Jump to content

Negatory

Supreme User
  • Posts

    454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Negatory last won the day on September 12

Negatory had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,988 profile views

Negatory's Achievements

Flight Lead

Flight Lead (3/4)

396

Reputation

  1. I respect your opinion. I obviously disagree, but that’s fine.
  2. My wife has a uterine horn birth defect where they are so split that they can host individual pregnancies. While both can become pregnant, only one can actually host a viable pregnancy. Carrying a pregnancy in the small, messed up horn, doctors estimated, would result in a 50% chance of 2nd to 3rd term miscarriage, a greater than 50% chance of birth defects, and a 15-20% risk of death for my wife. My wife got pregnant twice in the wrong horn. We made the choice to terminate those pregnancies before 12 weeks. Were those moral failings? Or was the correct move to force her to carry those children to term with the risks stated above. I would love for you to address those specific instances.
  3. Also, you guys seem to take specific offense at my "absurd" question about the immorality of contraceptives. Or, as one person put it, the dumbest shit he's ever read on this website. I assume you also take specific offense at the Catholic church, which is what made me intentionally act that very specific question (lol): "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contra­ception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life." - The Vatican, 1997 The point of having you guys fall into the trap of damning this "absurd" black and white viewpoint is to demonstrate that morality does have a sliding scale. In the case of Abortion, I respect your opinions on an individual scale, Guardian/FLEA/Bashi/etc., but none of you hold the keys to societal morality. Also, you guys all don't agree with the Catholic Church's black and white stance, so you clearly are on the gradient. None of you, individually, can say the Catholic church is Wrong or that the people who support abortion to 24-28 weeks are wrong. Society as a whole decides that. Now apply the fact that decisions are on a gradient to COVID. Society determines whether something is morally or ethically alright. There is little justification that COVID vaccines cause harm, so there is justification to have COVID vaccine mandates in certain circumstances. For example, the federal government (check).
  4. I believe humans determine ethics and morality, if that's your question.
  5. Here's a typical example of doublethink where morality fits you when you like. This one actually plays directly into the abortion debate that helped get us here. I sincerely hope that you, and anyone else claiming to have moral issues with how the vaccine was created, never used any of these drugs (I am 100% certain you have, as you're in the military and have been vaccinated):
  6. Fetal viability outside of the womb. Anywhere from 24-28 weeks. Not that that information is going to be useful for this discussion. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to believe that sperm+egg equaling life immediately is the dumbest shit I have ever read on this website. Is it dumb because it shows a black and white argument is dumb? Mission accomplished, brosef.
  7. Do you ever think about how every time you have had sex with someone using a condom or birth control, you intentionally denied life to a future human being? If we want to go down playing the heart strings of all life is precious, how many human souls have you, personally, failed?
  8. Sure, it all comes down to whether or not what you choose to do with your body causes harm to others. Not getting vaccinated on a societal scale hurts people, as people are unnecessarily hospitalized and die from COVID spread. Abortion doesn’t harm other people, up to a certain number of weeks of life, as the cells are not capable of viability/don’t meet criteria to be called living any more than your gallbladder. Which is why almost all people support bans on abortions at a certain point in the pregnancy, as it now causes harm. See, reasonable limits on bodily autonomy. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon Now I’m not trying to get into a debate with folks about whether a fetus or embryo is a human. Some of you think it is at one point. Some of us think that point is significantly different. And some people think it’s black and white and always is morally unjust - these are the people that many disagree with. And what it comes down to is religious pandering that won’t be solved on this forums. Facts are, 60% of Americans support the right to Abortion. Those 60% virtually all support a ban at some point (nowhere in America is abortion legalized to 40 weeks).
  9. Horrific argument. (Sorry, I had to) I agree with your premise that you can’t force everyone to take something that will cause harm, but you have to prove the harm. There is almost no proof of any significant harm that the vaccines have or will cause. And they have done significant studies to make sure of this. If they don’t cause harm, how does your argument fare? Also your example does not follow your logic. Your logic you initially postulated was, simply: “If forced harm, regardless of magnitude of harm, then unethical” But the example you provided was “If unnecessary, then unethical” If Bob goes to get his unnecessary vaccine and it doesn’t hurt him, but it helps society in that they don’t have to hire and pay both money and time for 69000 medical waiver reviewers to trudge through paperwork, then it was an overall benefit with no harm. Other than Bobs political feelings. Oh by the way, that’s why I run the 1.5 miles. Because it doesn’t cause harm. If the PT test was actually a life expectancy altering event, then I would absolutely call it a moral question to unnecessarily require people to get it. There are a few counter arguments that I am expecting: 1) haven’t you seen the study on teen male myocarditis? Yes, see the other thread. The study is flawed. There is actually a minor increase in lymph node swelling and cardiac events for society that is being monitored, but those studies resulted in small numbers with huge confidence intervals. Also, they showed about 10 benefits of the shot that were not advertised, but I digress. 2) How do you know that it won’t give us all lasting side effects in 5-10 years? Because that has never happened before, similar vaccines have been created and have been studied, and virtually all side effects for a vaccine show up within two months. Prove that it can happen. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects If you say Anthrax, be prepared to refute this claim: “While recent studies have demonstrated the vaccine is highly reactogenic,[51] and causes motor neuron death in mice,[52] there is no clear evidence or epidemiological studies on Gulf War veterans linking the vaccine to Gulf War illness. Combining this with the lack of symptoms from current deployments of individuals who have received the vaccine led the Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses to conclude that the vaccine is not a likely cause of Gulf War illness for most ill veterans.“
  10. And if you wanna take this offline - me and my wife have had 2 abortions for unplanned high risk pregnancies after contraceptives failed. So go ahead and judge me however you wish. (This is where I got my PhD, they give them out at the Doctor after you pay)
  11. Oh yeah? Well since we’re on the internet, I thought you should know about my PhD in Abortionology, so really you shouldn’t talk about that anymore until you get back to school.
  12. And your response, inability to address my thought out response, and ultimately you topping it off with this self righteous quote reminded me of an old favorite: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
  13. My first response was 100% written by me. Show me anywhere on the internet it’s copied. Are you referencing the portion of the post that I clearly say is a quote? There is no evidence presented in your non peer-reviewed, flawed study that the vaccine specifically causes increased CAEs in teen males. The purpose of my post was primarily to point out your issues with sources. But because I actually like science, I looked into the actual hypothesis of whether or not CAEs increase with the vaccine compared to the unvaccinated (your study never looked at this). And I looked into whether vaccination is worse than a COVID infection. When I found that it may actually be true, I said so and cited an actually well conducted, peer-reviewed study. And here’s the results for an actual study that compares effects of Covid infection to Covid vaccination: You’ll note there is a significant increase of lymphadenopathy - or swollen lymph nodes. But you’ll also notice that every other deleterious effect is less prevalent in the vaccinated group. And here’s the study showing COVID vaccine effects vs control, which is the uninflected population (again, you ignored it in the last one): You’ll note that the increase myocarditis was 21 in the vaccinated group vs 6 in the control group. You’ll see multiple small statistics like this, including a significant reduction of kidney injury (20 vs 45), arthritis (64 vs 70), intracranial hemorrhage (13 v 30), and arrythmia (298 v 378). But I didn’t see your post about all of the unexpected benefits of the shot?
  14. And here is an actually well conducted study that actually sets up a proper control: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 Preliminary analysis shows that myocarditis and swollen lymph nodes increase in the vaccinated group. But if you want to claim that, I assume you’ll also note: “Vaccination was substantially protective against adverse events such as anemia, acute kidney injury, intracranial hemorrhage, and lymphopenia” Now let’s continue this conversation using good data.
  15. Now I will say that the CDCs analysis of VAERS shows that there may actually be an increased chance of myopericarditis for teenage boys. It looks like it might even be a real effect that should be looked into, and we should consider the risk. But the point of your post was to question CDC integrity. The study you posted did not do anything to support your claim that the CDC is intentionally obscuring data.
×
×
  • Create New...