Leaderboard

Agreed on all the above. Which is why everyone should read it and think about it. What Rand misses is that while living in a society it is necessary to give up some of those rights. If everyone lived alone, the above would apply 100%. (Would also be somewhat meaningless, but it would apply.) But when a person lives in society, they must necessarily lose rights to protect the rights of others. You lose your right to kill other people on a whim. You lose your right to rape. You lose your right to drive drunk on public roads. You lose these rights because they are incompatible with ensuring other people retain their rights. So where do you draw that line? Most people don't want the government to take their property, even if they pay them for it. But without that right of eminent domain, we would not have the US highway system today, something that most Americans want and support. More specifically, people want roads, but they want other people to give up their property for those roads. That's where government gets involved and figures out how to do that as fairly as possible - although it will never seem fair to the person who loses part of their farm to the new road, and will always seem fair to the people who get to use the new road. (As a more direct example, Rand railed against Social Security and Medicare her whole life - then used them both when she needed them.) That's where her philosophy doesn't work. The question of how to implement the shared responsibility that every citizen of a country has is a tough one, and one she completely avoids. And indeed can't even get right in her personal life.

We've covered Ivermectin already. Others have covered most of the others. I'll cover this one: "Vaccinated or unvaccinated, one can be a spreader." That is true, just as drunk or not, you can kill someone with your car. Still, if your goal is to NOT kill anyone with your car, avoiding drunk driving is the hot ticket. Getting vaccinated significantly reduces your odds of spreading COVID. So does masking. So does distancing. So does testing. If, using all those things, Re gets below 1, the pandemic is over.

My 2 cents. I long ago figured out that people who call themselves "Libertarian" are generally those who dislike the rules that they perceive as limiting them. But rules that only limit others and protect them are of course just natural and needed. They drive down the road blithely unable to see that the road could never exist without society, government, and rules. A phrase I like to use instead of that word is "self centred".

It calls for a light hand BECAUSE people will take personal responsibility. That premise is inherently false, since we see time and time again that people do not take personal responsibility at all, for anything.

I'll bet I speak better Portuguese than you, Bill. But dang -- you pretty much know everything else Wendy P.

Well, we do know a lot about how it works. We can create immunities with vaccines. We can shut it down partially to achieve medical goals (like not rejecting a transplanted organ.) We can even take immune-system cells out of your body, re-engineer them a bit, then reinject them so they will fight off your cancer (google CAR T-cell therapy.) Cancer is caused by proto-oncogenes that mutate into oncogenes. A proto-oncogene is one of the thousands of genes that you have that enables cell growth. That's critical because you have to keep replacing old cells as they die; your average cell only lasts about 10 years, so without proto-oncogenes you wouldn't make it to your teens (and you'd never get any taller.) As cells divide, genetic errors creep in. Most of them are in the junk DNA and mean nothing. Most of the rest just destroy the cell; it dies and shuts down. But very rarely a proto-oncogene mutates into an oncogene and starts the cell dividing more than it should. At that point you still have a lot of defenses. Your cells have several genes that code for apoptosis - programmed cell death - that occurs when those oncogenes start causing rapid division and spreading of cancer. And even if those fail, something called the Hayflick Limit will stop the cell after it divides (say) a thousand times. All that happens without your immune system getting involved. That's actually a good thing, because even those dividing cells are still your own cells with your own genome, and you wouldn't want your immune system to attack your own cells without a really good reason. If things go beyond that point, then your immune system may get involved. Very specialized white blood cells can recognize some markers present on an out-of-control cancer cell and infiltrate it and slow it down or eliminate it, which is likely what those cancer researchers were talking about. But now you are getting into a dangerous area, because the difference between your own cells and cancer cells is a very, very small one. The above is to illustrate just how hard the problem is. Because in a very real way, every single living cell in your body is a potential cancer cell, full of proto-oncogenes, ready to divide, and also invisible to your immune system. Yes! Vaccines are the primary way we do this. By giving the adaptive immune system an "example" of the pathogen, we train it to produce antibodies (which attack it directly) and we train memory B cells to remember the pathogen in the future (so that if you are infected, you can produce antibodies rapidly.) This is why the COVID vaccine is better at preventing severe disease than preventing infection. Those antibodies only last about six month, but the immunologic memory lasts years. ??? An interview with Fauci Sep 2020: Reporter: Is there anything you'd like to clear up about the role that diet and lifestyle can play in immunity and severity of disease? Fauci: If you really want to keep your immune system working optimally, there are things that you do that are normal things: Get a reasonable amount of sleep, get a good diet, try to avoid or alleviate severe stress, which we know can sometimes impact the immune system. That is much more healthy living than giving yourself supplements of anything. He's said this about a dozen times. The reason you don't hear about this more often is the same reason that you get ads promoting miracle weight loss pills and diets, rather than ads saying "eat less meat and get more exercise." No one wants to hear that. They want a pill that solves the problem for them without a lot of annoying exercise, and without having to eat things they don't like.

You have hit on the primary difference between republicans and democrats. Democrats try to do what they feel is right, even if it conflicts with what other democrats want. To them, principles are paramount. Republicans will always do what accrues them more political power, even if it's wrong and against their personal principles. To them, power is paramount.

I didn't read it that way. As I posted above, anecdotal doesn't trump data. And what, exactly, are the options to 'making one's self less prone to severe problems'? Vaccine 101 (no matter what the official definition of 'vaccine' is): You expose your immune system to an 'invader' that is mostly harmless. That give the immune system an opportunity to develop antibodies to that invader (takes a week or so). When the real 'invader' (the virus) shows up, your immune system is primed and ready to respond. Without the vax, your immune system has to develop those antibodies while the virus is already making you sick. It then becomes a race between your immune system and the virus. If your immune system can develop the antibodies before the virus destroys your body, then you get better. If the virus can reproduce faster than your immune system can come to an effective defense, then you die. Like almost 800k people in the US so far.

It was a hot topic at our DZ around the time they changed to B.S! I worked for a company called Union Transport International and they actually changed their name to UTI.....medical folk will understand.

I've have had it. No more half measures for me. I intend to deplore it.

lol, more nonsense. I've done my share. it's never a competition. you want to scold me for living away from the area, really? researching Cooper is about money, really? whether you like it or not, I provide an outlet to discuss Cooper. that doesn't happen here much with the whining you stir up. Flyjack is the main Cooper contributor here, along with a few others. you bitch and bitch about everything everyone does. you hold info on Kenny but blast Fly for doing the same lol..you divert attention away from yourself projecting nonsense about others constantly. You try to contribute promotionally but don't forward the case a millimeter. too busy whining about anything said. you push the worst suspect short of Reca (same class). No, I fail to see any reason to back anything you do, Robert. that's as transparent I can get. who do you back here, other than yourself into a corner? you live to bitch and whine causing a never ending cycle of bullshit. You treat this like it's your personal Facebook page. many have told you this. why don't you post like this on SUFON, update after update long strung posts about what you bought and the amount paid to feel important? I don't see anything of the sort. Contribute? a forum running since 2014, determined the cords by Kaye and location were not accurate. the first to receive 302's and release them publicly, ran flight simulations, worked with Fly on knocking the placard out as evidence in the case, to name a few? I didn't realize a resume was required to research an unsolved crime?

The 5G chip doesn't help unless you also buy a 5G-enabled cellphone.

The graph you posted was not normalized. Anyway, that isn't important--it's just a distraction from the actual point. You're being deliberately obtuse. You seem to be making the absurd implication that all arguments based in data are equally fallacious, simply by virtue of the fact they are using data. This is what I've been refuting in the comments you've been ignoring. Why stop at data? Why not generalize it completely and say "oh look, here's an argument.... and here's another argument that says the opposite! Both can't be right, so they must both be wrong--therefore all arguments must be silly! Checkmate, science!"

If 100% of a population is vaccinated and 100% of patients in the local hospital are vaccinated, what does that tell you about the efficacy of the vaccine? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Neither does 10 of 33.

Well done Captain Obvious. You've just demonstrated what everyone else already knew - the stupidity of your incessant rants that equate anyone liberal with the most radical fringes of wokeness.

I said “our country, at its founding COULD be considered libertarian.” I supported that notion with a quote from one of our founding fathers advocating for a light hand from government and personal responsibility. That sounds libertarian to me.

Our country at is founding could be considered libertarian. “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves." TJ

Excellent. Wish Republicans would distance themselves from those who post videos of killing a colleague.

Trump only had COVID to deal with for 9 months of his administration, and no Delta variant. People wore masks and observed lockdowns (schools, public events, theme parks). Biden has been in office for 10 months, with Delta, more in-person learning, a lot more travel opportunities -- and fewer deaths during that time. Even with the conspiracy nuts refusing to be vaccinated or protecting their fellow citizens by keeping their germs to themselves, Biden is still doing better than Trump did.

As far as I can tell "fuck you" has pretty much become the defining philosophy of the GOP.

If American History included such works as "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee" and the like, I'd be all for it. Len Deighton's histories of the Second World War are much more nuanced than is typical, and Barbara Tuchman has a marvelously skeptical view of dearly held beliefs. Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source, but some times the references are legit. Their treatment of CRT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory seems to fit what I've read. The Marxist foundations of Critical Theory and BLM suggest that the fundamentals cannot withstand scrutiny. Also, the lack of data analysis to support theirl premises undercuts the veracity of their conclusions. While I agree that many of the things to which they are opposed are dreadful, for both CRT and BLM the cure is worse than the disease. BSBD, Winsor

If you actually had a point to make, instead of simply venting your spleen, it might be useful. Or not. Some 50 years ago I was sitting in the barracks reading a book as was another guy, one of the Brigade Headquarters clerks. We got into a discussion of various authors' work at various parts of their careers, in particular the difference between Aldous Huxley's early vs. later works. A group of Black guys came in and he said "Yo, Homes, wadditiz?" and engaged in the DAP with them. After they had left, I asked what I had just witnessed. He said that however educated he became, he would never be White and did not expect to be fully accepted by White society. It thus behooved him not to alienate his Black compatriots. He said that while going to school in Harlem he had to bring his textbooks home in a gym bag to avoid being labeled an Oreo, and he did not seem particularly worked up about it. Though he may have been quite upset by having to go through this at one time or another, while discussing it with me he seemed to accept it as a reality with which he had to deal, and he dealt with it gracefully. In Grad school I lived in an affordable neighborhood, which was diverse by any standard. Neighbors included Medical Students, Pharmaceutical Students and Drug Dealers, all of similar ethnicity but by no means socially interchangeable. The predators in the neighborhood were remarkably egalitarian in their selection of prey, and showed no favorites from a demographic standpoint. I was not studying Sociology, but it felt like I was in a large scale study. The bottom line is that the fundamentals of CRT are terminally flawed. A statement that is conditionally true, without use of the necessary conditions is false. A syllogism based on false premises is invalid, and many of the premises of CRT are demonstrably false. I have lived enough places which I found unrecognizable when returning after 20 years, and I have learned to be careful not to claim current knowledge of a place that has most likely changed a lot. Things that used to be common are now illegal and vice versa. If someone chooses to describe the U.S. legal system from a racial standpoint on the basis of the realities of 50 or 100 years ago, the accuracy of their conclusions is on a par with trying to navigate with maps of a similar vintage. Much of what was quite legal then is now proscribed. Going through the tenets of CRT is like reviewing the basics of Scientology. It's hard not to conclude that anyone who buys into either is is hard of thinking, but I suspect the issue is more akin to the cognitive vulnerability that causes the suspension of disbelief upon which religious belief is contingent. Anything that is believed without question should be held suspect. All too often, a careful review of closely held beliefs reveals them to be flawed. BSBD, Winsor

The logic is simple. Racism is evil. Critical Race Theory is 100% racist. Q.E.D. I am aghast at the fact that you support CRT, every bit as much as if you supported the Klan. BSBD, Winsor

I am unsure of what you are saying here, but I gather you deem me to be a 'racist.' Since 'anti' racists consider anyone with whom they disagree to be 'racists' in the same sense that 'anti' fascists label anyone with whom they disagree to be 'fascists,' I find it to be somewhat meaningless. If you discuss, for example, the economic realities of parts of the Appalachians, it's hard to avoid the perception that one is criticizing the population on the basis of inherent traits. To get defensive and say, oh, 'some of my best friends are Hillbillies...' simply reinforces the perception. Living in a largely Sicilian neighborhood gave some idea of the social norms there, but as an outsider. The same is true for time spent in majority Ukrainian, or Han Chinese, or African immigrant or Black American neighborhoods. I try to be careful not to claim more than superficial insight of Americans of Sicilian descent by virtue of living in a neighborhood where I was tolerated as a non-Sicilian. If I am to make sweeping generalizations, I prefer to qualify them as best as I can. Any statement that takes the form of 'all Southerners are ...; for example may be discounted out of hand. I hate to break it to you, but I'm not trolling. Having had it pointed out to me that I was a "racist honkey motherfucker," I won't waste the breath to claim otherwise. Since CRT defines anyone of European extraction as racist from birth, that particular definition is meaningless. A wise man once asked "why can't we all just get along?" I find the answer to that sage question to be worthy of discussion. BSBD, Winsor

Equal protection under the law is a good thing. I referred to an article regarding a biker rodeo some time back. A restauranteur was asked if he was afraid of all the hairy bikers, and his response was to the effect of 'nah, the guys that can afford a $30,000 bike tend to be pretty responsible, they're polite to the waitresses and they tip well.' Asked if there was any group that did give him trouble, he responded 'frat boys - they are often rude, don't tip and are given to skipping out on the check.' I'm pretty sure I do not recommend anything but equal rights and equal opportunities, no more, no less - even for frat boys. BSBD, Winsor

Wouldn't know - never met any of them. IIRC, Douglass and Tubman had skin in the game from the standpoint of having been slaves. The institutional racism against which they fought was a matter of record. Believe it or not, much has changed since then. As I recall, Dr. King was a proponent of equality, not 'equity.' I'm all for the former and recoil at the latter. My point is that someone to whom everything is all about race is a racist. Someone who makes decisions regardless of race isn't. There, that was easy, wasn't it? BSBD, Winsor