Total posts: 1,732
-->
@oromagi
Why aren't the vaccines I suggested viable alternatives?
I asked if the vaccines you listed were completely free of fetal lines in - not just development, but also - testing and production. If fetal cells were used in no part of the process then they would be viable alternatives. I don't know if this is something you considered.
I disagree that we are in the socio-political position to make such demands on nurses.
Maybe - I don't have enough info to weigh in on that
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I have 2 thoughts.
First, you suggest there are vaccines which were not developed with fetal cells that might be used to satisfy those with a religious objection. However, unless we also discount vaccines which use fetal cells for testing or production, I submit we are not really providing a legitimate alternative. How many vaccines meet this limitation?
First, you suggest there are vaccines which were not developed with fetal cells that might be used to satisfy those with a religious objection. However, unless we also discount vaccines which use fetal cells for testing or production, I submit we are not really providing a legitimate alternative. How many vaccines meet this limitation?
Secondly, we don't have a viable alternative currently. If one were available to meet the objectors demands, I would agree - give them what they want so we can keep qualified staff. In the absense of a valid alternative, the only option is to ask them to leave. We should not lower our standards of expertise in the name of keeping 'qualified' individuals. If they do not recognize best practices and/or take seriously their oath to 'do no harm' they are not qualified.
Created:
A regional medical center in Arkansas is requiring all staff to be vaccinated by Oct 8. About 5% of staff are using religious exemptions to avoid getting vaccinated because they were developed with fetal cells lines (from an abortion in 1973).
Interestingly, a number of OTC medications were also developed with this same cell line. Hospital administrators, in an effort to ensure sincere belief and perhaps inform those unaware of the scope of their convictions, are requiring objectors to sign a form stating they will cease using these drugs as well. These include Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Motrin, Tums, Pepto Bismol, aspirin, Benadryl, etc.
[LINK]
Suffice to say, I am of the opinion there is nothing immoral with using any of these drugs/vaccines. Even if someone were opposed to abortion, the abortion from which these cells are derived has already occurred. No amount of conscientious objection will change that. Might it be that from a prolife position utilizing these cells is the best way to honor the fetus from which they came?
I dont know - food for thought.
Created:
-->
@thett3
True, but when no argument is provided by OP it doesn't really matter.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I'm not attacking the opinions of the author. I showed the self-admitted bias of the source.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
From your source:"That being said, we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right, we know many people who run notable alt-right sites, and our ideology exists within the alt-right if one has a “big tent” conception of the movement."Yeah and you using this (if it even came from any of the sources) is just you ad homming LOL.
It is not an insult to quote a source - if you view someone's own words as impugning their character, you should probably find a better source for your information. Also, you did not make an argument (not even one) - you posted a bunch of links. They can be dismissed in the absence of argumentation - no dodge is needed. If you posted this in a formal debate, you would be eaten alive.
Again, you don't understand ad hom (or debate).
Created:
You don't understand ad hom very well.You've failed to demonstrate this at all.1. What argument has been avoided? (Note: assertions aren't arguments).2. What insult has been directed at your person?"they admit to a bias (alt-right)" -- This is Ad Hominem. It attacks the nature of the people making the argument (who are apparently "alt-right"), as opposed to the argument itself (that the shitlib narratives are wrong).
From your source:
"That being said, we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right, we know many people who run notable alt-right sites, and our ideology exists within the alt-right if one has a “big tent” conception of the movement."
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
You don't understand ad hom very well.
1. What argument has been avoided? (Note: assertions aren't arguments).
2. What insult has been directed at your person?
Have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
I stated facts about the inadequacies of your source. Do you find that insulting?
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Your source leaves a lot to be desired. In short, they admit to a bias (alt-right) and avoid the methodology (science/peer review) which would filter it out. Using this to 'substantiate' your position doesn't do a lot for you...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
there's good evidence for God. atheism is irrational because they pretend there's no evidence or at least there's enough evidence to be at least agnostic.
'There's enough evidence for god to hold the view that god is not known (agnosticism)'.
Agreed.
BTW- atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. So, you're undermining your own argument...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody is required to federally register, prove, and carry a certificate for covid vaccinations either.This is the proposal under discussion.
Is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If you start out with a bad premise, I don't see how youre going to end with a valid premise. Surely, you wouldn't waste your time on something obviously dubious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
We know with absolute and omniscient scientific certainty that...
Someone doesn't understand how science works: Absolute certainty is not a science thing.
You lost me with the first statement.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
NOBODY IS REQUIRED TO FEDERALLY REGISTER AND PROVE AND CARRY A CERTIFICATE FOR SEATBELT AND OR HARNESS COMPLIANCE.
Nobody is required to federally register, prove, and carry a certificate for covid vaccinations either.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ILLEGAL DRUG TESTING IS NOT FEDERALLY MANDATED.
Drug testing illegal? Nah. Why you screaming, bud? You okay?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Buckling a seatbelt is not a medical procedure.
So? Besides, companies require drug tests on a regular basis. Some jobs might require a physical...
Your employer does not require you to present a certificate declaring your "100% seatbelt compliance" as a condition of your employment.
If you have a driving job, your employer can certainly require you to wear a seatbelt. If you drive a cherry picker, you will 100% lose that job if found not wearing your harness.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
It's not illegal - there is precedent. Eg. Seatbelts in our vehicles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeadFire27
I play on Chess.com - user name Cgibbson11. I prefer a 3 day limit. My rating is in the 1300's.
Anyone interested is welcome to set up a challenge there.
Created:
I think more dead kids is exactly the image Biden needs right now.
With Republican governors literally working against schools (and local governments) trying to protect children (and society in general), Republicans have absolutely no room to criticize....
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
LOL NOW YOU GIVE ANY SHITT ABOUT DRONE STRIKES AS SOOOOOOOON AS BIDEN IS ELECTED YOUR HILARIOUS!
Of course. The Orange Manchild could do no wrong...Biden can do nothing right - or so the narrative goes.
If Trump were in office, Parrot would be defending this because, for him (or so it seems), his objections are purely political.
Created:
More criticism absent context. It is thought secondary explosions (which are responsible for unexpected deaths) were caused by explosive materials in car. If that is the case, then a strike to prevent 'an imminent ISIS-K threat' appears justified.
That being said, my heart goes out to those dealing with the loss of their innocent loved ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Question to the Bible: Should foreigners be treated the same way as native born people?Bible: Yes"The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”" Exodus 12:49Bible: No“At the end of seven years, you shall have a release of debts … Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother” (Deuteronomy 15:1-3)
Contradiction created by translation.
Exodus 12:49 foreigner = guest
Deuteronomy 15:3 foreigner = stranger
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Margaret Taylor Greene for president?!
Eek.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Any brains cells within a teratoma can be very much alive.How? Wouldn't the cells have died outside the human body (maybe like not getting enough oxygen)?
Teratomas exist within the human body.
[Link]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think those brain cells are dead when they are displayed on a human.
Any brains cells within a teratoma can be very much alive.
I assure you a teratoma meets your standard of personhood: human DNA and specialized cells (including brain cells). I encourage you to re-think this standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
My bad; I thought teratomas were a type of animal for a second.
Glad we were able to clear the confusion.
But teratomas don't have brain cells so if someone wanted to get a teratoma removed, it would be like getting a haircut.
Teratomas can have brain cells.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Human DNA has very little in common with Teratomas.
Yah, no joke.
I'm not comparing teratomas to human DNA - I'm saying they have human DNA and specialized cells exactly like a fetus. If this is your standard for personhood, then teratomas are people. Are you good with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If having brain cells is your line, then teratomas can be human beings too.Teratomas don't have the DNA to be a human. You need both the DNA and specialized cells to be human.
Teratomas have human DNA and specialized cells...
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Reality has a well known liberal bias - Stephen Colbert
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
No doubt, if no equipment were left in support and the Taliban took control, some would be arguing we left Afghanistan defenseless.
...and how can you say we've left anyone behind when we are still in the process of evacuating?
Listen, if you want to say the process could have been done better - fine, Ill agree, but if you just want to nitpick because politics I can't really take the objection seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
Let's compare one situation absent of context to another absent of truth...so dishonest.
For the record Obama didn't give 17 billion worth of taxpayer funds to Iran, and US equipment was left to Afghan forces - not the Taliban. Plus 85B is a gross overestimate for the equipment - try less than $10B.
Parrot boy still has me blocked so this is for informational purposes for anyone interested in reality.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's considered a fact of science that damaged retinas to the point of blindness cannot be repaired.
Ahh, so now its not just damaged retinas, but retinas damaged to the point of blindness. Moving the goalposts....
Without specifics its difficult to address your example, but I do have questions. Was the damaged retina properly diagnosed? Was there a surgery before the 'miracle'? I suspect a misdiagnosis, self-diagnosis (no diagnosis) and/or a surgery. I look forward to more info from you.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am a protestant.. This does not mean I reject all of Catholicism. I personally don't go for the RC definition of Saint either. But one assumes that even in the RC they must have some standard definition of a miracle and also a standard of proof that needs to be met in order to make a person a saint. After all, if there were no definite standards then there would be more saints - and not too much difficulty to become one.For the gate to be managed effectively, there must be a standard of proof - for a miracle. That is my point.
Best I can tell, the Vatican has the same philosophy on miracles you do. They deem unexplained healings/events as miracles. What's worse, is that they have also deemed what CAN be explained as miracles too. Its not about a consistent standard of proof, but a hurdle to sainthood which can be adjusted as necessary.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
retinas dont just heal themselves.
You equate retinas being healed without treatment as supernatural because you wrongly assume retinas cannot heal without treatment.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
but the examples are just never reported. for me, if someone prays and then something supernatural looking occurs, i see no reason to assume similar things happen to atheists too.
"Super natural looking"
I went to a magic show and saw what appeared to be magic...but it wasn't. Likewise, someone who sees something "supernatural looking" hasn't necessarily seen the supernatural. That being said, it shouldn't come as any surprise super natural looking stuff can happen to atheists too.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I suppose you could also go the Vatican's homepage in relation to Saints. Apparently in their denomination - a Saint can only be made a Saint, having done 3 verifiable miracles.
I thought you were a protestant. I seem to remember you distancing yourself from Catholicism. Did you change your mind?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I will consistently reject the unexplained when submitted as knowledge.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
By the definition you pushed, my 14 year old son doing his homework before attempting to play Xbox would be a miracle. Its a very low bar, and clearly not what most people mean when they *seriously* claim miracles. It is quite clear miracle are thought to be the work of the claimants preferred god-concept more often than not. My definition is accurate.
Re fraud - it is a significant argument against miracles when known fraudulent accounts are still counted among the body of evidence for miracles by believers [link]. That fraud exists amongst those claiming 'miracle' isn't the problem - its that people choose to believe what has been admitted as fraud because there is no critical evaluation whatsoever (unlike science).
If people were claiming ignorance (the unexplained) was a demonstration of florb - skeptics would not be out of place saying there had been no demonstration thus calling into question the existence of florb. Florb believers might cry about skeptics pointing that out, but until claimants can establish and share knowledge of florbs (or miracles) skeptics aren't wrong.
Tl;dr? It is appropriate for skeptics to disbelieve miracles exists while the evidence/argumentation for them is literally ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
For this reply I am using a tentative definition of miracle: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws that is thought to be the work of a deity.
Personally, I don't believe in miracles because of a few reasons.
1. The frequency of 'miracles' decreases as our knowledge (and ability to investigate) has increased.
This suggests people attribute miracles to misunderstood events (we know this has happened) or are dishonest (we know this has happened).
2. Miracles have not been shown to be something other than misattribution or fraud. The burden of proof still rests firmly on those who claim miracles are real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Really the issue exposes the hubris of the secular, Western mind that believes everyone in the world would be just like us, if only they were enlightened enough!
Disagree. It says we honor our promises; we take care of those who risk their lives for us. Besides, I'm certain if a translator wanted to go to another country besides the US we could make that happen too.
If we're being honest the motivation to disallow Afgan refugees to the US is fear. Those objectors are happy to benefit from people risking their lives, but not at the expense of having them among us because that *might* risk our culture... a culture known to be a melting pot of cultures. Its fear speaking to the mindset of *our* culture being more important than *their* lives. "Hubris of the secular, western mind". Gtfo with that projection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And is this collectivism promoted by a "sense of duty" or by some perceived incentive like "you help us now and we'll help you later" ?It could be either or both.It still sounds a lot like communism.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And is this collectivism promoted by a "sense of duty" or by some perceived incentive like "you help us now and we'll help you later" ?
It could be either or both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say its a mixed system.
When the kids are young (and potentially unable to understand explanation), it is more likely to be totalitarian since following instructions can be crucial to their survival.
When they get older transactional exchanges have their place - money for chores/grades is beneficial to all involved.
And then there is communism - our time and energy collectively goes to maintaining and progressing the family.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It is the Atheist who says they do not have a worldview. The Theist totally accepts he has a worldview. In fact - it is pretty much only the Atheist who denies he has one.
Yea, I think you've misunderstood atheists. Atheists have worldviews - of course! ...it just isn't atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So how then can an atheist do good things if it does not flow from their atheistic view?...because they have a worldview which isn't atheism or religion - Humanism for example.Thanks for that SkepticalOne. And thank you for acknowledging that atheists can't do good simply as an atheist.
That's not what I said.
Would you consider it [Humanism] to be an Atheistic worldview? Or is it a religious one?
The existence of God is unimportant for humanism, but people can (and do) flavor it with their own religious beliefs.
Hmmm, why did the early humanists desire to do good?
Evolutionary heritage.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Yea, I have no idea what you're talking about there. I have a family member transitioning, and it has nothing to do with getting laid.
Also, I personally see little wrong with a man crying from time to time. We've all been brought up to hide our emotions and be stoic *manly* figures no matter how badly we've been hurt or how happy we are. That's just dumb.
Created: