Where does this stuff come from?

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,290
5,242
45
Oregon
✟958,691.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Masks are always somewhat and partially effective against any airborne viruses or germs, and the more particulates it filters out, or the less it lets in, and the smaller particles it filters out or lets in, and the more effective seal over the nose and mouth it has, the more effective they are or it is, etc...

But nothing short a full-out complete nuclear fallout suit (or complete bio-hazard suit) and a full completely sealed full face mask to go along with that suit, that is designed to filter and protect on that level, is 100% absolutely 100% effective against everything, etc...

But they (the former) are way, way much better and way far better than nothing, or not anything at all, etc, whichever way you choose, etc...

Even minimal protection is way, way and much more far more effective than nothing, etc...

And if it's a airborne virus, even face shields are still partially effective, etc, though I think even simple basic masks, or face/nose coverings, are even way much better, or are much more effective, etc...

But nothing is 100% sure-proof except for a full on nuclear fallout suit though (or complete bio-hazard suit) (and the masks that go with it/them, etc)... (forget what they are all called right now, etc)...

I might be messing up the terms a little bit right now, because I can't recall what these things are all actually called, etc, "bio-hazard/nuclear fallout suit", "masks that go with them", etc, but you get what I'm saying right...?

God Bless!
If your using disposable ones, make sure you are changing them regularly, and if your using washable ones, make sure your washing them pretty regularly...

Almost nothing is 100% effective, but most things are very much partially effective, and are way, way, and very much far more better than nothing at all, etc...

God Bless!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,543
11,382
✟436,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, which is why you'd surely be aware that just because someone spends years of their life yammering on about the same subjects - as you apparently have with race, by the looks of it, because goodness forbid you acknowledge the problem - that doesn't make them correct. It might just make them wrong and obtuse.

I believe racism is a problem...I doubt you have any clue what I believe, you never asked.

As for atheism...there's a funny parallel there. Christians can see their christianity as so important to their identity that it distorts their view of reality. You see...they believe themselves victims of persecution even if there's no persecution. It's part of the story they tell themselves....to be Christian is to be persecuted.

Since they assume it's happening all the time..it's important to take claims of persecution with a grain of salt, and look for actual evidence of it.

Imagine if we looked at the disparity between the number of Christians today in the US and the number in the past....

If disparities were evidence of persecution, the only conclusion would be that this nation has been persecuting Christians it's entire existence. Silly, right?



Why, if whites aren't 100% of the population, would you expect an 'endless' string of white presidents

Because, according to you, it's perfectly reasonable for people to vote for members of their own race.

I don't think I need to explain the math on this, do I? If a race is only 13% of the population and another is 50% and both races have a candidate running for the same office....which one do you expect to get more votes?


I haven't. Please point out where I did.

You said it was normal....even good....for people to vote for their own race.

When I said that is an explanation for your question of why we keep seeing white people in positions of power....you changed your position to "well white people don't have any reason/issues/etc to vote for white people".

Do you see how that is a different claim from "it's normal/good for people to vote for representation that looks like their own race"?

What you're saying now is that it's good for non whites....but it's not good for white people to vote for their own race. It's completely different from what you said before.

The mistake you've made here is assuming, incorrectly, that I'm treating two identical things differently.

You're treating two races differently....

There's a word for that.

Whites are a demographic majority in the US. This is a quantitative and qualitative difference to nonwhite demographics, and certainly in terms of how they are represented.

What's the qualitative difference?

Whites are overrepresented and they have no issues facing them as white people, because they are the majority, and in no small part because they have operated a supremacist system. There is no need for whites today to agitate for white representatives. They are already represented. They are overrepresented, often at the cost of the interests of other demographics of citizens.

Because a white person can't represent a black person? It's fun that you think you can somehow subjectively decide what issues an entire race faces....it's completely baffling that you can claim that they should be removed from positions of power based on nothing more than the fact that they're white. You're literally advocating for racial discrimination against whites and in the same breath saying they don't face any racial discrimination.

There cannot be a double standard here, because the two situations are not the same. This is quite straightforward, but sadly to be expected when dealing with such unoriginal argumentation.

Maybe this is an easier question for you....do you believe that we should pursue racial equality as a society?

If not....what should we be aiming for in regards to racial inequality?
 
Upvote 0

Triumvirate

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2020
1,200
1,517
40
London
✟21,962.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I believe racism is a problem

You just downplay literally everything other than explicit racism, but yeah, you totes care ^_^

Imagine if we looked at the disparity between the number of Christians today in the US and the number in the past....

If disparities were evidence of persecution, the only conclusion would be that this nation has been persecuting Christians it's entire existence. Silly, right?

Yes, it is silly that you're comparing an idea that people hold with a race that people are born as! Don't worry mate, one of these double standards insinuations will eventually land, I'm sure! ;)

You said it was normal....even good....for people to vote for their own race.

Where specifically did I say this, because pretty sure you've misinterpreted me.

Was it here, by any chance?

Where does this stuff come from?

ATI:"What does? Does racial representation matter?"
Tri: "Sure. It's better, but hardly perfect in many respects."
 
Upvote 0

Triumvirate

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2020
1,200
1,517
40
London
✟21,962.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You said it was normal....even good....for people to vote for their own race.

When I said that is an explanation for your question of why we keep seeing white people in positions of power....you changed your position to "well white people don't have any reason/issues/etc to vote for white people".

Do you see how that is a different claim from "it's normal/good for people to vote for representation that looks like their own race"?

What you're saying now is that it's good for non whites....but it's not good for white people to vote for their own race. It's completely different from what you said before.

What I think happened is when you asked me about racial representation, I assumed you weren't including white people in that phrase, because as normally used it refers to the need to bring up representation of non-whites. I assumed you wouldn't be making the political equivalent of a white history month whinge. Evidently, I gave you too much credit.

Anyway, I clarified what I thought in terms of the difference between voting for your own demographic as a white person vs as a nonwhite person, so...not sure how a clarification is a gotcha really ^_^

You're treating two races differently....

There's a word for that.

It's a response to racism, sweetie. Sometimes racialised problems might require racialised responses.

What's the qualitative difference?

White people have political overrepresentation.

Because a white person can't represent a black person?

I said it is more likely that a black person is going to be better able to represent black issues. Would help, as always, if you read what you're responding to.

It's fun that you think you can somehow subjectively decide what issues an entire race faces

I'm not really, I'm listening to nonwhite people, which is more than I can conclude for you.

....it's completely baffling that you can claim that they should be removed from positions of power based on nothing more than the fact that they're white.

I'm saying that it's not wrong for nonwhite people to want to vote in members of their own demographic given that they are presently underrepresented. No-one is saying white people should be underrepresented either. This doesn't mean people are going to end up voting as a bloc, simply that there is a difference between a underrepresented minority voting on demographic lines compared to an overrepresented one doing the same. You are interpreting a 'they can vote this way' as a 'they must vote this way' - which may be rather revealing about how you think white people should vote.

Again, respond to the points being made, not the ones you imagine. No need for melodrama.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,543
11,382
✟436,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Which isn't what is being said, and there is no way in heck we are anywhere close to that.

Really? You aren't saying people should vote for their own race unless they're white?

You really do seem incredibly scared of this sort of discussion, and it's sad.

Funny....a moment ago people were saying that I talk about this too much (something they'd never say to a black person....unconcious racism perhaps?)

Now you're saying that I'm afraid of talking about it?

Also wanted to say - it really is quite amazing how you can a line from hypothetical words and generalisations about white people being a potential problem,

Sure.

but you don't seem to be as willing to consider nonwhite people's history of being abused by particular slurs and chalk it up to offence.

You chose the topic of slurs....not me. You could have given any example that you wanted.

Regarding slurs though....what do you think they do if not offend? There's literally dozens of slurs for various ethnicities of white people, many of which are casually thrown around even today.

Do you think that they are holding white people back or oppressing them or something? Or is this another double standard?

I said that there is no need for white people to explicitly seek to put their own demographic in power when they are already patently overrepresented,

Let's just stop here for a second because you keep saying this like it's a fact. Congressional seats are voted for by district. Senate seats are voted for by state. Presidents are the only national election.

We can also talk about mayors and governors if you want....but which of these do you think whites are "over represented in"?

and this is a quantitatively different thing than a underrepresented minority wanting better representation (which in turn is not the same as they 'should' vote for their own demographic, just that it is perfectly legitimate for them to want to vote in a representative of their own demographic when they are underrepresented!).

So in Washington DC....which is about 45% black and 42% white....but has had at least 5 black mayors out of the last 7....you'd say that whites are "under represented" and it would be better for them to vote for a white mayor every time?

Would you call Washington DC a black supremacist system?

You're really not good at this reading thing, are you?

You're not good at logical consistency. You're great at moving goalposts.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I need to get a refund for all the ppe classes I've had to pay for over the years. Before covid if I had exposed my employees to a project where they could become infected by a lethal virus and all I provided was a surgical mask I would have had osha all over me. High voltage is lethal also, I wonder if I could have just provided a pair of jersey gloves and some sunglasses? Lol

I hear you on this...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arc F1
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
7,034
5,808
✟249,915.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How would you determine someone was motivated by racism from a statistic?

You said white people are calling the police on black people because they've got racist beliefs to the point that it's a big social problem.
Only, that's not at all what I said.

What I said was
"Racism in America is an institutional “white man’s problem visited on people of color,”
It's a generalisation of course, because non whites can also be racist.
But in USA the main racism problem is that which is put onto people of colour and primarily it is caused by white people. Not all white people and not even most white people. But to improve the situation you do need white people to address it. They need to stop assuming a black in a white neighborhood is a criminal upto no good.
Systemic racism is different from blatant racism.

When a person reacts differently to a situation because of the colour of a persons skin, then that is a form of systemic racism.
e.g. A person living in a white neighborhood sees a black person wandering the street, they get worried, they get scared, they consider the person is suspicious, they pick up the phone and call the police.
A person living in a white neighborhood sees a white person wandering the street, they ignore this and continue on with what they were doing.

The person in the first scenario isn't necessarily racist. They don't necessarily hate blacks, but for some reason they got nervous, got scared and thought something was out of place.

Other examples of systemic racism is in the court system. A white does a crime, tells the judge they are sorry, that it was the first time and that they have learned their lesson, the judge grants leniency and gives a small punishment. A black does the same crime, says they are sorry, that it was the first time, the judge either wants the neighborhood people to feel safe or wants to show this person that there are serious repurcussions for committing crimes so give a average or high punishment.

Or perhaps a white guy in a high up position needs to hire someone, he asks amongst his friends for people to hire (his friends happen to be white because that is just typically who he has happened to mix with socially), one of his friends suggests a friend of theirs who is qualified for the job and vouches that he is a good hard worker. This friend of a fiend also happens to be white, because this friend also just tends to have white friends who are in the same social circle. The white guy gets the job. None of the hiring or friends are racist. But this scenario is an example of systemic racism. The whites get the jobs, the blacks miss out, because of the system of friends prioritising on friends.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,543
11,382
✟436,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Only, that's not at all what I said.

What I said was

You understand that I was paraphrasing you, right? I wasn't trying to match what you said word for word.

I said...

"You said white people are calling the police on black people because they've got racist beliefs..."

You said...

"They need to stop assuming a black in a white neighborhood is a criminal up to no good."

You understand that is a racist belief, right? If someone assumes a black person in a white neighborhood is a criminal....that's a racist belief.

So what part of how I worded it is wrong? You don't think this is a big social problem?

Systemic racism is different from blatant racism.

I get that you and others think that....and if we were talking about racist policies or laws I'd agree. It seems like that's not what people mean though....

When a person reacts differently to a situation because of the colour of a persons skin, then that is a form of systemic racism.

That's exactly the definition of interpersonal racism. It's a person treating someone differently because of their race.

e.g. A person living in a white neighborhood sees a black person wandering the street, they get worried, they get scared, they consider the person is suspicious, they pick up the phone and call the police.
A person living in a white neighborhood sees a white person wandering the street, they ignore this and continue on with what they were doing.

How is that different from a racist person? You aren't even talking about a system anywhere in that example....you're literally talking about a racist person with no mention of a system whatsoever.

Where is the "system" in this example? You can call an individual a system all day but that doesn't make it so...words have meanings.

The person in the first scenario isn't necessarily racist. They don't necessarily hate blacks, but for some reason they got nervous, got scared and thought something was out of place.

Of course they're racist! You just said that the whole reason they got scared is because person is black. If you think a person is a criminal because of their race....that's a racist belief. You're literally making a moral judgement about someone based on nothing but their race.

Other examples of systemic racism is in the court system. A white does a crime, tells the judge they are sorry, that it was the first time and that they have learned their lesson, the judge grants leniency and gives a small punishment. A black does the same crime, says they are sorry, that it was the first time, the judge either wants the neighborhood people to feel safe or wants to show this person that there are serious repurcussions for committing crimes so give a average or high punishment.

First of all...there's very few crimes that are ever going to be "the same crime". If you get caught speeding 10mph over the limit and someone else gets caught speeding 10mph over the limit....that's the same crime. Two people charged with something like simple assault didn't necessarily commit "the same crime" even if it resulted in the same charge.

Regardless though, let's pretend that two people are exactly the same in every respect, and their only difference is race, and like you said....the judge gave the black person a longer sentence.

That's a racist judge. I can agree it's wrong and shouldn't happen...but just because a judge made a racist decision doesn't mean that the justice system itself is racist. There's literally all sorts of people in that didn't do anything racist. The cops who arrested him didn't do anything racist, the prosecutor didn't do anything racist, the defense attorney didn't do anything racist, the jury didn't do anything racist, the laws themselves and policies of the court aren't racist.

Literally the only racist thing in this scenario is the judge. Again, that's interpersonal racism....it's got nothing to do with any system.

Or perhaps a white guy in a high up position needs to hire someone, he asks amongst his friends for people to hire (his friends happen to be white because that is just typically who he has happened to mix with socially), one of his friends suggests a friend of theirs who is qualified for the job and vouches that he is a good hard worker. This friend of a fiend also happens to be white, because this friend also just tends to have white friends who are in the same social circle. The white guy gets the job. None of the hiring or friends are racist. But this scenario is an example of systemic racism. The whites get the jobs, the blacks miss out, because of the system of friends prioritising on friends.

This one is a little different because I'd actually call that cronyism.

Definition of cronyism | Dictionary.com

As you can see...the definition of cronyism fits exactly what you described.

the practice of favoring one's close friends, especially in political appointments.

You aren't wrong to say that this scenario discriminates against black people....but it also discriminates against every white person who isn't the friend of the guy hiring.

It's not discrimination against people based on race...if this guy's social circle was mostly black people, then he'd be hiring a black person. It's discrimination against people based on friendship/social circles.

I don't know why you're having such a hard time coming up with examples. We had a whole period called Jim Crow where laws specifically discriminated against black people. It resulted in people engaging in racist behavior even if they weren't racist....because they had to. It was the law.

See the difference? Laws and policies are part of entire systems that create racial discrimination regardless of whether or not the people in those systems have any racist beliefs or opinions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Funny....a moment ago people were saying that I talk about this too much (something they'd never say to a black person....unconcious racism perhaps?)

No, it's just extremely obvious that basically the only topic you ever want to talk about is racism from the supposed perspective of how terribly everyone treats white people..

As for whether racism can be unconscious, take 5 minutes and do the Race section of the Harvard Implicit Interpretation test.

Take a Demo Test
 
Upvote 0

Arc F1

Let the righteous man arise from slumber
Site Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
3,735
2,156
Kentucky
✟146,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To be fair, OSHA would probably distinguish between and airborne and non-airborne virus, since a respirator is of little use against a non-airborne virus. As an example, a respirator will make no difference in trying to prevent the spread of herpes.

That is the issue here, COVID-19 is not airborne -- but can be spread by water droplets. As such, a respirator tends to be overkill, particularly when social distancing combined with everyone wearing masks, along with enhanced cleaning practices, does a good job of preventing the spread.

From what I've read about covid it is airborne.
 
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

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,008.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
From what I've read about covid it is airborne.
Apparently airborne doesn’t mean the same thing to doctors that it does to the rest of us. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) The article says that Covid spreads through respiratory droplets at close range. According to that article, this isn’t considered airborne.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

Arc F1

Let the righteous man arise from slumber
Site Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
3,735
2,156
Kentucky
✟146,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,008.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Right. Recent data also suggests that contaminated surfaces don't play a major role. There were early reports that the virus could live a week on some surfaces. But that was in ideal lab conditions, and it wasn't known whether they could actually infect someone after that. The answer is probably no. It’s Time to Talk About Covid-19 and Surfaces Again (The article describes what "ideal lab conditions" actually means, by the way.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

Triumvirate

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2020
1,200
1,517
40
London
✟21,962.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Really? You aren't saying people should vote for their own race unless they're white?

Again, as I have said already now, there is no should here. It is simply to point out that nonwhites voting for their own demographics is not the same as whites voting for their own demographic when the latter are severely overrepresented. Nonwhites can do so, but they are not obligated to do so.

That you keep insisting that I am saying should when I have not and have clarified this more already is only revealing things about your attitudes, and nothing good.

Funny....a moment ago people were saying that I talk about this too much (something they'd never say to a black person....unconcious racism perhaps?)

Now you're saying that I'm afraid of talking about it?

You're not actually saying much original or of substance, all you have is defensiveness and a refusal to consider that any issues are actually facing nonwhite people beyond laughably obvious expressions of racism. (but hypothetical expressions against white people becoming harmful actions, that's a serious problem!)

Sure.

You chose the topic of slurs....not me. You could have given any example that you wanted.

Regarding slurs though....what do you think they do if not offend? There's literally dozens of slurs for various ethnicities of white people, many of which are casually thrown around even today.

And I really am done with you now.

At first I thought you might just be thunderously idiotic on this.

But all you have to say about the mere possibility of a statement being directed at white people changing into actions that harm white people - even though what you describe isn't happening - is 'Sure.'

And yet when people bring up slurs and how they harm nonwhite people - how they may be preludes to attacks, how they have histories of being attached to bigotry that can't be easily denied - you're not so quick to take it seriously. It's all offence, as if this is some intellectual exercise and nonwhites are just arbitrarily deciding they don't like certain words. And we mustn't talk about how these words could be a prelude to hateful action, as they have been so often in the past.

You get the dynamics just fine, ATI. You get that words can be a prelude to action just fine - when it's white people we're talking about. That doesn't prompt a defensive wall of text from you. You just go - 'sure'. When it's nonwhites? Lame excuse after lame excuse as to why it means nothing and we should ignore it.

You understand what is being said and the dynamics being laid out just fine. You just don't care when they affect nonwhite people, based on the disparity in reaction you have when we're talking about them vs white people in the same manner of scenario.

And you might do yourself a favour by being honest with yourself (and others) about that, and why you might be behaving in such a biased way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
School of hard knocks doesn't beat medical experts usually, in terms of things like masks being a good idea
The medical experts have flip flopped all over on masks. Are they are good idea for people who know how to use masks? Maybe, but that's not the general public. For most, it's just a false sense of security.
 
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

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't buy into folksy American egalitarian populism in that way. As Isaac Asimov once wrote, a troubling aspect of America is the widespread anti-intellectual attitude that "my ignorance is as good as another person's knowledge".
Well Asimov as an arrogant man, IMO, so I don't take his opinion into account at all.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Well Asimov as an arrogant man, IMO, so I don't take his opinion into account at all.
It's an accurate observation, not an opinion. But what makes you think Asimov was arrogant?
 
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The medical experts have flip flopped all over on masks. Are they are good idea for people who know how to use masks? Maybe, but that's not the general public. For most, it's just a false sense of security.

One of the reasons that experts are experts is that they refine their knowledge when new information becomes available. Sticking to a single belief no matter what is not a positive trait.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,560
18,494
Orlando, Florida
✟1,256,992.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Well Asimov as an arrogant man, IMO, so I don't take his opinion into account at all.

That just proves the point. Asserting a false humility is precisely what that kind of American anti-intellectualism is all about.
 
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