Gene Frenkle

"Going Rogue on the Smurfs"

That's funny!

I learn things from South Park. It's a wonderful, non-obviously science-based/skeptical show. I'll bet you liked the Manbearpig episode because it jibes with your ideology. I love things that support my worldview! Yeah!

"140 reports of Lasik-related problems between 1998 and 2006" That's all? How many surgeries are we talking about in that time span?

That's why I qualified my statement. In an individual's mind I doubt there is much of a difference.

You may not be retarded, but your second paragraph is. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are obviously rationalizing with a major agenda. God cannot be proved or disproved, no matter what you claim. Despite your obvious self delusion, the truth is the truth.

In fairness, a lot of people don't 'believe' in Evolution, an evidence-based proposition. I guess it might instead be more accurate to say they don't 'accept' Evolution, but it really amounts to the same thing.

Were the rhymes he was kickin quite bootylicious?

Assuming she stays home I guess.

They might not already have to what you're vaccinating the healthcare workers against. A cancer patient who cannot be vaccinated might not have the flu until Nurse Ratchet comes in and breathes all over him. Individual cases can fall outside of the larger view and still be valid reasons for vaccination. The macro view would be irrational to disagree with because it's true. Stupid because it's harder to transmit. His argument with Hep B is still a bad one.

People find comfort in a lot of things. Comfort in say, astrology or a psychic reading does not make such things real or the decision to believe in such things at all rational. The difference is that astrology and psychics are at least partially falsifiable. I've been thinking about it, and I can agree that deciding to believe in god could be considered rational to those who have been given no alternative or do not have the capacity for critical thought. People who are told such things their whole lives cannot be expected to look at faith rationally without proper information. Faith in and of itself however, can never be rational. Without faith of the masses, those who would cause destruction and manipulate others using faith would have, as you say, one less tool in the toolbox. Science can't really say anything about god, except perhaps to give some idea of the probability of god's existence, which I personally think is very low. This is of course because god is a supernatural idea. I try not to discount the views of others (unless completely illogical) because what other people think matters. If someone has a particular view, chances are it is shared by many and it is therefore better to try to understand it instead of dismissing it out of hand. I know of no 'form of reasoning' that requires faith or is even aided by faith. I'd like a further explanation if you'd like to elaborate.

First, I don't think you can discount patient safety as a valid reason for requiring vaccinations by healtcare workers. You can lump it all under 'integrity of the healthcare system' if you like, but the actual reason for doing it is to try to limit the spread of disease. Not sure what you're getting at with the Hep B thing. Healthcare workers (any everyone else for that matter) should be vaccinated against Hep B. A worker with Hep B should not be interacting with patients unless the risk of infection can be eliminated.

The healthcare worker comes into contact with all of them, every day. The healthcare worker is bleeding and spitting on the open wounds of others now? Pretty sure HIV is a bit more difficult to contract than just breathing like the flu. Don't be a retard.

I'll stay out of the other man's shite and worry about myself, thanks.

I think some of these recent analogies are missing the point because they talking about required precautions that are meant to protect the employee. The required flu shot is for the protection of the patients. A percentage of patients seen by these workers will not be able to get the flu shot because of allergic reaction, a bad immune system, age, etc... To expose them to healthcare workers who choose not to get the flu shot is an unnecessary and irresponsible risk. It's the same reason vaccination is a prerequisite for attending schools and working at jobs in both the public and private sectors. The safety of the patients takes precedence over the personal choice of the healthcare workers. The employees always have the choice to quit if they don't want to live by the terms of employment.

What a joke Sarah Palin is. I'm good with where I am.

It seems like somebody's jealous of Letterman because he's getting laid. It is now safe to remove your head from Sarah Palin's wrinkled ass.

Fine, if you want to nitpick: Any supernatural belief is by definition empirically irrational. Think about how far you are stretching things to say religion might not be irrational. I don't think you even get close by going down that path. I can't dispute the logic of what you are saying, but it seems to me that we can only make rational decisions based on our perception of reality. I'm not sure that anything outside of what we perceive to be real can ever actually matter to us, but who knows. It's a mind bender for sure, but it doesn't add to either the concept of god or no god. You're not really saying anything at all about it. It's an argument intended to mystify, deflect and redirect. It's not quite as bad as invoking mysterious quantum mechanics to validate some pseudoscience claim, but along the same lines. By your definition it seems to me you that you're almost agreeing with what I said above since you can't make reasonable decisions based on information you do have. In the end, religious beliefs are based purely on faith, even within the context of our perception of reality.

Any supernatural belief is by definition irrational.

Well, they you're screwed. Like say, if you're an infant who didn't survive it long enough to have his sins washed away by some pedophile. Ok, maybe that was crossing the line... That's the best part and the part that keeps em coming back for more. It doesn't matter what you do in life, provided you repent and tell some guy all the bad things you've done on your death bed. Clean slate!

Exactly. In principle he was almost completely correct. I guess that's what happens when you're a genius who contemplates a theory for many years before publishing.

Fixed. I mean you're not really adding credence to your claim with this statement. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Darwin provided his and it was quite extraordinary. So what, 6,000 years or so?

Care to elaborate on this please? I'd like to know what you specifically think Darwin was wrong about. I honestly can't get enough of this particular brand of anti-Darwin sentiment especially from a true believer. Please provide some details. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the vast majority of what Darwin laid out in On the Origin of Species was pretty much dead-on and has held up to years and years of scrutiny from people who would give their left nut to discredit his ideas. Darwin has truly had it almost completely right so far - an amazing achievement considering the relatively primitive science that existed when he was forming his theories. The evidence for Darwinian Evolution today is overwhelming when you consider the genetic links we are now able to draw between species.

I doubt any true believer would be satisfied with your 'religion is a hobby' statement but I think you're pretty close.

Holy crap! The not-so-rare whacko love fest! When does Toby Keith go on?