Jason Sitoke Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, Moiraine said: What % of P&R posts do you read? Just curious before I answer. Not sure how that matters, nor do I think putting me through that exercise constitutes ‘good faith’ discussion. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 Just now, Jason Sitoke said: Not sure how that matters, nor do I think putting me through that exercise constitutes ‘good faith’ discussion. It absolutely matters and helps me know how to reply to the post. Link to comment
Jason Sitoke Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 23 minutes ago, Moiraine said: It absolutely matters and helps me know how to reply to the post. Wtf? Seriously? Just respond. I lurk here on occasion. I think I’m up to date. 1 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Jason Sitoke said: Wtf? Seriously? Just respond. I lurk here on occasion. I think I’m up to date. Yes, seriously. WTF - we've been discussing this for a year now. Your first post I saw was your sarcastic comment: Quote Nice to see a good healthy debate bring people together so we’re a little wiser and better for the experience. So I thought it was relevant to know whether you have ever interacted with archy before deciding whether to bother responding. If you think how archy converses on this topic is fine it's not worth it talking to you about Rand Paul or Fauci. If you're not aware of how archy generally converses on the topic then it might be worth talking to you about Rand Paul or Fauci. I just don't know if you're actually interested in the conversation or not. These discussions have been had dozens of times so I didn't really want to get into it if you're going to follow the same model. I'm not sure why the question annoyed you so much. 2 2 Link to comment
Jason Sitoke Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 32 minutes ago, Moiraine said: Yes, seriously. WTF - we've been discussing this for a year now. Your first post I saw was your sarcastic comment: So I thought it was relevant to know whether you have ever interacted with archy before deciding whether to bother responding. If you think how archy converses on this topic is fine it's not worth it talking to you about Rand Paul or Fauci. If you're not aware of how archy generally converses on the topic then it might be worth talking to you about Rand Paul or Fauci. I just don't know if you're actually interested in the conversation or not. These discussions have been had dozens of times so I didn't really want to get into it if you're going to follow the same model. I'm not sure why the question annoyed you so much. Well, I can tell you that I have no intention of driving the conversation into semantics or one-upmanship. What I have noticed on this topic is a lot of snarkiness and very little actual discourse, which is probably why I’ve been reluctant to take part. Now that I’ve stated my purpose, hope you’ll extend me the courtesy of an honest conversation. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 11 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said: Well, I can tell you that I have no intention of driving the conversation into semantics or one-upmanship. What I have noticed on this topic is a lot of snarkiness and very little actual discourse, which is probably why I’ve been reluctant to take part. Now that I’ve stated my purpose, hope you’ll extend me the courtesy of an honest conversation. Ok. There is a good reason why there is snarkiness. People have replying to the same nonsense for a long time now. I'm sure people on the wrong side of the conversation think they've been replying to nonsense too. I think it's way too much to ask that people have a lot of discourse at this point. There has also been a lot of conversing with someone who has no intention of having a real conversation, so what you're seeing is a reaction to that. To the question on Fauci, etc.; epidemiologists/statisticians are obviously not omniscient. Weeks or a couple months into a pandemic they're going to be making the most educated guesses they can make, and they are the best people to do that with the most expertise, but that doesn't mean they'll be 100% right. Even if they are not wrong, it's basically impossible to have a control group to see what would have happened if no defensive measures were taken. There may well have been educated guesses made in March, 2020 that predicted what would have happened correctly, but we had mitigation measures that changed the results. It's also possible for a blind person to hit a bullseye on a target. That's where the Rand Pauls and random idiots come into play. The people who think they know everything about every topic because they're good at one thing. I don't have an opinion on what Rand Paul has said on the pandemic because he has a history of saying moronic things. I'm not going to waste my time scouring his comments to find one random nugget he might've been half right on. I'm going to trust the expert in this field, a field I know quite a bit about, because even if he's wrong sometimes he's the most likely to be right out of anyone else other than maybe other peers in his field. Although Fauci does not have many peers. 3 2 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 Good example of one of those fun anti-mask/tinfoil hat libs. I know a guy who thinks just like this lady. (This video only has ~1,000 views but I used to watch this lady's massage videos. Ya I'm kinda weird). Link to comment
Jason Sitoke Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 3 hours ago, Moiraine said: Ok. There is a good reason why there is snarkiness. People have replying to the same nonsense for a long time now. I'm sure people on the wrong side of the conversation think they've been replying to nonsense too. I think it's way too much to ask that people have a lot of discourse at this point. There has also been a lot of conversing with someone who has no intention of having a real conversation, so what you're seeing is a reaction to that. To the question on Fauci, etc.; epidemiologists/statisticians are obviously not omniscient. Weeks or a couple months into a pandemic they're going to be making the most educated guesses they can make, and they are the best people to do that with the most expertise, but that doesn't mean they'll be 100% right. Even if they are not wrong, it's basically impossible to have a control group to see what would have happened if no defensive measures were taken. There may well have been educated guesses made in March, 2020 that predicted what would have happened correctly, but we had mitigation measures that changed the results. It's also possible for a blind person to hit a bullseye on a target. That's where the Rand Pauls and random idiots come into play. The people who think they know everything about every topic because they're good at one thing. I don't have an opinion on what Rand Paul has said on the pandemic because he has a history of saying moronic things. I'm not going to waste my time scouring his comments to find one random nugget he might've been half right on. I'm going to trust the expert in this field, a field I know quite a bit about, because even if he's wrong sometimes he's the most likely to be right out of anyone else other than maybe other peers in his field. Although Fauci does not have many peers. Agree with the basic premise. Fauci has for the most part tried to be up front and advise as best he could. He made some assertions early on that were hit and miss, but they were done in good faith. My issue with Fauci isn’t that he advised against masks early in the pandemic: “"Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." My issue is with what he offered when he got his chance at a mea culpa: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7%3famp He could have said ‘things evolved quickly and we offered advice based on what we knew’. Instead he basicallly admits that he wasn’t informing, but rather trying to evoke a targeted response from the public. When you say there’s ‘no reason for Americans to be wearing masks’, that is more than just incorrect. It’s disingenuous. His job was/is to inform, and he failed in that instance. Overall, I empathize with Fauci. I believe he’s done his best. Tried to inform. Trump basically sold him out and hung him out to dry. IMO he’s become so guarded in everything he says because of this, that it’s hard to glean anything useful from his words. For instance, he and his wife are fully vaccinated. When asked if he felt comfortable traveling, he said ‘no’. There are several reasons why he might say this...such as ‘I don’t want to travel until we ALL can travel’, etc. Instead, he says he won’t travel because he’s in a ‘high risk age group’. What? You’re vaccinated, which means your chances for experiencing severe illness are negligible, statistically. Consequently, it doesn’t seem to offer much motivation for the general public to receive a vaccine. This is not useful guidance and does brink on unnecessary alarmism in my opinion. 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 Ok....I’m getting a little tired of how some cities are handling this. There are areas of the country that have had regular school for a long time and has been proven to not be a super spreading issue. It’s just pathetic how some districts are handling this. It seems like just about everyone wants to get back to work and be normal.... except teachers in some districts. 1 Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Ok....I’m getting a little tired of how some cities are handling this. There are areas of the country that have had regular school for a long time and has been proven to not be a super spreading issue. It’s just pathetic how some districts are handling this. It seems like just about everyone wants to get back to work and be normal.... except teachers in some districts. Probably because their current situation can be a cake walk for some.... Locally, my kid's school district went to zoom teaching from March, until the end of the school year in 2020. I have a couple friends who teach in the district, and 3 kids who go to school in the district. After watching my kids do their work, and talking to those teachers.... Yeah, not much was required of anybody. Obviously, that doesn't speak for the whole country. Life has to go on. Be smart where we can, regarding the virus, but we have to get back to some normalcy. It's past time. Thankfully, in our area, we already have. 2 Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 20 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: Probably because their current situation can be a cake walk for some.... Locally, my kid's school district went to zoom teaching from March, until the end of the school year in 2020. I have a couple friends who teach in the district, and 3 kids who go to school in the district. After watching my kids do their work, and talking to those teachers.... Yeah, not much was required of anybody. Obviously, that doesn't speak for the whole country. Life has to go on. Be smart where we can, regarding the virus, but we have to get back to some normalcy. It's past time. Thankfully, in our area, we already have. Dude, yes! For teachers that are close to retirement (public school) they want to ride this out. Especially 7-12 teachers. When I was teaching on zoom (I hated teaching on zoom) it was amazing, I might keep the class on for 10 minutes, maybe 15. I would email some classes, especially seniors and tell them there was no need to zoom that day and just email them the work I wanted them to finish. Classroom control? Not an issue over zoom! Wake up at 5am? Nope, 7:15 was just fine! Finish a class and need to go run an errand? Go for it! If you had the last class off, I was done by 1pm. and the expectations, well, there were none. Basically we were a normie (what I call non-teachers), we could run errands, get lunch, GO TAKE A DUMP, when we wanted. It was amazing. So a lot of teachers unions (especially the crazy ones) are going to do all the can to fight this. I personally like being in the building, I like seeing my students and teaching in person. If for some reason we went back to zoom (I hope we don't), my life would become way easier. Good lord, one zoom day I went golfing instead of teaching. 1 1 Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 41 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Ok....I’m getting a little tired of how some cities are handling this. There are areas of the country that have had regular school for a long time and has been proven to not be a super spreading issue. It’s just pathetic how some districts are handling this. It seems like just about everyone wants to get back to work and be normal.... except teachers in some districts. Some of these states have really strong teachers unions that are powerful and loud. And certain government leaders scare easily. 1 Link to comment
teachercd Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 More on teaching online... I have a teaching friend that "teaches" at a K-5 school in MPS. He is praying they go back online because his job basically required 5 minutes of work when they were online. It was a dream come true for him. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 12 hours ago, Scarlet said: And the point of contention was Rand Paul saying the data indicated mask mandates caused a rise in cases, The quote I saw you post was him questioning if mask mandates worked. I did not see a quote from him saying mask mandates caused a rise in cases. If you have one I would love to see it cause I don’t believe it’s been posted on here. If you don’t, then you are purposely lying or misrepresenting about what he said and what this conversation is about. 2 1 Link to comment
Scarlet Posted April 3, 2021 Share Posted April 3, 2021 2 hours ago, Archy1221 said: The quote I saw you post was him questioning if mask mandates worked. I did not see a quote from him saying mask mandates caused a rise in cases. If you have one I would love to see it cause I don’t believe it’s been posted on here. If you don’t, then you are purposely lying or misrepresenting about what he said and what this conversation is about. "The data on mask mandates actually shows an INCREASED rate of COVID cases after the mandates." That's what he said. Are you going to continue to call me a liar now? Or are you going to parse down the meaning of his statement to mean he didn't really mean what he really meant. Clearly he's stating the data shows that mask mandates cause, create, show a rise, show an increased rate (all the same meaning) in Covid cases. Like I said you're in way over your head and you're just throwing s#!t at the wall to see what will stick. Repeat it enough so it is taken as fact by somebody, anybody right? I'm over debating this with you. I'm not getting paid to do this. I work, have a life. Maybe you should check it out. 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts