you penalize people like farmers in favor of city dwellers. I agree the current system has a small population dictating for the majority. But if you fix gerrymandering and impose term limits I think the problem goes away. I think lack of term limits causing people to become addicted to the power the have and they try to maintain and grow that power. Even if you take most of the money out of politics there will still be the dark money/favors that will,exist. Limiting terms limits that abuse of power. People donā€™t want term limits because they like their ā€œguy/galā€™ and they want the rules to apply to everyone else not their candidate. Sadly these issues wonā€™t be fixed in my lifetime and the erosion of our democracy (I donā€™t think 5 years ago any of would think our democracy was in trouble) seems to be a real possibility. I have always been amazed by how the people that are all for this erosion are the ones hurt the most and those of us that would be less impacted are more concerned.
With the current system I could see term limits but ideally if you had money out of politics, I know wishful thinking, they wouldn't be necessary. I mean if a district had a great Congress man or woman The idea that they couldn't elect them simply because they'd been in a job for two terms or whatever limit doesn't seem right either.
 
People in politics are complicated. There were founding fathers who objected to slavery and some were conflicted because they were slave owners themselves and they knew it was wrong and wouldn't last..... The reality is though if they would have included liberating slaves at the time of the revolution it wouldn't have happened. You would have still had slavery AND a monarchy. I think there was a bit of do as I say not as I do going on but they weren't a monolithic block enthusiastic about slavery. I try not to judge people from 50 years ago by today's standards let alone 250. It's relative.
Regarding the Senate I agree to an extent. I mean the idea that North Dakota has as many senators as California is a bit ridiculous but everything has its plus and minuses. There is the argument that people in rural areas that provide the vast majority of the food we eat would have very little representation in contrast to their overrepresentation now .

Itā€™s absolutely not ridiculous and the reason why we have the house and senate. Helps prevent the people of California and New York from voting to strip mine all of South Dakota without the people of South Dakota having the power to stop it. Not everything is a National issue. Driving down I-80 in Nebraska, there were plenty of trucks moving goods between New York and California. Itā€™s part of the reason smaller states get disproportionate road funding on a per capita basis. The coasts need those states to have good roads and those states need fair representation so they arenā€™t run over by larger states. The House being of course the balance to that with itā€™s population based representation.

Itā€™s not perfect because people are involved. But itā€™s better than a straight majority rule. People from larger states always seem to complain about it because it gets in the way of their doing whatever they want. Well, thatā€™s kind of the point.

Either way, Iā€™m tapping out. This thread is way way too political now and primarily US based at that. All should agree to disagree and perhaps the admins will do us the courtesy of locking it while weā€™re all still friends. šŸ˜
 
Itā€™s absolutely not ridiculous and the reason why we have the house and senate. Helps prevent the people of California and New York from voting to strip mine all of South Dakota without the people of South Dakota having the power to stop it. Not everything is a National issue. Driving down I-80 in Nebraska, there were plenty of trucks moving goods between New York and California. Itā€™s part of the reason smaller states get disproportionate road funding on a per capita basis. The coasts need those states to have good roads and those states need fair representation so they arenā€™t run over by larger states. The House being of course the balance to that with itā€™s population based representation.

Itā€™s not perfect because people are involved. But itā€™s better than a straight majority rule. People from larger states always seem to complain about it because it gets in the way of their doing whatever they want. Well, thatā€™s kind of the point.

Either way, Iā€™m tapping out. This thread is way way too political now and primarily US based at that. All should agree to disagree and perhaps the admins will do us the courtesy of locking it while weā€™re all still friends. šŸ˜
I guess if you read my post I said there are pluses and minuses and I can see reasons for the system. I said I could see the reason for those states being overrepresented. As for the idea of California not deciding things for the middle of the country is one of the more commonly stupid things stated because California didn't exist even as a US territory in the 1780s. The purpose was to give more representation to slave owning states in order to get them to join and stick with the Union. At least until the civil war it worked. That being said a state with 1 million people having as many senators as a state with 40 million does seem a bit out of proportion. I think most intelligent people, even some in the Senate, could recognize the need for a national highway system.... It seems to me that the vast majority of the people who are against improving the infrastructure and highway system come from the least populated states. There are numerous reasons they get disproportionate funding. Obviously if you have an interstate highway with almost no people in the state the trees and the cows aren't paying taxes so that's one reason. The other reason is the people in those states on average make less money and pay less to the federal government. The reality is the states on the coast give more money to the federal government than they get and the other states do the opposite. They receive more than they give.
The argument you give is a common argument coming from someone who's on the side politically who routinely gets less votes in the house of representatives, less votes in the Senate, and less votes for the president nationally but somehow still has power most of the time. Look at the Senate even now with the filibuster a guy representing Kentucky gets to decide what gets through and doesn't. He even gets the decide that a sitting president doesn't get to choose a supreme Court nominee because the election is 10 months away...... The sitting president is commonly the person who had the least amount of votes. This made more sense 150 years ago but with modern technology we're all exposed to the same media, we travel, it's not like people in Ohio don't see the same news as people in New York. One thing I can guarantee if it was routinely the other way around, gerrymandering so that states like mine, Pennsylvania, have the majority of population voting Democrat yet somehow the majority of our Congressman are always Republican. The candidate routinely winning the popular vote doesn't become president things would definitely change. You would have January 6th a couple of times a month... Two of the last three times the Republicans "won" The presidency they got less votes. The Senate I can see the electoral college is idiotic. It actually gives less representation to a lot of states, no president tries to appeal to North Dakota or California because It's a foregone conclusion who's going to win those states so there are a couple of states that decide the presidency every time.
 
Last edited:
Fair point. Apologies to all for getting us so far off topic.
It happens, I don't think anybody's being nasty. It is in the off topic section right? I mean I get on threads here all the time that veer off from what I'm interested in and go off topic I just stop following them. I don't take the time to complain about them being off topic. If it was a thread that I started and it wasn't in the off topic forum then I get it.
 
Itā€™s absolutely not ridiculous and the reason why we have the house and senate. Helps prevent the people of California and New York from voting to strip mine all of South Dakota without the people of South Dakota having the power to stop it. Not everything is a National issue. Driving down I-80 in Nebraska, there were plenty of trucks moving goods between New York and California. Itā€™s part of the reason smaller states get disproportionate road funding on a per capita basis. The coasts need those states to have good roads and those states need fair representation so they arenā€™t run over by larger states. The House being of course the balance to that with itā€™s population based representation.

Itā€™s not perfect because people are involved. But itā€™s better than a straight majority rule. People from larger states always seem to complain about it because it gets in the way of their doing whatever they want. Well, thatā€™s kind of the point.

Either way, Iā€™m tapping out. This thread is way way too political now and primarily US based at that. All should agree to disagree and perhaps the admins will do us the courtesy of locking it while weā€™re all still friends. šŸ˜
As for the friends part I have no animosity towards you or anyone here really I just like a good argument. Like the one about strip mining in the middle of the country it actually works the other way more often. Something that would be good for the majority of the country, like highways or infrastructure, gets held up because of NIMBY and the overrepresentation of the largely empty states. Also just a few years ago, according to your thinking, when the Republicans controlled the entire government even though they got less votes presidentially, congressionally etc, their representation largely came from rural areas they could have just voted to level Manhattan and make it a theme park or beach? Doesn't really work that way. Either way there has to be a better way to balance it than one state getting one senator for 500,000 people and another state getting one senator for 19 million.....
 
Well, there you go again. You string together these straw men arguments and logical fallacies, it's hard to know where to begin. I'm not going to follow you down every logical fallacy rabbit hole.

Your assertion that that I have a blind belief in science, statistics, the vaccine industry and the CDC is nothing short of absurd. You don't understand what science is very well, or the scientific method. To approach things scientifically is to approach with skepticism, and this includes being skeptical of scientific studies, statistics, the vaccine industry and the CDC. It is to require verifiable evidence before beginning to accept something as possibly true. It is to require reproducibility of data obtained from trials. There is much to criticize and many areas to find fault. To approach things scientifically is to never accept things blindly.

Your flawed logical approach is to say that because fraud exists and can point to examples of fraud in scientific studies and such, therefor the consensus views of people who have a lifetime of training in these fields is on equal ground as some random bloke in his mom's basement making up misinformation about vaccines and the virus and posting it on the internet.

It is like saying, "Here are several examples of where the government was not honest, therefor the moon landing was faked because the government lies about everything." And to be clear, it was science that put men on the moon. It is also science that we have to thank for the cures to Polio, smallpox, measles, mumps...the list goes on and on. But, because social media has put the Dunning & Kruger effect on steroids, whereby some yahoo, with zero critical thinking ability, reads social media nonsense online and then believes he knows more than people who have spent their lifetimes studying epidemiology. Therefor, with such self proclaimed experts unwilling to participate, we may never get to the point of defeating Covid-19.

Many of the logical fallacies pertaining to vaccine hesitancy are addressed by Dr. Grande here:



Interesting. You are a real estate man lecturing to a scientist about science. I've only bought one piece of property, 26 years ago, and wouldn't think of telling you anything about real estate.

I review the scientific work of others to make sure it is correct and supportable by objective evidence. I've learned that greed, politics and power can influence scientists as much as politicians. Science and politics are one and the same. There is as much politics in science as there is science in politics. Scientists can be as irrational as any human. Are you old enough to remember cold fusion? Linus Pauling and the vitamin C hoax vs. genius science? Hosts of scientists with "hard data" have said the currently banned pesticides were good to go. These are just some examples of flawed science to show that it is not irrational to be skeptical about vaccination.

We just had a scientific political statement that the Pfizer vaccine is good for humans. Between Sunday and today there was no change in the science, just the politics. Between Sunday and today, there was a change in where politics intersects an individual's life, you can now be fired if not vaccinated. You just watch, there will be a surge in vaccinations now that the politics has said the vaccine works.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. You are a real estate man lecturing to a scientist about science. I've only bought one piece of property, 26 years ago, and wouldn't think of telling you anything about real estate.

I review the scientific work of others to make sure it is correct and supportable by objective evidence. I've learned that greed, politics and power can influence scientists as much as politicians. Science and politics are one and the same. There is as much politics in science as there is science in politics. Scientists can be as irrational as any human. Are you old enough to remember cold fusion? Linus Pauling and the vitamin C hoax vs. genius science? Hosts of scientists with "hard data" have said the currently banned pesticides were good to go. It is not irrational to be skeptical about vaccination.

We just had a scientific political statement that the Pfizer vaccine is good for humans. Between Sunday and today there was no change in the science, just the politics. Between Sunday and today, there was a change in where politics intersects and individual's life, you can now be fired if not vaccinated. You just watch, there will be a surge in vaccinations now that the politics has said the vaccine works.

It is amazing how quickly full FDA approval was granted after our largest local hospital (and I assume others) said they will mandate the vaccine for employees within 8 weeks of full FDA approval. When our local hospital made that determination, full FDA approval was anticipated first quarter 2022. Within a couple weeks of that announcement, ā€œOkay fine. Approved!ā€

So what actually changed about the science that shortened a six month timeline to a couple weeks? Thatā€™s a political (perhaps bureaucratic is a better word) decision, not a scientific one.
 
So what actually changed about the science that shortened a six month timeline to a couple weeks? Thatā€™s a political (perhaps bureaucratic is a better word) decision, not a scientific one.
perhaps they accepted the science done elsewhere (like the EU, for a change perhaps for political reasons) and in the face of the alternative (people dying in hallways like it was the Middle East) decided that they should pull their heads out
1629838953605.png


I guess its time for the rest of 'merica to follow ...

1629839008689.png


although personally I was hoping for it to be mass graves and bulldozers, because then there was a faint possibility for change to some rational thinking.

something to meditate on

https://reporter.lcms.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Plague-blogLW.pdf

... ā€œVery well, by Godā€™s decree the enemy has sent us poison and deadly offal. Therefore I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine, and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others...

Martin Luther
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007081747/coronavirus-nyc-mass-graves.html
 
Interesting. You are a real estate man lecturing to a scientist about science. I've only bought one piece of property, 26 years ago, and wouldn't think of telling you anything about real estate.

I review the scientific work of others to make sure it is correct and supportable by objective evidence. I've learned that greed, politics and power can influence scientists as much as politicians. Science and politics are one and the same. There is as much politics in science as there is science in politics. Scientists can be as irrational as any human. Are you old enough to remember cold fusion? Linus Pauling and the vitamin C hoax vs. genius science? Hosts of scientists with "hard data" have said the currently banned pesticides were good to go. These are just some examples of flawed science to show that it is not irrational to be skeptical about vaccination.

We just had a scientific political statement that the Pfizer vaccine is good for humans. Between Sunday and today there was no change in the science, just the politics. Between Sunday and today, there was a change in where politics intersects an individual's life, you can now be fired if not vaccinated. You just watch, there will be a surge in vaccinations now that the politics has said the vaccine works.

Well, you fooled me Tom, because you sure approach a lot of thigs unscientifically for a scientist. You make assumptions without evidence all the time. Just like you did about me. You donā€™t know what training that I have, and letā€™s just leave it at that. And, as much as youā€™d like to stand on your laurels and dismiss the views of anyone who does not have your credentials, if you make illogical assumptions, you are subject to criticism, as much as anyone else. But, what the heck do I know, Iā€™m just a real estate man.

I will continue to criticize the people that thumb their nose at science and claim that taking Covid precautions shows fear and that if we have faith in God we should ignore all guidelines from the experts, not wear masks, nor get vaccinated and instead trust in God.

Certainly not all religious folks are taking this approach. Our pastor has encouraged folks to follow the guidelines from our health officials- to wear masks, social distance and get vaccinated. He is not alone. Those you defend are not just practicing vaccine skepticism. It is a spectrum of behavior with misinformation at its roots, which they enthusiastically propagate. There is a church a couple of miles away that has taken the position of the folks that you are defending. They opened illegally when inside gatherings were not allowed. Before the vaccine, they verbally attacked those wearing masks and those who practiced social distancing- claimed it was showing fear and we should trust in God instead. They were propagators of false information about the virus and masks and now they spread false information about the vaccine and discourage all to receive it. Trust in God, not science they say, with all kinds of satanic references to the guidelines, as well as condeming health officials as evil.

But it is interesting to see what happens when one of these folks comes down with Covid-19 and they canā€™t breathe. Rather than stay home and ā€œtrust Godā€, they suddenly become believers in medical science. They call 911 and my friend, who is a paramedic, comes to treat them and gets exposed to their virus. He got it last year after treating sick patients, before the vaccine, but recovered fine. And then he usually takes them to the hospital, where they gladly take up a bed in ICU. This often ends up denying someone else a bed, depending on how overcrowded the hospital is. I would have more respect for them if they were consistent and stayed home waiting for faith healing, rather than take a bed in ICU, but would still say they are foolish. You want to defend these folks, fine, weā€™ll have to disagree on the reasonableness their behavior

As I have argued, I see these folks as fools who are preaching a false dichotomy and are spreading misinformation, spreading Covid and death unnecessarily. And please donā€™t tell me that they are just wise vaccine skeptics, because it is far more than that, with the foolish behavior they participated in prior to the vaccine and the misinformation they have consistently spread througout this pandemic. And yet, I do not wish ill on them. I know that many have said that they feel that these folks get what they deserve when they succumb to the virus. I don't feel this way. Some of these fools are even family members that I love deeply. Our extended family has paid a very steep price due to misinformation and failure to take this virus seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top