NRA & The Surgeon General

[Islam Imamate]

Nice. I like this guy crowded.

Because lowering the level of civility in the least civil board is something we should all aspire to do right?

Dude's just a chronic asshole. Comes here to be smug and stink up the joint by flinging his poo at others. I imagine he's a real bitter pos in person.

I never got that impression from the guy. Maybe he's got an issue that sets him off but he seems like a solid poster to me and he's been more civil ITT than you have been.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Dude's just a chronic asshole. Comes here to be smug and stink up the joint by flinging his poo at others. I imagine he's a real bitter pos in person.

What the fuck man? Have you even been reading my posts in this thread?

Also, I have a great life. You might be projecting, both in regards to post quality and life satisfaction.

 

[crowded]

Because lowering the level of civility in the least civil board is something we should all aspire to do right?

I never got that impression from the guy. Maybe he's got an issue that sets him off but he seems like a solid poster to me and he's been more civil ITT than you have been.

lol. Did I hurt your feelings somewhere or are you and Dochtor the Corsican Brothers? I've read enough of the guy's posts and tried my hardest to get him to interact with me sans all the smug, condescending attacks that riddle his posting history. I'm done with the guy and if he wants to argue with me I'm not interested. So he can fuck off. Anybody else ITT you think I haven't treated fairly?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I don't think its such a big deal. I'm sure the patient can refuse to answer and guns are a huge risk factor if combined with depression as they're easily the most effective way to commit suicide.

I'm with you on this. I'm a 2nd amendment guy but this seems like unnecessary flexing by the NRA. What could the SG even to do in regards to guns?

Yeah, this all seems like a non-issue. Like I said, who even knew with any certainty before this "controversy" that we still had SG's?

I'm actually not "a 2nd amendment guy" in the sense that many here are; however, I don't actually see a strong basis for further gun control. Since much of the gun violence we see is actually associated with poverty and "The War On Drugs" I view addressing those two (interconnected) issues as much more important. I actually got a call on my office line two days ago from some group affiliated with Gabby Giffords (the previous occupant was apparently a donor to various anti-gun groups). It was a rather annoying conversation because I kept saying "Sorry, I'm not interested in donating because I think you're on the wrong side of the issue." The person kept telling me that they weren't seeking gun bans. I kept repeating my comment and then the person said "The Giffords are both gun owners" to which I responded: "I'm actually not and I think that's irrelevant to any logical argument".

 

[UpaLoompa]

lol. Did I hurt your feelings somewhere or are you and Dochtor the Corsican Brothers? I've read enough of the guy's posts and tried my hardest to get him to interact with me sans all the smug, condescending attacks that riddle his posting history. I'm done with the guy and if he wants to argue with me I'm not interested. So he can fuck off. Anybody else ITT you think I haven't treated fairly?

Try to post better content.


edit: What's funny about this is the last time that I recall we had a disagreement you actually ended up admitting to just trolling the topic we were arguing in. IIRC you apologized about your trolling. I also recall a useful exchange about personal ethics and whether it is reasonable to apply different standards to interactions between groups (i.e. countries and espionage). Whatever.

 

[Islam Imamate]

lol. Did I hurt your feelings somewhere or are you and Dochtor the Corsican Brothers? I've read enough of the guy's posts and tried my hardest to get him to interact with me sans all the smug, condescending attacks that riddle his posting history. I'm done with the guy and if he wants to argue with me I'm not interested. So he can fuck off. Anybody else ITT you think I haven't treated fairly?

See, you're not helping your case here with comments like that. I guess the guy just knows how to push your buttons but you really shouldn't get your panties in a bunch so easily, some of the WR posters I like are guys across the aisle that I can discuss shit with civilly and part of civil discussion is deescalating when someone snaps at or condescends at you.

EDIT: Saying you got your panties in a bunch isn't exactly deescalating so I guess I should follow my own advice. Idk, I just like that line for some reason.

Yeah, this all seems like a non-issue. Like I said, who even knew with any certainty before this "controversy" that we still had SG's?

I'm actually not "a 2nd amendment guy" in the sense that many here are; however, I don't actually see a strong basis for further gun control. Since much of the gun violence we see is actually associated with poverty and "The War On Drugs" I view addressing those two (interconnected) issues as much more important. I actually got a call on my office line two days ago from some group affiliated with Gabby Giffords (the previous occupant was apparently a donor to various anti-gun groups). It was a rather annoying conversation because I kept saying "Sorry, I'm not interested in donating because I think you're on the wrong side of the issue." The person kept telling me that they weren't seeking gun bans. I kept repeating my comment and then the person said "The Giffords are both gun owners" to which I responded: "I'm actually not and I think that's irrelevant to any logical argument".

I think we're in agreement here, I'm just using the term "2nd amendment supporter" more loosely. I'd change my mind if I felt there was sensible gun control legislation that could be passed in the US and even then I think addressing both the issues you mentioned would be more important.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I guess the guy just knows how to push your buttons but you really shouldn't get your panties in a bunch so easily, some of the WR posters I like are guys across the aisle that I can discuss shit with civilly and part of civil discussion is deescalating when someone snaps at or condescends at you.

I'm honestly have no idea what is going on with this tangent.

 

[crowded]

See, you're not helping your case here with comments like that. I guess the guy just knows how to push your buttons but you really shouldn't get your panties in a bunch so easily, some of the WR posters I like are guys across the aisle that I can discuss shit with civilly and part of civil discussion is deescalating when someone snaps at or condescends at you.

EDIT: Saying you got your panties in a bunch isn't exactly deescalating so I guess I should follow my own advice. Idk, I just like that line for some reason.

I'm not making a case, but for edification I'll lay it out for you. I don't like the guy and he's one of the last people around here I've seen be able to discuss things civilly when there is disagreement. I made more than one attempt to change the tone of our interactions and he was not receptive. Now I don't read his posts. In this case I was bored and he popped into my thread so I did. Here's what I saw. "Utter nonsense." That's the first shit he typed out in response to my post. If you think that's how civil discourse is conducted then we have completely different standards.

On top of that 2-3 other posters agreed with me so how stupid does it look now to come out and call my position "nonsense"? Dude didn't show any consideration for what I wrote (as usual) and showed no consideration for how I might take his reply. I'm done having this conversation now.

For Dochtor, you'll very rarely get any reply from me when you quote my posts and if you do it's going to be the same thing as you got this time. Don't like it? Don't engage me.


Ps to Psych Major. You're right about "panties in a bunch" and that's far less offensive than calling someone's words "utter nonsense". You're picking the wrong guy to go to bat for.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Wow, I've sort of been playing out the "that escalated quickly" gif lately but this thread really called for it haha

 

[UpaLoompa]

Wow, I've sort of been playing out the "that escalated quickly" gif lately but this thread really called for it haha

Seriously. I blame the feminists.

 

[IDL]

Surgeon General. General of what army I wonder?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Surgeon General. General of what army I wonder?

And therein lies the significance of this "controversy".

 

[oldshadow]

I don't think its such a big deal. I'm sure the patient can refuse to answer and guns are a huge risk factor if combined with depression as they're easily the most effective way to commit suicide.

I'm with you on this. I'm a 2nd amendment guy but this seems like unnecessary flexing by the NRA. What could the SG even to do in regards to guns?

“Well Mr. A Psych Major I’m sorry we cannot provide treatment (non-emergency) to you/your family unless you complete our questionnaire”.

The Office of the Surgeon General’s also issues reports, some of which have been very influential in highlighting important public health problems. One of the most famous in recent history was the 1964 Smoking and Health Report which established cigarettes as an officially recognized cause of heart and lung disease. More recently Reports on sexuality and ethnic disparities have also been useful contributions to advancing health policy in the US. Pretty much the importance of the SG comes from the fact that it is a tall platform to stand on. C. Everett Koop made effective use of this bully pulpit to promote a variety of important public health ideas.

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/01/07/the-post-of-surgeon-general-of/

 

[UpaLoompa]

 

[Uchi Mata]

I just registered three more AR's yesterday. I wonder how much my risk factor increased.

Your's, probably not much. If you have kids, probably some for them. I've always heard this issue in the context of pediatricians talking to kids about gun safety, not guns as a public health issue. I really dislike guns, but I don't think they qualify as a public health crisis. You're certainly not going to solve the problem of guns in America with any sort of medical intervention.

 

[Dolomite]

Your's, probably not much. If you have kids, probably some for them.

 

[crowded]

Wow, I've sort of been playing out the "that escalated quickly" gif lately but this thread really called for it haha

It escalated a long time ago.

Your's, probably not much. If you have kids, probably some for them.

No human kids. Can't imagine the dogs or cats getting into the safes, loading the guns and discharging them.

Haha, a teenage boy might get his dick stuck in it somehow. Other than that it's barely a paperweight (for now.).

 

[IDL]

And therein lies the significance of this "controversy".

srsly he has military rank. Just another branch of the military?

Who is this guy. Is he fighting the war on surgery requiring injuries?

 

[dc207]

There are multiple ways a SG or any appointee/elected official/etc. could influence policy or further shift a national debate toward his/her viewpoint. I don't think this issue is a "controversy" necessarily, but I do question the motives and overall competence of an otherwise respected Doctor who needlessly inserts himself into an issue that doesn't involve him.
If the guy is so smart, why not just ignore/avoid this issue because it doesn't really need his input, so as to not limit his own ascendance into power? Either he's really not that smart or he's that arrogant that he thought this belief wouldn't cause him problems and limit his climb.
I'm betting on the latter.

 

[dc207]

And the whole issue of public health risk is hilarious to me.
I wonder if this Doctor asks his patients if they own cars, or steak knives? There have been two murders by stabbing near my hometown in the past week.
Still waiting on the wave of "a knife in your home only increases the risk of danger" articles to come across the AP wire.