Covid is not deadly enough to merit such authoritarianism. Not even close.
If you suppost the vaccine mandate, it is likely because a) covid terrifies you and/or b) you admire authoritarianism, as long as it imposes your mindset on others.
PZ is at it again with his blog entry entitled, What kind of ridiculous poison will they ingest next to avoid a simple vaccination?
Speaking of the antiseptic, Betadine, Myers writes:
I would never have dreamed of drinking or gargling that stuff. Why would anyone in their right mind do something that stupid?
I did not consider the lunacy of anti-vaxxers.
So he is trying to tell us the anti-vaxxers are drinking/ingesting betadine to fight off covid.
He then links to an article from the Rolling Stone. So I go there looking for the evidence that the anti-vaxxers are out their guzzling betadine.Continue reading
Looks like a new study is about to surface that gives us more reason to be less afraid of Covid:
If you want to make sense of the number of COVID hospitalizations at any given time, you need to know how sick each patient actually is. Until now, that’s been almost impossible to suss out. The federal government requires hospitals to report every patient who tests positive for COVID, yet the overall tallies of COVID hospitalizations, made available on various state and federal dashboards and widely reported on by the media, do not differentiate based on severity of illness. Some patients need extensive medical intervention, such as getting intubated. Others require supplemental oxygen or administration of the steroid dexamethasone. But there are many COVID patients in the hospital with fairly mild symptoms, too, who have been admitted for further observation on account of their comorbidities, or because they reported feeling short of breath. Another portion of the patients in this tally are in the hospital for something unrelated to COVID, and discovered that they were infected only because they were tested upon admission.
In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.
Maybe someone can pry PZ out of his fetal position to let him know the good news.
Why do so many atheists have such a problem with free speech? Many of the New Atheists and the Social Justice Atheists seem to believe that if they don’t like someone’s argument, it should never have been published. It’s as if they have the mentality of a censor “I don’t like this, thus no one should be allowed to see it!”
We have seen this mentality at work in New Atheist Jerry Coyne.
And social justice atheist, Hemant Mehta, just displayed the same approach. He argues that the NYT should not have published some essay from a pro-life activist – see the second to last paragraph of his blog posting; Patheos does not allow people to cut–n-paste their articles (convenient).
BTW, I’ve been posting on this blog since 2009. And I have encountered numerous trashy arguments from both the New Atheists and Social Justice Atheists. My response has always been to rebut and refute them. Not once will you find me arguing the trashy atheist arguments should never have been published. So while the atheists complain because of the lack of censorship, this Christian adopts an approach that values free speech. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. 😉
While many insist that the new Texas law concerning abortion is “anti-woman,” I’m afraid that argument is out of date and no longer applies. This is 2021 and in 2021 there are trans-men. We are told trans men are men and to disagree is transphobic bigotry. This means that men can get pregnant and get abortions. Yet the Texas law does not make any special exceptions for these men, arguing that the men can have abortions.
In other words, the Texas law applies equally to men and women. Since it applies equally to men and women, it cannot logically be “anti-women.” Thus, it would be intellectually dishonest to portray the Texas law as “anti-woman.” Unless, of course, you are a TERF.
I suppose we should not be surprised. President Biden got 13 American soldiers killed all because he insisted on a panicked rush for the door out of Afghanistan. And if that was not bad enough, this president abandoned 100’s of Americans and allies to the terrorist rulers in Afghanistan.
Now this president is attacking his fellow citizens:
Biden, during his speech, repeatedly demonized tens of millions of Americans who have not yet been vaccinated, saying that “many” in the country were “frustrated” with them, and effectively blaming the pandemic on them, claiming “this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
Biden claimed that a “a distinct minority of Americans” are causing “a lot of damage” and are “keeping us from turning the corner.”
“And my message to unvaccinated Americans is this: What more is there to wait for? What more do you need to see? We’ve made vaccinations free, safe, and convenient,” Biden fumed. “We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”
Us vs. Them rhetoric coming from the President of the United States. And the Us vs. Them rhetoric is being applied to the American people.
But then again, this is the administration that blamed the Americans that were abandoned in Afghanistan.
He told the American people without qualification that fully vaccinated people are at incredibly low risk: “Only 1 out of every 160,000 fully vaccinated Americans was hospitalized for COVID per day.”
Then he promised to shield them against the evil people who are threatening their very lives: “We’re going to protect the vaccinated from unvaccinated co-workers.”
But Joe, you just said the vaccinated were already protected!
There is yet another problem with Adam Something’s laughable attempt to explain/justify why Academia has become a Far Left Echo Chamber. His argument has become outdated. Recall that Something claims academia is an environment that is built around Open-mindedness, Rationality, Curiosity, and a Readiness to Change One’s Mind in the Face of New Evidence. While that may have been true years ago, it would be difficult to make the case that this is true today. In today’s academia, there is a growing and rather extensive push to elevate the importance of activism. Activism is taught, encouraged, and rewarded. Professors, posturing as scholars, also gleefully describe themselves as activists. Activism in the classroom, activism during campus events, activism in the administration. Activism, activism, and more activism.
The problem? The values of Open-mindedness, Rationality, Curiosity, and a Readiness to Change One’s Mind in the Face of New Evidence are antithetical to modern day activists. Let’s think it through.Continue reading
Here’s a video from someone called “Adam Something.” Adam claims to be part of academia and posted the video to explain “Why Academia Is Left-Leaning.”
Adam notes that those on the right think academia has become anti-conservative. But he thinks they are wrong. Yes, the vast majority of professors in academia are from the Left and Far Left (can’t deny facts), but Adam insists this is because academia naturally draws and rewards the following values:
Open-mindedness, Rationality, Curiosity, Readiness to Change One’s Mind in the Face of New Evidence
Adam Something then insists these are the values of the Left and are “antithetical to modern day conservatism.” In other words, all that is going on is justified selection bias against conservatives. Since conservatives are closed-minded, irrational, not curious, and unwilling to follow evidence and change their minds, they will not thrive, or even survive, in an environment which favors Open-mindedness, Rationality, Curiosity, Readiness to Change One’s Mind in the Face of New Evidence.
Oh, the irony. Adam Something has just demonstrated that he indeed lives in a Far Left Bubble and a Safe Space where non-Leftist ideas are not tolerated. How so?Continue reading
[I put all the replies to Phil Zuckerman’s argument here in one place. That way, if someone cites his Salon article to argue atheists are more moral on some social media page, you will be able to post a link to a refutation in response. After about a week, I will remove this introductory header]
Phil Zuckerman is a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. According to his Wikipedia page, Zuckerman’s academic work seems largely focused on defending and promoting secularism and atheism. So it looks to me that he is more of an academic atheist apologist/activist than a true scholar. And my impression is supported by a recent article he published entitled, Staunch atheists show higher morals than the proudly pious, from the pandemic to climate change: When it comes to the most pressing moral issues of the day, hard-core secularists exhibit much more empathy.
Zuckerman argues, “When it comes to the most pressing moral issues of the day, hard-core secularists exhibit much more empathy, compassion, and care for the well-being of others than the most ardently God-worshipping.”
While this is clearly something we might expect an atheist apologist to believe and promote, Zuckerman never demonstrates this to be the case. He “shows” it only in the sense that his conformation bias allows him to carefully craft a narrative to discover what he has previously concluded. Let me dissect his article to expose his sloppy, apologist thinking.
We can start with the global pandemic. COVID-19 is a potentially deadly virus that has caused — and continues to cause — dire woe. Surely, to be moral in the face of such a dangerous disease is to do everything one can — within one’s limited power — to thwart it. No moral person would want to willfully spread it, bolster it, or prolong its existence. And yet, when it comes to the battle against COVID-19, it is the most secular of Americans who are doing what they can to wipe it out, while it is the most faithful among us, especially nationalistic white Evangelicals, who are keeping it alive and well. Taking the vaccine saves lives and thwarts the spread of the virus. So, too, does sheltering in place as directed and wearing protective face masks. And yet, here in the U.S., it is generally the most religious among us who refuse to adhere to such life-saving practices, while it is the most secular who most willingly comply. For example, a recent Pew study found that while only 10% of atheists said that they would definitely or probably not get vaccinated, 45% of white Evangelicals took such a position.
When Zuckerman insists “while it is the most secular who most willingly comply” to “such life-saving practices,” he provides no evidence for thinking this is because such secular people are motivated by empathy, compassion, and care for the well-being. None. He assumes it merely because he wants to insist on it. In reality, there is another equally, if not more, plausible explanation. The most secular are motivated by Fear. Fear of getting Covid, fear of going to the hospital, fear of being put on a ventilator, fear of dying. We’ve seen this fear in various atheists on the internet, for example, blogger PZ Myers. The man has been absolutely terrified of Covid from the start and has complained he was going to die repeatedly over the year. It is such fear that causes the atheists to willingly comply and demand others do likewise.
In other words, Zuckerman’s evidence for the superior morality of atheists may just as well instead be evidence of their greater fear of death.
Boom. His case implodes.Continue reading