Gbaji wrote:
No, it's not. What's your point?
Gbaji wrote:
Wow. Really got me there!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Flu Shot
Flu ShotFollow
Parks were the Republicans concern in the government shutdown. If the Republicans only cared about making sure that the Government spent money on what was listed in that list, then the parks would have been treated the same as all of the other Democrat led programs.
I know.
Can we agree that this is likely to be a low ball count?
No, because math that relies on "this is probably might be correct because statistics (that I don't understand) let's play pretend" isn't terribly useful. My median finger count of 8.5 and my 1.65 children agree.
How about you find a case of a confirmed death *caused by* flu vaccine. There probably is one, somewhere. How hard can it be? Then I'll respond with 70,000 deaths from flu. Then we can litigate the relative risks.
Sound good?
No, because math that relies on "this is probably might be correct because statistics (that I don't understand) let's play pretend" isn't terribly useful. My median finger count of 8.5 and my 1.65 children agree.
How about you find a case of a confirmed death *caused by* flu vaccine. There probably is one, somewhere. How hard can it be? Then I'll respond with 70,000 deaths from flu. Then we can litigate the relative risks.
Sound good?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Last week my six year old son got a flu shot, this week he got RSV and croup! 
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I had a flu shot last year and now I have Ebola! 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I had a tetanus shot in June; now I have polio!!
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
When I was a younger man, I had a shot, and I chased it with a beer!
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
No, it's not. What's your point?
No. Parks were the Democrats concern, not the Republicans. The Dems used the threat of closing down national parks as part of their leverage in negotiations. The bit that the GOP was annoyed with was that the Obama administration decided that "closing down" parks because of cost reasons meant actually spending extra money hiring people to put up barricades to parks that are normally open to the public 24/7, so as to make sure that every person felt pain because the GOP had forced them to close the parks.
If they had just told the folks working at the parks not to show up for work, the GOP would have been fine with it. But they went the extra (and in some cases ridiculous) mile. The Liberty Bell has long been housed in a glass pavilion, allowing any passerby to view it, even without paying to enter the museum itself. During the shut down? They put a freaking tarp over the glass to make sure no one could see the Bell.
Some functions of government (like the national parks service) are an interesting case because these weren't things that the federal government created and started doing, but in many cases the national parks service took over parks that had previously been owned and operated by state or local governments. And in many cases, this was over protests by the locals that once federalized those monuments and whatnot would now be controlled by the federal government and it would apply strings and conditions for the people to view them. Which, in some cases, is precisely what has happened.
Having said that, land management *is* within the purview of the federal government, so there is some overlap. However, it is absolutely true that the GOP would prefer if most parks currently operated by the federal government were managed instead by state or local government. The federal government does not need to operate those parks. And the shutdown shows us why they should not. Ultimately, the government's control over such things is used as a tool to force the people to accept things they might otherwise not. If the federal government controls your access to a park you want to see, it can hold that over you. If it does not, it can not.
Which is precisely why we should maintain a small government to the greatest degree possible. Every single thing we give the federal government power over, is a thing they can use to hold power over us.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Smasharoo wrote:
How about you find a case of a confirmed death *caused by* flu vaccine. There probably is one, somewhere. How hard can it be? Then I'll respond with 70,000 deaths from flu. Then we can litigate the relative risks.
People are not statistics. This is the problem with the liberal mindset. You think of the numerical outcome for the whole, but fail to look at the individuals.
If I want to do something that increases my odds of dying from the flu, I have every right to do so. That's the part the Left just can't wrap their heads around. You feel like it's your duty to protect everyone from their own choices, and force them to do what you know is best for them, even if they don't want to. But freedom means being free to make your own choices, even if they are bad ones. Because as long as we're free to do that, then we know we are also free to make good decisions. Trying to take away our freedom just to make bad choices is pretty unlikely to work at anything other than just taking away our freedoms, period.
Yeah. It sucks. But at the end of the day, it's not really your responsibility to change the number of people who die from flu each year in any particular direction. The mistake is thinking that this is something you must "fix". It's really not. Let people do what they want to do. Why is that so hard for you guys to get?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The bit that the GOP was annoyed with was that the Obama administration decided that "closing down" parks because of cost reasons meant actually spending extra money hiring people to put up barricades to parks that are normally open to the public 24/7, so as to make sure that every person felt pain because the GOP had forced them to close the parks.
Well, at least you were able to recite the lines properly even if you didn't understand what they mean
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
People are not statistics. This is the problem with the liberal mindset. You think of the numerical outcome for the whole, but fail to look at the individuals.
I get that a lot. "Liberals only care about cold data and ignore the personal emotional side of issues".
I get that a lot. "Liberals only care about cold data and ignore the personal emotional side of issues".
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
People are not statistics.
Unless, of course, they die in a mass shooting incident.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
People are not statistics.
Unless, of course, they die in a mass shooting incident.
No. Liberals still treat mass shooting victims as statistics as well. Or are you not aware that the gun control argument is basically entirely about statistics versus individual rights? A conservative more or less says "I don't care if my odds of shooting myself with my gun are greater than my odds of defending myself with that gun, I (and everyone else) ought to have the right to make that choice". Liberals are the ones saying "We're restricting your right to own a firearm because it's safer for you". That's the entire point of the line of "your odds of <bad thing happening> are greater than your odds of <good thing happening> if you do <whatever thing we're talking about>, so we should make it illegal to do <whatever thing we're talking about>" arguments, which liberals engage in pretty regularly.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Ah, you.Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Ah, you. Ah, me. I'm right though, so there's that.King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'm not seriously going to waste an evening trying to convince you that you're not so... sure. Keep on keepin' on.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
No. Liberals still treat mass shooting victims as statistics as well. Or are you not aware that the gun control argument is basically entirely about statistics versus individual rights? A conservative more or less says "I don't care if my odds of shooting myself with my gun are greater than my odds of defending myself with that gun, I (and everyone else) ought to have the right to make that choice". Liberals are the ones saying "We're restricting your right to own a firearm because it's safer for you".
I'm sure there exists, somewhere on the planet, a person stupid or brain damaged enough to think that the primary driving argument in favor of gun control is the risk of legal gun owners accidentally injuring themselves, but identifying that one mistaken person would seem wildly difficult.
Do you have any ideas?
I'm sure there exists, somewhere on the planet, a person stupid or brain damaged enough to think that the primary driving argument in favor of gun control is the risk of legal gun owners accidentally injuring themselves, but identifying that one mistaken person would seem wildly difficult.
Do you have any ideas?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not seriously going to waste an evening trying to convince you that you're not so... sure. Keep on keepin' on.
Lol! Let's not pretend that this would be you trying to convince me of anything. You'd be trying to convince the reading audience that was I wrong. And it would be a waste of an evening because even with an audience that is normally very willing to take your side, trying to argue that the US pro gun control argument is not primarily made by quoting statistics is an extremely hard sell. Doubly so when there have been so many such arguments made on this very forum and in which many of your audience have at least read if not participated in themselves.
Fact is that every single pro gun control liberal on this board knows that their argument is based on statistics, and that's why there's no much value in trying to argue otherwise. Who would believe you? Not me. And not other readers. And not even you either. So yeah. Waste of time.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Lol! Let's not pretend that this would be you trying to convince me of anything. You'd be trying to convince the reading audience that was I wrong.
Yes, my deepest fear is that Altair, r1ng0sc4rr, Shaowstrike, Smasharoo, Turin, Uglysasquatch, Xsarus and 62 anonymous people would learn the truth.
You got me there.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
No. Liberals still treat mass shooting victims as statistics as well. Or are you not aware that the gun control argument is basically entirely about statistics versus individual rights? A conservative more or less says "I don't care if my odds of shooting myself with my gun are greater than my odds of defending myself with that gun, I (and everyone else) ought to have the right to make that choice". Liberals are the ones saying "We're restricting your right to own a firearm because it's safer for you".
I'm sure there exists, somewhere on the planet, a person stupid or brain damaged enough to think that the primary driving argument in favor of gun control is the risk of legal gun owners accidentally injuring themselves, but identifying that one mistaken person would seem wildly difficult.
I'm sure there exists, somewhere on the planet, a person stupid or brain damaged enough to think that the primary driving argument in favor of gun control is the risk of legal gun owners accidentally injuring themselves, but identifying that one mistaken person would seem wildly difficult.
And I'm sure there exists, somewhere on the planet, a person stupid or brain damaged enough to fail to recognize the difference between an example and the whole set of things the example represents.
That's you btw.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
If I want to do something that increases my odds of dying from the flu, I have every right to do so.
Sure, as long as it doesn't also increase the odds of others dying from the flu.
In fact, if you wanted to hole up in some remote area far from other people, and die of the flu, I say more power to you, you have my whole-hearted support.
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Gbaji wrote:
No......
Edited, Oct 23rd 2014 10:22am by Almalieque
gbaji wrote:
Fact is that every single pro gun control liberal on this board knows that their argument is based on statistics, and that's why there's no much value in trying to argue otherwise.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
Fact is that every single pro gun control liberal on this board knows that their argument is based on statistics
I wouldn't go that far. I think it's based on optimism.. very misplaced optimism: AKA Naïveté.
(or is my pro-gun view based on misplaced pessimism? hmm)
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If I want to do something that increases my odds of dying from the flu, I have every right to do so.
Sure, as long as it doesn't also increase the odds of others dying from the flu.
Sure. I've said repeatedly that people who work in health care or education should get a flu shot. But for Joe random healthy person? Not remotely a big deal.
I do find it funny that I'm the one arguing the evil pharma/gov cozy relationship here, and it's the folks who usually take the opposite position defending them. Does anyone not get that "free flu shots" aren't actually free? It means that the government has chosen to spend money buying flu shots for people, which is basically guaranteed income for the companies that generate flu vaccines every single year. I'm not saying there's zero value here, just pointing out that it's pretty unlikely that they aren't taking advantage of this situation to pad their profits, and that you should take the hype over shots with a grain of salt as a result.
The companies making the vaccines certainly have a significant interest in getting healthy people to take flu shots.
Quote:
In fact, if you wanted to hole up in some remote area far from other people, and die of the flu, I say more power to you, you have my whole-hearted support.
if I were holed up in some remote area far from other people, I'd presumably not catch the flu in the first place.
Edited, Oct 22nd 2014 2:39pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
In fact, if you wanted to hole up in some remote area far from other people, and die of the flu, I say more power to you, you have my whole-hearted support.
if I were holed up in some remote area far from other people, I'd presumably not catch the flu in the first place.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Recent Visitors: 85
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (85)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Flu Shot
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC