President Biden thread

toomuchbaloney said:

Well, since I ran a regional PICU for 10+ years, your assessment of what I sound like couldn't be more wrong.  

"Non government conversion therapy"? Nongovernmental, as you say, implies that the government is NOT involved in the unproven treatment of conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is an example of crazy people subjecting LGBTQ youth to psychological mistreatment.  How odd that you would bring that up.  

Good for you for citing sources about side effects. Parents need that information when they are making decisions for their children who are not at the age of majority and cannot seek out care or enter into a contract to pay for care independently.  

 

 

Oh you .... you ....are? I did not know your antedotal "evidence" of being a PICU as well. !!  I stand corrected. Fallacy of expertise. 

Conversion therapy is stupid but why should the government say a parent cannot use it? Why should politicians tell us what we can do? It is/may be harmful? Maybe but the government should decide..... that was the point. Did you really think I was making a case for conversion therapy? Oh right. I guess as long as it isn't a chemical being ingested that may cause permanent side effects then a okay! 

Right. I would have to pay for unnecessary and possibly harmful medications that my child doesn't need. 

toomuchbaloney said:

You are confused about how the EPA (for example) has used scientists to craft the regulations intended to keep water or air pollution in check and how this will change.  You should look that up.  

Your question about me wanting to terminate the scientific method is stupid, nonsensical even.  Maybe if you spent more effort on communicating your thoughts clearly rather than trying to be snarky...

Your last paragraph is more projection from the right wing.  The group of people that cherry pick scientists based upon their feelings about climate change or medical treatment for LGBTQ or COVID is going to try to project that cherry picking onto others.  I'm wondering if you just think that we are too naive to recognize that baloney. 

What distinguished from "cherry picking" and sources from a variety of scientific opinion? 

I know. For you anything slightly right of left and whether you agree or not. 

Questioning and challenging scientific study and/or medical practice is what led to the advancements in medicine. Or we would still be using arsenic in cosmetics and using leeches to cure blood ailments. 

Good thing our medical scientist of history didn't form their opinions in relation to the popular political narrative of the time. 

Crusades said:

Politicians make the laws, scientist provide the information to the SCOTUS to decided if a law will be made. Again, not all scientist agree. This has been happening since I was born. Ypu seem to have the problem with anything outside of your own beliefes so of course they are not "normal". 

Do you propose we go forward and terminate the scientific method for challenging theories , questioning medical treatments and procedures? 

Pick the scientist or medical professional that we like and shut down any dissent because we don't agree with something? That's authoritarianism.  

Not anymore.  SCOTUS makes the laws now, and I don't know what you are  trying to say in the last to paragraphs.  

toomuchbaloney said:

"Many" procedures and practices, eh? 

That's a nuanced question because everything we do is subject to government regulation by Medicare and the FDA for example.  Pretty much all medications for example need some sort of government stamp of approval.  

There is a problem sometimes when medicine and science don't agree.  There are plenty of doctors that don't think puberty blockers should be an option.  Heck, we have doctors here in Florida prescribing Ivermectin for Covid.  

I don't mind government regulation.  I do mind when the FDA approves something, science says it's a good treatment option with good outcomes, and lawmaker says "no we're not doing that".  Or when an overwhelming number of scientists say humans are contributing to climate change and a politician says "no we're not".  

Crusades said:

What distinguished from "cherry picking" and sources from a variety of scientific opinion? 

I know. For you anything slightly right of left and whether you agree or not. 

Questioning and challenging scientific study and/or medical practice is what led to the advancements in medicine. Or we would still be using arsenic in cosmetics and using leeches to cure blood ailments. 

Good thing our medical scientist of history didn't form their opinions in relation to the popular political narrative of the time. 

 

cher·ry-pick·ing

noun

the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available.

"it is an exaggeration based on the cherry-picking of facts"

Do you understand better now or do you need to have it explained further so that you understand that spreading novel or outlier or extremist opinions on COVID or abortion or other areas of right wing angst is an example of cherry picking?  

Our current medical scientists didn't form their opinions about COVID on political narrative in 2020 either... that's baloney. Trump vilified Fauci for sticking to the science, you can't have forgotten that already.  I think you've maybe even disparaged Dr Fauci's expertise yourself in these threads.  

Gas lighting is isn't going to work.  Trump cherry picked information and lied about COVID.  The consequences of Trump's incompetent malfeasance were devastating.  

subee said:

Not anymore.  SCOTUS makes the laws now, and I don't know what you are  trying to say in the last to paragraphs.  

I said SCOTUS makes the laws. 

toomuchbaloney said:

cher·ry-pick·ing

noun

the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available.

"it is an exaggeration based on the cherry-picking of facts"

Do you understand better now or do you need to have it explained further so that you understand that spreading novel or outlier or extremist opinions on COVID or abortion or other areas of right wing angst is an example of cherry picking?  

Our current medical scientists didn't form their opinions about COVID on political narrative in 2020 either... that's baloney. Trump vilified Fauci for sticking to the science, you can't have forgotten that already.  I think you've maybe even disparaged Dr Fauci's expertise yourself in these threads.  

Gas lighting is isn't going to work.  Trump cherry picked information and lied about COVID.  The consequences of Trump's incompetent malfeasance were devastating.  

Yes. You hate Trump. I'm so sure you actually read anything that doesn't  aligns with your political ideology.you take the time to form a non bias thought. 

Yes. You have Trump, got it. 

Beerman said:

It's quite remarkable,  isn't it?

Some of us have seen and commented on the President's obvious decline for quite sometime.

The WH has been doing it's best to hide and explain it away, and the press has been complicit by also hiding it and going along with the WH.  Biden's followers have bought into it AND have tried to tell the rest of us we weren't seeing what we were seeing.

Now, instead of reflecting on how they've been duped, it's on to the next thing.

 

The best is the Handmaid's Tale hysteria. Looool. With a straight face they say they actually believe Trump will do this to women. Then tell us we are the irrational conspiracy theorists! 

Do you think they knew the state of Biden's decline and just can't cover it up anymore or do you think they are really surprised? 

Beerman said:

It's quite remarkable,  isn't it?

Some of us have seen and commented on the President's obvious decline for quite sometime.

The WH has been doing it's best to hide and explain it away, and the press has been complicit by also hiding it and going along with the WH.  Biden's followers have bought into it AND have tried to tell the rest of us we weren't seeing what we were seeing.

Now, instead of reflecting on how they've been duped, it's on to the next thing.

 

Nah.  It's the same thing.  Biden is the capable and successful president who is running against the pathological liar, who was a failed single term president before he tried to overturn the election he lost.  Nothing has changed.  The republican candidate opposing Biden is unfit for office based simply upon his disqualifying character flaws. When one adds in the unconstitutional thinking, the sexual abuse, the civil fraud, the felonies and the threats to NATO allies the choice to vote for Biden is clear.  

The only people who have "bought into" a narrative are those people who would believe the narrative about Biden's opponent.   That guy has been conning people for decades... with a charity, with a fake university, with lies about wealth, wives and wisdom.  Now that conman sells people golden shoes and politicized Bibles and worthless media stock and bits of a suit that he wore when he surrendered for his mug shot when he's not busy selling them his lies and exaggerations and delusional thinking.  

Crusades said:

Oh you .... you ....are? I did not know your antedotal "evidence" of being a PICU as well. !!  I stand corrected. Fallacy of expertise. 

Conversion therapy is stupid but why should the government say a parent cannot use it? Why should politicians tell us what we can do? It is/may be harmful? Maybe but the government should decide..... that was the point. Did you really think I was making a case for conversion therapy? Oh right. I guess as long as it isn't a chemical being ingested that may cause permanent side effects then a okay! 

Right. I would have to pay for unnecessary and possibly harmful medications that my child doesn't need. 

 

You can't help that you don't know what you don't know.  

The government is expected to regulate things which are harmful to We the People, that's why conversion therapy is regulated or banned - because it's harmful.  

Most of the time it's not clear what you are "making a case for".  For instance, the remainder of your comment is not making much sense. You don't seem to be making any point or argument at all.  

Crusades said:

Yes. You hate Trump. I'm so sure you actually read anything that doesn't  aligns with your political ideology.you take the time to form a non bias thought. 

Yes. You have Trump, got it. 

 

Does this mean that you don't want to talk about cherry picking anymore? Just like that you've charged the subject now to me hating Trump? 

Since this is the Biden thread why don't we talk about Biden since it's going to be too uncomfortable for you to continue talking about cherry picking in information.  You will be better off speculating about him than about me.