hpslugga

As someone who’s married to a first generation American, I can tell you that’s not an uncommon conversation that’s being had.

Miseducation’s been around a long time. The only thing that’s changed is that it’s gotten more and more bizarre. It used to be that “Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492, the Pilgrims sailed in 1620, had a nice meal with the Indians which we now call Thanksgiving, America won its independence from England in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris and George Washington was elected President in 1789 because he couldn’t tell a lie and admitted to cutting down the cherry tree as a boy.” A few generations later? “Christopher Columbus discovered Ohio in 1942, the Pilgrims defeated the Indians in the annual thanksgiving football game and the Indians acted like asses about it so we had to kill them, then Paul Revere started the Revolutionary War because the British Parliament wouldn’t grant us the right to bear arms, Ben Franklin was chosen as President by wowing Thomas Jefferson with the kite holding the key to Washington DC, then Jesus and Moses hand delivered the Constitution to James Madison on the Capitol steps.” Exaggeration? Only slightly.

Not only is it made by Merck, but a year ago, Merck put out a statement and the overall theme was “do not give us your money to take our product for the purposes of treating COVID.” And yet these same motherfuckers ignored all of that. So they hate big Pharma so much that they’ll give them money to buy one of their products, but they don’t heed their advice not to take it for that purpose because “Big Pharma is full of shit, man.” There’s a word for that kind of tortured logic and we have a poster who bears the exact name of that condition: incredulity. I would wager all the money I have that if Merck had not released that statement, especially if it turned out that ivermectin does in fact have therapeutic value, and instead turned out a statement that read “send us your money and we will treat your COVID with this product,” they wouldn’t do it and they would find some other magical potion to deal with a very real illness.

I think that’s a more narrow pinning down of a larger problem, which is the confirmation bias. To them, everything proves them correct no matter what the report is. Numbers going down? We don’t need masks, don’t need vaccinations. Numbers going up? Masks and vaccinations aren’t working. Old variants going away? Had to have been the ivermectin New variants coming in? Masks and vaccinations aren’t working, bring in the ivermectin. No new variants? See, I told you we didn’t need all these masks and vaccines. They don’t work and they didn’t do anything. Among the other isms, yes. Well yeah that’s kinda what I meant by shouting “I win!!! I’m king!!!” from the bottom of the hill.

Taint dick, taint ass

And of course, they said no such thing. They did say it had an “antiviral effect,” but that does not mean “effective against Omicron.” https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/japans-kowa-says-ivermectin-effective-against-omicron-phase-iii-trial-2022-01-31/ The original Reuters story misstated that ivermectin was "effective" against Omicron in Phase III clinical trials, which are conducted in humans. I doubt Rogan will acknowledge the correction, though.

When you say "the early church," to which one are you referring? You make it sound as if it was a monolithic enterprise in earlier years, and that's not at all accurate.

They may as well have used Ecclesiastes 3:19, for all the good that would have done them. But that's really the point, isn't it? That they have to twist themselves into such dishonest...errr "apologetic" pretzels that they have to do that practice of "reading between the lines without reading the lines" and perform these pitiful displays of mental gymnastics instead of just reading simple texts for what they are...like Yevamot 69b: "And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being” Or Sanhedrin 80b: "the legal status of the fetus is not that of an independent entity; rather, its status is like that of its mother’s thigh, i.e., a part of its body." Then of course the really hardcore liars...errr "apologists" are gonna shoot back with "that's from the Talmud; that's not Christianity." See, it's just a series of cans of worms that those people keep opening. Ok, so New Testament only, right? Matthew 5:18-19: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So Jewish law is very much relevant, according to their own savior, so I do not consent to that condition of "New Testament only." One of those laws is found in Numbers 5: 11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. 16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. 29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband" "Oh but they don't know she's pregnant," the apologist will mislead. Yeah, but they do know that if the suspicion is correct, this water will cause her to have a miscarriage. Abortion is, by definition, a forced miscarriage. Of course every thinking person knows this whole thing about curses and potions is pure bullshit, but that's not the point. The point is what's in that freakin' Bible they thump so loudly when women's reproductive rights are at issue. So according to Jewish Law, which is the foundation of the aforementioned Jesus passage in Matthew: 1. From day 0-40 of gestation, the being isn't even a being. It is "mere water." 2. From day 41 until live birth, the being is still not a being. It's a "part of a mother's body," most commonly referred to as a "thigh." * 3. If at any point prior to the live birth the woman's husband suspects that she's been unfaithful (and let's be realistic, what better reason would he have to suspect that than when she's pregnant when she should not be?), God not only endorses abortion, he participates in it. And notice, this forced miscarriage is to take place whether the woman wants it or not. She is to say "amen, so be it." *=Some of your Bibles will translate the Numbers passage as something to the effect of "the woman's thigh will rot and fall away" instead of "the womb miscarries." This is why. Yeah, again, those are just mental back-flips that you're witnessing. Some of them actually do. Some actually do know the passages I quoted. They just don't care. For them, religion isn't a life philosophy or a life discipline. It's simply a bat that they use to crack the skulls of anyone they do not like.

Make Believe and Pretend is that fun of a game to play.

Don’t forget 20-10

Too bad “god’s law” says absolutely nothing about life beginning at conception. Why is it that when it comes to these silly-assed arguments about mixing religion with politics, secularists always seem to know both sides of the argument better than the fanatics know their own?

Well certainly not sane people, but nonetheless there are people who do claim that the CFP (and even the fucking BCS) is/was a superior model. Happens every year around late November/early December.

If anyone watched the last 6 NFL games and still thinks the BCS/CFP religion errr “formula” is the superior model, I’m telling you as a person who categorically opposes capital punishment that you deserve to be burned at the stake.

He’s always going to believe that.

Can’t speak to the numbers but they’re definitely the loudest.

Uh show us where he touched you?

BUT THEY’RE STILL BETTER THAN BIG PHARMA BECAUSE THINGS AND STUFF!!! Ah yes, the “lurker around the slot machines” approach. Well, that’s one way I suppose.

It very much is, notwithstanding your furious refusal to see that. It’s as if you don’t even understand who makes generic drugs in general.

Quite besides the point, but you knew that. You also know that nearly a year ago, Merck issued a statement about it https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ “Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified: No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.” So they called bullshit on uses of their own product for those purposes, but that’s…what, ok because any company can make a generic? You do realize that while there are some small differences between name brands and generics, the active ingredients are the same and definitely not different to the point where the name brand is telling you “do not use this drug for that purpose” while the generic can be telling you “no, you can.” And if that wasn’t your contention, I’m not sure what your point is. To repeat, those medications were brought into the mainstream by two major pharmaceutical companies. They are not holistic alternatives to western medicine, and pointing out that generics exists literally does nothing to change that. My whole point with that was to show that wagging the illusory “follow us or you’re just sheeple who just blindly follows Big Pharma” stick and carrot is a stupid person’s idea of a smart thing to say.

Seriously, his popularity peaked out over 20 years ago, and that was easily forgettable. If it hadn’t been for his rancid fanboyism of Donald Trump in the present day, I honestly would have forgotten who he was.

So why are they asserting that hydroxychloroquine, which is made by Sanofi, and Ivermectin, which is made by Merck, are valid treatments for COVID? I mean you couldn’t have picked two medications that are more Big Pharma than those. Mere skepticism doesn’t drive that kind of idiocy. That’s driven by an overconfidence in an ability they do not actually possess. “Everyone in the CDC is wrong, but I’m not!” Again, it’s not so much the skepticism, it’s their idiotic alternative suggestions. It’s not enough to cast doubt on what mainstream medical communities are recommending. To actually prove they’re wrong, you also have to suggest valid alternatives, and they fail rather spectacularly at that. The whole entire premise behind what they’re saying is the ugly cousin of the God of the gaps fallacy: “I don’t believe science provided by Big Pharma, therefore magic (which again is also attributed to Big Pharma)” And again, I mean no disrespect to you directly, but it’s been my observation that lawyers are the hardest peddlers of this Ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine/anti-vaccine drivel. But regardless of their actual profession, the output is the same: they are cosplaying doctors and medical professionals in general. You cannot justify skepticism with make believe and demand respect for such positions. Science basically works like a game of king of the hill. Something assumes the role of king, and everyone else has the absolute right to, within certain guidelines, knock it off and if they succeed, they’re the new “king” unless and until someone else knocks them off. Much as the Joe Bros want to believe it, Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine haven’t even come close to knocking off monoclonals. Vaccination has never come close to being knocked of by non-vaccination. You don’t win king of the hill by declaring yourself king from the bottom of the fucking hill.

The same thing it meant the first time it was posted: that certain people are asking us to take them seriously when they can’t be trusted to spell “deceit” correctly.

The same thing it meant the first time it was posted: that certain people are asking us to take them seriously when they can’t be trusted to spell “deceit” correctly.

I’ll accept Collins’ premise, provided however that they take their time, have hearings, and go through the process of giving a lifetime appointment as SCOTUS associate Justice… to Anita Hill.

I mean religion is in itself a grift, but the Falwells were (are) fundamentalist and IIRC, young earth creationist to their core. When you grow up to be as old as either of the Jerry’s, you come to a crossroads where you have to choose to be honest or to be a fundamentalist because it’s impossible to be both.