Weird Time for Christians

Bledred said:
You said you wear a mask at work only while doing certain tasks at work.  I fail to see how this is the same as wearing a mask all the time, all day in public, work, and even privately around friends and family.  The time difference here is extremely different.  How many children are also wearing the N95 masks at your job?  Because we are also requiring children to wear masks long-term in public, in school, and everywhere else.  Lets review your logic:

I am a 59 year old who has worn an N95 mask at work for certain tasks and have been just fine for years.  Therefore every single man, women, and child on planet earth regardless of age, gender, pregnancy, disability, ethnicity, or having any type of disease or comorbidity or pre-existing lung disability such as asthma etc. can also wear an N95 for long periods of time and also will not have any health issues as a result there of. 
Click to expand...


So you still have no legit examples of harm done by masks from any study not funded by the Koch organization. This is all your speculation based on biased sources.

 
Bledred said:
You said you wear a mask at work only while doing certain tasks at work.  I fail to see how this is the same as wearing a mask all the time, all day in public, work, and even privately around friends and family.  The time difference here is extremely different.  How many children are also wearing the N95 masks at your job?  Because we are also requiring children to wear masks long-term in public, in school, and everywhere else.  Lets review your logic:

I am a 59 year old who has worn an N95 mask at work for certain tasks and have been just fine for years.  Therefore every single man, women, and child on planet earth regardless of age, gender, pregnancy, disability, ethnicity, or having any type of disease or comorbidity or pre-existing lung disability such as asthma etc. can also wear an N95 for long periods of time and also will not have any health issues as a result there of. 
Click to expand...
i said i've worn these masks a lot for a lot of years with no problem    you said it was unhealthy for anyone to wear a mask that much.    :dunno

 
Lorewarn said:
Dude I am about to blow your mind. Ready?

Wearing non-n95 masks isn't about blocking the virus from entering, it's about slowing the virus leaving if you are sick. Can't take your argument seriously if you can't even understand that masks aren't for your own protection but for preventing you from getting other people sick.

Anyways, sorry that Christians are having such a tough time in America. 
Click to expand...
How is it that you believe a virus can easily enter a mask but not easily exit a mask?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
You might try reading that article as it's been updated because the paper it was based on has been withdrawn. From your link:

Plus the author falsely claimed he was affiliated with Stanford and the research has been debunked:

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/29/mask-study-was-misleading-and-misquotes-citations-says-elsevier/

And guess what? An article I linked earlier was specifically about how that paper was debunked:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/24/fact-check-study-falsely-claiming-masks-harmful-isnt-stanfords/7353629002/
Click to expand...
You keep quoting USA TODAY as a source to debunk a medical journal.  If you presented this to any higher educational system you would be laughed out of the room.  Sorry, but journalists are not medical experts.  Also 'Reaction Watch' is a blog....A BLOG.  And I am the one pushing 'misleading info' and 'false information'?

 
commando said:
i said i've worn these masks a lot for a lot of years with no problem    you said it was unhealthy for anyone to wear a mask that much.    :dunno
Click to expand...
The issue at hand is about masking the entire world, not certain people in certain jobs and only for certain times in those jobs.  How do you know that you are not an exception to the rule? 

 
Bledred said:
You keep quoting USA TODAY as a source to debunk a medical journal.  If you presented this to any higher educational system you would be laughed out of the room.  Sorry, but journalists are not medical experts.  Also 'Reaction Watch' is a blog....A BLOG.  And I am the one pushing 'misleading info' and 'false information'?
Click to expand...




UMMMMMM..... Did you read the VERY FIRST paragraph of the AEIR article you linked? 

"The paper discussed below was withdrawn from the journal following an editorial investigation. RetractionWatch explains the reasons for this decision. The authors of this article defer to the editors of the journal. We leave the text intact for reference purposes only."

Your own source debunks your source.  

 
knapplc said:
So you still have no legit examples of harm done by masks from any study not funded by the Koch organization. This is all your speculation based on biased sources.
Click to expand...
Just because there are no long-term studies on the effects of masks worn by every age group, pregnant women, people with disabilities, people with lung problems, does not mean that there is also no long-term negative effects of forcing every man, women, and child on earth to wear masks for most of their daily lives for years on end.  To think otherwise is illogical at best. 

 
Bledred said:
You keep quoting USA TODAY as a source to debunk a medical journal.  If you presented this to any higher educational system you would be laughed out of the room.  Sorry, but journalists are not medical experts.  Also 'Reaction Watch' is a blog....A BLOG.  And I am the one pushing 'misleading info' and 'false information'?
Click to expand...
Your own article debunks itself and the paper it's based on.

The USA Today link is an article about the paper cited above and why it was retracted by the journal.

And it's "Retraction Watch" (not reaction) - a site that tracks journal papers that get retracted, which is pertinent in this case.

Bledred said:
Just because there are no long-term studies on the effects of masks worn by every age group, pregnant women, people with disabilities, people with lung problems, does not mean that there are long-term negative effects of forcing every man, women, and child on earth to wear masks for most of their daily lives for years on end.  To think otherwise is illogical at best. 
Click to expand...
FIFY

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bledred said:
Just because there are no long-term studies on the effects of masks worn by every age group, pregnant women, people with disabilities, people with lung problems, does not mean that there is also no long-term negative effects of forcing every man, women, and child on earth to wear masks for most of their daily lives for years on end.  To think otherwise is illogical at best. 
Click to expand...
to assume that masks won't help protect people from the long term effects of covid is illogical at best.

 
Bledred said:
How is it that you believe a virus can easily enter a mask but not easily exit a mask?  
Click to expand...




I never said that :lol:

But nonetheless, how I can believe that is actually very, very simple. The force of air conditioning or normal wind is a few miles per hour. A cough can get up to 50mph, and a sneeze can get up to 100mph. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
White evangelicals are often seen as a solidly Republican voting bloc. In the 2020 election, 84 percent of them voted for Donald Trump. In fact, according to the Pew Research Center, many of Trump’s supporters began identifying as evangelical during his presidency.

But white evangelicals aren’t a monolith. In our first episode of Political Outliers, meet two devout evangelicals who were raised in conservative households, but are now self-proclaimed “progressives.” They both say that their political views became more liberal as they immersed themselves deeper into their faith.
Click to expand...

 
Back
Top