Author Topic: Coronavirus news  (Read 399590 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3900 on: July 01, 2021, 02:06:46 AM »
What I am not for, Pastor Bohler, is the next fight that you obviously want to set up.
Nor am I interested in Pastor Kirchner’s  “how could this possibly work” dismissal.
I am of the opinion, supported by considerable evidence, that people who care about their health and the health of their neighbors, will get vaccinated.
Except that we all know people who care about their health and the health of their neighbor who do not get vaccinated. So your opinion is demonstrably false. The issue is not who cares about health but whose views of what constitutes healthy behavior and which experts to trust are correct. You’re making it a moral issue when it isn’t.


There have been times when I've had to put on protective equipment to visit members in the hospital. They are uncomfortable. I'd rather not have to do it; but if I don't take those steps, I'm not allowed to visit the patient. That does not make me a second class citizen. That's following the health and safety rules that protect both me and the patient. I've even had to put on protective clothing when visiting a confined hog operation where a member worked. I visited a friend who managed a coal mine. He wouldn't let me get out of the truck because I was wearing sandals. They require closed toe shoes and a hardhat to be anywhere near where they are mining.


The hospital, the hog rancher, and the mine gets to set the rules for the health and safety of their workers, patients, and visitors. Those who won't follow them won't work or be able to visit there.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12587
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3901 on: July 01, 2021, 09:11:25 AM »
That is not "opinion," Pastor Fienen, it is - here's that word again - "demonstrably" true.
I do not understand this off-the-wall mania about defending those who will not get vaccinated. Is it because vaccinations are supported by Democrats? By the Biden administration? By "liberals"?
Let's deep six the phony parallels between vaccinations and the other medical hot topic which rises like Godzilla whenever called.
Tell me what evidence you have that the vaccines do not work that vaccinations are not good public policy, that getting people vaccinated is not  a way to minimize the effects of the pandemic. (And I know I am gonna be sorry I asked that. I'll probably get some crackpot "wisdom" from Q.)
That the vaccines are the most effective means we have in stopping the spread of Covid-19 is demonstrably correct. That everybody should be vaccinated is an opinion. Personally I'm not that interested in defending those who choose not to be vaccinated, beyond the observation that it's a free country, or at least in theory.


I don't doubt that you don't care to try to justify why people's right to choice in these matters should be limited by government sanction while holding "choice" sacrosanct in other matters despite demonstrable harm that choice brings to others. I certainly would not like to try to make that case.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3902 on: July 01, 2021, 09:46:18 AM »
Dave Benke has said his area lags behind the nation in vaccine percentage and his church has spent a lot of time inside and outside the congregation encouraging people to get vaccinated. I've spent zero time at church encouraging people to get vaccinated and I'd bet we exceed the national average in vaccination percentage. Does that mean Dave's congregation/area is full of people who don't care about their own health or the health of others? Or is inordinately populated by fools? No, in fairness we can't say either of those things. We have to venture off Charles' comfortable, immovable, but very small soap box from which he pronounces his self-assured judgments that only fools or the uncaring aren't getting vaccinated. We have to consider the possibility that smart, educated, caring people might disagree with the general consensus about the safety and/or effectiveness of vaccines in general or these vaccines in particular. Although I am vaccinated, I have spoken to some people who have looked into it much more exhaustively than I have and who are extremely wary of the vaccines for teenagers and younger children, for example, or who have grown disgusted with the constantly changing mandates and recommendations and refuse to act until what they do this morning won't turn out to be the exact wrong thing to have done by the standards of this evening. I'm not one of them, but I know some of them. I'll bet most people do. Smart, well-read, caring, health-conscious people who are dubious about getting vaccinated. They might be wrong in their assessment (I think they are) but they aren't fools and they aren't uncaring.

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3903 on: July 01, 2021, 09:50:47 AM »
Did the new rules get repealed? It seems to me some folks here are still allowed to use partisan inflammatory rhetoric. I’d like to assume that means everyone can discuss politics, but I’d like clarification.

I mentioned when the new rules were announced that those who are the problem would not follow them, and thus the new rules effectively silenced those inclined to follow rules. Ironically, sort of like gun control laws.

Someone please tell me the new rules were repealed and I missed it while avoiding this forum for a bit.

To be fair, and clear, this is what I'm referring to.  When the new rules were announced, this is what was said:

(2) We will ask that you restrict your posts to matters related in some way to the purpose and ministry of the church or the challenges of the Christian life. There are plenty of other places to discuss the world of politics. We will allow some latitude here; there are obviously areas where politics and faith intersect, and that intersection is not always entirely clear. But we will not allow political sniping.

(3) As a matter of fact, we will not allow sniping at all. We will be moderating more aggressively. Any post that makes personal attacks on others will be removed, or at least heavily edited; any post that is removed will also lead to the removal of all responses to that post. Persistent violations of this rule will lead to removal from the conversation. Robust discussion is good. Personal attacks are not.

http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7715.0

Whatever is meant by "political sniping," or "personal attacks," surely this violates both, right?  Surely this is not one of those places where "politics and faith intersect," right?

I do not understand this off-the-wall mania about defending those who will not get vaccinated. Is it because vaccinations are supported by Democrats? By the Biden administration? By "liberals"?
Let's deep six the phony parallels between vaccinations and the other medical hot topic which rises like Godzilla whenever called.
Tell me what evidence you have that the vaccines do not work that vaccinations are not good public policy, that getting people vaccinated is not  a way to minimize the effects of the pandemic. (And I know I am gonna be sorry I asked that. I'll probably get some crackpot "wisdom" from Q.)

Yet here we are.  I feel compelled to censor myself.  Others feel no such compunction. 

The new rules empower the troublemakers and silence those who seek to play by the rules.  The new rules were well intentioned, but destined to fail.  And they are failing.  Good posters like Someone Writes no longer post here.  Pastor Austin violates the rules every chance he gets, but he's still here.  No apparent moderation is being done, or even attempted.  So I'll likely be scarce for a while longer until things change in that regard.  As things stand now, it's a bit of a joke.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2021, 09:52:28 AM by David Garner »
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1744
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3904 on: July 01, 2021, 10:08:20 AM »
Responding to Pastor Fienen’s comment elsewhere:
No, I don’t think we should “force” everyone to be vaccinated. But I do think we should put restrictions on what those who are not vaccinated can do.
For example, already today children who are not vaccinated for certain things cannot come in to our public schools.

Earlier, you stated, that it will be "necessary to pass some laws to either get the fools currently refusing vaccinations to take the shot." Now, you are saying that people shouldn't be forced in to vaccination.

You do realize that laws exist to force people into certain behaviors, right?

So, how would your proposal be implemented? You whine about "Pastor Kirchner’s  'how could this possibly work' dismissal", but you haven't said how your plan would work in real life. Ideas that are unworkable are simply foolishness.

So tell us, how would this work? How would anyone know who is, who isn't, vaccinated? Would they need to carry a sign? Have it written on a T-shirt? How would that not be a violation of HIPPA? If you have no idea, then why make the proposal?
The truth we preach is not an abstract thing. The truth is a Person. The goodness we preach is not an ideal quality. The goodness is Someone who is good. The love we preach is God himself in Christ. --H. Grady Davis

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3905 on: July 01, 2021, 10:39:38 AM »
The offending post was on the thread topic and asked for pertinent information. The introduction of politics was not so far off topic; many people have pointed out strong partisan differences in people's views of the pandemic, so the offhand question of whether people might be against vaccines because Democrats were for them, while simplistic to the point of stupid, was not a violation of the leeway granted to reference politics when the topics intersect. That the offending post was written in the manner of a donkey braying is obvious but a matter of taste.

Well, sure it asked for pertinent information.  Accusing Pr. Fienen of spouting QAnon rhetoric is not that, though.  The whipped cream on top doesn't make the turd taste any better.

I suppose if one wanted to debate the merits of the post that's easy enough.  The implication that Pr. Fienen doesn't wish to send a Gestapo to force people to get vaccinated because he hates Democrats, for example, could be easily refuted by playing clips of the current VP saying she wouldn't take the vaccine because blah..blah..blah..Trump.  But that only works when those are questions asked rather than accusations made.  Since we both know which is which here, I find it odd to focus so intently on the whipped cream.

Thank you for this, David.  I share your sentiments, which I voiced in several replies to offending posts, which were subsequently deleted (along with the original offense from my perspective).

Yes, moderation is happening.  Yes, it's a thankless job.  But it's really no mystery what is most often the root cause, and yet that behavior is not publicly rebuked or disciplined specifically.  Just deleted.  And then it keeps happening.  The name calling and insults.  The original reason given for the new moderation policy was that it led to an unhealthy, unwelcoming forum environment.  Several times I have thought about messaging the moderators privately with what I judged as yet another offense, but I don't like that kind of private carping.  Anything said should be publicly and transparently.

I find it difficult to participate because of this uneven standard, for all the reasons you state.  Not that my lack of participation is any great loss, and maybe even a net benefit.  But I can't be the only one.  Who knows how many others have been driven off?  (Supposedly the reason for the change in moderation in the first place.)  Just like in a congregation, when people drift away, they often don't tell you why.  It is why, having let my subscription lapse because of my incompetence, I have not renewed it because I am ambivalent about all this.

Thank you for this.  I agree moderation is a thankless job, and I don't wish to come down too hard on the moderators here.  Rather, I hope to bring my thoughts to their attention and accomplish what you point out above -- "here is why I don't spend a lot of time here any longer."

It's not my forum, and as a non-Lutheran I am a guest here, so I hope I have mostly acted accordingly and would like to continue doing so.  But I think it's unfair to just ghost the forum and not say why.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3906 on: July 01, 2021, 11:13:27 AM »
I thought it was clear that the accusations were not actual accusations but an example of Charles’s signature hyperbole laced with ignorant invective about anyone who regularly disagrees with him. I don’t think he was actually suggesting Pr. Fienen believed in QAnon, he was just speaking the way someone with TDS almost can’t help but speak.

Respectfully, I'll suggest again that the prime error in the new rules was the presumption that subject matter, and not behavior, was at issue.  This seems along those lines.  This is, in my opinion, giving a pass to bad behavior on the grounds that the person who behaved that way didn't really mean it.

And that, in itself, is an exercise in mind-reading, when a simple correction of the behavior would do far more good.  Honestly, it comes across as if you all want this sort of thing to continue, though perhaps only from him.  I find that hard to believe, but I also find it hard to find a charitable alternative reading.

For what it's worth, I can respect a stance that says "let his words and actions speak for themselves."  The problem is it was couched in rules that omitted other people (largely at the braying, to use your words, of the poster-in-question) who committed no sin other than to post pseudo-eponymously, and also purported to ban the very thing he is engaged in now, and has been engaged in since the new rules were put in place.  Which is to say, it fed the troll.  We're seeing the fruit of that feeding now, 7 months later (and, I'd argue, have seen it since, though to be sure I have not been here as much as most of the rest of you).  I want to think that's unintentional.  But I'm finding it hard to rationalize that when it seems quite intentional.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13587
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3907 on: July 01, 2021, 11:24:19 AM »
Pastor Fienen:
I don't doubt that you don't care to try to justify why people's right to choice in these matters should be limited by government sanction while holding "choice" sacrosanct in other matters despite demonstrable harm that choice brings to others.
Me:
I am not entering this kind of discussion, but as you probably know, we disagree about your phrase “demonstrable harm that choice brings to others.”  Or to put it another way, we disagree about what constitutes the presence of “others.“ And you insist that your definition of “others“ is the only foundation for discussion.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13587
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3908 on: July 01, 2021, 11:34:18 AM »
Peter:
I'll bet most people do. (That is: know) Smart, well-read, caring, health-conscious people who are dubious about getting vaccinated. They might be wrong in their assessment (I think they are) but they aren't fools and they aren't uncaring.

Me:
That is a ridiculous non sequitur.
If “smart, well read, caring, health-conscious people“ are dubious about the wisdom of speed limits in certain areas, seatbelts, safety regulations for public buildings, and vaccination against smallpox and polio,“ what should we think of them? I think they are dangerously foolish and wrong. And should their views on those subjects be “respected“? Or should they be given a pass and not have to obey, for example, the seatbelt law, because they are dubious about its benefits?
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13587
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3909 on: July 01, 2021, 11:48:50 AM »
This topic thread is, of course, about the virus. But some thing about politesse here and moderation seems to have been injected into the conversation.
That’s not a big concern of mine, but I do see that in a recent posting, remarks from this humble correspondence were referred to as “ simplistic to the point of being stupid,“ and written “in the manner of a donkey braying.”  By a “moderator.”
I’m not complaining. Just noting.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3910 on: July 01, 2021, 11:53:20 AM »
Peter:
I'll bet most people do. (That is: know) Smart, well-read, caring, health-conscious people who are dubious about getting vaccinated. They might be wrong in their assessment (I think they are) but they aren't fools and they aren't uncaring.

Me:
That is a ridiculous non sequitur.
If “smart, well read, caring, health-conscious people“ are dubious about the wisdom of speed limits in certain areas, seatbelts, safety regulations for public buildings, and vaccination against smallpox and polio,“ what should we think of them? I think they are dangerously foolish and wrong. And should their views on those subjects be “respected“? Or should they be given a pass and not have to obey, for example, the seatbelt law, because they are dubious about its benefits?
No it isn't a ridiculous non sequitur. That you think being forced to allow strangers to inject your body with a substance you don't want injected into your body in a procedure with known and dangerous possible side-effects is the same thing as safety regulations for public buildings is quite telling. 

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13587
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3911 on: July 01, 2021, 12:10:26 PM »
Maybe I wasn’t clear upstream, Peter. Or maybe you just like to read the worst into all my comments.
In one way, I don’t give a tinker’s dam whether folks are vaccinated.
But if one is not vaccinatedI am in favor of severe and I mean severe restrictions on what that unvaccinated person can do among us. They should not be allowed to serve me food, check out my groceries, work on my plumbing, or do anything else that might expose me and my family and friends to the results of their foolishness.
We ban from our public schools children who don’t have the proper vaccinations. We need to ban from our public life people who do not have the proper vaccination against COVID-19.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3912 on: July 01, 2021, 12:18:24 PM »
This topic thread is, of course, about the virus. But some thing about politesse here and moderation seems to have been injected into the conversation.
That’s not a big concern of mine, but I do see that in a recent posting, remarks from this humble correspondence were referred to as “ simplistic to the point of being stupid,“ and written “in the manner of a donkey braying.”  By a “moderator.”
I’m not complaining. Just noting.
That's because both statements by the moderator were completely accurate and made in a probably vain attempt to justify your continued presence in this forum. I had to acknowledge the truth about your posts to demonstrate that I was not making my moderating decisions oblivious to what is plain to all-- you and you alone are a perennially toxic presence here going back to your days of berating and insulting Eric Swensson. It isn't your opinions or viewpoint. It isn't the progressive wing of the ELCA, liberal politics, or any take on an issue that is the problem. It is you and your incessant, nasty, domineering attempts to frame all discussions in your terms and belittle or mock anyone who wrenches it out of your control.   

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3913 on: July 01, 2021, 12:19:48 PM »
I suppose if one wanted to debate the merits of the post that's easy enough.  The implication that Pr. Fienen doesn't wish to send a Gestapo to force people to get vaccinated because he hates Democrats, for example, could be easily refuted by playing clips of the current VP saying she wouldn't take the vaccine because blah..blah..blah..Trump.  But that only works when those are questions asked rather than accusations made. Since we both know which is which here, I find it odd to focus so intently on the whipped cream.


To the boldface: how many times have I asked questions and had them taken as partisan statements? Answer: often. I've even asked if people know what the "?" symbol means.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #3914 on: July 01, 2021, 12:24:39 PM »
Peter:
I'll bet most people do. (That is: know) Smart, well-read, caring, health-conscious people who are dubious about getting vaccinated. They might be wrong in their assessment (I think they are) but they aren't fools and they aren't uncaring.

Me:
That is a ridiculous non sequitur.
If “smart, well read, caring, health-conscious people“ are dubious about the wisdom of speed limits in certain areas, seatbelts, safety regulations for public buildings, and vaccination against smallpox and polio,“ what should we think of them? I think they are dangerously foolish and wrong. And should their views on those subjects be “respected“? Or should they be given a pass and not have to obey, for example, the seatbelt law, because they are dubious about its benefits?
No it isn't a ridiculous non sequitur. That you think being forced to allow strangers to inject your body with a substance you don't want injected into your body in a procedure with known and dangerous possible side-effects is the same thing as safety regulations for public buildings is quite telling.


So you agree with the slogan, "My body, my choice."
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]