Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,257
5,978
64
✟333,182.00
Faith
Pentecostal
It targets the promiscuous. The more partners you have the greater chance you have to catch. How much do you think it ‘plagues’ lesbians?

It is primarily a gay man disease that has hit gay men the hardest. Promiscuity is a large part of the gay men life. That's why it's spreading the hardest among them.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,257
5,978
64
✟333,182.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Targets? How does it do that?

Dont you know that viruses have little gaydar on them so they can find and strike gay men.

Or perhaps the writer was just trying to express that gay men are being hit hardest by this disease. I think you are trying too hard.

Gay men are getting hit the hardest because of their behaviors.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,273
7,628
51
✟312,561.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Promiscuity is a large part of the gay men life.
Yes. So it is promiscuity that is the issue. Not being gay.

If you are gay and not promiscuous you’ll be fine.

It’s clear that God is annoyed with the promiscuous, not the gays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yttrium
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Bible teaches us all we need about running a hospital.
Having worked with and for hospitals, that is not reality, even in ecumenical hospitals. They are businesses. Period. They are run just like other businesses in many ways. Healthcare is unique, but bills still have to be paid and consumers that can't pay, don't play.

And these clowns in Sarasota are a dime a dozen and will run the place into the ground.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Is there a problem having a President of the United States in charge of the military when he has never even been a boy scout?
Another fast moving goalpost, LOL.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,154.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Is there a problem having a President of the United States in charge of the military when he has never even been a boy scout?
Presidents Clinton, Obama, Trump, and Biden were never in the military. I'm not sure if any were boy scouts.
What matters is that they choose capable people with good values to lead the military and defense departments, that they listen carefully to their daily briefings, and follow wise counsel.
President Biden chose a decorated military retiree as Secretary of Defense and a man who had been an undersecretary of state as secretary of state. He listens to their briefings and had experience many years as chair if the Senate foreign relations committee.
Trump's first Secretary of State was a retired Oil company CEO. He had a number of defense secretaries. He did have retired military in his staff who left in disgrace (Flynn) or disgust (Mattis.) Many of his former staff wrote tell all books afterwards that made sane people shudder. He fired everyone who disagreed with his unschooled opinions.
The hospital board wannabees have said they want to clean house--and install people with their genuinely medically dangerous ideas.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,119
Los Angeles Area
✟820,543.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Is there a problem having a President of the United States in charge of the military when he has never even been a boy scout?

Only when he claims to "know better than the generals". Presidents have entire Cabinets and Joint Chiefs to know all the things he doesn't know and advise him.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
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

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,247
2,920
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,474.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Everything after the first three words.

Here's what I said after the first three words;

Unless you view the COVID vaccines as a unilateral, required, magical elixir that is the first medical intervention in history without a single downside, then you are a "science denier". At least around here.
So let's unpack that, and you tell me specifically what you think is nonsense;
  • "Unilateral": Do you agree that vaccines should not be given unilaterally but rather should be given based on an individual risk/benefit analysis?
  • "Required": Do you agree that vaccines should not be mandated, and that it should be up to each individual to decide whether they should get vaccinated or not?
  • "Magical": Obviously this is hyperbole.
  • "Without a single downside": Do you agree that there are potential serious adverse events and that those should be figured into each individual's risk/benefit analysis when determining whether a person should be vaccinated or not?
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,548
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,302.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Here's what I said after the first three words;

Unless you view the COVID vaccines as a unilateral, required, magical elixir that is the first medical intervention in history without a single downside, then you are a "science denier". At least around here.
So let's unpack that, and you tell me specifically what you think is nonsense;
  • "Unilateral": Do you agree that vaccines should not be given unilaterally but rather should be given based on an individual risk/benefit analysis?
  • "Required": Do you agree that vaccines should not be mandated, and that it should be up to each individual to decide whether they should get vaccinated or not?
  • "Magical": Obviously this is hyperbole.
  • "Without a single downside": Do you agree that there are potential serious adverse events and that those should be figured into each individual's risk/benefit analysis when determining whether a person should be vaccinated or not?
Unilateral? Someone forced you? What does
unilateral even mean? Nonsense.
Required- children can't attend school if
they have not had their shots. So?
You are not required to take shots, or
to eat or get a driver's license. Do as you
like, accept the consequences.
Magical, and elixir.
Even you recognize those as nonsense.
Without a single downside. Obvious nonsense
that has never been claimed.
Risk / benefit ertainly has been applied to priority
for shots, and, in whether children get shots.

There was nothing in your post any more worth saying
than completely random nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,247
2,920
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,474.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Unilateral? Someone forced you? What does
unilateral even mean? Nonsense.
Perhaps calling something "nonsense" when you don't even understand the meaning of a word is not the wisest call.

Unilateral means that it is the same for everyone. EVERYONE should be vaccinated, regardless of their age, prior infection status, benefits conferred, etc.

Required- children can't attend school if
they have not had their shots. So?

So you're cool with the medical discrimination that's going to result in Washington D.C. when as many as 40% of black students will be denied an in-person education because they won't get a vaccine that has questionable benefit to them? Alrighty then.

Me? I'm old school. Before I go mandating something that will negatively affect an entire race if they don't comply, I like to make sure there is an iron-clad evidence base that it will actually benefit them.

You are not required to take shots, or
to eat or get a driver's license. Do as you
like, accept the consequences.

In this case, the consequence is a subpar education for minorities. And you're (apparently) OK with that.

Magical, and elixir.
Even you recognize those as nonsense.

No, I recognized that as "hyperbole". Words have meaning, believe it or not.

Without a single downside. Obvious nonsense
that has never been claimed.
Risk / benefit ertainly has been applied to priority
for shots, and, in whether children get shots.

Now THAT is nonsense. These vaccines have been fast-tracked under EUA with hardly any real data. The risk/benefit of vaccination, particularly in children that have already had COVID, is being completely ignored by US public health officials.

Do you know how many children the claim of vaccine efficacy in children under five is based on?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,548
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,302.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Perhaps calling something "nonsense" when you don't even understand the meaning of a word is not the wisest call.

Unilateral means that it is the same for everyone. EVERYONE should be vaccinated, regardless of their age, prior infection status, benefits conferred, etc.



So you're cool with the medical discrimination that's going to result in Washington D.C. when as many as 40% of black students will be denied an in-person education because they won't get a vaccine that has questionable benefit to them? Alrighty then.

Me? I'm old school. Before I go mandating something that will negatively affect an entire race if they don't comply, I like to make sure there is an iron-clad evidence base that it will actually benefit them.



In this case, the consequence is a subpar education for minorities. And you're (apparently) OK with that.



No, I recognized that as "hyperbole". Words have meaning, believe it or not.



Now THAT is nonsense. These vaccines have been fast-tracked under EUA with hardly any real data. The risk/benefit of vaccination, particularly in children that have already had COVID, is being completely ignored by US public health officials.

Do you know how many children the claim of vaccine efficacy in children under five is based on?
Whatevs
 
  • Winner
Reactions: cow451
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

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,247
2,920
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,474.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'll assume that means you don't know how many children the claim of vaccine efficacy for children under five is based on. You'd think since you're calling my posts "nonsense" you'd know the data you're defending. Eh, who am I kidding. The pandemic has taught us that propaganda is far more important than data and evidence to most people.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"Required": Do you agree that vaccines should not be mandated, and that it should be up to each individual to decide whether they should get vaccinated or not?
No one is forced to be vaccinated - people can always choose to not get vaccinated.

"Magical": Obviously this is hyperbole.
You appear to think you can make an absurd claim - that anyone who does not think the vaccine is "magical" is a science denier - and then walk that back by simply claiming "hyperbole". You are clearly trying to evade taking responsiblity for a false assertion.

"Without a single downside": Do you agree that there are potential serious adverse events and that those should be figured into each individual's risk/benefit analysis when determining whether a person should be vaccinated or not?
Moving the goalposts - no one is denying that there can be serious adverse side effects. Your initial claim - which you appear to be dancing away from now - is that people who acknowledge there are potential side-effects are accused of being science-deniers.

This is, of course, false.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,548
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,302.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
No one is forced to be vaccinated - people can always choose to not get vaccinated.


You appear to think you can make an absurd claim - that anyone who does not think the vaccine is "magical" is a science denier - and then walk that back by simply claiming "hyperbole". You are clearly trying to evade taking responsiblity for a false assertion.


Moving the goalposts - no one is denying that there can be serious adverse side effects. Your initial claim - which you appear to be dancing away from now - is that people who acknowledge there are potential side-effects are accused of being science-deniers.

This is, of course, false.

As in why I said "nonsense" in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Another fast moving goalpost, LOL.
not at all the point for those I have to explain it to is that you do not need expertise in a specific to manage it or be the CEO, thus we have presidents in charge of a military who have no knowledge about the military.
 
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

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Presidents Clinton, Obama, Trump, and Biden were never in the military. I'm not sure if any were boy scouts.
What matters is that they choose capable people with good values to lead the military and defense departments, that they listen carefully to their daily briefings, and follow wise counsel.
President Biden chose a decorated military retiree as Secretary of Defense and a man who had been an undersecretary of state as secretary of state. He listens to their briefings and had experience many years as chair if the Senate foreign relations committee.
Trump's first Secretary of State was a retired Oil company CEO. He had a number of defense secretaries. He did have retired military in his staff who left in disgrace (Flynn) or disgust (Mattis.) Many of his former staff wrote tell all books afterwards that made sane people shudder. He fired everyone who disagreed with his unschooled opinions.
The hospital board wannabees have said they want to clean house--and install people with their genuinely medically dangerous ideas.
Well other than straying off into off topic gratuitous comments about Trump your post confirms that people can be in charge without having specific knowledge in an area this is in contrast to your earlier post.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0