Moxie.....be careful what you wish for. You really wanted me to respond to this post, so I am doing it right now. I was busy in recent days and until now did not have the time to sit down and give your bullshit the thorough thrashing it deserved. But I just had a few minutes to complete that task, so enjoy seeing your arguments shredded.
Fine. What are their anecdotes, beyond not having any COVID patients?
One nurse said that her hospital has only had 2 Covid patients since March. Another said that the SARS and MERS pandemics were far worse for her hospital and that everyone in that hospital who has had Covid recovered quickly.
I do know of one person who works at nursing homes who said that Covid was very rough on the people residing there, but I have never denied that it is a difficult disease for the elderly. How to protect them, however, is a separate issue from the irrational and stupid lockdowns this country has imposed on itself.
If it were compassion you were actually showing, and not political agenda, as evidenced by your quote above, then I would acknowledge it. I have never not talked about the suffering of the elderly, in NY or anywhere else.
Bullshit. You have consistently talked about coronavirus as a general threat to everyone, with very little emphasis placed on the dangers to the elderly. Regarding Cuomo's idiotic nursing home policy, you have not once criticized him for it. And that of course is because he is a Democrat, and in your mind it is taboo to criticize anyone in your Democratic Party church.
You only bring up the suffering of the elderly to: 1) slag off blue states, and 2) to promote the idea that only the elderly and immunocompromised suffer and die from this virus.
Regarding point 1: LOL. How can I not pick on the blue states when over 85% of COVID deaths are in states with Democratic governors? Can you imagine if the numbers were reversed? We would never hear the end of it. Just look at Florida. DeSantis has done an excellent job of protecting the elderly and deaths are low, but the national media have convinced everyone that he has done the worst job of any governor in handling it because of a slew of usually meaningless, mild "cases" in recent weeks in his state.
Regarding point 2: it is absolutely true that this virus is mostly just a threat to the elderly and immunocompromised. Very few people outside those two categories have been afflicted by this virus. In particular, people under the age of 45 are at far greater risk from virtually every disease other than Covid.
You don't give a shit...you still just use these people as a pawn and a cudgel to your political agenda.
Wow.....this is coming from a loyal, card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, which just suppressed the use of a drug (HCQ) that could have saved thousands of American lives, all because of their insane hatred of Trump. This same party that you are a member of just advocated and engineered (albeit with Republican acquiescence/compliance) economy-killing shutdowns in which millions of lives have been damaged, some possibly to an irreparable degree. And you're condemning me for using people as pawns for a political agenda? Look in the mirror, sweetheart. For the Democratic Party, Covid from Day 1 has been 99% about attacking Trump.
Point out one single time you've expressed compassion for the suffering of those who have had it without adding a political note of caveat. I'll be waiting for that one.
Point out a single occasion when me expressing compassion for suffering Covid patients on this board would have mattered. This board is called "US Politics," not "US Empathy Self-Help Group." We are discussing political issues, not standing in a hospital by the bed of a Covid patient.
But if you want to play the empathy card, allow me to request that you point out a single time you've expressed compassion for an American citizen killed by an illegal alien, or a black child killed in black-on-black violence, or a police officer killed or injured during the Floyd riots. I'll be waiting for that one, because you never have.
See.....that's the problem with invoking "empathy," as an excellent recent book by a Yale psychologist pointed out. It is inherently selective. You are a prime example of this. You ask for empathy for those who you find politically favorable, but never for those who don't fit one of your preferred narratives.
And I guess Trump has betrayed you again. Mask as in, and the pandemic is going to get worse before it gets better, according to Trump, today.
I don't care if Trump is going along with the mask craze. There is no doubt his advisers are telling him to do that, and there are deeply misinformed Americans (such as Moxie, a contributor to this board you may know) who want to see their president wearing a mask. Hopefully they will be satisfied by this token gesture, even though we now know from Fauci's act at the Washington Nationals game that not even this newly found hero of the Democratic Party believes in it.
Wow, you're kind of all over the place on this one, huh? Must have hit a nerve. People can cite the bible all they want, but they should live by these Judeo-Christian values, is all I ask, and including you.
Would those "Judeo-Christian values" including anything you don't like? Would those values include revisiting your morally absolutist position toward the Confederacy in light of the fact that a prominent New York City rabbi (Morris Raphall) criticized abolitionists prior to the Civil War on the grounds that slaveholding could not have been a sin if Abrahaam and Isaac held slaves? Would the words of that NYC rabbi possibly balance out your one-sided and intolerant view of the Confederacy? Of course not.
You had no problem with Buttigieg citing the Bible repeatedly, nor do you have a problem with Obama or Pelosi doing it when it suits them. You just want the Bible cited in accord with your preferences at a given moment.
But the problem is that you have no monopoly on defining "Judeo-Christian values," and with respect to homosexuality in particular, there is no basis at all in Judeo-Christian morality for sanctioning gay marriage. Forgiveness and love are one thing; but officially recognizing homosexual relationships as morally legitimate has no basis at all, even if you wish it did.
I didn't cite Leviticus, you drew that conclusion.
I never alleged that you specifically cited Leviticus. What I said was that your prejudice against incest is a very Biblical one, since that is the main emphasis of the condemnations of Leviticus.
I didn't cite Leviticus, you drew that conclusion. I'm talking about a long-held social stricture against incest, which has nothing to do with the bible.
There have also been long-held social strictures against homosexuality that predated the Bible, yet you don't care about those!
And are you out of your mind? How does the Bible have "nothing to do" with "long-held social stricture against incest" when Christianity has been the main religion of the West for two millennia? You can't just wake up one day and erase 2,000 years of history.
That said, you have a minor point that there is an innate and instinctual revulsion among humans for incest that goes beyond traditional religion. But there is also an innate and instinctual revulsion among humans for homosexuality and always has been. Just look at Obama's heartthrob Fidel Castro and how he brutalized gays in Cuba. He certainly didn't do it because he was motivated by Leviticus. So in a limited sense, you're right; the Bible just confirms and reinforces human beings' innate prejudices against homosexuality and incest.
You brought that in. So I don't give a shit about what Leviticus says about incest or homosexuality.
You may not care but you are just a drop in the ocean of history, which has been shaped by Christianity far more than any of your recent heroes (such as Hillary Clinton). There are far more people who have revered Leviticus in history than those who (like you) revere the cult of De Blasio, Lightfoot, and Cuomo.
And I don't give a rat's ass if some people think homosexuality is "gross."
But what other basis do you have for calling incest gross than that you personally find it "gross"? Most humans in history have found homosexuality gross just like you find incest to be gross. In fact, most people have seen the two behaviors (homosexuality and incest) as falling into the same general category of sexual deviance. (The only caveat that I will throw in here is that I do think some degree of sensuality between women in a momentary sense is not entirely unnatural, although a long-term relationship built on sexual complementarity absolutely is; male homosexuality, on the other hand, is something that I find to be pathetic and detestable. I agree with Castro and Che on that one.)
So, allow me to ask, aside from the Bible, what possible grounds could you have for finding gay marriage to be fine and dandy but incest to be "gross"? Oh, I know. It's simply that you are prejudiced against one but not the other. It's nothing but your arbitrary and whimsical moral preference.
By the way, every single argument that people have offered for gay marriage (that it is between two consenting adults, that people should be allowed to do what makes them happy, that marriage doesn't have to result in kids, that marriage is just about companionship and love between two individuals, etc.) applies just as much to incestuous relationships as to homosexual relationships. What possible argument can you make against one that doesn't apply to the other? Long-held social stricture? Well, there has been a long-held social stricture against homosexuality.
I can't be responsible for everyone's small-mindedness.
Yes, because embracing gay pride parades in New York City is the hallmark of cosmopolitanism and broad-mindedness. Just ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom condemn others as xenophobes while only knowing one language.
The law of the land has changed here
Through judicial fiat, not reasoned argument. It is a law imposed by a totalitarian left-wing government, which the USA government is increasingly becoming.
We "secure the blessings of liberty", and the bible is not the law of the land, the Constitution is.
Lol.....and what on earth does the Constitution have to say about gay marriage? Thomas Jefferson, one of its many authors, knew 6 languages but believed that homosexuals should have their limbs cut off. There is nothing even implicit in the Constitution that would sanction gay marriage. You are simply defining the Constitution as what you want it to be, not what it actually is.
So that wraps it up, Moxie. Remember - $30 through Paypal per post. I am giving you a discount since you are such an eager student and I want to see you grow intellectually.
