- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,468
- 3,424
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
New York Hospital to Pause Delivering Babies After Unvaccinated Workers Resign En Masse
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Again, my argument is irrelevant at this point, you are the evidence that my overall claim is right. If the whole thing was an argument about the ambiguity of the phrasing, that their phrase could equally mean many people in a party or one man speaking as representative of an organization, then pointing this out could be meaningful. But I cannot stress this enough, and you're really not getting away from this point, you made the argument quite stubbornly that there are in fact multiple people taking this position. You read the article and you were personally convinced there exists a significant presence beyond the one man of Republican rejection of refugees in Oklahoma. You can say they meant party "the organization" rather than party "the members of it" all you want, but you believed and are still defending the idea that party "the members of it" are against the refugees. So moot point. The moment you took the stance that the controversy was bigger than one man, the argument was over. Nothing else matters. Like, I didn't find that one piece from weeks prior about the one controversial guy, and said incorrect things about the timeline of the reporting. Does that matter? Not at all. I can concede every minor point in the argument, because my overall point was that they framed it to make you think it was bigger than one guy, and then you defended that claim.
I don't think you're following that world view at the moment. The article that sparked this debate had only one man shown to be against the refugees. Even if you conclude based on that article and that one man's statement that is it most reasonable to believe it's more than just one guy, you cannot still believe that at this point. While looking for more information, you've personally posted multiple articles that are exclusively about that one guy. I don't think you can maintain the position that this controversy is about any broader movement than that one specific guy this far into it. And yet you don't concede that point. Because that's the point that loses you the argument.
Er, what?
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/LI5WUFEXARJVNGPTSO3APLPLC4.jpg)
Countries making COVID-19 vaccines mandatory
A sharp upturn in infections due to the Delta variant and a slowdown in vaccinations have pushed governments to make COVID-19 shots mandatory for health workers and other high-risk groups.
www.reuters.com
Column: You think vaccine mandates are controversial? What if the police pinned you down and injected you?
It’s shocking that local Chinese authorities are immunizing people against their will. That violates a bedrock principle of bioethics.
www.latimes.com
No, you are absolutely flat out wrong here. You need to go back and check my comments #145 and #150.
In my first post #145 I state the NPR headline is accurate "with respect to the article's content". The GOP chair's claim is prime facie evidence that multiple Republicans oppose refugees when he states it is the party line; the statements of other Republicans evidence that the party line is a minority position amongst Oklahoma Republicans. This is all fairly represented in the NPR article. I furthermore point out myself that the GOP chair may be lying in my second post #150, and that it is not even the party line but a rogue official. So right from the start I made this distinction between the underlying reality and the accuracy of the headline/article according to the available evidence.
What you are claiming as me being "convinced" of anything is as far as I can tell me pointing out that it is perfectly plausible for a clique of anti-refugee Republicans to capture the state party machinery despite most Oklahoman Republicans welcoming the refugees.
When who said what now? I watched the video NPR linked, he never says anything close to "this is the party line". He never says "the Oklahoma Republican Party believes". It is entirely "I" statements. "I want to give people an idea", "I was in Afghanistan", "I encourage you to call the governor", "I'm tired of pundits and politicians". Why do you think that he said that is the party line?
He spoke for himself. He did so on the OKGOP facebook page, but he spoke for himself, and claimed the agreement of nobody. Oppositional reporting treated it as a statement of the Oklahoma Republican Party. They asked a mayor what he thought of the official stance of the party, as they were reporting it, and he responded to that question. And you think he set the party line based on these things. Did you, by any chance, think maybe you might want to watch the video? It's a primary source, still available for consumption, you do not need to take NPRs word on what is reasonable to believe.
Yes, exactly.
That's why organisations tell you to take your personal comments to your personal space (and even then be careful what you say).
This is so biologically illiterate, I genuinely don't know where to start.
Firstly, nobody is claiming our bodies can just "adjust" to a diet much higher in sugar than is natural. The over-abundance of various sugars in our diet is a contributor to the obesity crisis, increased risk of heart disease, etc.
But do you know what actually causes those cardiovascular issues? Obesity places additional strain on the heart and muscular system, as it must work harder to provide the necessary oxygen to the body; and non-HDL cholesterol builds up in the arteries, narrowing the available space for blood flow, again restricting oxygen provision.
What causes high levels of non-HDL cholesterol? The main contributor is a diet high in saturated fat. What causes weight gain, leading to obesity? A diet containing significantly more calories than are exerted through exercise... which are then stored as fat.
And do you know why sugar is identified as a major contributor to the obesity crisis and heart disease? Because if you ingest more than can be stored by your liver and muscles, it converts into.... fat. It is transferred into fatty acid in a process known as lipogenesis.
(On a side-note, do you think that 200,000 years is in any way significant from an evolutionary standpoint? 200,000 years is fuck all. Even a few million years is very little if we're talking about evolutionary developments. The idea that 200,000 years, or a million, would surely have ironed out any issues we have with our diet shows very little understanding of the timescales involved in evolution. I mean, humans still have an internal organ which is entirely unnecessary to our survival, and yet occasionally ruptures and kills us. Why hasn't evolution ironed it out? Because that's not how evolution bloody works!! If something is disadvantageous, it can still stick around in a species for millions of years!)
For all of those who think "I already had COVID, I don't need the vaccine, the vaccine will only do me harm, because having had COVID will keep me from getting it again," one of the celebs on Dancing With the Stars, Cody Rigsby, is currently suffering from COVID...again, because he'd caught it earlier this year. He does say that his symptoms are mild, especially compared to the first time around, but REINFECTION CAN HAPPEN. In case you are wondering, he likely caught it from his partner, Cheryl Burke, who earlier tested positive for COVID.
It's so fucking DUMB to say "Well, I already had COVID, so I have some of the antibodies, so taking the vaccine will only hurt me". How would taking the vaccine hurt you more than re-infection? Or do you think re-infection is what the vaccine would do? Spoilers: that's not how the vaccine works. It doesn't actually contain the virus, it contains the mRNA that has been mutated by the virus to show the body "Hey, if you see any mRNA that looks like this instead of how it should, zap it."
I'm rapidly losing my patience with anti-COVID vaxxers. 700,000 dead, and all they can think about is "civil liberties" and thinking that getting COVID somehow makes them immune to re-infection completely, and that getting the vaccine is pointless if you've already had COVID. But hey, 15 minutes out of your day for the jab (and that's counting the time it takes for them to watch and make sure you don't have an allergic reaction), plus a couple of days of side effects (which may or may not be bad) is just so much to ask in the interests of public safety.
ETA: And for the sake of my stress (which is already bad, because I'm dealing with being out of work for a bit due to shingles), feel free to quote me, and argue if you want, but I will almost certainly not respond. I've said my piece, I have nothing against letting others say their piece, but I will have nothing more to add. A lack of response on my part isn't meant to be a concession, but it isn't intended to be a snub, either.
It's so fucking DUMB to say "Well, I already had COVID, so I have some of the antibodies, so taking the vaccine will only hurt me". How would taking the vaccine hurt you more than re-infection? Or do you think re-infection is what the vaccine would do? Spoilers: that's not how the vaccine works. It doesn't actually contain the virus, it contains the mRNA that has been mutated by the virus to show the body "Hey, if you see any mRNA that looks like this instead of how it should, zap it."
I'm rapidly losing my patience with anti-COVID vaxxers. 700,000 dead, and all they can think about is "civil liberties" and thinking that getting COVID somehow makes them immune to re-infection completely, and that getting the vaccine is pointless if you've already had COVID. But hey, 15 minutes out of your day for the jab (and that's counting the time it takes for them to watch and make sure you don't have an allergic reaction), plus a couple of days of side effects (which may or may not be bad) is just so much to ask in the interests of public safety.
ETA: And for the sake of my stress (which is already bad, because I'm dealing with being out of work for a bit due to shingles), feel free to quote me, and argue if you want, but I will almost certainly not respond. I've said my piece, I have nothing against letting others say their piece, but I will have nothing more to add. A lack of response on my part isn't meant to be a concession, but it isn't intended to be a snub, either.
You're going to pretend that being on their facebook page is enough to justify claiming he said it was the party line?
Reinfection can happen, just the same way that you can get infected after being vaccinated. Getting one of the RMA vaccines when you're already immune makes you sick for a day or two. These are not controversial statements. You may have the right sort of thinking, but you are genuinely yelling misinformation into the void.
One day, if you are ever granted access to a major organisation's official social media account, as I have been, you too will probably also receive very careful instructions about what is and is not appropriate to say and why.
Sadly, putting your own thoughts in quotation marks won't fool anyone here, old fella.
You know perfectly well it's standard practice really, you just don't want to admit it here and now because it dismantles your argument you've emotionally overinvested in.
You keep saying things that are factually incorrect and then defending them based purely on implications. You're not going to dismantle anyone's arguments by inferring your own correctness. You believed in a larger Republican division on the issue, and defended it with articles alluding to that maybe. You claimed he stated his opinion as the party line and defend that with the implication caused by where he stated his opinion. You are grasping at straws to rationalize why it's ok that you reached wrong conclusions, but you reached wrong conclusions because the author of the article wanted to you. The. End.
Edit, to hammer this home: If the headline had been "Oklahoma Welcomes Hundreds Of Afghan Refugees — Despite The State GOP Chair's Objections", this conversation would never have even started.
Last edited:
I don't think you could explain this sentence without being wrong about a lot of things.