Some California doctors are accused of handing out and/or selling mask exemptions for back-to-school students.
Quote
"A physician who grants a mask or other exemption without conducting an appropriate prior exam and without a finding of a legitimate medical reason supporting such an exemption within the standard of care may be subjecting their license to disciplinary action ... "
That's another thread on "choosing to be offended". This thread is about dishonesty in the push back against pandemic mitigation.
What are you talking about?
I will let you know now that I am unruffled by your particular brand of snark.
The poster was free to include follow up information (that they don't believe this represents Christianity) in their original comment. The fact that they did not make that clarification is what I responded to.
3 minutes ago, heron said:
Would love to, but it’s off topic for this thread.
No you wouldn't. You aren't going to answer because although you have intimated that you know my beliefs in order to rise the crowd, you actually do not know my beliefs.
I'll await your private message so that the thread can stay on track.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, JKL33 said:
What are you talking about?
I will let you know now that I am unruffled by your particular brand of snark.
The poster was free to include follow up information (that they don't believe this represents Christianity) in their original comment. The fact that they did not make that clarification is what I responded to.
Snark?
Christianity isn't the topic. Feel free to send them a private message or start another thread.
I will let you know now that I am unruffled by your particular brand of snark.
The poster was free to include follow up information (that they don't believe this represents Christianity) in their original comment. The fact that they did not make that clarification is what I responded to.
No you wouldn't. You aren't going to answer because although you have intimated that you know my beliefs in order to rise the crowd, you actually do not know my beliefs.
I'll await your private message so that the thread can stay on track.
Hmm … I don’t know your beliefs, but you, of course, know allll about my motivations. Interesting.
For purposes of this thread, my definition of “the problem” is people who feel free to use their religious beliefs to justify truly ugly behavior, including deliberate harm to the rights, health and welfare to those who do not share those beliefs. Meanwhile, cloaking themselves in their self-proclaimed victim hood, they demand the utmost respect and tender loving care of their feelings from those who do not agree with them.
Shouldn't this admonishment be directed to @Horseshoe as well?
No, because the rant of that woman was on topic- anti mask behavior. The whole Christian hypocrisy topic is undeniably embedded into it and it would be ridiculous to treat it like a white elephant.
We have a huge problem in this country with religion and politics rather than science driving public health policy. That meeting included both of those all in one package and was delivered using threats-by an "infectious disease nurse." THAT is what should offend all of us.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 minutes ago, chare said:
Shouldn't this admonishment be directed to @Horseshoe as well?
You get to decide that for yourself. I am interested in keeping the discussion pointed more to the topic of the thread, not religion or feeling offended by religious reference. That is the way topics get over heated and closed down.
Dishonesty about disease mitigation and masking is an ongoing problem.
The poster was free to include follow up information (that they don't believe this represents Christianity) in their original comment. The fact that they did not make that clarification is what I responded to.
I actually DID that by putting quotations marks around the word "Christian love"-most people understand that by doing so you are expressing sarcasm.
The woman stated she was a Christian before suggesting that other people be murdered. I suggest she is NOT a Christian because her words and behavior are the exact opposite of what Christians are supposed to be for and about. That is also why I have quotes around the word Christian.
Thank you for providing clarification.
You have quotation marks around the words "Christian love," [which could be taken to mean that she is not demonstrating such or that it doesn't exist or that the concept doesn't exist/no Christians are loving], and said there is no hate like it. Had you placed quotation marks only around the word "Christian" then a certain portion of ambiguity could've been avoided.
Then there is the question of what the point of this example was in the first place.
We should all decline opportunities to hold up an extreme as an example of anything but an extreme. We should all ask ourselves whether we believe that the extreme is easily applied to the group. We should ask ourselves what pointing out the extreme accomplishes. That is intellectual integrity. We have seen inappropriate generalizations about other religions during other times in our country's history, and we know it is not right.
34 minutes ago, subee said:
So you believe this woman threatening the school board in the name of religion is actually representing religion as a benevolent force? Does she not give her religion an ugliness with threats of violence?
Your first sentence is a disingenuous assumption; those are usually used in attempt to make someone else look stupid. As to your second, what I think is that she is not representing the tenets of the figure/diety she mentions.
2 minutes ago, Horseshoe said:
I actually DID that by putting quotations marks around the word "Christian love"-most people understand that by doing so you are expressing sarcasm.
I assure you I am not expressing sarcasm. I explained the ambiguity above.
You know that you had the opportunity, when you chose to post this tweet, to take "A" trajectory with it (she doesn't appear to be representing her purported religion) or "B" trajectory (look at the so-called Christians and their love). You chose B.
You have quotation marks around the words "Christian love," [which could be taken to mean that she is not demonstrating such or that it doesn't exist or that the concept doesn't exist/no Christians are loving], and said there is no hate like it. Had you placed quotation marks only around the word "Christian" then a certain portion of ambiguity could've been avoided.
Then there is the question of what the point of this example was in the first place.
We should all decline opportunities to hold up an extreme as an example of anything but an extreme. We should all ask ourselves whether we believe that the extreme is easily applied to the group. We should ask ourselves what pointing out the extreme accomplishes. That is intellectual integrity. We have seen inappropriate generalizations about other religions during other times in our country's history, and we know it is not right.
Your first sentence is a disingenuous assumption; those are usually used in attempt to make someone else look stupid. As to your second, what I think is that she is not representing the tenets of the figure/diety she mentions.
I assure you I am not expressing sarcasm. I explained the ambiguity above.
You know that you had the opportunity, when you chose to post this tweet, to take "A" trajectory with it (she doesn't appear to be representing her purported religion) or "B" trajectory (look at the so-called Christians and their love). You chose B.
Just because you interpreted that way doesn't mean you are correct. Also interesting that THAT is what you made a choice to be outraged about.
Back on topic, I find it almost impossible to believe this person is actually an ID nurse. But then I come back to Allnurses and see more evidence that actual nurses like this do in fact walk among us.
Hmm … I don’t know your beliefs, but you, of course, know allll about my motivations. Interesting.
For purposes of this thread, my definition of “the problem” is people who feel free to use their religious beliefs to justify truly ugly behavior, including deliberate harm to the rights, health and welfare to those who do not share those beliefs. Meanwhile, cloaking themselves in their self-proclaimed victim hood, they demand the utmost respect and tender loving care of their feelings from those who do not agree with them.
I don't know your motivations and made no such implication. You are the one who made the snarky comment suggesting that you and I would be in disagreement. I asked what you meant by that and you sunk even lower.
As I suspected, I don't disagree with you. I think it is certainly part of the problem that isn't helping anything.
Just because you interpreted that way doesn't mean you are correct. Also interesting that THAT is what you made a choice to be outraged about.
What is interesting?
I think this woman is hateful and ridiculous and is actively harming others. She is an embarrassment to nurses and probably Christians. She is hurting others who are actual invested members of those groups and she is hurting her community.
I don't think she represents her purported religion or religious deity so I don't think she's too good example of what the Christians may or may not think.
heron, ASN, RN
4,653 Posts
Would love to, but it’s off topic for this thread.