Bachmann's Scientific Illiteracy.

JBJoe

Regular Member
Apr 8, 2007
1,304
176
Pacific Northwest
Visit site
✟22,711.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
And what does that have to do regarding Bachmann who did not demonstrate ant scientific illiteracy as claimed.

Is that what we're talking about along this thread?

:wave:And of course this discussion is about a sexually transmitted virus. Perhaps you misunderstood that

Oh, it isn't. You just changed the subject... AGAIN.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, the Third Reich had different labels for Jews and Aryans, too. Labeling makes all the difference, doesn't it? ;)

Were they scientifically accurate labels? If not, then why even Godwin the thread with this?

Last time I looked, man had no direct influence on the Sun, but if you say so.

Non-sequitor. If humans have no effect on the Sun, how does that in any way inform us on whether we have an influence on the climate of the Earth.

And this "how can insignificant humans effect something so massive as the earth" meme is sceintifically naive. Ever hear of blue-green algae? Ever year of stromatolites? Ever hear of nuclear winter?
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
A disease that is completely preventable without the vaccine and a vaccine that has causes numerous girls much trouble.

Really... oh, aisy beat me to it. And the claims of complictions have been overstated by social conservatives trying to use the same scare tactics that Anti-vaxxer woos do.

Sure, all women have to do is make absolutely sure their boyfriends and husbands always use condoms, make their husbands get certified HPV-free before trying to conceive with them and make sure their husbands never cheat without using a condom. That's so easy vaccines should be totally unnecessary. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

JBJoe

Regular Member
Apr 8, 2007
1,304
176
Pacific Northwest
Visit site
✟22,711.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It seems to me that the woman in the scenario made a bad choice for a husband. I don't see what that has to do with Scripture.

How would she make a better choice? I assume you have some reliable way of detecting a man who is a virgin when married and will remain monogamous throughout. I'm sure women the world over would love to have this information.

Unless you have a way to remove the risk of being infected by a partner - which I'm very curious to hear - I can see no logical extension of your argument except that engaging in any sexual activity is a risky behavior for which one should accept the consequences for regardless of whether or not it is inside of marriage.

In the case of these particular strains of HPV, the risk is borne entirely by women who will pay with their sexual and reproductive health and sometimes even their lives. 12,280 women suffered through cervical cancer in 2007 and 4,021 died from it. There is an average of 6 confirmed deaths per year following HPV vaccinations.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟79,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How would she make a better choice? I assume you have some reliable way of detecting a man who is a virgin when married and will remain monogamous throughout. I'm sure women the world over would love to have this information.

Unless you have a way to remove the risk of being infected by a partner - which I'm very curious to hear - I can see no logical extension of your argument except that engaging in any sexual activity is a risky behavior for which one should accept the consequences for regardless of whether or not it is inside of marriage.

In the case of these particular strains of HPV, the risk is borne entirely by women who will pay with their sexual and reproductive health and sometimes even their lives. 12,280 women suffered through cervical cancer in 2007 and 4,021 died from it. There is an average of 6 confirmed deaths per year following HPV vaccinations.
How about if she asks him about his experiences?
 
Upvote 0

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
How about if she asks him about his experiences?
Knowing that someone slept around in high school should be grounds not to marry them? Even if they're "saved" and haven't had sex since doing so?

Heck, what if he just lies?
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Using this reasoning, everyone should get vaccinated for absolutely everything there's a vaccine for, even if the disease is not present where they live and travel. Great idea. IT would be a boon to the struggling pharmaseutical industry. Oh wait....

So we're moving beyond the morality angle to the Big Pharma CT angle?

Michelle Bachmann is 100% correct. The government has no right to force 10 year old girls to have shots for STDs.

Your last sentence is correct in fact, but not sentiment. HPV is different from other viral diseases like herpes or bacterial and treated diseases like chlamydia. Those STDs aren't carcinogens and/or are curable.

There's a reward being offered for evidence of the girl whom Bachmann referred to in her HPV anecdote.

Minnesota professor offers $1,000 for Bachmann's HPV vaccine victim | StarTribune.com

It started at $1,000, but has been upped to $10,000 if this poor girl's medical records are released to a doctor.

Might as well make it a million -- the money's safe.

Agreed.

Oh, it isn't. You just changed the subject... AGAIN.

Haven't you seen by now? That's his M0.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,545
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't recall bringing morality into it. It's a matter of behaving responsibly. If you want to take risks, you should accept the responsibility that goes along with the risks.

I'm saying the state shouldn't make it's self responsible for the bad choices people make.

You don't understand, Mach. Since the advent of (trumpet flourish) Obamacare!™, the risks that any given individual take are the problem of everyone, since we're all paying for the treatment needed to counteract his or her bad choices. Under (trumpet flourish) Obamacare!™, we need to make sure that our friends and neighbors understand that cigarette smoking, eating fast food, and bike riding without kneepads and a helmet can no longer be tolerated, because those behaviors lead to injuries which cost the taxpayers money, and we all suffer as a result. Probably eventually we'll have to also outlaw mountain climbing, race car driving, horseback riding, and swimming in salt water, because those are risky, too, and we don't want to strain the fragile medico-economic system provided to us by (trumpet flourish) Obamacare!™.

There are two exemptions to (trumpet flourish) Obamacare!™, however. Teenagers going into the bushes and boffing like rabbits are exempt, because we all know they're incapable of controlling themselves, so we just have to allow them to engage in the Horizontal Bop whenever the mood strikes them, and of course the Landed Nobility (aka Congress) are exempt, because they have Decreed From On High that they don't have to participate in (trumpet flourish) Obamacare!™ like the rest of us unwashed mortals.

What a great country we live in!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DieHappy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟11,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
You don't understand, Mach. Since the advent of (trumpet flourish) Obamacare!™, the risks that any given individual take are the problem of everyone, since we're all paying for the treatment needed to counteract his or her bad choices.

Which is exactly the same as insurance: you're spreading the risk and the cost of an individual over a larger group. The difference with a public system is that you take out the profit, and you don't deny people access to healthcare on the basis of their income or current health. And yes, it puts an obligation on the state to encourage people to be healthy, but then this is in everyone's interest on a purely selfish financal basis because a healthy person is more likely to be a productive person and therefore paying tax into the system. It also means you don't write off a person because they've made a foolish mistake in their past.

All of which is getting off the topic of Michelle Bachmann and her poor scientific thinking.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So we're moving beyond the morality angle to the Big Pharma CT angle?

Given the influence that such companies have on the "science" proving the safety and need for their products, and their profit motive, it's a relevant point isn't it? How many drugs recently have been approved only to be pulled within a couple of years due to unacceptable side effects? Isn't it naive to think that vaccines are immune(pun intended) to this problem?
 
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟11,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Given the influence that such companies have on the "science" proving the safety and need for their products, and their profit motive, it's a relevant point isn't it? How many drugs recently have been approved only to be pulled within a couple of years due to unacceptable side effects? Isn't it naive to think that vaccines are immune(pun intended) to this problem?

They have no influence on science. They can influence what data is published, but they can't change the facts. There is a problem with negative results not being publish from intial trials, it's part of the problem of profit in healthcare. But there are options for addressing this outside the influence of the companys, such as making a regester of all trials and forcing a miminal level of data to be published, even if the study shows the drug is ineffective.

Negative effects will be shown though, through patients reporting side-effects. Anf given how long mass vaccination has been around, and how many chilldren have been vaccinated, we've got good numbers for assessing possible risks.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟79,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Knowing that someone slept around in high school should be grounds not to marry them? Even if they're "saved" and haven't had sex since doing so?
Either not to marry him or willing to take the risk
Heck, what if he just lies?
I thought in our scenario he was supposed to be a Christian. regardless, if he lies, does that justify the state now becoming responsible to protect us from ourselves. What other lies would you expect the state to compensate for? If he lied to her and told her he had 10 rental properties in various states, would you expect the state to make sure she had commensurate financial holdings?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Either not to marry him or willing to take the risk
A woman could marry a virgin who could still get the virus after the wedding day and pass it on. Wouldn't it be a lot more prudent to get the vaccine before having sex with anyone including a husband? Why accept the risk of cancer via a sexually transmitted virus when the vaccine is available?

I thought in our scenario he was supposed to be a Christian.
Yeah, in our scenario he is a Christian, but a flawed one.

regardless, if he lies, does that justify the state now becoming responsible to protect us from ourselves.
Public health and communicable disease are generally accepted as state's interest.

What other lies would you expect the state to compensate for?
What compensation? We're talking about an ounce of prevention provided by the state.

If he lied to her and told her he had 10 rental properties in various states, would you expect the state to make sure she had commensurate financial holdings?
That makes no sense in this context.
 
Upvote 0

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I thought in our scenario he was supposed to be a Christian.
Christians can and do lie, for various reasons. This may have been a lie of omission, for example. No one is perfect.

regardless, if he lies, does that justify the state now becoming responsible to protect us from ourselves.
In this case, it's about preventing a communicable, carcinogenic disease from being passed on to someone who did everything right.

It's generally in the state's interest to not let people get sick.

What other lies would you expect the state to compensate for? If he lied to her and told her he had 10 rental properties in various states, would you expect the state to make sure she had commensurate financial holdings?
Not a proper analogy, and thus irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
They have no influence on science. They can influence what data is published, but they can't change the facts. There is a problem with negative results not being publish from intial trials, it's part of the problem of profit in healthcare. But there are options for addressing this outside the influence of the companys, such as making a regester of all trials and forcing a miminal level of data to be published, even if the study shows the drug is ineffective.

Negative effects will be shown though, through patients reporting side-effects. Anf given how long mass vaccination has been around, and how many chilldren have been vaccinated, we've got good numbers for assessing possible risks.


They have HUGE influence over the FDA testing and approval process which is supposed to be scientific but which is more political in nature.
 
Upvote 0