Jump to content

BeardIP

Full Members
  • Posts

    1831
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

954 Surly 10%

Recent Profile Visitors

1156 profile views
  1. I'm kinda glad Derka is not around as of yesterday due to Jokic winning MVP. I just didn't want to hear about it. Not the biggest Jokic fan, so....yea.
  2. So does Bowen yang dress up as a worm in the cold open this weekend?
  3. Not having the great locations is what is going to always keep it UT and the seven UT-citysystem dwarfs. It's why people who would love to attend but who can't get into UT or A&M for the all-around, holistic experience (academics+social+sports+legacy/traditions+Greek life) will begrudgingly go to Tech or increasingly head to Arkansas, OU, Bama, etc. The only one with a snowball's chance in San Antonio is UTSA, because the location is a big enough city to have culture and be fun, and the city is growing, and the have a D1 football team that could theoritically be good one day. It's just in the nascent, first generation and doesn't have active alumni who have diaspora'd into Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio with the gusto that UT and A&M (and to a lesser extent Baylor, TCU, etc.) has.
  4. You missed one. I can't think of which one, something about something mattering, but I can't remember exactly. I'm blacking out on what it was. Can't remember for the lives of me!
  5. I have to disagree on a point of order that a university is more than just the academic experience and that just because you have an inferior substitute which is "acceptable" like a UTD or UC Santa Barbara, you miss out on the soft skills, benefits, and experiences offered by a UT or Cal Berkely and that sucks for kids who would love what UT has to offer. Sucks for those kids who have to go live in Tyler for a year and rush as a weird sophomore when the eventually become history majors at UT (as a best case) or live at home and go to UTD or have to pretend to be a serious person and be a diehard Roadrunners football fan (as a worst case).
  6. 1) Great, so we agree on the main crux. Liberty rules. 2) My implication was that the government knew there was a risk of being more dangerous than other vaccinations, that I still maintain was the case at the time. 3) Hindsight it has been proven, in the near and mid-term, that it is more or less as safe as any other vaccination, which is great but does NOT negate the argument of #2. 4) Further, because you agree with 1), it actually is inconsequential in that the whether it was safer or more dangerous or exactly the same risk profile, to be unreasonably compelled into taking the vaccination without any legal recourse, is problematic at best, unethical and heinous at worst, and a moral hazard at definition. 5) I did mean Sulpha; autocorrect on Sulpher @elfenix
  7. In my mind "risk" and "potential for risk" are saying the same thing; six one way and half a dozen the other. In no way, shape or form was it communicated that there was a definite or provable risk, just that by suspending legal remedy, there is an implication of an inherent difference-- an addition to the element of risk/potential risk. I mean, this seems like risk management 101 stuff. Looking back, I agree with you. The results are more or less in line with any other vaccination with regards to side effects (as far as I can tell and from what I've read). But, again, the MAIN crux of the argument and issue, is that this vaccination was something that was more or less "mandated" for a goodly number of people by an unreasonable expectation for many sectors of employment and rights/privileges. If you are going to compel and force people into a vaccination, it's unethical and morally wrong to not offer a legal remedy or option for adverse outcomes. That is 100% my point. I feel like a broken record, so I'll just leave it at that.
  8. All that you said, plus the lack of sight into short and mid-term adverse effects. Which is the argument regarding vaccine injury.
  9. I do stand by the idea that by invoking the PERP Act, there is "Implicit acknowledgment" of a POTENTIAL for risk and the desire and need to legally shield yourself from that risk. And if we took away the legal immunity and the drug companies felt that developing, in a fast tracked manner, a drug was an existential risk then....isn't that proving my original point... that the potential for risk incurred from speeding up the traditional process to bring a vaccination to market... is what makes it inherently different and potentailly more risky?
  10. First, thanks for the clarity. I'd rather respond to points than guess or just resort to name calling. I think the word "inherent(ly)" is doing the heavy lifting here. I was responding to the poster who said that fast tracking this and stacking steps in parallel is NOT inherently more risky/dangerous than going through the motions serially. I mean, just conceptually and logically speaking, how could it be equal in risk? Ask yourself this, if there is no inherent difference in the manufacturing risks, then why not just make the process more efficient and turn the "fast track" into the standard? It's because the overwhelmingly likely reason is that by optimizing for speed, you are sacrificing something-- and whatever that sacrifice is (e.g. an uptick in risk) it's deemed worth it, but it's also not nothing. I simply think that a pro-human and winning move would have been to absolutely fast track the go to market, but leave an option for legal remedy if injured by the product.
  11. I haven't heard Part 6 yet, but think I'm more or less up to date. Euphoria is maybe the best song, but Drake has the second and third best in Family Matters and Tailor Made. Thought this was an interesting read: https://www.theringer.com/rap/2024/5/4/24149035/drake-kendrick-meet-the-grahams-family-matters-euphoria-diss-beef
  12. I think there has been some miscommunication: "I'm pointing out that the PREP Act isnt a blanket order for all vaccine development." Yes "After used the PERP Act and cited it as a blanket act that allowed all immunity." No, I used it as an example of why you can't sue for being vaccine injured, if you were unreasonably compelled to take the vaccination, that was fast-tracked and rushed to market during a public health emergency. I don't care about any other immunity that may or may not exist for any other vaccination development. "Then you started hedging. See the irony there? Hence, ARGURING IN BAD FAITH." I lost your thread of logic on this and think you are just backing into some sort of confirmation bias about what you think I think and not what I said, based on your past experiences. "Yeah, I'm just not going to get up in arms about a public health emergency, learning from it, and making changes after the fact." That's fine as it's your prerogative. I'm simply arguing from the other angle which is that public health emergency or not, legal immunity for drug manufacturers and quasi mandates for people to take this vaccination, is a moral hazard. It was a decision and it was made and we are living with it, but one can think it's a garbage position and talk about it without being bad faith. I mean, some people thought Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus was fine and others saw it as problematic and it remains an interesting debate to this day. It's okay to not agree with you Sydney and not be in bad faith. I hope one day you learn that.
×
×
  • Create New...