Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covid-19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Donnybaseball72 View Post

    Why is it surprising? The Pope told his followers to get the Vaccine. Catholics also tend to be more prominent in high Vaccination states like the Northeast.
    I think the Pope called it their moral obligation to their fellow citizens to get vaccinated. I find it strange when evangelicals and others justify not getting vaccinated on religious grounds because very few mainstream religions actually restrict vaccines on doctrine. So it's really more a personal and political choice than religious one but I tend find conservative evangelicals are equally political and use their religion to justify those political beliefs.
    ​​​
    You wanna know what? You gotta problem with Luis Cessa, you gotta problem with me. And I suggest you let that one marinate

    Comment


      Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

      Odd that you would put stock in that poll. It's informative only on the most basic level. By only using professed religious affiliation, only including a couple of Christian sects and atheists as the "other religious groups", and not adding any additional banding by church attendance, age, mitigation requirements, etc, it is exactly the kind of poll you've professed to hate in the past. Yet here we are. I wonder why.
      When I've questioned polls in the past that have popular opinions, I'm tsk tsk'd. Yet here we are.

      A few things about this specific poll:
      • It uses professed religious affiliation because to my knowledge there are no databases one can tap into to join that data element with vaccination status.
      • If you look at the details of the poll methodology it's about as robust as you can get, leveraging the ATP (versus just random phone calls) and stratified mailings to random sampled addresses leveraging the USPS Delivery Sequence File (representative of nearly 100% of US) so it does have weighting variables for age, gender, ethnicity, education, political affiliation, income levels, etc. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/...s-methodology/
      • I believe the reason you have these specific classifications is that in the US they are the ones large enough (>10% of population) to be statistically stable enough for analysis.
      If you have data that contains the additional banding you've called out, I'd love to see it. The only other data I've been able to find on this topic showed that Jews have very high vaccine acceptance rates.

      Alternatively, if you want to challenge or question the findings of this poll, be my guest. Or if you have alternative data to support the intentionally abrasive comment that places of worship as a whole are filled with unvaxxed and unmasked people I'd be interested in seeing that. Or if you have anecdotal evidence that key religious leaders (ones that are taken seriously) are promoting anti-vaxx attitudes, that might be germane here.

      My guess is that OP doesn't have that data but didn't want to miss an opportunity to cast aspersions at one of the groups here that does not get shielded from bias or spite, and didn't care to include any empirical or anecdotal evidence. Nor did you in rushing to chastise me and defend her. I wonder why.

      Comment


        Originally posted by fredgmuggs View Post

        I think the Pope called it their moral obligation to their fellow citizens to get vaccinated. I find it strange when evangelicals and others justify not getting vaccinated on religious grounds because very few mainstream religions actually restrict vaccines on doctrine. So it's really more a personal and political choice than religious one but I tend find conservative evangelicals are equally political and use their religion to justify those political beliefs.
        ​​​
        I think this is accurate. Or, their faith in the formalities of their religion isn't absolute. Honestly this is one of the reasons that while I still work on my spiritual self I have fallen away from organized religion. I've connected with aspects of many different religions, but find challenges with all of those I've looked into. Prophets, dating back in history, are one of the things I'm skeptical of. Perhaps its that way for some others.

        Comment


          Originally posted by False1 View Post
          When I've questioned polls in the past that have popular opinions, I'm tsk tsk'd. Yet here we are.

          A few things about this specific poll:
          • It uses professed religious affiliation because to my knowledge there are no databases one can tap into to join that data element with vaccination status.
          • If you look at the details of the poll methodology it's about as robust as you can get, leveraging the ATP (versus just random phone calls) and stratified mailings to random sampled addresses leveraging the USPS Delivery Sequence File (representative of nearly 100% of US) so it does have weighting variables for age, gender, ethnicity, education, political affiliation, income levels, etc. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/...s-methodology/
          • I believe the reason you have these specific classifications is that in the US they are the ones large enough (>10% of population) to be statistically stable enough for analysis.
          If you have data that contains the additional banding you've called out, I'd love to see it. The only other data I've been able to find on this topic showed that Jews have very high vaccine acceptance rates.

          Alternatively, if you want to challenge or question the findings of this poll, be my guest. Or if you have alternative data to support the intentionally abrasive comment that places of worship as a whole are filled with unvaxxed and unmasked people I'd be interested in seeing that. Or if you have anecdotal evidence that key religious leaders (ones that are taken seriously) are promoting anti-vaxx attitudes, that might be germane here.

          My guess is that OP doesn't have that data but didn't want to miss an opportunity to cast aspersions at one of the groups here that does not get shielded from bias or spite, and didn't care to include any empirical or anecdotal evidence. Nor did you in rushing to chastise me and defend her. I wonder why.
          There are over 70M catholics in the US. 17% is what, 11M?, which is a lot of people. Therefore "And lots of unmasked, unvaccinated people." is entirely accurate throwaway comment . Your complaint is with Jenn (who you like to talk about a lot without ever using a name (real or screen) lol) as usual. Sounds personal.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

            There are over 70M catholics in the US. 17% is what, 11M?, which is a lot of people. Therefore "And lots of unmasked, unvaccinated people." is entirely accurate throwaway comment . Your complaint is with Jenn (who you like to talk about a lot without ever using a name (real or screen) lol) as usual. Sounds personal.
            I also believe sue has him blocked which I also think he knows

            Comment


              Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

              There are over 70M catholics in the US. 17% is what, 11M?, which is a lot of people. Therefore "And lots of unmasked, unvaccinated people." is entirely accurate throwaway comment . Your complaint is with Jenn (who you like to talk about a lot without ever using a name (real or screen) lol) as usual. Sounds personal.
              He directly quoted her posts and addressed her as 'you', so in this case it couldn't have been any clearer who he was talking to or about.
              Polite Red Sox fan

              Comment


                Originally posted by HfxBob View Post

                He directly quoted her posts and addressed her as 'you', so in this case it couldn't have been any clearer who he was talking to or about.
                That's nice bob

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

                  That's nice bob
                  I knew you'd appreciate it.
                  Polite Red Sox fan

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by HfxBob View Post

                    He directly quoted her posts and addressed her as 'you', so in this case it couldn't have been any clearer who he was talking to or about.
                    He has been asked numerous times not to directly quote me or address me in any way, because he knows very well that I have had him blocked for several years. Addressing me is pure show for the rest of you, and he knows it. It's pathetic and slimy.
                    "Our work continues, the fight goes on, and the big dreams never die." -- Elizabeth Warren

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by jlw1980 View Post

                      He has been asked numerous times not to directly quote me or address me in any way, because he knows very well that I have had him blocked for several years. Addressing me is pure show for the rest of you, and he knows it. It's pathetic and slimy.
                      It's an inherent issue with message boards. You can block someone, but you can't stop others from quoting them and responding to them.
                      Polite Red Sox fan

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by fredgmuggs View Post

                        I think the Pope called it their moral obligation to their fellow citizens to get vaccinated. I find it strange when evangelicals and others justify not getting vaccinated on religious grounds because very few mainstream religions actually restrict vaccines on doctrine. So it's really more a personal and political choice than religious one but I tend find conservative evangelicals are equally political and use their religion to justify those political beliefs.
                        ​​​
                        Can confirm from personal experience and much personal reading on the topic. They use religion to justify cruelty and bigotry towards marginalized groups, including the poor, which many of them are, themselves. As a whole, they vote to make their religious priorities the law for everyone in the country, as they fail to grasp the separation of church and state. They perpetuate the lie of the country being founded on their religion. This is done in attempts to codify their beliefs (a particularly backwards form of Christianity), penalizing those who don't believe or follow the same, when many of the founding slaveowners explicitly stated that it was not.


                        https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...g-locke-masks/


                        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...ting-law-trump

                        https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015...ristian-right/

                        https://time.com/6052051/anti-democr...n-nationalism/


                        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rol...mp-915381/amp/

                        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...mp/ncna1286522

                        "Our work continues, the fight goes on, and the big dreams never die." -- Elizabeth Warren

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by jlw1980 View Post

                          He has been asked numerous times not to directly quote me or address me in any way, because he knows very well that I have had him blocked for several years. Addressing me is pure show for the rest of you, and he knows it. It's pathetic and slimy.
                          I have to say, I don’t think blocking someone entails any obligation on the other person's part.
                          Russian warship, go **** yourself

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

                            There are over 70M catholics in the US. 17% is what, 11M?, which is a lot of people. Therefore "And lots of unmasked, unvaccinated people." is entirely accurate throwaway comment . Your complaint is with Jenn (who you like to talk about a lot without ever using a name (real or screen) lol) as usual. Sounds personal.
                            While you and I disagree on quite a bit, I've never found you to seem disingenuous. This would be an exception. Oh, so she was talking just sheer volume? How many people go to bars or restaurants? Maybe more than 17% or 11MM? Yet those weren't top of mind. It's not a throwaway comment. You know her position on faith and religion as well as everyone else here does, and she's published her thoughts numerous times. EDIT: See #5846 LOL

                            I quoted her directly. This wasn't some vague passive aggressive "some people" bit that happens sometimes around here. And I don't talk about Jenn "a lot". But I do respond to unfounded and generalized attacks against groups of people of the varieties that don't seem to bother you. And she does that a lot, which is the reason for the volume of responses. It would be personal if other people behaved similarly and I did not respond to those people in kind. But you know that.

                            I also believe sue has him blocked which I also think he knows
                            And? I'm not PMing her. She makes public comments and I am responding to them publicly. I fail to see the relevance.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by jlw1980 View Post

                              He has been asked numerous times not to directly quote me or address me in any way, because he knows very well that I have had him blocked for several years. Addressing me is pure show for the rest of you, and he knows it. It's pathetic and slimy.
                              What gives you the privilege that requires me not to respond publicly to a post you make publicly? You pretty consistently and intentionally post comments that are offensive to those who aren't within the circle of identities you don't favor. Sometimes I'm in one of those circles (e.g. cis white male) and sometimes I am not (organized religion). Either way I object, and have done so publicly. I'm not PMing you to try and engage you directly. I'm not reporting your posts. If every now and then you have to (gasp) see a reply of mine challenging your vitriol, and it's just unbearable, perhaps you could stop posting offensive comments towards large swaths of people who include a large number of forumers here. That might fix the problem at its root, and ensure that can sleep free of any concerns of indirect posts from internet randos you find so problematic.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by HfxBob View Post

                                It's an inherent issue with message boards. You can block someone, but you can't stop others from quoting them and responding to them.
                                I'm aware, but what's the point of addressing me except for show to others?
                                "Our work continues, the fight goes on, and the big dreams never die." -- Elizabeth Warren

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X