Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Dirty Stinking Government HealthcareFollow

#227 Oct 27 2009 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Quote:
What's amazing is your suggestion that you are immune to bias...I'd call that delusional.


Pointing out someone else's bias is not an implicit suggestion that I am immune to it.

This is a perfect example of the point I was making. Ya'll are so obsessed with trying to prove me wrong about something that you will go through amazing lengths to change the meaning of one of our statements, or just tack on some assumptions, to try to pin me to some untenable position that I've never held. It truly is amazing.

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 12:18pm by soulshaver
Ok, tell you what. You are right in that that my statement implicity implied that you think yourself immune to bias.

However, if someone, anyone, about anything, were to say, "Its amazing how people can delude themselves into believing one side of an argument solely because of their personal bias or prejudice." - One can explicitly, and correctly conclude that the individual has convinced themselves that they 'know' beyond a shadow of a doubt that these other people are being biased. But....you can't know that.

It's kinda like responding positively to the question "are you sleeping".




Edited, Oct 27th 2009 7:32pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#228 Oct 27 2009 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Quote:
You might think so. Or maybe you're just delusional.


Did you have anything to add to the healthcare debate Elinda, or were you just interested in attacking someone by adding baseless insults?

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 12:27pm by soulshaver
You were attacking. You called people delusional and biased. Call my response the 'mommy reflex'.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#229 Oct 27 2009 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
Meh, I am wiling to bet most of the posters here arent elderly or sickly. the swine flu isnt any worse than the regular flu - its mortality rate is about the same as the regular flu.

The main concern is - from what my friend at GSK tells me - it spreads much faster / easier than the regular flu, which will put more elderly / sickly people at risk.

Should you get the shot? I would say if you are at high risk of getting the flu and are sickly / elderly / have young kids, I would. If you arent, just man up. A little swine flu has usually never killed anyone.
#230 Oct 27 2009 at 1:11 PM Rating: Decent
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Meh, I am wiling to bet most of the posters here arent elderly or sickly. the swine flu isnt any worse than the regular flu - its mortality rate is about the same as the regular flu.

The main concern is - from what my friend at GSK tells me - it spreads much faster / easier than the regular flu, which will put more elderly / sickly people at risk.

Should you get the shot? I would say if you are at high risk of getting the flu and are sickly / elderly / have young kids, I would. If you arent, just man up. A little swine flu has usually never killed anyone.


Elderly folks are not at risk, you misinformed cUnt.
#231 Oct 27 2009 at 1:41 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Did you have anything to add to the healthcare debate Elinda, or were you just interested in attacking someone by adding baseless insults?


You cry an awful lot for The Asylum. Grow a pair.
#232 Oct 27 2009 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Meh, I am wiling to bet most of the posters here arent elderly or sickly. the swine flu isnt any worse than the regular flu - its mortality rate is about the same as the regular flu.

The main concern is - from what my friend at GSK tells me - it spreads much faster / easier than the regular flu, which will put more elderly / sickly people at risk.

Should you get the shot? I would say if you are at high risk of getting the flu and are sickly / elderly / have young kids, I would. If you arent, just man up. A little swine flu has usually never killed anyone.


Elderly folks are not at risk, you misinformed cUnt.


Of course they are - just as much as they are to the flu.

Unless, of course, you are counting the elderly as 30+.


Edited, Oct 27th 2009 4:22pm by ManifestOfKujata
#233 Oct 27 2009 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Meh, I am wiling to bet most of the posters here arent elderly or sickly. the swine flu isnt any worse than the regular flu - its mortality rate is about the same as the regular flu.

The main concern is - from what my friend at GSK tells me - it spreads much faster / easier than the regular flu, which will put more elderly / sickly people at risk.

Should you get the shot? I would say if you are at high risk of getting the flu and are sickly / elderly / have young kids, I would. If you arent, just man up. A little swine flu has usually never killed anyone.


Elderly folks are not at risk, you misinformed cUnt.


Of course they are - just as much as they are to the flu.

Unless, of course, you are counting the elderly as 30+.

No, they really aren't. Read for five minutes about H1N1 and you'll realize that, you fUcking idiot.

#234 Oct 27 2009 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Meh, I am wiling to bet most of the posters here arent elderly or sickly. the swine flu isnt any worse than the regular flu - its mortality rate is about the same as the regular flu.

The main concern is - from what my friend at GSK tells me - it spreads much faster / easier than the regular flu, which will put more elderly / sickly people at risk.

Should you get the shot? I would say if you are at high risk of getting the flu and are sickly / elderly / have young kids, I would. If you arent, just man up. A little swine flu has usually never killed anyone.


Elderly folks are not at risk, you misinformed cUnt.


Of course they are - just as much as they are to the flu.

Unless, of course, you are counting the elderly as 30+.

No, they really aren't. Read for five minutes about H1N1 and you'll realize that, you fUcking idiot.



How about you read up on it, fUcktard:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN20537892

Reuters wrote:

And although older people seem to be less likely than others to get infected, if they do get the new H1N1 flu, they are more likely to die, the team at the French Institute for Public Health Surveillance in St. Maurice, France, reported.



And, in case you doubt its speed:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/08/14/mexico.flu.schools/index.html

Quote:

The virus has spread around the world with unprecedented speed, according to the WHO. Past influenza viruses have needed more than six months to spread as widely as the current H1N1 virus spread in less than six weeks


The elderly have a higher resist rate, but its spreading faster than the normal flu and as the article says, the elderly are less likely to get swine flu but are more likely to die from it if the do get it.

And hey, if I was more resistant to getting it but it was traveling at 4X the speed of most flu viruses and I was more likely to die from it if I caught it I would get the shot. Who gives a shÃt if you are young and more prone to getting it so long as you arent prone to death if you get it.

If you come out swinging kiddo, best have your facts straight. Not being a douche is a plus too.

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 5:20pm by ManifestOfKujata
#235 Oct 27 2009 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
The elderly have a higher resist rate,


Thus not in the "at risk" group, you fUcking ***-guzzling ****-brain.

You do understand that "at risk" means "more likely to contract", right? No? Oh! Well that explains how you've managed to look like such a fUcking ******* while going on about how elderly/sickly people should be getting vaccinated.

Here's the **** for you, you fUcking monumental assfUck:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1913615,00.html

Quote:
The 15-member panel of doctors, scientists, vaccine experts, public-health officials and a citizen representative came up with five core populations they believe should receive the first wave of H1N1/09 immunization. These include pregnant women, people living in households with babies under 6 months old (since infants cannot be immunized, they must be protected by preventing illness in those around them), emergency medical personnel who are likely to be in contact with infected patients, young people between 6 months and 24 years old, and nonelderly individuals who have underlying conditions, such as asthma, respiratory illness or a compromised immune system, that put them at higher risk of flu complications.


The elderly are the least at risk demographic out there. Now go be someone else's *****, I am fUcking tired of you.
#236 Oct 27 2009 at 3:46 PM Rating: Default
***
1,137 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Quote:
The elderly have a higher resist rate,


Thus not in the "at risk" group, you fUcking ***-guzzling sh*t-brain.

You do understand that "at risk" means "more likely to contract", right? No? Oh! Well that explains how you've managed to look like such a fUcking dipsh*t while going on about how elderly/sickly people should be getting vaccinated.


How convienent of you to lop of the rest of my quote which says they are more likely to die if the do get it. But whatever makes you feel like a big man.

Barkingturtle wrote:

You do understand that "at risk" means "more likely to contract"


Oh, so you are defining "at risk" now, you unoriginal, played-out insult slinger? To me, death means "more at risk."

Barkingturtle wrote:

Here's the sh*t for you, you fUcking monumental assfUck:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1913615,00.html

Quote:
The 15-member panel of doctors, scientists, vaccine experts, public-health officials and a citizen representative came up with five core populations they believe should receive the first wave of H1N1/09 immunization. These include pregnant women, people living in households with babies under 6 months old (since infants cannot be immunized, they must be protected by preventing illness in those around them), emergency medical personnel who are likely to be in contact with infected patients, young people between 6 months and 24 years old, and nonelderly individuals who have underlying conditions, such as asthma, respiratory illness or a compromised immune system, that put them at higher risk of flu complications.



So you gave an article that says that and I gave an article that says they are more likely to die if they do get it. Why not be safe and just get it then?

Also, good job on reading the entire article. It goes on about who should get flu shots:

Quote:

That could still change, but at least for now, says Schuchat, local and state health authorities will have some guidelines for deciding who should get vaccinated if it becomes necessary.


So my article says the elderly are less likely to get it and more likely to die. Your article says they are less likely to get it and arent high on the list to be vaccinated, but that could change. Sounds like its not set in stone.

Barkingturtle wrote:

Now go be someone else's *****, I am ******* tired of you.


If you are tired of me, then just dont respond. But face it, you love it. In fact, you cant help to respond, so all I have to do is post and you will. Maybe you are my *****. Dance for me and post back, my puppet!

Oh well, maybe you are just too busy swallowing an infinite amount of head in a field like your avatar suggests. The only thing that would make it more true to life is if it was in a back alley and we gave you lipstick, fake boobs, and fishnet stickings.
#237 Oct 27 2009 at 3:49 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
But face it, you love it. In fact, you cant help to respond, so all I have to do is post and you will. Maybe you are my *****. Dance for me and post back, my puppet!


Nah, he pretty much just alternates between sociopath and mildly helpful. You probably shouldn't take it seriously.
#238 Oct 27 2009 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
Quote:
The elderly have a higher resist rate,


Thus not in the "at risk" group, you fUcking ***-guzzling sh*t-brain.

You do understand that "at risk" means "more likely to contract", right? No? Oh! Well that explains how you've managed to look like such a fUcking dipsh*t while going on about how elderly/sickly people should be getting vaccinated.


How convienent of you to lop of the rest of my quote which says they are more likely to die if the do get it. But whatever makes you feel like a big man.

Barkingturtle wrote:

You do understand that "at risk" means "more likely to contract"


Oh, so you are defining "at risk" now, you unoriginal, played-out insult slinger? To me, death means "more at risk."
That's not what "at risk" means at all, jackass. BT is right, "at risk" means likely to contract. Just because you don't understand standard phrases in the English language doesn't mean everyone else in the educated world doesn't.
#239 Oct 27 2009 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
Quote:
The elderly have a higher resist rate,


Thus not in the "at risk" group, you fUcking ***-guzzling sh*t-brain.

You do understand that "at risk" means "more likely to contract", right? No? Oh! Well that explains how you've managed to look like such a fUcking dipsh*t while going on about how elderly/sickly people should be getting vaccinated.


How convienent of you to lop of the rest of my quote which says they are more likely to die if the do get it. But whatever makes you feel like a big man.

Barkingturtle wrote:

You do understand that "at risk" means "more likely to contract"


Oh, so you are defining "at risk" now, you unoriginal, played-out insult slinger? To me, death means "more at risk."
That's not what "at risk" means at all, jackass. BT is right, "at risk" means likely to contract. Just because you don't understand standard phrases in the English language doesn't mean everyone else in the educated world doesn't.


Then be so kind as to point me to it as a link. If its so widely accepted it has to be defined exclusively somewhere. All I can find is "being endangered", and death is part of that.

Besides, he said "not at risk," which implies there is zero risk, which just isnt true.

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 5:56pm by ManifestOfKujata
#240 Oct 27 2009 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
Quote:
The elderly have a higher resist rate,


Thus not in the "at risk" group, you fUcking ***-guzzling sh*t-brain.

You do understand that "at risk" means "more likely to contract", right? No? Oh! Well that explains how you've managed to look like such a fUcking dipsh*t while going on about how elderly/sickly people should be getting vaccinated.


How convienent of you to lop of the rest of my quote which says they are more likely to die if the do get it. But whatever makes you feel like a big man.

Barkingturtle wrote:

You do understand that "at risk" means "more likely to contract"


Oh, so you are defining "at risk" now, you unoriginal, played-out insult slinger? To me, death means "more at risk."
That's not what "at risk" means at all, jackass. BT is right, "at risk" means likely to contract. Just because you don't understand standard phrases in the English language doesn't mean everyone else in the educated world doesn't.


Then be so kind as to point me to it as a link. If its so widely accepted it has to be defined exclusively somewhere. All I can find is "being endangered", and death is part of that.

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 5:54pm by ManifestOfKujata
If they were talking about death, they'd say "at risk of dying." We're talking about "at risk of flu." I can't believe I even have to explain this.
#241 Oct 27 2009 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
ManifestOfKujata wrote:


Besides, he said "not at risk," which implies there is zero risk, which just isnt true.

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 5:56pm by ManifestOfKujata
Everyone in the ******* world is "at risk" to some degree. The elderly is not at a high enough risk to warrant getting the vaccine.
#242 Oct 27 2009 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
Elderly people die of everything at a higher rate, buckaroo. They are more at risk for death. They are, however, the least at risk group for contracting H1N1, due to the virus' similarity to flu bugs from the first half of the 20th century, and therefore old folks are carrying around anti-bodies which are effective against H1N1 and are older than that dumb ***** you call Mom. I suppose I could've explained the reason old folks are not at risk for Swine Flu, but that would've removed the opportunity for you to demonstrate what a tremendous moron you are. I did this for you, in the hopes that perhaps you would examine your failure and learn from it, but I can tell you're not altogether appreciative, are you?

Also:

Quote:
But whatever makes you feel like a big man.


You know what makes me feel like a big man? My frighteningly large ****.





#243 Oct 27 2009 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
Maybe its just me, but I wouldnt be bothered to get a vaccine against anything unless there were serious consequences. If there is a stronger chance of dying than not - or a higher risk of being disfigured - I would get it.

But if I will just catch the (swine) flu for 3 days? Pfft. I wouldnt get the shot.
#244 Oct 27 2009 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:

Quote:
But whatever makes you feel like a big man.


You know what makes me feel like a big man? My frighteningly large ****.


Doesnt count if its limp when you need it, guy. Then its just a noodle-o-shame and rejectment.
#245 Oct 27 2009 at 4:06 PM Rating: Excellent
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:

Quote:
But whatever makes you feel like a big man.


You know what makes me feel like a big man? My frighteningly large ****.


Doesnt count if its limp when you need it, guy. Then its just a noodle-o-shame and rejectment.


Rejectment is the kind of word a guy with a little one would make up.
#246 Oct 27 2009 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
5 pages later, and I still don't know whether I should get the H1N1 flu vaccine or not. Bloody liberals Smiley: oyvey

This thread's been too bogged down and dull even for me. And I once spent two pages arguing about fast food hamburgers with gbaji.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#247 Oct 27 2009 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Wanger wars!

Havn't had one of those for a while.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#248 Oct 27 2009 at 4:21 PM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
Sorry, in response to your ever so eloquent "I haz a big dikz" claim and mom jokes, I was so stunned with your oh-so-original comebacks I forgot proper English. My bad.
#249 Oct 27 2009 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Sorry, in response to your ever so eloquent "I haz a big dikz" claim and mom jokes, I was so stunned with your oh-so-original comebacks I forgot proper English. My bad.


I would like to point out that I wasn't making "comebacks" but rather unprovoked attacks, because I sense you are weak.

Also, you calling my vernacular unoriginal suggests you are often referred to as a ***-guzzling ****-brain and the like. In any event, you are far too sensitive to post in the Asylum, since it's apparent simple name-calling really gets to you. You failed to make it out of the very first step of initiation around here, which doesn't bode well.

I give him less than a week before he snaps entirely.
#250 Oct 27 2009 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
Meh, I go in and out of here. Typically what happens is I realize I spend too much time posting and not enough working, then I have to break it off so I am not shÃt-canned.

The last time I was on here it was arguing with a guy named Enilerda (or something like it) for days on end in the same thread. He was eventually banned for his behavior across multiple threads (and I think he called an admin a ****).

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 6:38pm by ManifestOfKujata
#251 Oct 27 2009 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Meh, I go in and out of here. Typically what happens is I realize I spend too much time posting and not enough working, then I have to break it off so I am not shÃt-canned.

The last time I was on here it was arguing with a guy named Enilerda (or something like it) for days on end in the same thread. He was eventually banned for his behavior across multiple threads (and I think he called an admin a ****).


Yeah, I don't fUcking care about your history. Anyway, I'm glad you didn't try to defend your existence too vigorously, and instead opted to act as if my rejection won't cause you to sodomize yourself with the huge black ***** you bought on your way home tonight. I warn you, though, your parents are going to think you're weird when they hear you moaning "Baaarkiingtuuuurtle" in the shower.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 369 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (369)