Coronovirus III

[foszoe]

1/2 right is right in Trump world?

Cedars - Sinai don't make Pine-Sol.

I am sure there are plenty of people out there looking for something, anything that resembles a study on intravenous disinfectant therapy.

So far the interpretations have been....Trump was asking doctors, Trump was being sarcastic (Trump's own interpretation), to assuming Trump was talking about a study that he has yet to bring up despite the need for one of the best spin teams ever.

Trumpophiles. If they were as willing to give the average person as much leeway as they do Trump this world would be a better place. Unfortunately that's not how idolatry works.

With all the Trump bashing going on in here over the last pages and pages this thread was starting to look more like a libtard media thread. And then it turns out Trump was right all along. How embarrassing.

It makes sense that Trump, briefed by experts, knows more than the typical Trumpphobic poster. This is a good thing - it brings to light more potential treatments and more ammunition in this fight against the chinese virus.

 

[Ingomike]

1/2 right is right in Trump world?

Cedars - Sinai don't make Pine-Sol.

I am sure there are plenty of people out there looking for something, anything that resembles a study on intravenous disinfectant therapy.

So far the interpretations have been....Trump was asking doctors, Trump was being sarcastic (Trump's own interpretation), to assuming Trump was talking about a study that he has yet to bring up despite the need for one of the best spin teams ever.

Trumpophiles. If they were as willing to give the average person as much leeway as they do Trump this world would be a better place. Unfortunately that's not how idolatry works.

Time to move it to the political threads. Let's talk about the topic and it ramifications...

 

[foszoe]

i agree.

But I reserve the right to respond to any replies to my posts here, here and I expect your moderating to apply to both sides.

Time to move it to the political threads. Let's talk about the topic and it ramifications...

 

[OurDee]

"I am sure there are plenty of people out there looking for something, anything that resembles a study on intravenous disinfectant therapy."

Something like this that I found on faceboogers?:

​

 

[chipbennett]

If people aren't willing to self-isolate when they are exposed, that's unfortunately an argument to show society is willing to swing their fist at someone else rather than protect their community.

Fortunately, I don't believe most people are that selfish.

I think the current desire to get out and back to work is sincere, and that most people would isolate for 2 weeks while they wait to see if they are positive.

That is an utterly absurd stretch. Having sex with someone while knowingly infected with an STD would be an example of actively causing harm through a virus/infection. Merely refusing to self-isolate from all of public and private society merely on the basis that one might have been exposed to a virus is not.

Wanting to remain gainfully employed and provide necessities for one's family is not selfish. You know what is selfish? Someone expecting the rest of society to behave as you wish, to the point of risking their and their family's livelihood - even when those actions have no discernible, definable impact on risk exposure to anyone else - so that said person can avoid even the possibility of exposure (while continuing to live his life as he sees fit).

That is selfish. That is the height of selfishness.

 

[chipbennett]

1/2 right is right in Trump world?

Cedars - Sinai don't make Pine-Sol.

I am sure there are plenty of people out there looking for something, anything that resembles a study on intravenous disinfectant therapy.

So far the interpretations have been....Trump was asking doctors, Trump was being sarcastic (Trump's own interpretation), to assuming Trump was talking about a study that he has yet to bring up despite the need for one of the best spin teams ever.

Trumpophiles. If they were as willing to give the average person as much leeway as they do Trump this world would be a better place. Unfortunately that's not how idolatry works.

This is disingenuous. A "study on intravenous disinfectant therapy" will never be found - as I suspect you know - because by definition a disinfectant would not be used in that manner. A disinfectant, by definition, is used on inanimate surfaces.

There may be studies in which a substance that at one strength, concentration, and dosage form is a disinfectant (such as VHP) is used at a different strength, concentration, or dosage form for intravenous or other form of human therapy (such as hydrogen peroxide used as part of chemotherapy). But, in that case, the substance would not be referred to as a disinfectant.

I think you will find that it is the insistence on such disingenuous arguments/assertions that pushes more people into digging in to support Trump to counter them. It has nothing to do with idolatry, and everything to do with being utterly fed up with NeverTrumper logical fallacy, such as the straw man you demolished here.

 

[foszoe]

I believe I was simply using Trump's language?

That said i have appreciated the value you have brought to the discussion. However, Trumpophila is simply to counter Trumpophobes. That is what I am calling attention to.

This is disingenuous. A "study on intravenous disinfectant therapy" will never be found - as I suspect you know - because by definition a disinfectant would not be used in that manner. A disinfectant, by definition, is used on inanimate surfaces.

There may be studies in which a substance that at one strength, concentration, and dosage form is a disinfectant (such as VHP) is used at a different strength, concentration, or dosage form for intravenous or other form of human therapy (such as hydrogen peroxide used as part of chemotherapy). But, in that case, the substance would not be referred to as a disinfectant.

I think you will find that it is the insistence on such disingenuous arguments/assertions that pushes more people into digging in to support Trump to counter them. It has nothing to do with idolatry, and everything to do with being utterly fed up with NeverTrumper logical fallacy, such as the straw man you demolished here.

 

[chipbennett]

I believe I was simply using Trump's language?

That said i have appreciated the value you have brought to the discussion. However, Trumpophila is simply to counter Trumpophobes. That is what I am calling attention to.

And I'll restate: it have never liked Trump's delivery in general, and I'm not a fan of turning press briefings into panel discussions in particular.

But that's just who Trump is, and said delivery causes no real, inherent harm. The reaction from NeverTrumpers (on the left or on the right) to anything and everything Trump does and says is so hyperbolic, so irrational, so ridiculous - so Trumpophobic - that it becomes the action that causes the equal and opposite reaction that resembles Trumpophilia.

 

[foszoe]

Ok, so by inference, why the need to correct? If I use Trump's words. Then how does the word choice cause real or inherent harm?

My main point in that post was the last sentence and this reply and the one preceding it are making the point sharper.

I find it interesting that the post containing Trumpophobes is not subject to the same scrutiny.

Why is that?

And I'll restate: it have never liked Trump's delivery in general, and I'm not a fan of turning press briefings into panel discussions in particular.

But that's just who Trump is, and said delivery causes no real, inherent harm. The reaction from NeverTrumpers (on the left or on the right) to anything and everything Trump does and says is so hyperbolic, so irrational, so ridiculous - so Trumpophobic - that it becomes the action that causes the equal and opposite reaction that resembles Trumpophilia.

 

[MCgrease08]

I believe I was simply using Trump's language?

That said i have appreciated the value you have brought to the discussion. However, Trumpophila is simply to counter Trumpophobes. That is what I am calling attention to.

Were you using Trump's language when you flippantly said, "Cedars - Sinai don't make Pine-Sol."

Because Trump never said anything about Pine Sol, but it seems to be the cleaning product his detractors have latched onto. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be using his language then throw in something he didn't say.

The reason Trump's supporters continue to dig into defend him is because we've seen this movie too many times already. Trump says something in an inarticulate way, the media latches on to it to try and spin it to mean something other than what it actually is. Then later it turns out there is some basis in reality to what he said. It's extremely predictable and tiresome.

Maybe this time he did make up something completely out of whole cloth and the media has finally, after hundreds of attempts, found the thing that pushes his supporters away. But I doubt it.

 

[nonobaddog]

Yes, semantic arguments are so tiring in their nature. However that is what people resort to when they don't have any meat but they want to argue and criticize so very badly.

 

[Alpo]

Trump has a history of saying something, then either walking it back or moving 180 degrees on the issue.

Under those conditions, he is correct....part of the time. And the Trumpkins defend him on it.

In my mind, it's utter nonsense. An honest person stakes a position. If he is wrong and has to amend his statement, he does so honestly.

Trump does not admit error. In that, he's no better than an eighth grade mean girl.

 

[nonobaddog]

Trump has a history of saying something, then either walking it back or moving 180 degrees on the issue.

Under those conditions, he is correct....part of the time. And the Trumpkins defend him on it.

In my mind, it's utter nonsense. An honest person stakes a position. If he is wrong as has to amend his statement, he does so honestly.

[strike]Trump[/strike] Alpo does not admit error. In that, he's no better than an eighth grade mean girl.

Fixy

 

[foszoe]

Chip responded to the bolded part and that was what my reply specifically referenced

The Pine-Sol comment was a play on the words in the study cited earlier regarding using UV light (Cedars Sinai was the company involved).

If Trump supporters continue to "dig in" to defend him, then should they expect an equal an opposite reaction. It shouldn't be surprising when a person who was not a never Trumper but questions Trump and then gets lumped into the Never Trumper Camp begins to "dig in" in their opposition no? Good for the goose is good for the gander. That is precisely the question I asked in the political thread, which is where this discussion really belongs, when I asked if Trump supporters in swing states may vote against him. I was immediately told no.

Well be glad I am in the state of Indiana because I voted for him, but my vote will more than likely go 3rd party this go around.

Were you using Trump's language when you flippantly said, "Cedars - Sinai don't make Pine-Sol."

Because Trump never said anything about Pine Sol, but it seems to be the cleaning product his detractors have latched onto. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be using his language then throw in something he didn't say.

The reason Trump's supporters continue to dig into defend him is because we've seen this movie too many times already. Trump says something in an inarticulate way, the media latches on to it to try and spin it to mean something other than what it actually is. Then later it turns out there is some basis in reality to what he said. It's extremely predictable and tiresome.

Maybe this time he did make up something completely out of whole cloth and the media has finally, after hundreds of attempts, found the thing that pushes his supporters away. But I doubt it.

 

[dusty88]

That is an utterly absurd stretch. Having sex with someone while knowingly infected with an STD would be an example of actively causing harm through a virus/infection. Merely refusing to self-isolate from all of public and private society merely on the basis that one might have been exposed to a virus is not.

Wanting to remain gainfully employed and provide necessities for one's family is not selfish. You know what is selfish? Someone expecting the rest of society to behave as you wish, to the point of risking their and their family's livelihood - even when those actions have no discernible, definable impact on risk exposure to anyone else - so that said person can avoid even the possibility of exposure (while continuing to live his life as he sees fit).

That is selfish. That is the height of selfishness.

Sorry, I failed to copy the quote I was responding to, plus this is moving faster than I can find all the responses when I come back

My assertion that it would be selfish to NOT self-isolate was in response to the testing discussion.

If you've been exposed to someone who is now testing positive (ie 3 days ago you were at work and now one of your coworkers is positive), would you self-isolate for 2 weeks?

I believe another member said people would not do that. I disagree. I think most people would.

 

[foszoe]

I think this depends somewhat on sick leave etc but in general yes.

Sorry, I failed to copy the quote I was responding to, plus this is moving faster than I can find all the responses when I come back

My assertion that it would be selfish to NOT self-isolate was in response to the testing discussion.

If you've been exposed to someone who is now testing positive (ie 3 days ago you were at work and now one of your coworkers is positive), would you self-isolate for 2 weeks?

I believe another member said people would not do that. I disagree. I think most people would.

 

[foszoe]

Alpo has never admitted error?

That ALMOST PERSUADES me to do a quick search.

Fixy

 

[tsm]

Trump has a history of saying something, then either walking it back or moving 180 degrees on the issue.

Under those conditions, he is correct....part of the time. And the Trumpkins defend him on it.

In my mind, it's utter nonsense. An honest person stakes a position. If he is wrong and has to amend his statement, he does so honestly.

Trump does not admit error. In that, he's no better than an eighth grade mean girl.

Thought you wanted to stick to the topic’s thread and move these to the political thread. What happened, poor idea, or did some mean girls kick sand on you in the eighth grade?

 

[chipbennett]

Ok, so by inference, why the need to correct? If I use Trump's words. Then how does the word choice cause real or inherent harm?

My main point in that post was the last sentence and this reply and the one preceding it are making the point sharper.

I find it interesting that the post containing Trumpophobes is not subject to the same scrutiny.

Why is that?

So, I didn't respond to "Trumpophobe" or "Trumpophile". I responded to a straw man argument. I'm all for objective criticism; logical fallacy, on the other hand, undermines any reasonable discourse.

Unfortunately, with respect to politics, there almost isn't any such thing as reasonable discourse anymore. From either side.

 

[chipbennett]

Sorry, I failed to copy the quote I was responding to, plus this is moving faster than I can find all the responses when I come back

My assertion that it would be selfish to NOT self-isolate was in response to the testing discussion.

If you've been exposed to someone who is now testing positive (ie 3 days ago you were at work and now one of your coworkers is positive), would you self-isolate for 2 weeks?

I believe another member said people would not do that. I disagree. I think most people would.

It depends on the situation. Blanket self-isolation? Maybe, maybe not. For 2 weeks? Maybe, maybe not.

If social distancing and mask-wearing are effective enough to force them upon everyone in every situation, why would they not be sufficient for someone who may or may not have been exposed to the virus, but who remains asymptomatic? If one can avoid high-risk people without self-isolation, what is the need for self-isolation?

And if the true numbers regarding infection rate (with the resulting, drastic lowering of the mortality rate) are what they appear to be anecdotally, the need for (and, therefore, likelihood of) blanket self-isolation goes down commensurately.