Coronovirus IV

[jedi]

Post #2733.

Can you legally? :dumno:

 

[nonobaddog]

That’s in there too.

Yup, found it this time through. I got a little catatonic during the first read.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Can you legally? :dumno:

Probably not. Just a fantasy really.

 

[jedi]

Probably not. Just a fantasy really.

Then u owe me money for my death star project.

 

[ashby koss]

Saw this elsewhere. They redirected to here. Kroger and donaimting change or putting on your Kroger card.

I. CALL. BULL****.

that’s borderline theft. I don’t care how much I’d take my cash and walk out they can re-shelf everything. Will they round down 25cents? No, why should I Round up 75 cents?

I encourage everyone to walk away leaving everything not our hard and waste their man hour re shelving preferable perishable items. I’m tired of Kroger union bag boys and mob tactics in smal towns. These big companies thing they own America. Sick.

 

[Phase2]

Saw this elsewhere. They redirected to here. Kroger and donaimting change or putting on your Kroger card.

I. CALL. BULL****.

that’s borderline theft. I don’t care how much I’d take my cash and walk out they can re-shelf everything. Will they round down 25cents? No, why should I Round up 75 cents?

I encourage everyone to walk away leaving everything not our hard and waste their man hour re shelving preferable perishable items. I’m tired of Kroger union bag boys and mob tactics in smal towns. These big companies thing they own America. Sick.

FIrst world problems...

There is a serious shortage of physical coins right now. Multiple stores are restricting cash use because they can't make change. Kroger isn't the only one. The alternative is to say CC only. They came up with a solution that allows people who want to continue to use cash. They'll hold a credit for you on your Kroger card and will credit you for it at your next purchase. You can always go to Meijer and not be able to use cash because their machines can't make change either.

Want to be part of the solution? If you have a pile of change sitting around, cash them in to help keep cash alive. Stores aren't causing the problem, but they are getting a lot of abuse from customers who are uninformed.

You were actually directed to the wrong thread. There is a much more thorough discussion of the problem being discussed in this thread over the last two weeks: Coin Shortage

 

[ashby koss]

FIrst world problems...

There is a serious shortage of physical coins right now. Multiple stores are restricting cash use because they can't make change. Kroger isn't the only one. The alternative is to say CC only. They came up with a solution that allows people who want to continue to use cash. They'll hold a credit for you on your Kroger card and will credit you for it at your next purchase. You can always go to Meijer and not be able to use cash because their machines can't make change either.

Want to be part of the solution? If you have a pile of change sitting around, cash them in to help keep cash alive. Stores aren't causing the problem, but they are getting a lot of abuse from customers who are uninformed.

You were actually directed to the wrong thread. There is a much more thorough discussion of the problem being discussed in this thread over the last two weeks: Coin Shortage

moving on down the road. Thanks.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Yeah, I've never had to give them my SSN.

Well, how long have you had a Kroger Card, this was 20+ years ago. I quit shopping Kroger when Meier opened up in Camby in 2002-03. I was tired of the amount of items that was always out of stock Management was always saying we'll have it in stock later in the week, I replied with "You paying for my gas to drive back, I'm here now."

 

[churchmouse]

Get back on track fellas.

 

[Ingomike]

The local news in Louisville interviewed a teacher who I think also represented the teachers' union. I mentioned it before because she was the only one interviewed. It was very critical of going back to school, and I thought it was unfair because the station that did the interview only presented the one view and seemed to treat it as the correct point of view. Nevertheless, I think this issue splits along temperament lines. I think the left leaning teachers are very much against going back while the right leaning teachers might want to. That sounds very politicized. Probably not as much at least when it comes to rank and file teachers.


Which brings me to this thought stream. Dusty88 said something about trying to explain right-wing attitudes about science/masks to moderate/left friends, and then the sense of embarrassed around that. There are complaints on both sides that the other is politicizing wearing or not wearing masks. But whether you do or don't isn't actually political. Those young people going to parties and bars can't all be knuckle dragging conservatives. I'd wager they're mostly zoomers and millennials and predominately left of center. Their actual politics isn't driving their behavior. On the other side, plenty of conservatives wear masks because they've made some calculated decisions about it. Mask wearing has come to feel like a left/right divide, but it is not so much.

Somehow it's become that because many right leaning people are vocal opponents wearing masks themselves, and people on the left eagerly accept that it's morally "right" to wear masks regardless. Each side thinks they're right, that it's only the other side is politicizing it. If hearing that pisses you off, consider that you're definitely politicizing it. Both are making it political. Does that matter? The politicization I think is a natural phenomenon of sides becoming entrenched, and it's actually not as important as what's happening underneath. Saying, "Stop politicizing it" is like saying to a person with a cold, "stop making snot!". They're both symptoms, not the problem. As far as it is about sides, the underlying problem is trust. The thing that causes the mistrust is both sides is assuming the other arrives at a different decision for immoral or malicious reasons.

It's fair to say that individuals prioritize risk trade-offs differently. It is mostly a function of people's temperament and values. The temperament varies, the values are mostly the same ones, just prioritized differently across temperaments. As those value rankings are socialized/collectivized, groups form along similar rankings, which collect into one of two pigeonholes, "us" and "them" on a given topic. It seems likely that it would resolve into two groups because most issues involve a binary choice: yer either fer it, or agin' it. Unless you see both sides of it, in which case, your prioritization of values may be compatible with many people from both sides, which describes moderates. But as things become more of a contest between "us" and "them", that's when the snot starts running; they become politicized. Temperament influencing different prioritizations of values, drive politicization and not the other way around.

We argue primarily along moral lines because we're primarily concerned with "what" instead of "why". But the "why" is the key to avoiding much of the distrust between sides, the politicization, and then thinking the other must be evil. The sides rarely even group along benevolent/malevolent. Not to say that some individuals in the fringe of either side can't become malevolent. People become fringe members of a group as they become more ideologically possessed or whatever. But most political alignment is grouped along similar rankings of much the same values. Of course some groups don't have all the values that the other has (See Jonathan Haidt's theory of moral foundations).

We have this tendency to attach moral virtue to our own side of binary questions. We pick a side according to the way we've ranked our priorities, basically the thing to which we've applied our values."We" then becomes the morally "good" side because we all like to think of ourselves as moral people, and we've bothered to apply the values accordingly as they are most important. They're the bad side because they did not arrive at the same conclusion that we did. "WE" want this policy because our values are righteous, so that makes US the good guys. YOU don't want that, so your values must be evil and poopy and so are you."

Of course that's bull****. You're no more moral than the person who disagrees with you. So here's where the ranking of values makes a difference. I've likened this particular divide between the ideas of "don't just stand there, do something" and "don't just do something, stand there" (implying act when you're reasonably certain the solution is correct.). One person's value order may make the first choice the right choice. Another person's value order may make the second the right choice. Same values. Different order. And it's temperament that would really make that difference. i think people who might choose engineering fields might tend towards the latter. That's not immoral. That's temperament.

I think it would be more productive if, we think of our differences as simply different prioritization of mostly the same basic values. But instead, we do this us/them thing which turns into bashing the other, because "they" don't agree with "us". And then everyone projects motives onto the other that they don't actually have. On the one side, we've heard "they just want to control us". On the other side, "they must not care". But except for those on the fringes, or those with ulterior motivated players, neither projection is likely true.

If both parties don't understand that you can't have a productive dialog about controversial topics with people who disagree with you. And you certainly cannot go back to your friends and try to explain the "other's" behavior to relieve whatever is your embarrassment, because you can't understand it in any other way but that they must be immoral. Here's an identifier that you may be full of **** WRT your opinion of the other. If you say they want "wrong" things because "they just don't care," or, because "they just want to control us," without first understanding their prioritization of values in a way that they would agree with, THAT should be a flag that you may be at least a little full of ****.

TL;DR: if you think the other side is the immoral side (ideological possession doesn't count), yer probably full of ****. Regardless of what side you're on, you prioritize much the same values as the other but in a different order, you do it according to your temperament, and that's not immoral. Even if you pump incorrect facts through your temperament to reach a different goal, that's not immoral either. It's just drawing a conclusion that your values wouldn't have allowed had you used correct information. Even if you don't want to see the same information that the other sees, that's not immorality either. That's simply mistrust. So stop making it about moral superiority. Everyone but sociopaths mostly care. No one other than ideologically possessed people are trying to mind control you. Be careful not to ascribe immorality to people who disagree with you just because their order of values is different from yours. If this pisses you off and you haven't read the whole thing, read it. Maybe you won't still be pissed.

Lots of good there but it seems to me what you are describing requires a somewhat homogeneous foundation. Today we have things going on that would have been unimaginable 40 years ago. The 35 and under group has had a completely different social education than this older. The cities and some states are ran not by corrupt dems of old but avowed leftists, sometimes even self proclaimed communists. I have nothing to discuss with a communist nor they with me.

This is where I think you often go wrong with your steadfast belief that both sides have good and bad. We must agree on the fundamental system, then debate the way to run said system where they will be differences. If one side said safety and abundance were to the west and the other side to the east, how can there be compromise? You can only go one way. What should they do? Just stay put in gridlock? Once a decision is made to go a particular direction then compromise would be do we get there with the north route or south, but the fundamental decision is one or the other.

We are partly in the national debt situation we are in because we could not make a decision on a direction. We borrowed like crazy to fund the liberal socialist dream and hawks defense plans, while enacting the low taxes of the conservative dream. We cannot continue this forever, it will stop but how and when if still debatable. We will be forced to make a decision on the direction at some point, although the left did a better job winning minds in the stalemate years.

Today I cannot have discussions with some friends as our directions are diametrically opposed, there is no amount of open mindedness and goodwill listening that will bridge the gap, we want to go completely different directions.

Thanks for for paragraphs or I would never have read that.

 

[nonobaddog]

 

[d.kaufman]

 

[actaeon277]

Sailors? Filthy buggers.
[video=youtube;7RlBUEHQ7bY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlBUEHQ7bY[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

The local news in Louisville interviewed a teacher who I think also represented the teachers' union. I mentioned it before because she was the only one interviewed. It was very critical of going back to school, and I thought it was unfair because the station that did the interview only presented the one view and seemed to treat it as the correct point of view. Nevertheless, I think this issue splits along temperament lines. I think the left leaning teachers are very much against going back while the right leaning teachers might want to. That sounds very politicized. Probably not as much at least when it comes to rank and file teachers.


Which brings me to this thought stream. Dusty88 said something about trying to explain right-wing attitudes about science/masks to moderate/left friends, and then the sense of embarrassed around that. There are complaints on both sides that the other is politicizing wearing or not wearing masks. But whether you do or don't isn't actually political. Those young people going to parties and bars can't all be knuckle dragging conservatives. I'd wager they're mostly zoomers and millennials and predominately left of center. Their actual politics isn't driving their behavior. On the other side, plenty of conservatives wear masks because they've made some calculated decisions about it. Mask wearing has come to feel like a left/right divide, but it is not so much.

Somehow it's become that because many right leaning people are vocal opponents wearing masks themselves, and people on the left eagerly accept that it's morally "right" to wear masks regardless. Each side thinks they're right, that it's only the other side is politicizing it. If hearing that pisses you off, consider that you're definitely politicizing it. Both are making it political. Does that matter? The politicization I think is a natural phenomenon of sides becoming entrenched, and it's actually not as important as what's happening underneath. Saying, "Stop politicizing it" is like saying to a person with a cold, "stop making snot!". They're both symptoms, not the problem. As far as it is about sides, the underlying problem is trust. The thing that causes the mistrust is both sides is assuming the other arrives at a different decision for immoral or malicious reasons.

It's fair to say that individuals prioritize risk trade-offs differently. It is mostly a function of people's temperament and values. The temperament varies, the values are mostly the same ones, just prioritized differently across temperaments. As those value rankings are socialized/collectivized, groups form along similar rankings, which collect into one of two pigeonholes, "us" and "them" on a given topic. It seems likely that it would resolve into two groups because most issues involve a binary choice: yer either fer it, or agin' it. Unless you see both sides of it, in which case, your prioritization of values may be compatible with many people from both sides, which describes moderates. But as things become more of a contest between "us" and "them", that's when the snot starts running; they become politicized. Temperament influencing different prioritizations of values, drive politicization and not the other way around.

We argue primarily along moral lines because we're primarily concerned with "what" instead of "why". But the "why" is the key to avoiding much of the distrust between sides, the politicization, and then thinking the other must be evil. The sides rarely even group along benevolent/malevolent. Not to say that some individuals in the fringe of either side can't become malevolent. People become fringe members of a group as they become more ideologically possessed or whatever. But most political alignment is grouped along similar rankings of much the same values. Of course some groups don't have all the values that the other has (See Jonathan Haidt's theory of moral foundations).

We have this tendency to attach moral virtue to our own side of binary questions. We pick a side according to the way we've ranked our priorities, basically the thing to which we've applied our values."We" then becomes the morally "good" side because we all like to think of ourselves as moral people, and we've bothered to apply the values accordingly as they are most important. They're the bad side because they did not arrive at the same conclusion that we did. "WE" want this policy because our values are righteous, so that makes US the good guys. YOU don't want that, so your values must be evil and poopy and so are you."

Of course that's bull****. You're no more moral than the person who disagrees with you. So here's where the ranking of values makes a difference. I've likened this particular divide between the ideas of "don't just stand there, do something" and "don't just do something, stand there" (implying act when you're reasonably certain the solution is correct.). One person's value order may make the first choice the right choice. Another person's value order may make the second the right choice. Same values. Different order. And it's temperament that would really make that difference. i think people who might choose engineering fields might tend towards the latter. That's not immoral. That's temperament.

I think it would be more productive if, we think of our differences as simply different prioritization of mostly the same basic values. But instead, we do this us/them thing which turns into bashing the other, because "they" don't agree with "us". And then everyone projects motives onto the other that they don't actually have. On the one side, we've heard "they just want to control us". On the other side, "they must not care". But except for those on the fringes, or those with ulterior motivated players, neither projection is likely true.

If both parties don't understand that you can't have a productive dialog about controversial topics with people who disagree with you. And you certainly cannot go back to your friends and try to explain the "other's" behavior to relieve whatever is your embarrassment, because you can't understand it in any other way but that they must be immoral. Here's an identifier that you may be full of **** WRT your opinion of the other. If you say they want "wrong" things because "they just don't care," or, because "they just want to control us," without first understanding their prioritization of values in a way that they would agree with, THAT should be a flag that you may be at least a little full of ****.

TL;DR: if you think the other side is the immoral side (ideological possession doesn't count), yer probably full of ****. Regardless of what side you're on, you prioritize much the same values as the other but in a different order, you do it according to your temperament, and that's not immoral. Even if you pump incorrect facts through your temperament to reach a different goal, that's not immoral either. It's just drawing a conclusion that your values wouldn't have allowed had you used correct information. Even if you don't want to see the same information that the other sees, that's not immorality either. That's simply mistrust. So stop making it about moral superiority. Everyone but sociopaths mostly care. No one other than ideologically possessed people are trying to mind control you. Be careful not to ascribe immorality to people who disagree with you just because their order of values is different from yours. If this pisses you off and you haven't read the whole thing, read it. Maybe you won't still be pissed.

Could you make that post a little longer.

 

[churchmouse]

Could you make that post a little longer.

No......I seriously doubt he could....

 

[nonobaddog]

Moderna stock jumped after hours today when they released the results of the Phase I vaccine trial. All 45 test subjects showed an increase in chinese virus antibodies without horrible side effects.

 

[Tombs]

This guy does a fantastic job of summing up my feeling on the matter and why I do not trust these people handing down these mandates on the virus.

[video=youtube;GbfiqxDgOZ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbfiqxDgOZ0[/video]

When government incompetence leads to a PPE shortage and the "experts" try to cover for this incompetence by telling you PPE isn't necessary, given their motives and loyalties, why should they be trusted?
Their priority isn't you or your health. They exposed their motives.

It doesn't matter how many degrees you have, if you openly lie to the public and admit you lied to the public, solely to help your employer save face.

 

[foszoe]

sometimes I wish you published an abstract with your papers

The local news in Louisville interviewed a teacher who I think also represented the teachers' union. I mentioned it before because she was the only one interviewed. It was very critical of going back to school, and I thought it was unfair because the station that did the interview only presented the one view and seemed to treat it as the correct point of view. Nevertheless, I think this issue splits along temperament lines. I think the left leaning teachers are very much against going back while the right leaning teachers might want to. That sounds very politicized. Probably not as much at least when it comes to rank and file teachers.


Which brings me to this thought stream. Dusty88 said something about trying to explain right-wing attitudes about science/masks to moderate/left friends, and then the sense of embarrassed around that. There are complaints on both sides that the other is politicizing wearing or not wearing masks. But whether you do or don't isn't actually political. Those young people going to parties and bars can't all be knuckle dragging conservatives. I'd wager they're mostly zoomers and millennials and predominately left of center. Their actual politics isn't driving their behavior. On the other side, plenty of conservatives wear masks because they've made some calculated decisions about it. Mask wearing has come to feel like a left/right divide, but it is not so much.

Somehow it's become that because many right leaning people are vocal opponents wearing masks themselves, and people on the left eagerly accept that it's morally "right" to wear masks regardless. Each side thinks they're right, that it's only the other side is politicizing it. If hearing that pisses you off, consider that you're definitely politicizing it. Both are making it political. Does that matter? The politicization I think is a natural phenomenon of sides becoming entrenched, and it's actually not as important as what's happening underneath. Saying, "Stop politicizing it" is like saying to a person with a cold, "stop making snot!". They're both symptoms, not the problem. As far as it is about sides, the underlying problem is trust. The thing that causes the mistrust is both sides is assuming the other arrives at a different decision for immoral or malicious reasons.

It's fair to say that individuals prioritize risk trade-offs differently. It is mostly a function of people's temperament and values. The temperament varies, the values are mostly the same ones, just prioritized differently across temperaments. As those value rankings are socialized/collectivized, groups form along similar rankings, which collect into one of two pigeonholes, "us" and "them" on a given topic. It seems likely that it would resolve into two groups because most issues involve a binary choice: yer either fer it, or agin' it. Unless you see both sides of it, in which case, your prioritization of values may be compatible with many people from both sides, which describes moderates. But as things become more of a contest between "us" and "them", that's when the snot starts running; they become politicized. Temperament influencing different prioritizations of values, drive politicization and not the other way around.

We argue primarily along moral lines because we're primarily concerned with "what" instead of "why". But the "why" is the key to avoiding much of the distrust between sides, the politicization, and then thinking the other must be evil. The sides rarely even group along benevolent/malevolent. Not to say that some individuals in the fringe of either side can't become malevolent. People become fringe members of a group as they become more ideologically possessed or whatever. But most political alignment is grouped along similar rankings of much the same values. Of course some groups don't have all the values that the other has (See Jonathan Haidt's theory of moral foundations).

We have this tendency to attach moral virtue to our own side of binary questions. We pick a side according to the way we've ranked our priorities, basically the thing to which we've applied our values."We" then becomes the morally "good" side because we all like to think of ourselves as moral people, and we've bothered to apply the values accordingly as they are most important. They're the bad side because they did not arrive at the same conclusion that we did. "WE" want this policy because our values are righteous, so that makes US the good guys. YOU don't want that, so your values must be evil and poopy and so are you."

Of course that's bull****. You're no more moral than the person who disagrees with you. So here's where the ranking of values makes a difference. I've likened this particular divide between the ideas of "don't just stand there, do something" and "don't just do something, stand there" (implying act when you're reasonably certain the solution is correct.). One person's value order may make the first choice the right choice. Another person's value order may make the second the right choice. Same values. Different order. And it's temperament that would really make that difference. i think people who might choose engineering fields might tend towards the latter. That's not immoral. That's temperament.

I think it would be more productive if, we think of our differences as simply different prioritization of mostly the same basic values. But instead, we do this us/them thing which turns into bashing the other, because "they" don't agree with "us". And then everyone projects motives onto the other that they don't actually have. On the one side, we've heard "they just want to control us". On the other side, "they must not care". But except for those on the fringes, or those with ulterior motivated players, neither projection is likely true.

If both parties don't understand that you can't have a productive dialog about controversial topics with people who disagree with you. And you certainly cannot go back to your friends and try to explain the "other's" behavior to relieve whatever is your embarrassment, because you can't understand it in any other way but that they must be immoral. Here's an identifier that you may be full of **** WRT your opinion of the other. If you say they want "wrong" things because "they just don't care," or, because "they just want to control us," without first understanding their prioritization of values in a way that they would agree with, THAT should be a flag that you may be at least a little full of ****.

TL;DR: if you think the other side is the immoral side (ideological possession doesn't count), yer probably full of ****. Regardless of what side you're on, you prioritize much the same values as the other but in a different order, you do it according to your temperament, and that's not immoral. Even if you pump incorrect facts through your temperament to reach a different goal, that's not immoral either. It's just drawing a conclusion that your values wouldn't have allowed had you used correct information. Even if you don't want to see the same information that the other sees, that's not immorality either. That's simply mistrust. So stop making it about moral superiority. Everyone but sociopaths mostly care. No one other than ideologically possessed people are trying to mind control you. Be careful not to ascribe immorality to people who disagree with you just because their order of values is different from yours. If this pisses you off and you haven't read the whole thing, read it. Maybe you won't still be pissed.

 

[foszoe]

Depends on the definition of exiting.

Shoulda shot her.

 

[foszoe]

At least under Obama, we had no shortage of change.

FIrst world problems...

There is a serious shortage of physical coins right now. Multiple stores are restricting cash use because they can't make change. Kroger isn't the only one. The alternative is to say CC only. They came up with a solution that allows people who want to continue to use cash. They'll hold a credit for you on your Kroger card and will credit you for it at your next purchase. You can always go to Meijer and not be able to use cash because their machines can't make change either.

Want to be part of the solution? If you have a pile of change sitting around, cash them in to help keep cash alive. Stores aren't causing the problem, but they are getting a lot of abuse from customers who are uninformed.

You were actually directed to the wrong thread. There is a much more thorough discussion of the problem being discussed in this thread over the last two weeks: Coin Shortage