Negatory
-
Posts
625 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Negatory
-
-
On 10/7/2021 at 9:27 AM, ClearedHot said:
I think the economy is worse now and under Biden for several reasons. While both parties have issues with deficit spending, by all measures of reason Biden has taken that to a stupid level that will drive us down a dangerous road. There is much to debate about Trump's tax cuts and the impact on the national debt, but a large portion of his deficit spending was COVID expense. Is the market up under Biden? Yes, even with a 9% correction over the past two weeks (we were due), but the underlying dynamics have completely changed. We now have inflation and it is going to get worse. The repeated stimulus packages are fueling what could turn into a terrible storm given the second and third order impacts caused by global supply chain issues. In general the DNC policies (paying people not to work, $20 min wage and general malaise about getting back to work), have caused incredible secondaries throughout the market. There is currently a major shortage of truck drivers, the backbone of our supply system and I would invite you to look at the situation at the port of Los Angeles. There are so many ships lined up waiting to offload they had to tell them to stop coming. As of the report I heard yesterday there are 500,000 shipping containers waiting to be offloaded and entered into the supply chain. Also as of yesterday, there was one...I repeat ONE large crane operational and manned to offload those containers. When people don't want to work unless they are paid $100,00 a year to flip burgers, you will feel it in the system. The current administration is completely removed from reality as demonstrated by an "absurd" comment from the White House Press Secretary who thinks businesses won't pass increased taxes and costs on to consumers"There are some … who argue that, in the past, companies have passed on these costs to consumers," Psaki said. "We feel that that’s unfair and absurd, and the American people would not stand for that." How you can defend or accept comments like this is simply BEYOND me.
Inflation and "stimulus packages" were bought in the previous year before Biden took over. We went from 4 to 7T dollars of Fed Reserve spending in less than 6 months. But yes, this is the democrats fault.
Yes I believe that the unemployment incentives in blue states were a mistake. At the same time, I 100% empathize with the undeniable fact that there is literally no way to live any sort of a life under a 40 hour a week $15 an hour job. But that's where we differ, likely. The republican mantra is that these people should suffer until their life is better. I do not believe that bullshit.
On 10/7/2021 at 9:27 AM, ClearedHot said:I have to disagree with this twisted assessment. If you want to close loopholes I am ok with that as long as you account for the unintended consequences. A few items in particular and I would love honest feedback on how this is fair to rich people. The current U.S. economic system is already highly redistributive
Taxes – How much more should the rich pay? Seriously, the DNC mantra that seems to hate rich people is “the rich should pay their fair share”…give me a freaking break. What is “fair” given the following facts from the IRS.
#1. The top 1% pays 40% of the U.S. tax burden while earning 21% of all income.
#2. The top 5% pays 60% of the U.S. tax burden while earning 37% of the income.
You used the example of the marginal tax rate of school teachers...we should rich people have to pay a higher tax rate? If a teacher makes $50,000 and pays 10% they are paying $5,000 a year in taxes. If a rich person makes $500,000 a year and pays 10% they are paying $50,000 a year and taxes, but this is not "fair" Lunacy. Regardless, the progressive tax system is EXTREMELY unfair. Under the current tax code that rich person pays 37% or $185,000 a year in taxes...but that is not their fair share...you and Biden want more? Going back to 2012
In 2012, individuals in the bottom quintile (that is, the bottom 20 percent) of incomes (families with less than $17,104 in market income) received $27,171 on average in net benefits through all levels of government, while on average those in the top quintile (families with market incomes above $119,695) pay $87,076 more than they receive. The top 1 percent paid some $812,000 more....but that is not FAIR right?
From your comments it seems you agree with the DNC that we should go after unrealized gains, I don't even have the words to describe how unfair and dangerous that is. That is straight up income redistribution right out of the communist manifesto.
You're biased to propaganda over the last 30 years - the specific propaganda basically boils down to "greed is good" - and I honestly know I'm not getting to you. The point is that if you make $10M-$1B a year, in most cases it's not through income - it's through capital gains and profiting off of labor. And if you think that the stock market is a "fair" system, especially with how it has gone up during the pandemic, you're delusional. People who benefit extremely from the designed inefficiencies should be reasonably expected to pay more. This is not a new thought. In fact, Republicans backed bills pre and post WWII to raise marginal income tax rates to 77-92% for the top earners. This is not a 2012 thing, this is actually a history thing. Love of the rich - from people like you - is something that is new in history. The ironic thing is that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are paying total effective tax rates closer to 0% because all of their net worth is tied up in the stock market as unrealized gains.
And your facts about income inequality are pretty out of touch. Yeah, you've proven my point. The top 1% pays more tax and makes way more than everyone else. Cool. They should.
Let me put it to you another way. Your big-brain example about how everyone should be paying the same taxes as it would be better and more fair (school teachers and high net worth individuals): Do you currently support raising taxes on school teachers by about double?
Simple question.
The flaw in the system is that you don't have to contribute to the system at all once you have a certain nest egg. You just sit and reap the benefits off the work of everyone else by throwing it in the stock market. You will say there is risk, but let's be real. The Fed will just pump $7-11T in to protect your rich ass or bail you out.
On 10/7/2021 at 9:27 AM, ClearedHot said:Again, seriously? We have a vaccine mandate, we want to tell women they don't have the freedom to control what they put in their body, but they do have control of what they take out of their body? Mixed message much? You don't find that to be authoritarian?
What about the admin suppressing free speech? The Biden DOJ has again weaponized the FBI and will investigate parents who push back on school boards as DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. That should be staggering to anyone who has sworn an oath to the Constitution? And to make sure I understand the policy, it is okay to protest social injustice by burning down cities, rioting, destroying government buildings and property, and attack the police but if you attend a school board meeting and push back on Critical Race Theory you are a domestic terrorist?
As I have stated numerous times on this forum, I support vaccine mandates that stop transmission and sickness. For the alpha variant, this was likely the case, so I supported the mandate. With Delta, science is showing it is significantly less effective, so I may have a different opinion.
I have never supported CRT, and there is not a single credible example of someone going to rationally discuss CRT that was placed on an FBI wish list. I am not going to address the blatant fallacies in your secondary example, but if you want to have a more rational discussion about it, I encourage you to rewrite.
On 10/7/2021 at 9:27 AM, ClearedHot said:I actually laughed when I read your comment.
#1. We abandoned Bagram and our ally in the middle of the night with no warning or notice.
#2. We left Afghanistan to burn to the ground despite a conditions based agreement that was not satisfied.
#3. We denied our ally air support and left them and the ones who supported us to die.
#4. We negotiated with a terrorist organization and left them in charge of a country.
#5. We LEFT AMERICANS BEHIND.
#6. We screwed NATO.
#7. We left the Brits so mad they officially condemned our President in Parliament for the first time since the war of 1812.
#8. We pissed off the French so bad over a Sub deal that "Biden was unaware of", the French recalled their ambassador for the first time ever.
If Trump did one thing right it was stand up to China while we still have tools and levers to pull. Pull back the curtain, China is going to go high order either internally or externally, much sooner than most think and hope.
#1 - is months of saying you're going to leave no notice?
#2 - Trump actually committed to what almost everyone calls an unconditional withdrawal in 2020. Get your facts straight
#3 - Afghanistan is not our ally
#4 - Yes, the Trump administration did negotiate with the Taliban to create an unconditional withdrawal. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-middle-east-taliban-doha-e6f48507848aef2ee849154604aa11be
#5 - Yeah, I'm mad about this. But did we leave Americans that were trying to get out behind? Or is this political grandstanding to the extreme? And I'm not looking for a onesie-twosie example. We got the overwhelming majority of Americans out.
#6 - You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth and say that you like Trumps anti-NATO isolationist policies and then get mad when we do something they don't like. Also, how did we screw NATO? I know you were just trying to make a list, but I don't think this one should have made it.
#7 - Oh give me a break from your bias:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/british-parliament-condemns-trump-but-remains-split-over-banning-him/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fascist-evil-racist-uk-parliament-unloads-on-trumps-twitter-outburst
#8 - You're cherrypicking again. Like anyone in the DoD is actually mad about this.
We've already argued about this. You think it was worth the Trillions of US dollars to be in Afghanistan. I think it was worth anything to get out. Afghanistan's fall is primarily on Afghani's is my opinion. And, I know deep down, that's most peoples opinion. Or maybe we can blame the effectiveness of military FAOs, Commanders, and trainers over the last 20 years, I guess.
We had to leave.
On 10/7/2021 at 9:27 AM, ClearedHot said:The United States could go to net zero carbon emissions and it would not make a difference, look at the numbers. The issue is China and India. I would rather see the U.S. remain energy independent and pour those taxes into innovation, accelerate a Manhattan like project toward fusion, clean energy and renewables. The only real solution seems to be fusion. Instead we have decided to wreck our energy industry, again become dependent on OPEC and others for our energy and give up the leadership position.
This is greenwashing bullshit. You want to know something? We could have gone entirely almost zero carbon emissions 30 years ago. Oh, how? Nuclear fission energy. We have the capability right now. Literally right now. You thinking that Fusion would change this dynamic is whataboutism to the extreme.
Also, an overwhelming amount of Chinese emissions exist to produce American consumed goods. Look it up.
Barreling towards the collapse of the world to maintain your American lifestyle just because you don't want other countries to have a slightly better standard will be a good way to reflect on the collapse of modern society in the late 2000's.
Appreciate the specific responses that were based on facts and pure opinions.
-
2
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, bfargin said:
Not even close ... you must be listening to people who are ignorant. The left isn't even close to classically liberal much less conservative.
I fail to see you’re point. Democrats, like Republicans, support imperialism, military spending, and capitalism, with significantly less progressive reform than most of even the tame European countries. Hell, most democrats in Washington still virtue signal their religious affiliations for popular support in 2021.
-
Want to remind you guys that this is not something that has been like this. In fact, there are multiple studies showing that for the alpha variant this was not and is not the case - it more effectively prevented transmission in the original strains.
Lets not pretend like this was expected or some conspiracy. Delta changed things, and now we must update our expectations and game plan. This is actually how science works.
-
1
-
3
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, bfargin said:
We've gone so far left overall that the current American "conservatives" are at best classical liberals. I tend to lean further right on government intervention and power issues, but I'd be tickled to see rational players from either party step forward. In my dream world I imagine a Nikki Haley / Tulsi Gabbard team trying their hands at the helm. Further left than I would prefer, but would definitely be a huge improvement compared to what we've had for many, many years. But, who knows where they would actually land once in power?!
That’s ironic because I’ve heard the exact opposite argument stating that both parties are essentially different flavors of classical conservatives.
-
1
-
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
Nature preprint of a large study showing that transmission approaches nearly unvaccinated levels just 3 months post vax.
-
26 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:
Then why are vaccines being pushed over treatment
I guess there is still evidence that vaccines reduce the rate of hospitalization and death, so that would be the argument.
-
Delta made vaccines obsolete. Very disheartening.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:
Criminally underreport? How do you know that? Illegally funding gain of function with tax money in a foreign country to hide from congress then lying to congress is an example of real criminally under reporting.
We just received an email that the COVID tests we’ve been using for high schoolers (in Florida) are recalled due to inordinately high false positives. Is anyone going back in time to subtract all those false positives? No.
This whole thing is bullshit. In a real pandemic you don’t spend all this time and effort trying to convince people a pandemic is happening. It’s apparent.
Go with sources on false positive rates.
-
36 minutes ago, FlyingWolf said:
Can you support this claim?
I'm onboard that its clear there is a few week delay in full reporting. I haven't seen convincing evidence of underreporting.
Closest I've seen is comparion of C-19 deaths vs excess deaths, which was a weak argument given the numerous other causes of death that could reasonably spike due to individual and organizational covid fear responses. (ex delaying care for critical conditions, deaths of despair).
Maybe underreport is not the precise language I’m trying to use. They are one of the slowest to report, so their graph has looked like we are on a downtrend for weeks. Turns out is just because they are extremely delayed compared to almost every other state.
-
1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:
florida is one of MANY examples of cases that come down naturally. It's not "conservative media skews" lol
anyone hear anything about India recently? crickets. how about the nordic countries? crickets. it's all complete bull shit and a massive power grab/money grab.
Cases are coming down naturally. But Florida in particular is such a bad example because they criminally underreport in comparison to most other places. For reference, they have only claimed 2 deaths for yesterday, which is guaranteed to be off by an order of magnitude my friend.
And your examples of other countries don’t affect the data that show that, in the USA, we are pretty damn close to peak deaths in the delta surge right now.
-
3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:
Meanwhile in Florida…
It’s a lagging indicator that Florida has been particularly bad at. No surprise that conservative media skews this data, intentionally.
I encourage you to check this yourself.
-
6 hours ago, pawnman said:
One more time with the Kentucky study that shows you're more than twice as likely to get reinfected without the vaccine as you are with it...your "natural immunity" is not as good as the vaccine.
I think you’re misreading this one; I used to believe the same.
That study doesn’t compare vaccinated infection rates to infection rates of those who recovered from COVID.
It looks only at people who recovered from COVID: it compares people who recovered from COVID in 2020 and were unvaxed to people who recovered from COVID in 2020 and were vaxed. It showed that vaccines help even those who had the disease already. But it doesn’t show what you said.
There are actual cited studies on here that show that natural immunity is potentially more effective against the virus than pure vaccination. I think somewhere it was like 5-10x as effective as vaccination, actually, for a time period. It has been posted here.
Now there are other factors we can discuss, such as almost a third of Covid infections not resulting in effective antibodies, or natural immunity fading significantly faster than vaccination, but let’s be specific.
-
Base rate fallacy.
-
Let’s dispel the notion that I’m not accountable for my choices. First, I responded to you. And let me double down. When I say I voted against Trump, I mean it. Hell, I maybe even would have voted for Hillary Clinton over Trump. And that comes from someone who voted for McCain what feels like hundreds of years ago.
@VMFA187Here’s a few points. Yes, developing coal plants at this point in human history is not just bad, it’s a travesty. It’s short sighted idiocy to get rural voters. Cool.
Yeah, I don’t agree with either spending plan.
Youre being threatened with a dishonorable discharge because you wouldn’t get a simple vaccine. You’ll see that we don’t agree on this point. I think you should have gotten it.
Let’s define net worth as above $50M, like most wealth taxes proposed. If you think that $50M is too low, I guess I just think you’re delusional. Also, your stupid whataboutism with an old poor elderly couple that couldn’t get any of their 7.5M in equity out of their home is ridiculous, and it wouldn’t be a factor in the majority of proposals that entirely discount primary residences. To cap it off, you end with a predictable slippery slope fallacy. You know that’s not the point or an even remotely likely scenario. Something something lick the boot?
The 10 year plan started with passing the largest infrastructure and research bill since WWII. It includes provisions on expected changes to combat climate change.
As stated, I don’t believe Biden is that great. But I do believe Trump’s worse. We’ll agree to disagree.
-
4 hours ago, pawnman said:
But the vaccines DO reduce transmission. It's the same fallacy as the mask. Vaccines reduce the transmission rate, but they don't reduce it to zero.
And there are plenty of at-risk folks who can't get vaccinated due to other factors. Seems kinda callous to say "eh, I won't inconvenience myself by wearing a mask indoors, those people will just die off". I mean...I don't support the idea of wearing a mask full time, all the time, everywhere. But the idea of throwing one on before going into a grocery store doesn't really bother me.
I get what you’re saying, and it’s all true. But the scientific reasoning i’m arguing that makes vaccine and mask mandates significantly less palatable to me, now, is that everything changed with delta. The virus won, unless we commit to another few years of this.
Even if the vaccine stopped 50-75% of transmission and masking stopped 30-50% more and society was 75-90% vaccinated, the virus would still spread. That’s because it has an estimated R0 of 5-9. You can’t get it below 1. You can see it now, in actual data. We are at phenomenally high levels of infection even with high masking and vaccination rates. I’m starting to believe reports that herd immunity is a myth with Delta - literally impossible:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2
Even with 99% of society vaccinated, we would see the virus spread and cause cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Will there be less than if only 60% is vaccinated? Sure. But at what cost? To make the remaining 20-30% of society get vaccines against their stubborn wills would require, likely, an overreach of government power. All to still have a virus that exists, mutates, spreads, and continues to cause sickness.
Also, I want to understand your data on how many people can’t get vaccinated for medical reasons. I keep hearing it’s “plenty,” but I’ve never seen any numbers to back that up. Those numbers matter, because if it’s 500k people or 50M people changes the calculus.
Masking, social distancing, and getting vaccines may seem like a minor inconvenience, but there is a limit to cost benefit societally. Every day that cost increases. At some point, yes, it stops being worthwhile for 300M people to have to change their lives and social interactions to protect a very small subset of society. Unfortunately, I think we’re pretty damn close, honestly.
I did my part, societally, and got vaccinated and social distanced. I wear a mask. But I’m about over it. That’s where I’m at.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, pawnman said:
Well, if you insist on increasing your odds of getting it...I wouldn't be surprised when you get it.
The vaccine reduces your odds of getting it...it doesn't guarantee you'll never get it.
Also, for the crowd...turns out the masks do work, assuming you can get people to actually wear them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/masks-were-working-all-along/619989/
I buy that masks work. They don’t work 100%, which is the critic’s easiest fallacious black and white argument against them. In fact, evidence suggests an efficacy rate between 20-50%. Sounds bad, but still does something.
My issue at this point is how long do we do this? Forever? Forget it. If we had some hope of a vaccine that reduced transmission, I think there would be something to hold out for. But, from what I see, we are setting ourselves into indefinite purgatory.
Give the at risk populations the chance to be vaccinated and resume life. Yeah, tons of idiots will die. But it’s their choice. You and I won’t die from the virus, at this point. I really struggle to see the cost benefit in favor of any more control/restrictions.
-
2
-
-
On 9/27/2021 at 6:12 PM, VMFA187 said:
Question for anyone who voted for the current administration - Are you happy with the current state of our nation? If so, what makes you feel that way?
I know that this is intentional bait, but I’ll respond.
Almost everyone on this forum didn’t vote for Biden, per say. They voted against Trump. I bet many would do it again. I think that’s the crux of the issue.
In almost no ways do I think we’d be in a better spot as a nation with Trump at the reigns. I agree with your assessment of many of this admin’s errors. It sucks. But do I think it’d be better with Trump? Fuck no. The Trump admin did more to dismantle the credibility of our democracy and give credence to blatant conspiracy theorists and bigots than anyone in recent history. I can think of very few Trump policies domestically, internationally, economically, or militarily that I really wish Biden would implement.
Is the economy worse now? No, but it’s not better. We’re fucked and have been ever since Obama era Fed reserves pumped $4T into the stock market. Trumps economic policies pumped $3T in in 12 months. Turns out blue and red are both idiots here who will play fiscal conservative when it’s convenient but still do the same thing.
Is the military worse now? It’s good we actually left Afghanistan. How we did it was stupid, but it took some balls to just pull the cord and leave. Withdrawals are messy. But we are going to benefit from that, I think. I have no idea if Trump would have followed through. Are we going to modernize to be relevant on the world stage? No, doubt it. Probably would do better with Trump here, but we could have an argument on whether or not it’s even possible. Tell me if you think a war in the Taiwan straits is actually winnable from not just a military perspective, but a geopolitical one.
Are we doing better with COVID? Maybe. Current admin definitely has a more coherent messaging schema and plan. I do believe that vaccines were created and pushed more under Biden than they would have been under Trump, which contributed to higher rates. Delta would have hit regardless, and I’m sure Trump would have been peddling pseudo science, still. Sucks the vaccine doesn’t work nearly as well as we hoped, not really a clear path forward here.
From an economic inequality perspective, I have an admin that isn’t literally run by a sociopathic billionaire. The fact that they are talking about finding ways to close loopholes that allow the mega rich to have a lower effective tax rate than a teacher is the right answer. If that involves taxing unrealized gains above a certain threshold, then do it. I wholly believe that Reagan era economic principles of just giving rich people all the money, which is what Trump selfishly pushed, are part of the moral decline of our country that basically started right after the Reagan admin.
Are we socially better off? This is the big win. But it’s all only temporary. Putting hateful folks in their place by showing them more than half the country disagree has been nice. I know you guys largely don’t fall into that group, but the idiots that were empowered during the Trump admin to say racist, authoritarian bullshit really helped the unraveling of America.
Our our allegiances across the world in a better spot? Yeah, I think so. Public perception of America has shifted an order of magnitude in our favor. And I believe we will not be a superpower by our own choosing, as we were between 1990-2020, anymore. We live and die based on our alliances and diplomacy as China expands.
Is the future brighter? I mean, maybe more so than the Trump admin, but the future is pretty god damn dim. Global warming, climate refugees, and water wars are actually going to be catastrophic events in the next century. The Trump admin chose to actively dismantle any efforts to think about that, so that we could compete with China. Not an effective strategy. I appreciate having a 10-20 year plan on how to tackle a problem, as opposed to the Trump admins easy button of “well deal with that later, we have to use coal to beat China,” when we’ll never actually “beat” China.
Moral of the story is from a I-voted-against-Trump standpoint I’m happy he’s not there in basically all areas other than military modernization. I would not say I’m happy I got Biden. But it’s the lesser of two evils in this dumbass iteration of a democratic republic that is really just a nicely wrapped 2 party system. Implement ranked choice voting and expand past the biggest issue with our country: 2 party politics. I don’t want Biden. I don’t want Trump. I don’t think anyone is “happy.”
-
6
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Splash95 said:
Still perusing the Spartacus letter and forming my own opinion of it (haven't started digging into the references), but curious as to (1) who the source may be, and (2) what Pawnman/Negatory and friends think.
I think it’s largely a conspiracy theory with little proof. The citations, especially towards the end, are not legit.
With that being said, it seems ever more plausible to me that this could absolutely be a lab leak. Let’s look into it, I’m down. I don’t buy the claims that Americans specifically collaborated to do this. Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.
On an unrelated note, my opinions on vaccine mandates for the current releases, at least, have shifted relatively strongly recently. What’s the point? Even if we literally vaccinate 90% of Americans, we’ll still have tons of breakthrough infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. And it won’t stop mutations. The rest of the world will pop out the omicron variant from the Nile river or something. The vaccine only limits spread by maybe 50-75%, which isn’t enough at all. R0 will still be higher than many seasonal flus with full vaccines. Herd immunity is a dead dream.
What is the end state of a mostly vaccinated society? I am not prepared to go full retard and become Australia.
-
1
-
4
-
-
9 minutes ago, Guardian said:
I’ve already alluded to my opinions. I think abortion is wrong.
Why try to have kids if you know there is a big percentage chance that you will have to abort? I’m sure you know of other options.I respect your opinion. I obviously disagree, but that’s fine.
-
1 hour ago, Guardian said:
It’s weird to me how some people say they are fans of freedom of choice for women. What they really mean is they think that some women should have the right to choose to end the life of another (that’s what terminate means). Even if that child is female. Did that female have the freedoms of choice?
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.
-
1
-
-
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).
-
56 minutes ago, FLEA said:
Dude you sound nothing short of insane in your last 6-9 post. But if I'm understanding you correctly you only believe a right to bodily autonomy exist when it fits your moral narrative and not others? Did heaven ordain your benevolence or did you just decide yourself you were a god?
I believe humans determine ethics and morality, if that's your question.
-
On 9/7/2021 at 11:09 AM, bennynova said:
Religious exemption is pretty straight forward regardless of your religion. The vaccines were all made leveraging abortion fetal cell lines. If you are against abortion, then this is an easy moral dilemma on supporting abortions by proxy.
some may say, but it’s so far removed. Ok, Whatev. I’m not ready to benefit off the life an a murdered baby.
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):
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, torqued said:
No, I can't say that I have ever though about life beginning before conception. But if I were the type of ridiculous person to contemplate such BS to divert attention from my inability to produce an answer to a very direct question, I might speculate it to be in the hundreds of billions, and in dozens of countries around the globe.
But anyway, what is your "certain number" and "certain point" you earlier alluded to?
Fetal viability outside of the womb. Anywhere from 24-28 weeks. Not that that information is going to be useful for this discussion.
2 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:Congratulations you have posted the dumbest shit I have ever read on this website.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted · Edited by Negatory
Is this how you cop out when someone points out fallacious arguments or mistruths in almost every one of your points? I mean, this is the mentality you have to have to make O-6 in the Air Force, so let’s not say I’m surprised.
And I’ll just remind you that you’re the one who created an itemized list of reasons why I shouldn’t be glad we have Biden over Trump, and then you got offended when I provided any support of that list. Projection is a cruel thing, buddy.
Address the points or agree to disagree.