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 14th July 2020, 05:26 PM   #121
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 82,199
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Also cloth masks did not exactly exist in any serious number
Yes they did. All over Asia practically everyone had and still has them. And you could buy them on Amazon, just not the N95s.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th July 2020 at 05:28 PM.
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 14th July 2020, 05:36 PM   #122
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 82,199
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:

Quote:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
...
So peyote churches, animal sacrifices, all that's OK?

Even free speech has limits.

You can freely exercise your religion without gathering in large groups. Public health quarantine laws have generally had a lot of precedent. They guy with active TB who refuses to self-isolate can be prevented from going to church.
__________________
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 14th July 2020, 05:45 PM   #123
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 82,199
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!,”
That's from "March 2, 2020". You should consider keeping up.

Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
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
And that one is from "Apr 01, 2020". Only a couple days later even Fauci had changed his tune.

Here's an example of the huge problem we are having right now with the right-wing militantly claiming 'they ain't gonna wear no stoopid masks.'

And yes, mixed messages from a lot of the 'experts' who should have been saying we don't know yet instead of saying the evidence is against it are also to blame.
__________________
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 14th July 2020, 05:49 PM   #124
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 82,199
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.
This thread continues to be seriously conflated with the COVID threads.

There are public health laws in place that allow these kinds of public health orders. The orders have the force of law. I posted about this including citing the law in the other threads.
__________________
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 14th July 2020, 11:15 PM   #125
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,384
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
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.
Churches should be taxed like any other business. I'm sick of cheats like megachurch leaders who rake in millions and live lavish lifestyles and pay no taxes.
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 15th July 2020, 04:33 AM   #126
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,443
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This thread continues to be seriously conflated with the COVID threads.

There are public health laws in place that allow these kinds of public health orders. The orders have the force of law. I posted about this including citing the law in the other threads.
Yes it is the Main Question I have here and I will explain it simply,
Is why do Republicans Support idiot Ideas that Violate the Very laws of physics?
It's like the Idiot 9/11Truth movement has taken over the Republicans Party.
Science reason and logic are lost on them.
So what happened were they eaten by the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Libertarian's?
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 15th July 2020, 05:13 AM   #127
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,386
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Is why do Republicans Support idiot Ideas that Violate the Very laws of physics?
Some of the time, they are probably viewing the question differently. One can be against mandatory masks for reasons that have nothing to do with science. One can be against a lockdown that allows liquor stores to open but not churches without it being a scientific issue. You could also feel that the state shouldn't be able to stop a hairdresser opening to treat willing customers without it being a scientific issue. There is probably also a tendency to want to deny the downside of that kind of decision. Anti-vaxers wanting to say that not only do vaccines cause autism so they aren't taking them, but also that they don't work at all has always struck me as an example of that.

For most of the right that I've had any interaction with, the central issue isn't science. It's individual liberty to do the right thing, or not, act responsibly, or not, vs unilaterally acting for the greater good by authoritarian means.

Last edited by shuttlt; 15th July 2020 at 05:26 AM.
shuttlt 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 15th July 2020, 05:57 AM   #128
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,443
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Some of the time, they are probably viewing the question differently. One can be against mandatory masks for reasons that have nothing to do with science. One can be against a lockdown that allows liquor stores to open but not churches without it being a scientific issue. You could also feel that the state shouldn't be able to stop a hairdresser opening to treat willing customers without it being a scientific issue. There is probably also a tendency to want to deny the downside of that kind of decision. Anti-vaxers wanting to say that not only do vaccines cause autism so they aren't taking them, but also that they don't work at all has always struck me as an example of that.

For most of the right that I've had any interaction with, the central issue isn't science. It's individual liberty to do the right thing, or not, act responsibly, or not, vs unilaterally acting for the greater good by authoritarian means.
Well I guess they do have the right to Darwin Awards, but I have seen so many just Dumb theories from Republicans arguing with they term Science, like Birtherism just for example.
Based on the Numbers on The former presidents birth certificate.
Which correspond to holes in IBM paper punch cards.
It was physically impossible for the theory to be true.
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 15th July 2020, 06:05 AM   #129
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,386
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Well I guess they do have the right to Darwin Awards, but I have seen so many just Dumb theories from Republicans arguing with they term Science, like Birtherism just for example.
Based on the Numbers on The former presidents birth certificate.
Which correspond to holes in IBM paper punch cards.
It was physically impossible for the theory to be true.
Ordinary people are ignorant of the evidence base for almost everything. Most people, Republican or Democrat, don't actually research this stuff. Who has the time? Some people may have read an article that asserted something like what you claimed. Some won't. The number who read it who actually went and checked up on it to the point where they weren't just taking somebody else's word for it and are actually "going with the Science" is half a percent of nobody. Believing or disbelieving in this has almost nothing to do with ones attitude to Science.
shuttlt 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 15th July 2020, 06:28 AM   #130
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,787
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.
Which is more pseudo-science...

Even discounting all the literature that shows the enormous negative economic impact of AGW, not having a carbon price is functionally identical to a subsidy. Mainstream economics makes it clear that subsidies distort markets and create economic damage in their own right.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 15th July 2020, 06:54 AM   #131
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,787
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post

Socialism IS NOT A SCIENCE..It's also not provable that socialism is a bad thing.
Economics isn’t a true science, but we can approximate it as one for the purpose of this thread. Actual Socialism (where the means of production is socially owned) is a brand of heterodox economics just as Austrian economic theory is. The difference is Democrats are not particularly Socialist. How often do you see anyone in the US supporting large scale Nationalization of companies or industries?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 15th July 2020, 07:03 AM   #132
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,386
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Economics isn’t a true science, but we can approximate it as one for the purpose of this thread. Actual Socialism (where the means of production is socially owned) is a brand of heterodox economics just as Austrian economic theory is. The difference is Democrats are not particularly Socialist. How often do you see anyone in the US supporting large scale Nationalization of companies or industries?
There seems to be fairly widespread acceptance of the Marxist theory of value amongst Democrats.
shuttlt 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 15th July 2020, 07:18 AM   #133
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That's from "March 2, 2020". You should consider keeping up.

And that one is from "Apr 01, 2020". Only a couple days later even Fauci had changed his tune.
So when asked "Did they ever say that masks were bad?" I must limit myself to the current guidance? To answer a question about what was said when, I must use older sources.

Quote:
Here's an example of the huge problem we are having right now with the right-wing militantly claiming 'they ain't gonna wear no stoopid masks.'

And yes, mixed messages from a lot of the 'experts' who should have been saying we don't know yet instead of saying the evidence is against it are also to blame.
It's hard to "follow the science" when those responsible for that science are actively lying. Not wrong, but spreading mistruths.
Leftus 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 15th July 2020, 07:28 AM   #134
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,834
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So peyote churches, animal sacrifices, all that's OK?

Even free speech has limits.

You can freely exercise your religion without gathering in large groups. Public health quarantine laws have generally had a lot of precedent. They guy with active TB who refuses to self-isolate can be prevented from going to church.
I get the con law now and accept that my analysis was superficial. However, as I went on to note, the key is that the ban on large gatherings has to be universally applied. Arguably, de Blasio's ban is unconstitutional because he is not applying it evenly with the exception for BLM.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
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 15th July 2020, 07:45 AM   #135
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,787
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
There seems to be fairly widespread acceptance of the Marxist theory of value amongst Democrats.
Do you mean Labor theory of value? .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
Quote:
The LTV is usually associated with Marxian economics, though it also appears in the theories of earlier classical liberal economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo and later also in anarchist economics.
I see no evidence Democrats are trying to calculate the natural price of a commodity based on it’s labor inputs the way Marx advocated. Do you have any evidence for this?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 15th July 2020, 08:04 AM   #136
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,787
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post

It's hard to "follow the science" when those responsible for that science are actively lying. Not wrong, but spreading mistruths.
It wasn’t a “mistruth”. Science by it’s very nature moves forward and changes.so it never gives you “the truth” and it’s usually the pseudoscientists that complain about this.

Wrt the specific comment the consensus at the time was that unless you are referring to an N95 mask, worn properly with other PPE, and discarded after use masks would not prevent you from contracting the virus. This is largely the consensus today as well, though there is some more recent evidence for a small personal benefit. There was good reason to think masks could help prevent infected people from spreading the virus, having these people stay at home would accomplish the same thing so again no mask required as long as people did what they were supposed to and PPE shortages were a major issue at the time.

What changed was the discovery that asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic people were spreading the virus. There were also issues with people who were experiencing symptoms going out an spreading the virus. In these cases mask use DOES help, so the recommendation changed to account for it. Again, this is what science does and how science works. It advances and moves forward.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 15th July 2020, 08:16 AM   #137
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,535
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
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.
Your interpretation of the first amendment is not shared by courts or Congress going back well before Roberts. And as I mentioned by you ignored, the 1st amendment isn't the only law relevant here. RFRA legislation is important here as well.
__________________
"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 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 15th July 2020, 08:20 AM   #138
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,535
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Churches should be taxed like any other business.
Should Planned Parenthood be taxed like any other business?

Because right now it isn't.
__________________
"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 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 15th July 2020, 08:26 AM   #139
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,535
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
Has there been any condemnation of outdoor church services?
In at least a few cases, yes.
NY pastor faces $1,000 fine for holding drive-in church service
Mississippi city's coronavirus shutdown bans drive-in church services ahead of Easter
Paterson church forced to shut down parking lot services amid coronavirus restrictions

I don't know how widespread outdoor services are, or how many of them local governments tried to shut down (and the efforts seem to come mainly from city, not even state, government), but it happened.
__________________
"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 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 15th July 2020, 08:53 AM   #140
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,386
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Do you mean Labor theory of value? .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

I see no evidence Democrats are trying to calculate the natural price of a commodity based on it’s labor inputs the way Marx advocated. Do you have any evidence for this?
Believing that there is a direct relationship between the amount of socially necessary labour one puts in and the value produced is a very different thing from calculating it. One sees it all the time in claims that people who start, run, fund, etc... companies are stealing what should rightfully be the fruits of the workers labor. One sees it when people complain that nurses are paid less than hedge fund managers on the basis that the work of the nurse is more socially necessary.
shuttlt 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 15th July 2020, 08:59 AM   #141
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,614
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Churches should be taxed like any other business. I'm sick of cheats like megachurch leaders who rake in millions and live lavish lifestyles and pay no taxes.
This is the same challenge we as a society face with any charity. Charities in general are taxed differently than other businesses, because they are different from other businesses.

I agree that any "church" that actually engages in commerce as a for-profit business should be taxed as such. And people who use their "church" as a tax dodge for their business should of course be prosecuted, the same way anyone who uses a charity as a tax dodge should be prosecuted.

But I think that donations made for the upkeep of religious facilities and religious practices should not be taxed like other business, just like I think that other kinds of charitable donations should not be taxed like other businesses.

And I think that extends to paying the salaries - even the generous salaries - of people who provide religious services. I might even go so far as to say that if the faithful wish to donate to a lavish lifestyle for their leader, it's still a religious donation and still therefore exempt from the usual commercial taxation.

The CEOs of UNICEF, the Red Cross, and the United Way all get paid upwards of half a million dollars in compensation annually. When are you going to talk about taxing those organizations like any other business? When are you going to get sick of other such megacharity tax cheats?

Last edited by theprestige; 15th July 2020 at 10:40 AM.
theprestige 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 15th July 2020, 09:45 AM   #142
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 90,804
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The left is putting the importance of BLM protests above the risk of spread.
That's not anti-science, though. It's conflicting priorities.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 15th July 2020, 10:13 AM   #143
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,787
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Believing that there is a direct relationship between the amount of socially necessary labour one puts in and the value produced is a very different thing from calculating it.
Marx’s use of Labor Value Theory was to calculate the underlying value of a product. If they are not doing this, they are not appealing to “Marxian economics”
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
One sees it all the time in claims that people who start, run, fund, etc... companies are stealing what should rightfully be the fruits of the workers labor.
So what? The fact that the way Marx calculated value doesn’t work very well doesn’t mean it’s impossible for work to be undervalued and it certainly doesn’t mean anyone pointing to problems in the labor market is somehow evoking Marx. Labor markets are susceptible to market failures just like any other market and when they occur people in those jobs will be over or under paid. All mainstream schools of economic thought accept this possibility.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 15th July 2020, 12:54 PM   #144
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
It wasn’t a “mistruth”. Science by it’s very nature moves forward and changes.so it never gives you “the truth” and it’s usually the pseudoscientists that complain about this.
Sorry, but it was lies the moment it left their lips. "don't wear masks, they aren't effective" combined with "save them for the front line" are contradictory messages. And they knew it at the time they said it. That's the very definition of a lie.

Did the science change, or did the availability of the masks change? According to the people responsible for the message, it was the availability of the masks.
Leftus 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 15th July 2020, 05:44 PM   #145
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,794
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Here's an example of the huge problem we are having right now with the right-wing militantly claiming 'they ain't gonna wear no stoopid masks.'
Yep, the huge problem we have is people not taking the virus seriously. Wearing a mask shows a commitment to doing so, but it isn't a silver bullet. Cloth and paper masks have limited effectiveness. They are not a substitute for good hygiene and social distancing.

When we were locked down we were beating the virus, though slower than expected because too many people weren't complying (and not enough resources were directed towards helping them to comply). Then we opened up, and - as expected - undid all the gains we made. Wearing masks will help get the infection rate back down, but won't be enough - we have to do the other things too.

Quote:
And yes, mixed messages from a lot of the 'experts' who should have been saying we don't know yet instead of saying the evidence is against it are also to blame.

But this thread is about Republicans hating science. Considering the mixed message that science gave them about mask wearing, I don't think we can pin this one on them.

Just how effective are masks at stopping coronavirus? Here's what new research says.
Quote:
Several studies published this month indicate that wearing face masks or coverings can effectively curb transmission of the novel coronavirus, lending support for policies requiring individuals to wear masks or coverings in public—but some scientists contend that the studies' results should be viewed with caution...

Based on their findings, they wrote that CDC and the World Health Organization should enforce stricter policies on wearing face masks or coverings to further curb the novel coronavirus' spread. "The current mitigation measures, such as social distancing, quarantine, and isolation implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves...

Separately, Richard Stutt... showed widespread use of face masks and coverings can help to reduce the new coronavirus' spread... Stutt said wearing face masks or coverings can help to significantly curb the coronavirus' transmission when paired with lockdown orders.

Schünemann said he and his colleagues have "low certainty" in their findings, because their observational review did not provide results as robust those that would come from a randomized controlled trial...

In addition, the new studies do not make clear whether transmission of the new coronavirus declined directly because of face masks' or coverings' physical barriers or if other changes in behavior
But that is science. Those of us who understand how science works expect 'mixed messages'. The general public should not have to pore over scientific journals and become experts in epidemiology to get the guidance they need.

There is only one Republican we can blame for people refusing to wear masks - Trump. If he told them to I'm sure they would have complied. Even if he had just admitted the seriousness of the situation it would changed a lot of minds, but instead he called it a 'liberal hoax'. So the mask issue isn't about science, but politics. Republicans opposed mask wearing out of pure partisanship.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
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 15th July 2020, 06:25 PM   #146
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,430
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's not anti-science, though. It's conflicting priorities.

I agree. Republicans have the same kinds of conflicting priorities.

I see the argument here a lot: we should follow what the science says. In that sense, both sides have priorities that conflict with what the science says.
__________________
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 15th July 2020, 07:20 PM   #147
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,603
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is the same challenge we as a society face with any charity. Charities in general are taxed differently than other businesses, because they are different from other businesses.

I agree that any "church" that actually engages in commerce as a for-profit business should be taxed as such. And people who use their "church" as a tax dodge for their business should of course be prosecuted, the same way anyone who uses a charity as a tax dodge should be prosecuted.

But I think that donations made for the upkeep of religious facilities and religious practices should not be taxed like other business, just like I think that other kinds of charitable donations should not be taxed like other businesses.

And I think that extends to paying the salaries - even the generous salaries - of people who provide religious services. I might even go so far as to say that if the faithful wish to donate to a lavish lifestyle for their leader, it's still a religious donation and still therefore exempt from the usual commercial taxation.

The CEOs of UNICEF, the Red Cross, and the United Way all get paid upwards of half a million dollars in compensation annually. When are you going to talk about taxing those organizations like any other business? When are you going to get sick of other such megacharity tax cheats?
Nonsense. Its a business and NOT a charity. Scracth that, its a con. Registered charities must undergo audits and donations have to go secular purposes. Churches don't have to undergo audits and the money can be used for almost whatever they want. And while churches sometimes help the poor, many don't. And even the few that feed the poor make them sit through their superstitious sermons.

When you make proselytizing a writeoff, you are ignoring the first Amendment. Proselytizing is nothing more than advertising. It should be treated as such.
__________________
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 15th July 2020, 09:02 PM   #148
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,535
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Nonsense. Its a business and NOT a charity. Scracth that, its a con. Registered charities must undergo audits and donations have to go secular purposes.
No, donations do not have to go to secular purposes. They have to go to exempt purposes, which do not have to be secular. And they do not have to undergo audits unless the IRS decides to audit them.

Quote:
Churches don't have to undergo audits
No. They have to undergo audits if the IRS decides to audit them. The requirements for the IRS to initiate an audit of a church are more stringent than for other charitable organizations, but they absolutely can be audited.

Quote:
and the money can be used for almost whatever they want.
No. They can only be used for exempt purposes. Same as with other charitable organizations.

Quote:
And while churches sometimes help the poor, many don't.
Secular charitable organizations don't have to help the poor either. Did you think they did? Then you were operating under a misconception.

Quote:
When you make proselytizing a writeoff, you are ignoring the first Amendment. Proselytizing is nothing more than advertising. It should be treated as such.
You're pissing into the wind on this one. That's not the way the tax code was written, it was written that way decades ago, and the Supreme Court isn't about to overturn it. Your understanding of the first amendment is at odds with long-established precedent.

You might as well be Bob on this one.
__________________
"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 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 15th July 2020, 09:46 PM   #149
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,603
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, donations do not have to go to secular purposes. They have to go to exempt purposes, which do not have to be secular. And they do not have to undergo audits unless the IRS decides to audit them.



No. They have to undergo audits if the IRS decides to audit them. The requirements for the IRS to initiate an audit of a church are more stringent than for other charitable organizations, but they absolutely can be audited.



No. They can only be used for exempt purposes. Same as with other charitable organizations.



Secular charitable organizations don't have to help the poor either. Did you think they did? Then you were operating under a misconception.



You're pissing into the wind on this one. That's not the way the tax code was written, it was written that way decades ago, and the Supreme Court isn't about to overturn it. Your understanding of the first amendment is at odds with long-established precedent.

You might as well be Bob on this one.
You're flat out wrong.

26 States REQUIRE. charitable nonprofits to submit a copy of an independently audited financial statements in conjunction with the process of registering the charitable nonprofit so that it is able to lawfully engage in fundraising activities in that state (commonly known as "charitable registration").

Thirty-nine states (plus the District of Columbia) require charitable nonprofits to register with the state in order to fundraise in that state.

To my knowledge This DOESN'T apply to churches.

Churches also do not pay property taxes.

Expenses are generally tax free if they can be called being religious in nature. So you can write of that private jet that you supposedly use for missionary work.

Religion is the oldest con. They have no business being tax exempt in any way. Giving them an exemption of any kind makes a joke out of the Establishment Clause.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 15th July 2020 at 09:55 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 16th July 2020, 05:36 AM   #150
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,787
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Sorry, but it was lies the moment it left their lips. "don't wear masks, they aren't effective" combined with "save them for the front line" are contradictory messages. And they knew it at the time they said it. That's the very definition of a lie.
From your own post:
Quote:
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!,”
Stop buying and stop wearing are two different things. Neither is "they aren't effective" the same as "NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"

In fact this quote is exactly the message I recall being circulated which is that masks won't keep you from getting the virus and if you go out and buy them it could make PPE shortages worse. This is, as far as I can tell, perfectly accurate.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 16th July 2020, 06:56 AM   #151
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,535
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You're flat out wrong.

26 States REQUIRE. charitable nonprofits to submit a copy of an independently audited financial statements in conjunction with the process of registering the charitable nonprofit so that it is able to lawfully engage in fundraising activities in that state (commonly known as "charitable registration").

Thirty-nine states (plus the District of Columbia) require charitable nonprofits to register with the state in order to fundraise in that state.

To my knowledge This DOESN'T apply to churches.
Taking New York as an example, most charities with sufficient income or assets have to register and submit a CPA review or audit of their financials. Very different than being audited by the IRS, which no organization with significant income is immune from, contrary to your prior statement. Churches don't have to register, you are correct, but neither do PTA's (for example).

Quote:
Churches also do not pay property taxes.
Again referring to New York as an example, yes, churches often do not pay property taxes (actually it depends what they use the property for), but that is true for many non-religious charitable organizations too. I'm pretty sure Planned Parenthood clinics qualify, for example. Again, I don't see you bitching about their tax exemptions.

Quote:
Expenses are generally tax free if they can be called being religious in nature. So you can write of that private jet that you supposedly use for missionary work.
Again, also true of many non-religious nonprofits.

Quote:
Religion is the oldest con. They have no business being tax exempt in any way. Giving them an exemption of any kind makes a joke out of the Establishment Clause.
Your theory of constitutional law has already sailed. Like I said, you're Bob on this. And complain all you want to, but it isn't even really a partisan issue. Even blue states (like New York) do the things you complain about (when your complaints are accurate).
__________________
"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 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 16th July 2020, 07:43 AM   #152
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
From your own post:


Stop buying and stop wearing are two different things. Neither is "they aren't effective" the same as "NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"

In fact this quote is exactly the message I recall being circulated which is that masks won't keep you from getting the virus and if you go out and buy them it could make PPE shortages worse. This is, as far as I can tell, perfectly accurate.
OK, please explain what they are not effective in doing in the phrase "They aren't effective"

If masks that would work aren't effective, why are less suitable masks effective? If I'm not to wear a N95 masks, because they don't work, and a cloth bandanna is, why is it important to get those N95 masks to health care workers? Can't they just upgrade to a bandanna?

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that were I to grab a mask at Home Depot deprives a hospital worker a mask. I don't think the hospital supply chain grabs masks off the shelves at the local outlet.

There was an active attempt to get people to eschew effective masks and to use masks with questionable effectiveness. There was absolutely no science behind it. It was a supply chain issue, not a science issue.
Leftus 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 16th July 2020, 09:02 AM   #153
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,603
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Taking New York as an example, most charities with sufficient income or assets have to register and submit a CPA review or audit of their financials. Very different than being audited by the IRS, which no organization with significant income is immune from, contrary to your prior statement. Churches don't have to register, you are correct, but neither do PTA's (for example).



Again referring to New York as an example, yes, churches often do not pay property taxes (actually it depends what they use the property for), but that is true for many non-religious charitable organizations too. I'm pretty sure Planned Parenthood clinics qualify, for example. Again, I don't see you bitching about their tax exemptions.

Again, also true of many non-religious nonprofits.

Your theory of constitutional law has already sailed. Like I said, you're Bob on this. And complain all you want to, but it isn't even really a partisan issue. Even blue states (like New York) do the things you complain about (when your complaints are accurate).
No, I'm not. Churches are nothing short of a con. And our government not only turns a blind eye to the con, it makes the practice tax exempt. Churches don't for the most part pay state or federal taxes. No sales taxes, no income taxes, no property taxes. Yes, they have to pay taxes if their facilities are say rented out....but this is pro-rated.

A simple plain text reading of the First Amendment says they can carry out the con, but a simple plain text reading of the First Amendment makes it clear that an exemption is a violation.

This is why there are so many churches in America. It's also why the GOP hates science. Churches are anti-science. They can lie about so many things and have the fools in the congregation take it on "faith". Science is a threat to them.

If you want to do self help lectures. You have to pay taxes. Wrap it inside a fairy tale and you don't.
__________________
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 16th July 2020, 09:15 AM   #154
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,603
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
OK, please explain what they are not effective in doing in the phrase "They aren't effective"

If masks that would work aren't effective, why are less suitable masks effective? If I'm not to wear a N95 masks, because they don't work, and a cloth bandanna is, why is it important to get those N95 masks to health care workers? Can't they just upgrade to a bandanna?

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that were I to grab a mask at Home Depot deprives a hospital worker a mask. I don't think the hospital supply chain grabs masks off the shelves at the local outlet.

There was an active attempt to get people to eschew effective masks and to use masks with questionable effectiveness. There was absolutely no science behind it. It was a supply chain issue, not a science issue.
There IS science behind it. But I do agree there is supply chain issue. But it has taken a while to understand. A double cloth mask offers negligible protection from airborne particles because of the size of the virus particles. But what it does do is reduce the amount of airborne particles and the amount that you leave on surfaces that you can transfer to your hands.

The cloth masks are certainly not a panacea, but I think they also serve to remind people that we need to take this pandemic seriously.
__________________
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 16th July 2020, 09:28 AM   #155
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,535
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No, I'm not. Churches are nothing short of a con.
You keep saying this. But your opinion on the matter is not shared by either party or by the courts. So what's the point? This might be worth a thread of its own, but it's thoroughly off topic in this thread.
__________________
"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 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 16th July 2020, 09:47 AM   #156
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,603
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You keep saying this. But your opinion on the matter is not shared by either party or by the courts. So what's the point? This might be worth a thread of its own, but it's thoroughly off topic in this thread.
Doesn't make it any less true. That's an ad populum fallacy.

Can you provide a shred of credible evidence of the existence of a god? Any god? Nope.

So what they're selling is a con. Preachers even talk like con men. Carrot and the stick. Heaven and Hell. Don't test god. Take it on faith. They prey on the gullible selling their swill.

Don't believe evolution, even though the evidence is enormous. Instead believe an uneducated Shaman. Don't believe epidemiologists, instead believe a pastor with no education in science. It makes me sick. At least the Catholic church seems to accept science these days. Even though they got there begrudgingly.
__________________
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 16th July 2020, 09:57 AM   #157
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,535
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Doesn't make it any less true. That's an ad populum fallacy.
No, it's not a fallacy, because I'm not claiming it's false because it's unpopular. I'm pointing out that our democratic government will never treat it the way you want it to be treated because it's unpopular. You're pissing into the wind on this one. And it's not a partisan issue, neither party has any appetite for taxing churches the way you want them to be taxed.
__________________
"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 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 16th July 2020, 10:10 AM   #158
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,603
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it's not a fallacy, because I'm not claiming it's false because it's unpopular. I'm pointing out that our democratic government will never treat it the way you want it to be treated because it's unpopular. You're pissing into the wind on this one. And it's not a partisan issue, neither party has any appetite for taxing churches the way you want them to be taxed.
I never said they didn't. But you suggested it wasn't a sleazy con game just because politicians and courts are dishonest and biased. Just because the con has been successful and has become popular doesn't make it any less a con game.

My point is and always has been that the establishment clause of the first amendment is a joke when government chooses to ignore it.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th July 2020 at 10:12 AM.
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 16th July 2020, 11:43 AM   #159
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,535
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I never said they didn't. But you suggested it wasn't a sleazy con game just because politicians and courts are dishonest and biased.
Well, no. I never suggested that. In some cases it is (the "wealth gospel" preachers spring to mind). But not all religious organizations are a con game, the fact that YOU don't value religion doesn't mean other people are wrong to, and the problem of abusing the tax code isn't actually unique to religious organizations. If you don't think any non-religious 501(c)3 organizations are just grifters, then you're a rube.

Quote:
My point is and always has been that the establishment clause of the first amendment is a joke when government chooses to ignore it.
The government doesn't agree with you about what the establishment clause means. And you can't win the fight over what it means either, because (1) it's not a purely objective question in the first place, and (2) there is actually an authority which gets to decide what it means, and they've already decided against your position.
__________________
"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 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 16th July 2020, 12:07 PM   #160
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,603
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Well, no. I never suggested that. In some cases it is (the "wealth gospel" preachers spring to mind). But not all religious organizations are a con game, the fact that YOU don't value religion doesn't mean other people are wrong to, and the problem of abusing the tax code isn't actually unique to religious organizations. If you don't think any non-religious 501(c)3 organizations are just grifters, then you're a rube.
Is there a god? Is there credible evidence for a god? If there isn't, than it's a con.

Now that doesn't mean that some preachers, maybe even a majority of preachers actually believe the nonsense and think they are doing good. Some are doing good. My guess is that in fact is a minority.

But you can't get around the simple fact there is no evidence for it. You also can't get around the fact they are peddling superstition and dismissing science. As Christopher Hitchens said, "God is not great" and religion poisons everything"

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The government doesn't agree with you about what the establishment clause means. And you can't win the fight over what it means either, because (1) it's not a purely objective question in the first place, and (2) there is actually an authority which gets to decide what it means, and they've already decided against your position.
Again, so what? It just shows how gullible people are.

The establishment clause clearly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If you are giving it exemption, you are ignoring those words.
__________________
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 12:48 AM.
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.