EMB Blog: 2021 Offseason

[Utebird]

14 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Abortion leads to a 100% death rate of what would otherwise be a living baby.  Does an unvaccinated person lead to a 100% death rate of someone else?  

Abortion doesn't lead to other people dying or directly to others getting an abortion. before you chime in and say what about the baby, it's not a baby it's a fetus, and before you chime in about late term abortions, late term abortions account for around 2% of abortions as they are most often only performed when the fetus is no longer viable or is in danger to the mother.

No one is forcing any one to take the vaccine, instead we are expected to do so out of social responsibility, not doing so puts others in harm's way, whether or not someone chooses to or not to get an abortion doesn't directly put someone else in harm's way.

I will always advocate for people getting vaccinated, just as I would advocate for people to wash their hands. They have the freedom to not or do so and when they don't  not doing so has potential adverse effects on the rest of us.

 

 

 

[BigEFly]

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

You can live your life like that.  That's on you.  You can't force other people to.  And I'm not anti-vax.  I'm pro-freedom of choice.  

Well then, your freedom should not be at the expense of my freedom so you should be fine with no public benefits like Medicaid, Medicare and SSDI plus an exclusion on the health insurance policy for folks that refuse the free vaccine.  I mean shouldn’t I be free from paying taxes and premiums to support your freedom of choice.  Or should we, as members of society and citizens elect to vaccinate for the benefit of our fellow man.   You are advocating a selfish, narcissistic and unChristian position from my viewpoint. The same with the unvaccinated that refuse to wear masks, not for their own protection but for the protection of their fellow man.  I suspect you are trolling but either way, I must reject your approach.  My folks raised me better than that.  

[Iggles_Phan]

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

 

[Swoop]

26 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

A roll out. Well don’t I feel dumb now. 

Disingenuous.

[Mike030270]

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I also tried Castle Risk.  It was ok, but I prefer the original.

That said, "Mission Risk" is a very nice variation... much more intrigue.

I think I still have that one. Wonder if these old board games are worthy anything now

[BigEFly]

I was apprehensive about Smith going into the draft.  I still worry about his size and speed but he does have elite burst.  He does strike me as a player that makes other players better. Man if Ward could learn some of his misdirection, his stick, and his burst or Fulgham some of his hands, stick and burts.  Or Reagor, Watkins and Hightower some of his hands.  

[Utebird]

6 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I was apprehensive about Smith going into the draft.  I still worry about his size and speed but he does have elite burst.  He does strike me as a player that makes other players better. Man if Ward could learn some of his misdirection, his stick, and his burst or Fulgham some of his hands, stick and burts.  Or Reagor, Watkins and Hightower some of his hands.  

Do you watch the sports science video on him? 

Sonebody posted it about a page ago, pretty impressive stuff 

[HazletonEagle]

6 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I was apprehensive about Smith going into the draft.  I still worry about his size and speed but he does have elite burst.  He does strike me as a player that makes other players better. Man if Ward could learn some of his misdirection, his stick, and his burst or Fulgham some of his hands, stick and burts.  Or Reagor, Watkins and Hightower some of his hands.  

You can worry abou this size. Worrying about his speed is a waste of time. Hes clearly very fast. 

[BigEFly]

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

You can worry abou this size. Worrying about his speed is a waste of time. Hes clearly very fast. 

His burst is more impressive than his long speed. I don’t see him running away from DBs as must as getting separation and keeping it.   

[Allhaildawk]

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Are you pro-choice for abortion? Myself, I don't really have strong opinions on it one way or another however I'm guessing you are. So why are you for that in the name of it being the woman's body and her choice when that choice directly results in the killing of a baby? 

When your stance is why not force everyone to get the vaccine because you think it will save lives. 

all good man im done

[ManuManu]

1 hour ago, Allhaildawk said:

You’re intentionally missing the point.  If you’re so dug into your position I don’t know why you’re even engaging. People resisting vaccines will kill Americans. It’s that simple. Maybe not you, maybe not anybody you care about, but that is the reality we are in. 

I do in-home physical therapy. Yesterday I went into a home of a post-surgical patient who had found out that she tested positive for COVID. She nor her husband were vaccinated and he passed it to her. Her SpO2 numbers at rest were between 83-88 percent and heart rate was 115. She had to be taken to hospital in an ambulance. 

The scary thing is that a nurse was in her home no more than 2-3 hours before me and she was asymptotic and with normal vitals. 

She’s now on a vent. 

[austinfan]

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Abortion leads to a 100% death rate of what would otherwise be a living baby.  Does an unvaccinated person lead to a 100% death rate of someone else?  

So do miscarriages. So God is a mass murderer? Be careful when logic takes you into blasphemy.

Fetuses are not people, that's a religious view predicated on a belief that there is such a thing as a soul, and it enters the zygote at the moment of conception.

That is strictly a matter of faith, not science, and the 1st amendment requires separation of Church (faith) and State.

Faith cannot be argued b/c it requires belief, not evidence, which is why our forefathers wanted religion out of secular life, and government out of religion. Because religious people cannot come to agreement without compromising their beliefs, in which case they're no longer beliefs but opinions. And if they can't come to agreement, bolstered by their belief that they alone possess the Truth - history shows they will resort to force to impose that "Truth" upon others - our forefathers were well acquainted with the religious conflicts that wracked Europe for centuries. Today, we see those same conflicts in regions of the world where the Enlightenment did not take hold (valuing reason and science above religion).

Nor is anti-abortion "pro life" - pro life requires that you value all life, thus be opposed to the death penalty, be in favor of raising your taxes to help the mothers you force to bear children (pre-natal and health care) and to help the mother and child after it is born, etc. - otherwise you're just punishing women for getting pregnant and have no concern for the unborn child. A small minority of Catholics hold to those precepts (and a smaller proportion of Protestants) - only that group can legitimately call themselves "pro-life."

In economics we have two concepts, "revealed preference" and "cheap talk." Basically they mean "money talks, BS walks." 

You can label yourself anything you want, but your actions determine what you really believe, especially when it comes to whether you're willing to bear the costs of the policies you would impose on others.

[Nivraga]

23 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Who cares if it works when it pisses off the players and the coach loses the team?

I don't think that's why he lost the team - I think it was more he lost the team because ... AND he's making us do all this stupid stuff.

BUT if that was why he lost the team then that would factor into "it working". 

[austinfan]

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Also for the record I got the vaccine.  That was my choice.  But I'm 100% for people's right to make that chosie for themselves and if they don't want to get it I 100% support their decision. 

Do you support vaccination passports?

Because don't I have the right to know who refused a vaccine and is potentially contagious, and doesn't a business have the right to exclude those people to reassure customers that it's safe to frequent their place of business?

I support individual choice, but that also includes the right to information to protect myself from other people's bad choices.

Like cars should have breathalyzers that cause a flashing light when a drunk driver is behind the wheel. (facetious, but not completely, I avoid drunk drivers and drivers who text while driving, pretty much the same thing, like the plague).

 

[eagle45]

I am in the unusual position of being radically pro-life and also would be ok, in theory, with mandatory vaccinations.

Ignoring constitutionality and legality issues, just the spirit of the concept...if you can have a draft in times of war for the benefit of the country, you can have mandatory vaccines in times of pandemic for the benefit of the country.  

[eagle45]

47 minutes ago, austinfan said:

 

Fetuses are not people, that's a religious view predicated on a belief that there is such a thing as a soul, and it enters the zygote at the moment of conception.

 

A fetus has an identical genetic complement to a human being...because, well, it is one.  So at what point does a fetus become human?  Intelligence benchmarks?  Passing through the canal?  When it’s convenient?  
 

A 1 month old infant has nearly identical intelligence to a fetus and is even less self sufficient.  Why have they earned the right to be people?  Can we get rid of them?  

[eagle45]

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I’m Pro STFU when it comes to divisive topics in the Blog.  

What about divisive football topics like Jalen Hurts?

[jamiller]

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I’m Pro STFU when it comes to divisive topics in the Blog.  

Amen. 

[ToastJenkins]

15 hours ago, Utebird said:

Why not?

There's enough wealth to end poverty, who says a CEO like Jeff bezos who alone is worth more than the bottom half of the us population works any harder than some dude at Walmart, or a teacher or a social worker???

Study after study shows that when wages increase prices dont increase dramatically and that the economy does better because working people spend money instead of hoarding it or spending it on their own stock buy backs 

Trickle down economics has over 30 years of data showing nothing but enriching those at the top and decreasing the middle class and increasing the lower class.

There is enough wealth and resources in this world for everyone to live comfortably so why are people homeless why is their poverty why are 1-5 kids in the US the richest country in the history of the world food insecure?

Because they're lazy?? No because of greed, 

The top 10% of the world population control 80% of the worlds resources, is that because they work harder and the rest of us are lazy?

No it's because they're greedy and as I said before the biggest trick ever played is those making a billion a year convincing those making 25$ an hour that those making 7.50 an hour are the source of their problem's.

Me advocating for higher wages doesn't take money away from me or any other working class or poor people it takes it away from those at the top and puts more of it in the hands of the working class.

Link?

This is cliched nonsense. Stop parroting talking points and learn economics. the greed angle is emotional and lazy thinking. So yes you are a fine example of the lazy entitled problem. You are not the solution you push the diseased mindset

[BigEFly]

52 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Like cars should have breathalyzers that cause a flashing light when a drunk driver is behind the wheel. (facetious, but not completely, I avoid drunk drivers and drivers who text while driving, pretty much the same thing, like the plague).

 

Just my luck, like the stupid key low battery warning on my car, nothing works to make it stop, the same would happen with your breathalyzers after I took a swig of mouthwash.  Yeah, no thanks. I am not pro drunk driving but I am against fallible technology.  

[BigEFly]

15 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

A fetus has an identical genetic complement to a human being...

So does any human stem cell.   I would suggest that we know the subject to which you reference is a third rail topic and unlikely to influence anyone else’s beliefs so that maybe this is a topic we table.

[BigEFly]

12 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

This is cliched nonsense. Stop parroting talking points and learn economics. the greed angle is emotional and lazy thinking. So yes you are a fine example of the lazy entitled problem. You are not the solution you push the diseased mindset

The problem with economic theory is how often it fails. 

[eagle45]

6 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

So does any human stem cell.   I would suggest that we know the subject to which you reference is a third rail topic and unlikely to influence anyone else’s beliefs so that maybe this is a topic we table.

When Afan starts citing "science,” I can’t sit on the sidelines.

[ManuManu]

 

[Desertbirds]

31 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

A fetus has an identical genetic complement to a human being...because, well, it is one.  So at what point does a fetus become human?  Intelligence benchmarks?  Passing through the canal?  When it’s convenient?  
 

A 1 month old infant has nearly identical intelligence to a fetus and is even less self sufficient.  Why have they earned the right to be people?  Can we get rid of them?  

If the mother suddenly dies, which one of the one-month-old infant or the fetus will survive longer?