Jump to content

tac airlifter

Supreme User
  • Content Count

    1,249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    54

tac airlifter last won the day on March 6

tac airlifter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,130 Excellent

About tac airlifter

  • Rank
    Gray Beard

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,914 profile views
  1. Alive on life support = alive. There’s nothing in the definition that stipulates self sustaining respiration. “Personhood” whatever that means is not something I even understand, much less have an opinion on.
  2. Why would you think I meant that? The answer is no, I do not believe that nor do I think my statement you quoted implies such. I won’t speculate on personhood, but if a human being medically dies when circulatory or brain function ceases, it’s logical to conclude they are alive when those functions begin. Which happens in the first few weeks inside the womb.
  3. I don’t understand, did you initiate this discussion to blame Trump for something? The link you posted stretches imagination to blame the former POTUS. Here’s an article about C19 origins with some truly good analysis and information: https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038
  4. A philosophically consistent mechanism for determining the beginning of human life might be using the opposite of the identified end of human life: 1. cessation of either circulatory & respiratory function OR 2. cessation of brain activity. A logical starting point would be assuming human life begins at the opposite of defined human death.
  5. Agreed. Which leaves only two possibilities: either Fauci/CDC are absurdly risk adverse (further casting doubt on their judgement) or they are not letting us see the real numbers (demonstrating themselves untrustworthy). There’s no good outcome for the “experts” here. I am curious if the same standard applied to C19 deaths is being applied to C19 adverse vaccine reactions. ETA: speaking of statistically insignificant numbers driving illogical policy changes... the drive against “assault weapons” is mathematically analogous.
  6. Carlson on vaccine questions I understand Tucker Carlson is a commentator who thrives on controversy. I’m not linking this because of an affinity for him, but rather he’s the only one discussing a topic I can’t get a straight answer on: does the vaccine work? If so, why no alleviating restrictions for vaccinated? If not, why the massive guilt campaign to compel vaccination?
  7. Agreed. Has anyone ever filled out a GO initiated survey that mattered? I spent an hour on the pilot retention survey years ago only to hear, 10 months later, AFPC had “lost” the survey results. None of these are worth the time.
  8. All 3 were prosperous before and without politics. Is that true of our current class of career politicians? But I do agree with your last sentence.
  9. Historical sidebar, but your 3 examples are totally wrong. Lincoln- soldier/lawyer. Jefferson- plantation owner/ lawyer. Reagan- actor. None of the examples you gave were career politicians; all had successful careers before and outside politics. As Reagan said “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”
  10. What are destination jobs? I’m trying to get smart on all things airline. I’m currently ignorant.
  11. Are old/obese white people or more or less vulnerable to C19 than young otherwise healthy people of color? I haven’t been following the science closely, appreciate any data you have. And since discrimination based on ethnicity is on the table now, what other areas of society is this practice acceptable?
  12. All of the leftist arguments for “common sense Gun control” are disproved by their selective enforcement of current laws. They love talking universal background checks, but can’t endorse legally pursuing a guy who committed a felony by lying on his background check.
  13. I’m not implying anything, just seeking to understand your views. I note that instead of answering, you assumed an implication to my question and then called it wrong. Ok. Since your original argument was based on moral superiority (“Being vaccinated shows I give half a fuck about others”) I thought you’d have consistency of thought or application. I don’t require convincing on the efficacy of vaccines writ large, nor do I need a reminder that in the military I’m going to follow orders. I’m pro vaccine and have a three page shot record. I’m merely curious at all the (inconsistent) mo
×
×
  • Create New...