ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th July 2020, 06:55 PM   #81
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,602
Hey Forum Republicans: Why does your party hate science?

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Perhaps, if the risk can be shown to be very low. But such events aren't generally necessary, so stopping them should be no big deal.

We have a pretty good idea that the risk is much lower outdoors. However the problem is that some people will take this as meaning no risk, and not take sufficient precautions. Therefore I agree that large outdoor gatherings should be discouraged - not because they are high risk, but because it muddles the messaging.

Based on the information we have it's accurate. The question is whether 'hard' is a low enough. In some situations it could be, in others perhaps not. Therefore giving blanket approval to all outdoor events is not prudent.
The science is not nearly as settled in this question as you indicate here. The citation earlier mentioned that the protests (in the cities they had data for) didn’t cause a spike because the rest of the city tended to stay home. Which indicates that there was transmission at the protests because overall numbers did not go down significantly after the protests either. That’s the implication anyway; there’s no way to know for sure.

The point is that both sides put science (in this case, incomplete understanding of transmission) aside in this case for what’s most important: protests and church. Church isn’t any more or less necessary than church. They are an exercise of the same right.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:55 PM   #82
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,693
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I think the OP was asking for someone on the right to defend the anti-science position.
Maybe instead of telling people to take the opposite side in an argument he wants to have, he should try just discussing his own position and see what comes of it.

The last thread was a **** show, this one's a **** show. Why should anyone do Treb the favor of indulging his desire for a slapfight? He wants a favor, he should do a favor. Like not make political call-out threads.

Personally, if I'm going to come in for bad faith and abuse, I'd rather do it on topics and posts of my own choosing, not whatever agenda Treb wants me to fulfill for his own reasons.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 07:04 PM   #83
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,028
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Maybe instead of telling people to take the opposite side in an argument he wants to have, he should try just discussing his own position and see what comes of it.

The last thread was a **** show, this one's a **** show. Why should anyone do Treb the favor of indulging his desire for a slapfight? He wants a favor, he should do a favor. Like not make political call-out threads.

Personally, if I'm going to come in for bad faith and abuse, I'd rather do it on topics and posts of my own choosing, not whatever agenda Treb wants me to fulfill for his own reasons.
So, (rule of), you can't defend your chosen party's official positions? Do you think AGW is a Chinese hoax? Donald Trump does. And he's the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Slapfight? Yes, as expected. And no serious defense from your side. Mostly whatabouts and non-sequiturs.

You, unlike some of your fellow cons on this forum, are reasonably intelligent and articulate. And you still can't defend your party's positions in any reasonable fashion.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 07:26 PM   #84
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,602
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
So, (rule of), you can't defend your chosen party's official positions? Do you think AGW is a Chinese hoax? Donald Trump does. And he's the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Slapfight? Yes, as expected. And no serious defense from your side. Mostly whatabouts and non-sequiturs.

You, unlike some of your fellow cons on this forum, are reasonably intelligent and articulate. And you still can't defend your party's positions in any reasonable fashion.

There is some outright science denial in the GOP of which DJT is the figurehead and lead denier. I don’t think anyone argues with that.

I’m not going to defend such denial. But what I will say is that the GOP often puts other things they consider important ahead of the science. AGW takes a backseat to the economic upheaval it would take to address it. Etc.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 07:34 PM   #85
Ulf Nereng
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 500
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
There is some outright science denial in the GOP of which DJT is the figurehead and lead denier. I don’t think anyone argues with that.

I’m not going to defend such denial. But what I will say is that the GOP often puts other things they consider important ahead of the science. AGW takes a backseat to the economic upheaval it would take to address it. Etc.
To me it looks more like it takes a backseat to the wishes of the donors from the fossil fuel industry.
Ulf Nereng is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 07:42 PM   #86
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,297
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Fauci has been asked about this. His answer is forceful and straightforward: They wanted the masks in the hands of the front lines and didn't want the public hoarding them. Which, of course, they would do.
The public did do. Also, I remember Fauci being honest about the masks being needed on the front line.

There wasn't enough data about cloth masks at that time either, else cloth masks would have been recommended.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 08:02 PM   #87
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,693
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
So, (rule of), you can't defend your chosen party's official positions? Do you think AGW is a Chinese hoax? Donald Trump does. And he's the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Slapfight? Yes, as expected. And no serious defense from your side. Mostly whatabouts and non-sequiturs.

You, unlike some of your fellow cons on this forum, are reasonably intelligent and articulate. And you still can't defend your party's positions in any reasonable fashion.
And there it is.

I'd be willing to have a conversation with you on various aspects of the GOP, its positions, and where I stand, but this isn't it. And you're pretty clear that you don't want that kind of conversation anyway.

Why should I dance to your tune? Why should I agree to be your foil, just so you can have someone to lash out at? What do you have to offer, that would make talking to you on your terms worth my while?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 09:33 PM   #88
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,521
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And "your party" referred to the GOP, not both parties:
Hey, the conversation drifted a bit from the first few posts anyway. So I was just jumping in there.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 10:05 PM   #89
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,195
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
{polite snip}

Democrats don't hate science, they hate the opportunistic use of science by greedy capitalists who don't give a whit about safety unless it hurts their bottom line, and are willing to risk everything else (including our lives) for profit.

In fact, democrats hate 'science' for the exact opposite reason that republicans do. Republicans hate science when it stops them doing whatever they like without consequence. Democrats hate it when republicans use science to do whatever they like without consequence.
THIS!

/thread... almost
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 10:37 PM   #90
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,889
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And there it is.

I'd be willing to have a conversation with you on various aspects of the GOP, its positions, and where I stand, but this isn't it. And you're pretty clear that you don't want that kind of conversation anyway.

Why should I dance to your tune? Why should I agree to be your foil, just so you can have someone to lash out at? What do you have to offer, that would make talking to you on your terms worth my while?
I really don't buy you're willing to discuss it at all. It's pretty much a fact that the GOP has been anti-science for decades.

I recall a Republican debate where they asked all the candidates if they believe in evolution. All but one hemmed and hawed. One said, the jury is still out on it. Total nonsense. The jury is not out on evolution and hasn't been since the Scopes trial.

And it's not just global warming they deny, but any environmental concern that might cost money to remedy.

Now, were facing COVID and the GOP has been acting as if the problem is something they can ignore.

The question is a good one. Why does the GOP hate science.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 13th July 2020 at 10:41 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 11:09 PM   #91
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,066
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
The public did do. Also, I remember Fauci being honest about the masks being needed on the front line.

There wasn't enough data about cloth masks at that time either, else cloth masks would have been recommended.
There was enough data a month before Fauci changed his tune. When there's not enough data you don't conclude the opposite, you say we don't know yet.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 11:58 PM   #92
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,233
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Certainly not all Republicans believe most of that, and some Democrats believe some of that.

Democrats have their own anti-scientific beliefs:

a) Anti vax
b) no biological difference between the sexes
c) chemtrails
d) socialism
e) Claim covid-19 will kill many millions in the US

Etc, etc, etc.
Democrat here:
a - nope, anti-vax is stupid
b - nope, I am bigger than my wife and she is much cuter than I am.
c - nope, chemtrails is stupid
d - what the hell are you talking about? Medicare? Social Security? I am absolutely certain you don't mean the government taking over the means of production for the majority of the economy like the definition indicates.
e - Oh, you almost got me there, you only missed it by a factor of 10.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:27 AM   #93
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,195
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
Democrat here:
Centre-left here (which would make me "alt-left?" in the USA, politically on a par with AOC).

Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
a - nope, anti-vax is stupid
...and dangerous!

Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
b - nope, I am bigger than my wife and she is much cuter than I am.
Likewise, and my girls are cuter too!

Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
c - nope, chemtrails is stupid
Nope, its beyond stupid!

Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
d - what the hell are you talking about? Medicare? Social Security? I am absolutely certain you don't mean the government taking over the means of production for the majority of the economy like the definition indicates.
Socialism is bad because feeding the hungry, the poor and the destitute is not a desirable thing to do.

Socialism is bad because healthcare for all means rich people will need a moral compass and a social conscience, and to help pay for the treatment of sick poor people.

Socialism is bad because some people are just too damned stupid and ignorant to understand that it is not the same thing as communism.

Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
e - Oh, you almost got me there, you only missed it by a factor of 10.
At least we are not in the fantasy land where idiots think it will just magically go away.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 14th July 2020 at 12:28 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 05:57 AM   #94
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,454
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And there it is.

I'd be willing to have a conversation with you on various aspects of the GOP, its positions, and where I stand, but this isn't it. And you're pretty clear that you don't want that kind of conversation anyway.

Why should I dance to your tune? Why should I agree to be your foil, just so you can have someone to lash out at? What do you have to offer, that would make talking to you on your terms worth my while?
It is clear you can't discuss Science no Republicans can at the moment, they have fallen off the logical edge with Birtherdent Conspiracy theorist Trump.
Keep in mind Birtherism was a purely unscientific racist theory from the start, that Trump endorsed on the Advise of a 9/11No Planer I myself debunked, at Request of RTV.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 06:10 AM   #95
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,693
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I really don't buy you're willing to discuss it at all.
I know. In fact, in the past when I've tried to discuss my politics and tell you what my position is, you've decided I'm lying and refused to converse. [/quote]
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 09:14 AM   #96
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,889
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Certainly not all Republicans believe most of that, and some Democrats believe some of that.

Democrats have their own anti-scientific beliefs:

a) Anti vax
b) no biological difference between the sexes
c) chemtrails
d) socialism
e) Claim covid-19 will kill many millions in the US

Etc, etc, etc.
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
Democrat here:
a - nope, anti-vax is stupid
b - nope, I am bigger than my wife and she is much cuter than I am.
c - nope, chemtrails is stupid
d - what the hell are you talking about? Medicare? Social Security? I am absolutely certain you don't mean the government taking over the means of production for the majority of the economy like the definition indicates.
e - Oh, you almost got me there, you only missed it by a factor of 10.
What the hell are you talking about? You're right, you drink too much.

I know almost no Democrats that are opposed to vaccines. I'm sure there are some, but I doubt there are necessarily more Democrats than Republicans that are anti-vaxxers.

I don't know a single Democrat who believes there are no biological differences between the sexes. Not one.

Chemtrails? Koo koo...certainly not something that is embraced by either party.

Socialism IS NOT A SCIENCE..It's also not provable that socialism is a bad thing.

Could Covid kill millions in the US? I don't know the answer to that. We're on a run rate to it killing 300,000 this year. This is what the science teaches us.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 09:23 AM   #97
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,889
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I know. In fact, in the past when I've tried to discuss my politics and tell you what my position is, you've decided I'm lying and refused to converse.
Not true. I may have said you weren't being honest. And by that, I might of meant you weren't being honest in your epistemology.

But I seriously doubt I refused to converse. The one thing I pride myself on is my willingness to constantly evaluate and reevaluate my positions and listen to different opinions.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 09:28 AM   #98
slyjoe
Master Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 2,066
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What the hell are you talking about? You're right, you drink too much.

I know almost no Democrats that are opposed to vaccines. I'm sure there are some, but I doubt there are necessarily more Democrats than Republicans that are anti-vaxxers.

I don't know a single Democrat who believes there are no biological differences between the sexes. Not one.

Chemtrails? Koo koo...certainly not something that is embraced by either party.

Socialism IS NOT A SCIENCE..It's also not provable that socialism is a bad thing.

Could Covid kill millions in the US? I don't know the answer to that. We're on a run rate to it killing 300,000 this year. This is what the science teaches us.
Except for the head of the AZ Republican party.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 09:54 AM   #99
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,889
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Except for the head of the AZ Republican party.
Really?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 10:00 AM   #100
slyjoe
Master Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 2,066
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Really?
Yep - Kelli Ward. I think she later said she didn't believe the CT. She was just using it to take some money to hold public meetings on them.

She's a big fan of Trump, lost to McSally in the Republican primary several years back, and hasn't really met a CT she doesn't like.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 10:27 AM   #101
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,017
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Except for the head of the AZ Republican party.
Don't forget Dennis Kucinich.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 10:32 AM   #102
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,550
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
From your link:-

But isn't this a double standard? Why allow protests, but not events like parades and fairs?

Perhaps because...
What's the difference between a parade or fair, and a protest march? The latter is something you probably don't want to be too close to.
Yea you get near one and the cops will beat your for fun.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 10:35 AM   #103
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,550
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
The public did do. Also, I remember Fauci being honest about the masks being needed on the front line.

There wasn't enough data about cloth masks at that time either, else cloth masks would have been recommended.
Also cloth masks did not exactly exist in any serious number
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 10:42 AM   #104
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,550
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Quick switch to "open beaches" instead of "open churches". It's almost like you realized your "the first amendment matters to democrats," claim would run into trouble there.
Not really, the first amendment has never protected religious groups from the consequences of violating the law. Carving out protections from laws that have clear secular purpose for religious beliefs has been done with various religious freedom restoration acts but fundamentally the right to hold big church gatherings during a pandemic is not protected by the first amendment in the way holding protests during a pandemic is.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 11:16 AM   #105
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,938
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Not really, the first amendment has never protected religious groups from the consequences of violating the law. Carving out protections from laws that have clear secular purpose for religious beliefs has been done with various religious freedom restoration acts but fundamentally the right to hold big church gatherings during a pandemic is not protected by the first amendment in the way holding protests during a pandemic is.
I would be very interested to see the case law on that. The language of the Constitution could not be more plain:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Seems to me that banning church services is pretty obviously prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That said, I think the churches should have closed down voluntarily, switched to online services, etc.

And I note that despite the supposed protections afforded protests during a pandemic, cities and states were still able to institute curfews when the protests turned to rioting and looting.

ETA: Here's an interesting article arguing that yes the government can shut down the churches, with a significant proviso:

Quote:
Legal experts said the answer is almost certainly yes, as long as regulations are reasonable and applied equally across all religious groups and other types of organizations.

Policies don’t violate religious freedom laws if they’re created in order to save people’s lives, said Michael Moreland, director of the Ellen H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova University.
“So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them,” he said.
Beginning to see the problem?

Quote:
Houses of worship may not be guaranteed special treatment during a public health crisis, but they are guaranteed fair treatment. The government can’t force one faith group to follow stricter regulations than others, or crack down harder on churches than secular organizations within the community.

“If some state makes exceptions for some well-connected secular group that wants to meet, that should render the ban on religious meetings unconstitutional. Exceptions for essential services are one thing; exceptions for politics are quite another,” said Douglas Laycock, a distinguished professor of law at the University of Virginia.
A well-connected secular group?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 14th July 2020 at 12:48 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 11:28 AM   #106
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,550
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I would be very interested to see the case law on that. The language of the Constitution could not be more plain:

Seems to me that banning church services is pretty obviously prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That said, I think the churches should have closed down voluntarily, switched to online services, etc.

And I note that despite the supposed protections afforded protests during a pandemic, cities and states were still able to institute curfews when the protests turned to rioting and looting.
You are then remarkably unfamiliar with case law about religions claiming exemptions from laws, here is a hint they never win unless the law was specifically written to target them. See when the courts ruled drug use was not permitted for religious reasons.

See

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/18/u...ices-rule.html

So as long as the law was not written to specifically target a religion, but for a secular good, the religious must still obey it no matter their personal beliefs. Like refusing to give your children health care and letting them die is manslaughter despite the first amendment.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 11:33 AM   #107
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 15,408
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Yep - Kelli Ward. I think she later said she didn't believe the CT. She was just using it to take some money to hold public meetings on them.

She's a big fan of Trump, lost to McSally in the Republican primary several years back, and hasn't really met a CT she doesn't like.
Fact checking sites have found the claim that Kelli Ward believes in chemtrails as misleading or false. Kelli did say she does not believe in chemtrails. She held a meeting with constituents because she said they had concerns and hearing them is what her job is. She did not say she was just using it to take some money to hold public meetings on them.

Those false claims originated in an anti-Ward/pro-Jeff Flake campaign ad by the Senate Leadership Fund, a pro-Republican super PAC with close ties to Mitch McConnell.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/mi...rail-kelli-ad/

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...racy-theorist/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...piracy-theory/
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 11:46 AM   #108
slyjoe
Master Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 2,066
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Fact checking sites have found the claim that Kelli Ward believes in chemtrails as misleading or false. Kelli did say she does not believe in chemtrails. She held a meeting with constituents because she said they had concerns and hearing them is what her job is. She did not say she was just using it to take some money to hold public meetings on them.

Those false claims originated in an anti-Ward/pro-Jeff Flake campaign ad by the Senate Leadership Fund, a pro-Republican super PAC with close ties to Mitch McConnell.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/mi...rail-kelli-ad/

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...racy-theorist/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...piracy-theory/
I probably could have written that part better. She was accused of holding the Kingman meeting to make a little coin.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:32 PM   #109
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 15,408
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
I probably could have written that part better. She was accused of holding the Kingman meeting to make a little coin.
Yes, she was accused in typical campaign mud-slinging campaign ad fashion.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:37 PM   #110
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,121
Originally Posted by Cat Not Included View Post
Did they ever say "masks are bad don't wear them"? The message I always heard from early one was more like "medical masks are probably unnecessary unless you are showing symptoms or highly vulnerable; medical professionals DO need masks, so please leave the masks for them and contribute the ones you have if possible".
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...rus-2020-01-30

In fact the U.S. surgeon general recently urged the public to “STOP BUYING MASKS!” “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!,”

But now it's required. And super effective to the effect we will throw your ass in jail for not complying. Also, they still don't recommend using the masks that would actually be effective. In fact, they still eschew the use of said masks by the general public.

So we are being asked to wear mask that we know are ineffective for their purpose. And by asked, I do mean forced. If cloth masks are effective, why are we still trying to save n95 masks for front lines? If "the science" shows them to be effective, then why aren't they effective enough for those front line people?

Keep in mind, there is zero quality control on what is and is not a cloth face mask. So it's effectiveness at stopping the spread is debatable. Keep in mind, people wear masks that are comfortable for them. Which is, in part, based on being breathable. Which means it's not stopping flow.


I'll include some opinions of some actual experts :

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...sed-sound-data
Leftus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:43 PM   #111
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,017
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You are then remarkably unfamiliar with case law about religions claiming exemptions from laws, here is a hint they never win unless the law was specifically written to target them. See when the courts ruled drug use was not permitted for religious reasons.

See

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/18/u...ices-rule.html

So as long as the law was not written to specifically target a religion, but for a secular good, the religious must still obey it no matter their personal beliefs. Like refusing to give your children health care and letting them die is manslaughter despite the first amendment.
First, your court case is out of date at the federal level due to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and many states have replicated similar legislation at the state level. These laws were passed specifically to address cases like the one you linked to. So no, it's often not enough for a law to not specifically target religion. The burden is significantly higher under RFRA's.

Furthermore, much of the COVID-related restrictions going on now are not laws, but executive orders. Even more importantly, though, even absent RFRA limitations, it's not actually enough for a rule or an order to not specifically target religions. Enforcement must not target religions either. If states exempt protests from social distancing rules as a permitted 1st amendment exercise, they cannot then enforce those rules against religious gatherings.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:57 PM   #112
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,889
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Quick switch to "open beaches" instead of "open churches". It's almost like you realized your "the first amendment matters to democrats," claim would run into trouble there.
Let's see. One has nothing to do with the other.

A beach is outside and there is very little to stop anyone form going to a beach. Beaches are also generally public. No one is making money off you using them.

Churches in fact are private enterprises. Treating it like the business it is, is really closer to enforcing the First Amendment. What you're suggesting would in fact be violating the First Amendment. You want it treated differently than arenas and theaters.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 01:09 PM   #113
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,017
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Churches in fact are private enterprises. Treating it like the business it is, is really closer to enforcing the First Amendment. What you're suggesting would in fact be violating the First Amendment. You want it treated differently than arenas and theaters.
It's not the church as an organization which gets treated differently, but the religious activity it engages in. And yes, religious activity gets treated differently than commercial activity. Both law and court precedent are quite clear on this.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 01:18 PM   #114
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,550
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First, your court case is out of date at the federal level due to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and many states have replicated similar legislation at the state level. These laws were passed specifically to address cases like the one you linked to. So no, it's often not enough for a law to not specifically target religion. The burden is significantly higher under RFRA's.

Furthermore, much of the COVID-related restrictions going on now are not laws, but executive orders. Even more importantly, though, even absent RFRA limitations, it's not actually enough for a rule or an order to not specifically target religions. Enforcement must not target religions either. If states exempt protests from social distancing rules as a permitted 1st amendment exercise, they cannot then enforce those rules against religious gatherings.
Yes I never said there were no protections for that, just like there are states that allow you to neglect your kids to death in the name of religion and have your legally covered.

But that is not a constitutional protection, the fact you are citing a law and not the constitution proves that they are not protected by the constitution in the way political protests are. And then you would have to show that these religious freedom restoration acts would apply to violating quarantine orders about maximum gathering size.

Thank you for proving my point that the constitution does not protect churches in this area.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 03:08 PM   #115
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...rus-2020-01-30

In fact the U.S. surgeon general recently urged the public to “STOP BUYING MASKS!” “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!,”
And...
Quote:
The best way to protect yourself and your community is with everyday preventive actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of respiratory illness. Get your #FluShot- fewer flu patients = more resources for #COVID19
Back in March that was good advice. The primary reason for wearing masks is to reduce the spread of the virus by asymptomatic carriers. Normal masks do not prevent a person from becoming infected. If you want to stay virus free the best thing to do is avoid other people and wash your hands thoroughly after touching anything. If you think you might have the virus (ie. you haven't been strictly isolated for at least 2 weeks and/or you have felt even slightly unwell) then wearing a mask in public is useful to protect others from you. But there is no point wearing one at home, and you should go out as little as possible and keep your distance anyway. Therefore masks should not have been necessary.

So why are they mandated now? Because the other things people should have done they didn't do, and now the virus has spread so much that a very significant proportion of the population is infected (which means the risk of you being a carrier is now much higher). Of course many states also opened up and encouraged people to go out, which made it worse. In this scenario masks are somewhat effective, and if we can't convince people to stay home then they are the only measure left.

Quote:
But now it's required. And super effective to the effect we will throw your ass in jail for not complying.
We didn't do what we were told to before (when we didn't need to wear masks). Now we have to because the other methods have failed due to noncompliance. If we can't do the other stuff then masks are our only hope, so we had better comply or else! But there should be even more restrictions, and I bet there soon will be.

Quote:
Also, they still don't recommend using the masks that would actually be effective. In fact, they still eschew the use of siad 'effective' masks by the general public.
People will think the masks are protecting them and act irresponsibly. The general public aren't trained in the proper use of such masks, so they would largely be wasted. If there were shortages of these masks before, it would be even worse now.

The Surgeon General was right. We don't need billions of expensive masks, we just need to act responsibly.

Quote:
So we are being asked to wear mask that we know are ineffective for their purpose. And by asked, I do mean forced. If cloth masks are effective, why are we still trying to save n95 masks for front lines? If "the science" shows them to be effective, then why aren't they effective enough for those front line people?
Illogical argument. Just because the science says N95 masks are more effective doesn't mean they will be effective in the hands of the general public. And the science doesn't say anything about how to get those billions of masks into their hands.

N95 mask
Quote:
An N95 mask or N95 respirator is a particulate-filtering facepiece respirator that meets the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) N95 classification of air filtration, meaning that it filters at least 95% of airborne particles... N95 respirators were originally designed for industrial use in sectors such as mining, construction, and painting...

Respirators used in healthcare are traditionally a specific variant called a surgical respirator, which is both approved by NIOSH as a respirator and cleared by the Food and Drug Administration as a medical device similar to a surgical mask. These may also be labeled "Surgical N95", "medical respirators", or "healthcare respirators". As part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, changes were made to liability and certification laws to allow industrial respirators to be used in healthcare settings, in response to shortages of respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic

If people won't follow the other guidelines then they should be forced to wear masks. But there's already enough opposition to cloth masks. Imagine being told you have to wear an expensive medical mask that you can't even get because they are in short supply. That would effectively be house arrest. If that is the intention then the authorities should be up front about it.

Quote:
Keep in mind, there is zero quality control on what is and is not a cloth face mask. So it's effectiveness at stopping the spread is debatable. Keep in mind, people wear masks that are comfortable for them. Which is, in part, based on being breathable. Which means it's not stopping flow.
They are not intended to stop flow, only stop droplets from being spread far and wide. Any cloth mask will do this if used properly. Even just keeping you mouth shut and sneezing into a sleeve (or better yet staying home if you might sneeze) is effective.

Quote:
I'll include some opinions of some actual experts :

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...sed-sound-data

There will always be 'experts' with contrary opinions on what is best, but that doesn't mean they are right. Science can us what is theoretically best, but that doesn't account for the political and social factors. The 'best' solution is rarely the most practical.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 14th July 2020 at 03:14 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 03:13 PM   #116
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,602
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yes I never said there were no protections for that, just like there are states that allow you to neglect your kids to death in the name of religion and have your legally covered.

But that is not a constitutional protection, the fact you are citing a law and not the constitution proves that they are not protected by the constitution in the way political protests are. And then you would have to show that these religious freedom restoration acts would apply to violating quarantine orders about maximum gathering size.

Thank you for proving my point that the constitution does not protect churches in this area.

You aren’t seeing this clearly.

Forget everything but the constitution : if a lawful order says buildings must close and no outdoor gatherings over X, the law must apply equally across the board -no churches, no protests. You can’t make an exception for either one without opening it up for both of them.

Protests and churches are covered in the exact same way under the exact same constitutional law.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 03:17 PM   #117
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,071
Has there been any condemnation of outdoor church services? Indoor sure, even super-sanitized and limited capacity isn't enough to protect people. The protests haven't been super-spreader events because people have been wearing masks and not humping each other like it was a party.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 04:47 PM   #118
TruthJonsen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 61
I agree historically it has been the Republicans who are best at failing to respect science primarily because of their religious habit of believing what they want to be true rather than knowing. However, the Democrats face a new threat from within from the Critical Social Justice movement that appears to be driving not only them but the entire world right now. The ill effects of this movement are many. Science denying is just one of the underpinning philosophies.

Quote:
Thus, having imported much of this radically skeptical line of postmodern thought, Critical Social Justice sees science as social constructs specifically produced by powerful white, Western men—adding sometimes that they are straight, cisgender, able-bodied, healthy, of normal weight, and so on and so forth. This is meant to imply that science is a “way of knowing” (among many potential alternatives) that has encoded the self-serving political biases of those dominant identities. This makes it inherently exclusionary of all alternatives (see also, internalized dominance and ideology). Thus, despite proceeding from a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of universality in science—that scientific claims to truth are only true if it is irrelevant who does the experiment—Critical Social Justice tends to believe that the authority of science has been unfairly privileged above that of other approaches, especially “lived experience.”
Science (from the Social Justice Encyclopedia at the New Discourses site)
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-science/
TruthJonsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 05:04 PM   #119
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,889
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not the church as an organization which gets treated differently, but the religious activity it engages in. And yes, religious activity gets treated differently than commercial activity. Both law and court precedent are quite clear on this.
I disagree. The First Amendment is quite clear. But both our lawmakers and the courts have been ignoring its meaning for at least a century. And the Roberts Court continued to ignore its meaning in its latest decision involving church schools.

The Amendment says;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

When you treat it differently than other businesses and provide it with tax exemptions and allow it to pretend that it is a charity, you are violating that clause.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 14th July 2020 at 05:29 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 05:10 PM   #120
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,889
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
And...Back in March that was good advice. The primary reason for wearing masks is to reduce the spread of the virus by asymptomatic carriers. Normal masks do not prevent a person from becoming infected. If you want to stay virus free the best thing to do is avoid other people and wash your hands thoroughly after touching anything. If you think you might have the virus (ie. you haven't been strictly isolated for at least 2 weeks and/or you have felt even slightly unwell) then wearing a mask in public is useful to protect others from you. But there is no point wearing one at home, and you should go out as little as possible and keep your distance anyway. Therefore masks should not have been necessary.

So why are they mandated now? Because the other things people should have done they didn't do, and now the virus has spread so much that a very significant proportion of the population is infected (which means the risk of you being a carrier is now much higher). Of course many states also opened up and encouraged people to go out, which made it worse. In this scenario masks are somewhat effective, and if we can't convince people to stay home then they are the only measure left.

We didn't do what we were told to before (when we didn't need to wear masks). Now we have to because the other methods have failed due to noncompliance. If we can't do the other stuff then masks are our only hope, so we had better comply or else! But there should be even more restrictions, and I bet there soon will be.

People will think the masks are protecting them and act irresponsibly. The general public aren't trained in the proper use of such masks, so they would largely be wasted. If there were shortages of these masks before, it would be even worse now.

The Surgeon General was right. We don't need billions of expensive masks, we just need to act responsibly.

Illogical argument. Just because the science says N95 masks are more effective doesn't mean they will be effective in the hands of the general public. And the science doesn't say anything about how to get those billions of masks into their hands.

N95 mask


If people won't follow the other guidelines then they should be forced to wear masks. But there's already enough opposition to cloth masks. Imagine being told you have to wear an expensive medical mask that you can't even get because they are in short supply. That would effectively be house arrest. If that is the intention then the authorities should be up front about it.

They are not intended to stop flow, only stop droplets from being spread far and wide. Any cloth mask will do this if used properly. Even just keeping you mouth shut and sneezing into a sleeve (or better yet staying home if you might sneeze) is effective.




There will always be 'experts' with contrary opinions on what is best, but that doesn't mean they are right. Science can us what is theoretically best, but that doesn't account for the political and social factors. The 'best' solution is rarely the most practical.
The masks don't really protect the user. But they DO limit the spread of the virus.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.