Vaccine

dad4 said:
I look at you guys as the public health equivalent of the Seattle rioters.

You both demonstrated that, if you work at it really hard, you can get rid of the laws meant to protect you.

You also both have self serving explanations for why the inevitable deaths aren't really your fault.
Click to expand...
Orwellian translator

"I look at you guys"= I like looking down my nose at you
"as the public health equivalent of the Seattle rioters"= you guys are evil and a public menace
"You both demonstrated that, if you work at it really hard"= I'm just being condescending and mocking you here. You guys work hard like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum
"you can get rid of the laws"= I'm calling these decrees laws (even though they were never passed by legislatures), because I want to give them extra weight
"meant to protect you"=folks like me and my experts know what's best for you peons.
"why inevitable deaths aren't really your fault"= I still believe in COVID0 and any deaths are the result of your moral failings.
 
dad4 said:
You both demonstrated that, if you work at it really hard, you can get rid of the laws meant to protect you.
Click to expand...
Fail again.

The laws/policies didn't stop the covid.

Outside of shutting down for a couple of weeks, biz, families, kids, etc cannot survive without being out and about working, learning, socializing, etc for any length of time.

It was never going to work. Understanding economics, humans, etc would have told you this. Your models never took into account how the real world works, which means the models are/were worthless.
 
Grace T. said:
Orwellian translator:

"Sentences and two are just insults"= I'm allowed to be nasty. You aren't. I'm allowed to be condescending. You aren't.
"Your false dichotomy fallacy is in sentence three"= I'm rejecting the premise of everything you say because I don't want to discuss policy. I just want to preach and berate people, which is what I enjoy doing.
"Everything else is word spam"= I don't want to hear it.
"and can be ignored"= sticking my fingers in my ears....falalalalala....not hearing it
"because it builds off your initial false claim"= If I wave my hand, I can make it go away and not have to address the merits and I can decline again to state my policy proposal and just harangue everyone for their failures which I can blame the current situation on.
[built in subtext]=I'm just so smart. I'm so virtuous. :)
Click to expand...
You're the one who built a whole house of cards on an obvious falsehood.

You claimed that it is impossible to make policy without reducing every complexity to a yes/no question. The claim is clearly false.

Don't blame me for noticing it. It all falls down. Next time, don't build your card castle on the trampoline.
 
dad4 said:
You're the one who built a whole house of cards on an obvious falsehood.

You claimed that it is impossible to make policy without reducing every complexity to a yes/no question. The claim is clearly false.

Don't blame me for noticing it. It all falls down. Next time, don't build your card castle on the trampoline.
Click to expand...
Touchy touchy, aren't we. That's how you do policy dude. You have to reduce it to yes or no questions or you can't decision tree it. I know it's frustrating for a math guy who is used to precision and certainty but that's not simply how policy works. Way too many variables. Guess now we know why you like to preach and don't like to do policy....why you prefer the theoretical to the real world. Otherwise man you just go round and round in circles and can never reach a decision. Every decision in the end is a go/no go....every policy proposal results in a binary choice.
 
Desert Hound said:
Fail again.

The laws/policies didn't stop the covid.

Outside of shutting down for a couple of weeks, biz, families, kids, etc cannot survive without being out and about working, learning, socializing, etc for any length of time.

It was never going to work. Understanding economics, humans, etc would have told you this. Your models never took into account how the real world works, which means the models are/were worthless.
Click to expand...
The CDC guidelines, which you have ignored since last May, didn't work?

Gosh. I wonder why not.
 
dad4 said:
The CDC guidelines, which you have ignored since last May, didn't work?

Gosh. I wonder why not.
Click to expand...

You've practically devolved in hysterics today you've blamed the failure of everything you ever hoped for on everyone else. In the end, that's where what little policy you have lies. It's not that you and your ilk erred...the science TM was flawless....the fault is in all of us and our moral failings, which is why we are damned. Full preacher mode.
 
Grace T. said:
Touchy touchy, aren't we. That's how you do policy dude. You have to reduce it to yes or no questions or you can't decision tree it. I know it's frustrating for a math guy who is used to precision and certainty but that's not simply how policy works. Way to many variables.
Click to expand...
Impossible to make a decision without reducing everything to boolean variables?

You sure you want to choose that as your hill to defend?
 
dad4 said:
Impossible to make a decision without reducing everything to boolean variables?

You sure you want to choose that as your hill to defend?
Click to expand...
Dude it's the way it works when you have to do policy. A policy is a proposal to take action (most of the time to use force or to spend money). It's a simple go or no go. There isn't a middle ground...you do it or you don't. You can revise it but then it's a new proposal which you have to subject to the same test: go or no go. It's binary. Again, know that's though for a math guy to accept, but that's how humans work. Otherwise you aren't doing anything....you aren't making decisions....you are just spinning your wheels.

Where it gets complicated is in the definitions and in the wording of the policy proposal, but ultimately it's yes or no. It's also BTW, how legislatures operate...pass or don't pass (and if you amend, it goes back to square one and you have to do pass or don't pass again). It's really really basic poli sci stuff dude....it's how it works....and I get that you hate it but tough....as others have said, grow up.
 
Grace T. said:
You've practically devolved in hysterics today you've blamed the failure of everything you ever hoped for on everyone else. In the end, that's where what little policy you have lies. It's not that you and your ilk erred...the science TM was flawless....the fault is in all of us and our moral failings, which is why we are damned. Full preacher mode.
Click to expand...
Hysterics?

I just pointed out the hypocrisy. Hound spent 18 months bragging about ignoring CDC guidelines. Now he is complaining that the rules didn't work.

If he didn't do it, then who is he to complain that it didn't work? It's like buying a diet book and two dozen donuts.
 
Desert Hound said:
The point is I am contrasting our country with those protections in place vs those who don't have them...ie Australia and NZ.

Since their governments didn't have hurdles to overcome, they simply did what they wanted.

Us having a constitution put the brakes on those desires by some in power.

You are correct that it is far from perfect protection. However I would rather start off having them in place vs being in a country where one does not.
Click to expand...

Australia has a Constitution and a Supreme Court. New Zealand has an "unwritten" Consitution consisting of court precedents and acts of their parliament, including a Bill of Rights Act that requires 75% vote of the Parliament to modify; also a Supreme Court.
 
dad4 said:
Hysterics?

I just pointed out the hypocrisy. Hound spent 18 months bragging about ignoring CDC guidelines. Now he is complaining that the rules didn't work.

If he didn't do it, then who is he to complain that it didn't work? It's like buying a diet book and two dozen donuts.
Click to expand...
I saw Hound at the fields twice and both times he had a mask on.
 
dad4 said:
Hysterics?

I just pointed out the hypocrisy. Hound spent 18 months bragging about ignoring CDC guidelines. Now he is complaining that the rules didn't work.

If he didn't do it, then who is he to complain that it didn't work? It's like buying a diet book and two dozen donuts.
Click to expand...
As before, if your policy depends upon people being angels, then it's destined to fail. Another example why you'd prefer to do morality insead of policy.
 
watfly said:
The Constitution and Scotus work, but are not perfect. The vast majority of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. Your concern for the politicization of the Court is a fair concern, but in most cases is greatly exaggerated by one side for fear mongering purposes. Remember how ACB was vilified by the left in her confirmation hearing because she was going to overturn Obamacare leaving people to die without healthcare? Well the that case has been ruled on and she voted in favor of the Obamacare issue.

Even though they didn't block the Texas abortion law (which may or may not be a State issue), SCOTUS ruled 8-1 to allow the lawsuits against the law to move forward.

abcnews.go.com

Supreme Court defies critics with wave of unanimous decisions

The nine justices have charted a surprising course down the middle in 2021, handing down more unanimous opinions than any time in at least the last seven years.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

An ABC News analysis found 67% of the court's opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.

That compares to just 46% of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions during the 2019 term and the 48% average unanimous decision rate of the past decade, according to SCOTUSblog.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of SCOTUS "decisions" are decisions by a single Justice not to hear a case, which holds unless some other Justices overrule him.
 
Grace T. said:
Orwellian translator

"I look at you guys"= I like looking down my nose at you
"as the public health equivalent of the Seattle rioters"= you guys are evil and a public menace
"You both demonstrated that, if you work at it really hard"= I'm just being condescending and mocking you here. You guys work hard like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum
"you can get rid of the laws"= I'm calling these decrees laws (even though they were never passed by legislatures), because I want to give them extra weight
"meant to protect you"=folks like me and my experts know what's best for you peons.
"why inevitable deaths aren't really your fault"= I still believe in COVID0 and any deaths are the result of your moral failings.
Click to expand...

That says a lot more about you than it does about him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top