Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - MaddogLutheran

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 239
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: June 30, 2022, 02:18:41 PM »
The ones I'm willing to trust with my life. Primary is my primary physician. (If I don't like what he says, I would seek a second opinion.
My mother did that.  It turned out be a mistake.  It cost her her life, by way of a painful death.  Sometimes the problem is that the issue doesn't seem like it requires a second opinion, until it's too late.

I have more confidence in the experts who have nothing to gain by their opinions based on the science.
You obviously haven't been listening to what others here have been saying:  it's wrong to assume experts have nothing to gain by their opinions.  Being an expert doesn't make one necessarily altruistic.  The potential for corruption is universal.

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 29, 2022, 03:27:33 PM »
Under the order, Walz will decline requests for the arrest of any person charged with a crime involving abortion in another state, unless the act would also constitute a criminal offense under Minnesota law.

I guess I don't understand how this is supposed to work.  I'm not aware of any states that are making anything a mother does a crime.  So this primarily falls to healthcare providers.

Are they just going to drop their entire practice and move to Minnesota to practice after being charged?  Are Minnesota physicians, NPs and others going to just give their patients to these "abortion refugees?"

Or is Governor Walz just preening here?
I'll have to defer to you lawyers to help me understand that, but obviously you don't at the moment.  No state would claim jurisdiction if one of its residents committed murder (or was murdered) in another state.  Only that other state has jurisdiction over actions on its soil.  Sounds mostly like virtue signalling, although it could be an attempt to head-off any possibility of criminalizing travel for abortion purposes.  But again, that would make the most sense targeting the mother (unlikely) or people who help her travel, the latter of which can be taken into custody when they return home.

Yes, really sounds like it's targeting the healthcare workers, but as I said starting out, that makes little sense with how law and jurisdiction generally work.  States are not sovereign in a manner that allows them to claim jurisdiction over third party out-of-state activities when interacting with their residents.  Only other scenario I can think of is when such actions involve minors, but that's still a reach for such a general proposition.

Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: June 29, 2022, 11:00:50 AM »
For both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna vaccines, the data from the CDC always indicated that the vaccines were not perfect and you could still be infected with SARS-CoV-2 after you were vaccinated.  I don't recall the CDC or the vaccine companies ever claiming that the vaccine was permanent - I even remember very early discussion of how likely it was that it would or would not be.

On the other hand, if you listened uncritically to politicians or the media, you would have quickly gotten the impression that the vaccines were nearly perfect.

The body of evidence for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was primarily informed by one large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II/III clinical trial that enrolled >43,000 participants (median age = 52 years, range = 16–91 years) (5,6). Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was 95.0% effective (95% confidence interval = 90.3%–97.6%) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.Although numbers of observed hospitalizations and deaths were low, the available data were consistent with reduced risk for these severe outcomes among vaccinated persons compared with that among placebo recipients.

The body of evidence for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was primarily informed by one large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trial that enrolled approximately 30,000 participants aged 18–95 years (median = 52 years) (6–9). Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine efficacy after 2 doses was 94.1% (95% confidence interval = 89.3%–96.8%) in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was the primary study endpoint. High efficacy (≥86%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Ten hospitalizations due to COVID-19 were documented; nine in the placebo group and one in the vaccine group (9). Preliminary data suggest that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine might also provide some protection against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (7).
Yes.  And social media companies, and other entities, used this public perception as justification to censor/silence anyone who pointed this out, labeling them as anti-science.

Yesterday NPR Morning Edition did a story about the dilemma about what to do about the formula for the next booster, what version of the virus to target.  Should it be the current dominant Omicron strain alone?  Both Omicron and the original virus in a dual delivery form?  Or maybe take a guess, like they do with the flu, at future Omicron mutations?

I've heard weeks ago that part of their hesitation was concern for the public health messaging changing the formulation might create.  Will some people lose trust in the vaccine if the formula changes?  Will some become confused or afraid?  But the science is settled!

I'm on the other side of that thinking:  I am not interested in taking another booster of the same formulation, in light of the Omicron mutations that have become dominant.  To my understanding, they will be almost useless.  But it seems like the public health braintrust may be more interested in holding out hope that the remaining population will agree to take the original vaccine.  I don't understand the goal here, as well as not understanding the effectiveness of another booster against future Omicron.  Of course they cannot talk about that publicly because they fear confusing the general public, so I will not be better informed and less skeptical.  Unfortunately they've made their bed with prior misinformation, now we are all reaping the consequences.  Yet we must continue to trust them without question.  YMMV

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 27, 2022, 04:33:21 PM »
Best I can tell conservatives love killing with guns, they want to make sure anyone who wants to shoot up a bunch of people can buy guns that will fulfill their wishes.

How did you determine that "love"?  Which conservatives are you talking about?  How many conservatives kill with guns each year?  Which killings?

I determined it the same way that Dave Garner came up with his statement.

How many abortions are there each year?  How many of them end up with a terminated fetus?

Too many. All of them.

Do you think that the SCOTUS ruling is the best way to reduce them? I don't. Look at what Colorado did as a way that they reduced abortions by about 50%.

The reason I asked about specific numbers is because I assumed we should be more outraged by the larger number.

It's rather easy to look up how many abortions happen each year.  It's less clear to me that you or anyone could determine how many conservatives want to kill with a gun, or how many of the yearly gun deaths are at the hands of conservatives.  Your hypothetical wanna-be killer does not actually result in a biological termination, unlike an abortion.

But you don't care about actual facts, only whatever pops into your head at a given moment, whether it makes sense or not.  You seem more bothered about an unknown number, versus another readily available.  And you think responding as you have furthers your position.

I've never believed that a law is going to stop all abortions, though it certainly will reduce them.  It's not my particular goal or concern whether it does or not.  Actually, I'm kind of against such laws, being of a libertarian bent and suspicious of government authority.  It's also because I think women who really don't want to be mothers will find a way to end a pregnancy.  That said, it doesn't change the fact the Roe/Casey were unsupported decisions, and that their penumbras unfairly distort the law and unjustifiably infringe on aspects of the family life (parental/teenage relationships).

I do think persuasion and offering alternatives is a better approach, which is why I find the attitude of people like you, who can't seem to speak prophetically that all life matters despite your supposed vocation, so troubling.

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 27, 2022, 04:01:40 PM »
Best I can tell conservatives love killing with guns, they want to make sure anyone who wants to shoot up a bunch of people can buy guns that will fulfill their wishes.

How did you determine that "love"?  Which conservatives are you talking about?  How many conservatives kill with guns each year?  Which killings?  I kind of doubt that persistently high number of urban gun murders are by conservatives, but I could be wrong.

How many abortions are there each year?  How many of them end up with a terminated fetus?

Now if we can only have PRIDETM declared a religion and our young people can no longer be forced to participate in school sponsored PRIDE rituals.

This is long overdue.  Under D.I.E. principles, we are supposed to recognize and respect other religions and cultures.   ::)

I continue to believe that the best way to examine a question is to test the opposite case.  Would you trust a President Hillary Clinton with the powers of the Patriot Act, for example?

Imagine if the coach in question was (1) a Muslim and prayed at midfield after a game.  Also imagine that (2) the school did something to interfere with that.

What would everyone be saying?  My responses would be:
1.  Cool
2.  That ain't right
(For bonus points, imagine a MAGA school board majority)

Being a noticeably observant Christian shouldn't be stigmatized (even as I am definitely not a showy public prayer).

It is absurd to think that this is the only way, let alone an appropriate way for him to pray after a game.

Not only quite appropriate but Constitutionally protected as well.

"The opinion stated that... he was not acting in the normal scope of his duties because  the game was over, he was not providing instruction or game strategy, and that he prayed at a time when he was free to do other things like 'attend briefly to personal matters.

Justice Samuel Alito also recognized in a concurring opinion that Kennedy prayed 'while at work but during a time when a brief lull in his duties apparently gave him a few free moments to engage in private activities.'"

I listened to most of the oral arguments of this case live, and was confused by the record (particulars of the conduct) as the specific behavior wasn't being debated by the justices or the advocates.  What I heard was abstracts and hypotheticals.  Initially I thought the coach was in the wrong and the school had a point.

Reading commentary this morning, and I believe it was summarized in Gorsuch's opinion, was that initially the coach was praying alone after the game, at midfield, when he had no work responsibilities.  To counter that, the school assigned him responsibilities during that time so that they could subsequently have reason to prohibit his prayer, because he was "on duty".  I also understand the dissents dispute these facts, but I've read commentary that they are conflating sequencing in what could be considered a bad-faith way.  But whatever, haven't read this opinion yet (or Dobbs).  Both the dissents and the school seemed concerned about the implication that such faith activity could be perceived as state endorsed, ala the Lemon test, now dead, and apparently for a while now, just unreported.

It does sound more like what the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did to the cake baker, went out of their way to mess with him.  I didn't fully understand that until this morning, and was a bit surprised at the result, being misled by the oral arguments (a lesson to all).

There seems to be a new (?) Rule concerning Supreme Court decisions. If one agrees, the decision iabsolutely the law of the land to be respected and followed by all, period. If one disagees, then it is an illegitimate decision, calls into question the legitimacy of the court, could not have been reached legitimately, and must be ignored if not overruled.

That's always been the rule.  ;)

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 25, 2022, 01:21:20 PM »
Could both sides tone down the rhetoric, acknowledge that these are not simple decisions and try to come to reasonable accommodations?
Unfortunately not. I despair of that, and in my personal life have avoided engaging with people most upset by this decision because they are irrational. They are not interested in what the decision actually does and means.

I've also felt for a long time that throwing around "baby killer" was unhelpful even though true. If you want to understand why some people are emotionally outraged by the overturn maybe start there.

There are better ways to persuade some. Others are unpersuadable. Inflammatory rhetoric is inflammatory rhetoric. Baby killer/my body my choice, wash rinse repeat.

So these enlightened members of the Lambeth Conference from several countries in Africa are quite OK with the harsh punishments imposed upon Gay people in their countries? In Uganda for example it can be anywhere from seven years imprisonment to life. I am not impressed.
Is that really what that means? How did you discern that?

You do realize, for example, the Catholic Church in the United States has spoken out against abortion, even though it was until today "the law of the land".

At best there is a fine line between a gimmick and a scam.  The problem deciding in this case is that this particular one requires the complicity of others, so I'm reluctant to jump to a negative conclusion.  Not that bad actors can't drag otherwise good people down with them.  It's the age old question:  incompetence or malice?

One thing to bear in mind is that in some circumstances (not sure in this case), reported salary can affect retirement benefits. Making 90k but finding 40k of it yourself might mean church contributions to retirement at 90k, which is a lot different than if you had basically the same arrangement but reported the salary and contributed to retirement at 50k. Could be tax differences, too, depending on the situation.
Excellent point, this never occurred to me but should have.  Yes, the ELCA compensation system does operate this way, so perhaps this is a "gimmick" to allow for a larger retirement contribution, while perhaps at the same time minimizing health care cost, which I believe can have a salary percentage component.

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 17, 2022, 10:24:53 AM »
Really didn't expect to see the biblical defense of antebellum American southern slavery here.  Maybe I should have (expected it), after the earlier conversation with uncertainty about the whether a zygote would want to be killed if you could ask it.  I also remain equally confused why Extinction Rebellion protesters, if they really believe that human overpopulation is an unsustainable blight on the planet, refuse to do the honorable thing and go first.

On second thought , let’s not go to Camelot. ‘Tis a silly place.  ???

Yes, that was my question too.  Or did identity politics enthusiasm cause the assembly to ignore her personal record?  (Sorry, I can't say "their" this time, because reading the story, it was downright confusing as to whether that pronoun was referencing the bishop or other plurals in paragraphs, synod or other groups.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 239