sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
No bio...
User ID: 636
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
3d ago
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
3d ago
Why is Oklahoma less enmeshed in capitalism than New York?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
3d ago
It’s caused by market forces and corporate influences rather than planning.
It's caused by (some) people's revealed preferences for suburban living rather than apartment living and the increasing unusability of public spaces thanks to laws against nuisances not being enforced, for which we can thank leftists.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
3d ago
since it's possible for more than one economic system to suppress birthrates
What is the basis of comparison?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
3d ago
various cultural diminishments in the role of community and family in peoples' lives owing in part to automobiles, suburbanization, etc.,
What does this have to do with property rights and free enterprise?
obesity caused by processed foods and cheap low-nutrient foods, environmental contaminants, etc.
Given that obesity and number of kids both correlate negatively with income, I'd be surprised if the obese weren't having more kids than the skinny.
government and corporate propaganda systems increasing the prestige of educational and economic attainment
Even government propaganda is capitalism now?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
4d ago
babies are recommended to get 2 influenza shots in the first 12 months of life, so the number is 20 and not 18.
The standard recommendation is one shot in the first year of life.
If we're counting the combos, MMR & DTaP would count for 24 and not 18 (8 total doses of these shots).
Yes, 24 is the number I used after breaking down the vaccine cocktails.
HPV is 2 or 3 doses.
HPV is one or two doses.
When I count, I get 72 or 73 not including the RSV.
You are still hiding the ball, because you've counted 47 with some fudging and there's only 24 other recommended shots on the schedule. Even with these inflated numbers you only get 71. "A hundred dollars? What do you need fifty dollars for?"
boosters (teal),
Boosters are not teal, teal shots are not recommended for all children.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
But there's no way to distinguish well manufactured and poorly manufactured vaccines?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
What boosters and multi year shots? I counted the boosters. Seriously, show your math, because I am pretty sure you are hiding the ball.
and "ask your doctor about RSV" means, in practicality, you should get the RSV "vaccine"
RSV vaccine is not recommended for all children. If we're going to stick to what's recommended on the schedule, let's stick to the schedule.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
How is it 80? 48 I counted above, plus 18 flu, plus 2 covid makes 68.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
Please show your math for "hundreds" of vaccinations on the schedule. I went through and counted, you can surely put some minimal effort in rather than low effort sneers.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
Sure, we can break down dtap and mmr into three vaccinations. That brings the total to 48. Still a far cry from hundreds, so I don't see what's asinine about saying that hundreds is wrong. There's just no way you can torture the numbers to get to hundreds.
why wouldn't you count these?
Simply because in my experience most kids don't get these on a regular basis.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
So... there's no actual vaccine that you "believe in", and your belief is strictly in the theoretical (but so far unattained) possibility of producing a good vaccine?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
Let's not do the thing where the poster is directionally correct, but we're nitpicking the details. Yeah, it's not 100 shots, but it's a lot, and it's a lot more than before.
Wait a second. There is no "directionally correct" here - the poster said not 100 but "hundreds" and the true number is around 30. It's "directionally correct" in the sense that the sign is right, but that's about it. If he said "thousands", would that still be "directionally correct"?
And it's not a semantic nit, because we can mostly all agree that the ideal number of vaccines is greater than 0 and less than "hundreds". So where exactly we are on that spectrum is basically the entire discussion.
Let's flip it. Why should an infant be receiving Hep B and Covid vaccines? Why should they receive any vaccines that they didn't in 1990 (or whenever the Chicken Pox vaccine came out).
I don't think there's a good reason to vaccinate infants against COVID.
I don't know why infants are vaccinated against hep B but it's been recommended for newborns since the 1991 (and patented in 1972), so by your heuristic that one seems pretty safe.
The post-1990s vaccines to have vanishingly little benefit and unquantified risk.
It's not clear to me that this is the case, but I'd be curious to see if anyone has actually looked at this rigorously. I don't know off the top of my head which ones are post 1990s.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
That's much closer to the truth but not necessarily true.
- RSV is required depending on the mother's antibody status.
- Hep B can be done in the second month of life.
- So can the RSV vaccine.
So taking those two at 2 months instead of 3 months cuts the number to 5.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
The vaccine schedule now includes hundreds of vaccines
False. I count 32 doses recommended to all children from age 0 to 18, not counting a yearly flu vaccine and one dose of a covid vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines-children/schedules/index.html
This is a perfect example of the belief set I am talking about. The RFK supporters I know believe that kids are getting tens of vaccines in a single day.
I think it's pretty reasonable to believe in vaccines as a technology in general and that a lot of them have been captured by special interests.
Okay. Which vaccines in particular do you believe in?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
If the vaccine manufacturer is not capturing all the benefit of the vaccine but is liable for all the downside, it's clear that the math isn't mathing even for plainly good vaccines.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
Let's do a little back of the envelope calculation.
Infectious disease mortality declined during the first 8 decades of the 20th century from 797 deaths per 100000 in 1900 to 36 deaths per 100000 in 1980.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9892452/
The actual infectious disease mortality in 1980 was 80k people. At 1900 mortality rates, it would have been 1.8M, so let's ballpark it at 1.7M deaths averted thanks to sanitation and antibiotics. FEMA values a human life at $7.5M. 1.7M people * $7.5M/person = $13T. US GDP in 1980 was $3T.
Obviously this is highly simplified, but I think it's safe to say that vaccine companies did not capture a large part of the benefits of vaccines.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
I do not see anybody, anywhere, downplay the importance of vaccines and antibiotics.
RFK supporters I know personally are highly vaccine skeptical and believe in a kind of vaccine/autism link bailey. They do not support vaccinating kids for e.g. measles due to low death rates and are convinced that the only reason kids get so many vaccines is due to the pernicious influence of pharma companies. They are members of Facebook groups of hundreds of people where the consensus view aligns with their beliefs.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
5d ago
From the perspective of the tourist or resident, the first three options are basically the same, right? The building looks traditional and beautiful, and is built with new materials.
Except that in the case of OP's castles, the new construction is made with reinforced concrete rather than wood, which, despite maybe looking the same, must feel rather different.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
6d ago
You're the one that said the schools are "secretly transitioning" kids, like the kid wasn't involved in the process.
Surely it's obvious to you that he meant secret from the parents? It's clearly logically impossible to transition someone secretly from them themselves.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
8d ago
Yes. The way to get a position of influence in an organization is to actually do gruntwork.
You're missing the point. The point is that there's nothing to distinguish this photo from the 150 other photos deleted in those ten minutes except that you feel strongly about this image. There's no indication at all that the process has been abused.
At this point, it seems it is you who has the unfalsifiable belief, namely, that this entirely routine, automated action was actually politically motivated.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
8d ago
How would you be able to tell that the image had licensing information after it was deleted?
That's irrelevant to the question. Your claim is that if the Brooks photo was not deleted and had no licensing information, nobody could tell. The question is, are there any photos on Commons/wiki without licensing information, and are there any copyrighted photos on Commons?
How is that evidence of anything?
How is the fact that the guy who deleted this is running an automated unlicensed image deletion dragnet evidence of anything?
In the same minute that he deleted the Brooks photo, he deleted 18 other unlicensed images. In the ten minute window, he deleted 147 images total. All of them had been without a license for 8 days at that point. He then deleted the category that held images that were tagged as missing a license on July 3.
It's pretty obvious that this is an automated process where images without licensing information are tagged, added to a category, and then in 8 days those without licensing information are automatically garbage collected. I don't see any reason to add epicycles to this.
"When the Brooks mugshot was deleted from Wikipedia, it was the worst day of your life. For krd, it was Tuesday."
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
8d ago
You're claiming that the Wikipedia editors are just neutrally applying their internal procedures.
It's crazy that you would say this considering that I acknowledged that there are plenty of rules that can be bent to make things happen. My actual claim is that there isn't evidence that the photo was removed for this reason, and that the actual reason the photo was removed is actually quite unambiguous.
What is a way to disprove yours? Isn't it unfalsifiable?
If you upload the photo to Wikipedia with licensing info and it gets removed, I'll agree that the licensing rule is also abused.
Not a movie, but Shtisel was a pretty good depiction of charedim I think.
More options
Context Copy link