Random Politics & Religion #00

And nuts to you back!

I don't drink so go at it for all I care. Just warn me before you go out partying so I make sure to bypass any and all Pennsylvanian bars that I don't go to anyway.

Eh. Like I said. Don't drink outside of the home much. Don't even drink in the home all that much anymore. Cut back drastically when I started trying to lose weight. I have a couple of good craft beers a week tops anymore to enjoy them for their quality. I'll have a good whisky on the rocks if we go somewhere that serves it, but otherwise not much imbibing in my life these days.

Most likely...no. Sometimes I even have trouble finding more famous brands. You have no idea how hard it is to find a Grolsch!

My favorite nautical-themed beer. Strictly speaking he was a Navy man, not a pirate, but still a badass all the same.

So much that I have his flagship and those words tattooed on my arm. It's just coincidence that the beer bearing his name is decent, too.

Commodore Perry was a great man! That I will agree with!

Actually it's complete ***, that's not how vaccines and genetic mutations happen. A genetic mutation is more likely to happen inside a vaccinated person then a non-vaccinated person due to the vaccine providing downward pressure on the virus. This is the same reason bacteria are more likely to mutate inside a host that has antibiotics. Vaccines don't provide this magical super defense against infections, all they do is preemptively trigger the body's natural immunological system to develop it's own antibodies against specific strains of a virus. If that virus then later enters the body, the body can respond more rapidly and prevent the virus from making too many copies of itself. That defense reaction isn't instant, there is still a period of time that the virus has the possibility to mutate to counteract the bodies response. When this is taken in aggregate, you wind up with a vaccinated population having less occurrences of a particular virus but also a higher chance of mutation as the virus attempts to circumvent this protection. Life is funny that way, it always seeks to adapt and overcome. This is the same reason doctors have become a lot more cautious about prescribing strong antibiotics, antibiotic resistant bacteria only started appearing after we gave them a reason to.

So no the idea that somehow a non-vaccinated person will infect a vaccinated person is complete ***. The virus will not mutate inside the non-vaccinated person because there is no downward pressure forcing it to do so. It's only inside a resistant host that the mutation will be a requirement for the continuance of it's life cycle.

This isn't to say I'm against vaccines, they do far more good for us then bad. Higher mutation rates are a price we must pay for that good. I'm against bad science and spreading bad information to win a ideological fight. If a person doesn't wish to vaccinate themselves or their children, then that's their own choice and they must live with the consequences of that choice. We have no place in taking that choice from them.

And yes sixty years ago the idea of forcefully injecting the population with a drug under threat of government sanctioned violence (that's the police and legal system btw), would of been in the realm of fiction and fantasy. Only conspiracy whack-jobs would actually think the government would force it's citizens to take drugs or throw them in jail. Yet here we are, people in this thread arguing for that, all out of a misplaced sense of fear and the desire to exert control over others.

I can prevent all accidents and deaths.

Lock everyone up in hermetically sealed padded rooms and feed them with lukewarm vitamin enriched soup every day. To ensure nothing uncontrolled happens this special treatment must happen shortly after birth. Furthermore to prevent mental disorders and distress I will ensure that only controlled positive information is provided to the individual life form. They will never feel bad because they will be ignorant that there is anything else to life then living in that perfectly safe room.

Like I said before, I can justify anything under the logic of "for their own good" or "for my own good". When taken to it's logical conclusion, lots of what we would consider very bad things would happen. The worst atrocities in history are committed under these pretenses.

Bolded for lulz.

None of this has anything to do with the concept of herd immunity. And a great way to ensure that a pathogen has little chance to mutate is to remove it from as many members of the population as possible. Selective pressure is not a necessary component of mutation. It's random. The less infected out there, the better.

When is adjusting the line considered too far?

When we are forced to buy products we don't need? Is that too far, or not far enough?

I'm actually just waiting for Nausi to reference The Drumhead without a hint of understanding for the irony, let alone the nuance involved.

He can't.

What about you personally? Do you feel that being forced to purchase products we don't need considered too far when the line is drawn, or not far enough?

>I don't support bad science and misinformation
>does exactly that

Mutations are not utilitarian. They are random.
The pressure you speak of does not increase the chances of mutations, it simply directs the natural selection forcibly. The one who was lucky enough to have a good mutation survives to tell the tale to the new daughter cells.
The good thing about viruses is they can only get a chance with a host since they're incapable of reproduction. Remove the hosts and its chances to do jack are suddenly down.

The virus doesn't hear the immune system intruder alarm and goes oh ***I better change my appearance before it's too late! It just happens.

There was an instance in 2010 where the majority of the people didn't want to be forced to buy this product in the US, but the democrat-led Congress decided to force it down people's throats anyway. This law forces people to purchase a product even though it has nothing to do with the issue it was trying to address. Even though that Congress decided it was for "the greater good of the public."

Was that a bad thing? People didn't want it. It didn't solve the problem. It addresses a whole new set of problems. And it won't be resolved until hopefully next year.

Guess this one got missed with the rest.

These most certainly is a "vaccine" for car accidents, remove the cars from the equation. Only public servants working for the state conduction state business are authorized to use automobiles, everyone else must stat inside their state authorized quarters doing their state authorized roles.

The reason for automobiles is that out society requires the freedom to move around in order to conduct business and jobs. If the state were to control all that, there would no longer be a need for such freedoms and the dangers of automobiles could be removed entirely and thus safeguarding society. Think of all those women and children who won't be hit by out of control individualist drivers.

As I said before, I can justify any action using the pretense of "for your safety" or "for my safety". Cars was easy, lets discuss mass sterilization and control of elements of our society statistically prone to violent acts. Anyone who's born to a single parent underprivileged home has a ridiculously high likelihood of hurting themselves and others. They should be fitted with tracking collars equipped with small explosive charges. This will ensure they do not commit crimes and thus render society much safer. By mandatory sterilization you ensure a controlled stable population and prevent more violent underclass from being created.

See perfectly logical and rational. It lowers crime and ensures a better society for all. It's also morally reprehensible and ethically wrong.

The strawman is real.

Obama was elected because of the color of his skin and because the Republicans had a weak candidate. Both times.

I promise you that if Obama was white, he wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

The only mention of Strawman I want around here.

Also self-driving cars.
Though it will take a very long time to make them outnumber human driven ones. Even if they went to market tomorrow(and god I hope they come soon I'm tired of waiting), far too many people actually enjoy driving.

But the completely self-driving highway design that I saw some time ago, that would be amazing. If only somene would invest in this stuff.

No one is forced to buy insurance.

And if can't figure out if you're trying to play devil's advocate or just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

I don't want to buy insurance, but I don't want to pay a tax for not having insurance either.

Before 2010, that was completely possible. Now, not so.

But tell us why, in order to solve the problem of rising healthcare costs, the democrats/liberals thought it was a good idea to force insurance onto people?

And yes, they are forcing it on us. It is a law, and the punishment of not complying with the law is a tax. So, it is forcing people to purchase a product they may not want or need.

You keep telling yourself that when Hillary gets trounced in November. But then again, like you care.

That's a fat lie. There is no politician that cares for the people, regardless of political affiliation.

Wait, are you saying that race paid absolutely no factor in Obama being elected?

I hope you aren't deluded.

And yet you can still choose not to buy insurance.

The law is almost 6 years old now. The 'why' should be familiar.

Did you vote for Romney because he was white?