trentnix

My children think “this whole Christmas thing” is the very best day of the year. And there is nothing that brings me more joy than watching them make memories they’ll cherish all of their days - memories like the ones I made when I was a kid. So no, it is not a day like many others. It’s Christmas, and it’s special to me and mine.

I have genuine sadness that you don’t share in the same joy my children experience in the the wonder and joy this Holiday brings. But I find it contemptible that you would diminish the joy others have in Christmas in order to justify your own malcontent.

Other people’s joy is not your problem and not something that needs fixing.

We had evidence of first use in commerce and offered not to sabotage their pursuit of a trademark. They immediately agreed, backed down, and signed a document allowing us to use the name unrestricted irrespective of whether they successfully obtained the trademark. As we expected, the trademark application was denied (the name was descriptive, not unique) and it was all behind us quickly.

TLDR: get a lawyer. Trademark law is weird.

And don’t be mean - the other business is now your first call if you ever decide to sell.

And although it is clearly effective at improving outcomes statistically, the vaccine is no guarantee. I happen to be one of the few who has lost a fully-vaccinated loved one to Covid (he was elderly with co-morbidities, but clearly not immune to getting sick).

You're being pedantic. The point was that outcomes are poorer for the unvaccinated, just like outcomes are poorer for those with high blood pressure or with autoimmune deficiencies. It is to everyone's benefit to keep those people out of ICU and long-term hospital stays, so they should be treated aggressively as a result.

> If you aren't masking and you aren't getting vaccinated and you live in a developed country, then you are doing it deliberately, you are costing everyone else tremendously, and the rest of the world shouldn't be forced to carry the burden for your decision to be antisocial, irrational and to steal from the health of the group at no objective benefit for yourself.

Millions have had Covid without resulting in serious illness. And having had Covid is likely to be more effective protection than the vaccine.

I'm vaccinated. I'm pro-vaccine. But this line of thinking that "no vaccine = evil" is unscientific and toxic. Reality never fits the narrative.

Fairness doesn't even seem to be in the political lexicon anymore. It has been replaced with equity, which justifies unfairness if it results in preferred political outcomes.

I understand this line of thinking, but think it's flawed. You have to be okay with everyone else suffering instead (due to increases in their own healthcare costs to cover for those who use the healthcare system more) and you aren't able to use cost to influence better healthcare choices.

There has to be a way to hold people accountable to the actual consequences of their own health choices while also being sensitive to those who are sick through no obvious fault of their own.

But if unvaccinated people pay higher premiums, then that logic would follow that other pre-existing conditions might be met with increases premiums. And to continue the logic, some ethnic groups have higher incidences of certain diseases. Should they pay higher premiums or would that be branded discriminatory?

And so politics enters the fray. And another good idea is crushed under the weight of vote-seeking, political correctness, and the desire to punish wrongthink.

“If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.”

The press assures us they'd be better if we gave them a bunch of money (even begging for government money), but the truth is that it has always been like this.

It's very easy to blame this on various proxies for "capitalism" (like “return on equity”), but I think that misunderstands capitalism. It's assumed that capitalism prefers being "lean" or being "efficient" over alternatives, but it's actually circumstances that prefer being lean or efficient.

And when the circumstances change (such as when disasters or war or politics disrupt the supply chain), then other strategies might be preferred. So those businesses that have excess supply or who are able to manufacture domestically (or on site!) might have the advantage. And that will help keep products available to consumers and reduce the economic shock of changes in the circumstances we find ourselves in.

But when government decides to overwhelmingly favor "lean" businesses through policy, business incentives become perverted.

Here in Texas, businesses pay taxes on excess inventory. Its called “Personal Property Tax” and you are required, as a retailer or manufacturer, to render a value and consequently pay a tax for all of the property the business owns at the end of the year. That includes whatever inventory or materials you might own - so whatever you might be holding for reserves or disaster mitigation. So you are incentivized to make sure, at least on Dec 31, that you have as little excess inventory and supplies as possible on your sales floor or in your warehouse.

Government subsidizes overseas shipments, thus encouraging manufacturing and retail over domestic manufacturing and retail.

Government makes domestic employees and manufacturing very expensive (via wage minimums and taxes and regulation and so on) but does not extract tariffs on imported goods - especially lower-priced commodities. That makes it significantly cheaper to offshore manufacturing and warehousing and take advantage of cheap (slave?) foreign labor, environmentally harmful practices allowed by foreign government, etc. Don't get confused - I'm not saying we should have no wage minimums or employment taxes or regulations. Just that the government favors manufacturing and warehousing overseas to domestic manufacturing and warehousing.

So while there are circumstances that favor a business environment that is “efficient” and “lean”, there are tax and legal incentives that don't change as quickly as the circumstances do.

We've enjoyed a robust, dependable supply chain and robust economic growth for a long time. Lots of bad policy has taken root during that time. That bad policy is going to impede the economy’s ability to adapt to the sudden changes we've experienced. And we will all suffer for it.

I don't want them to own it. I'm 100% sure.

And now her defense is that she was used, abused, and manipulated by men. Occam's razor says she was a fraud then and is a fraud now.

Nonsense. From Arthur Ashe to Ryan White to Magic Johnson, there was continuous noise and encouragement around HIV prevention and research through the entire period. And narratives were manipulated then, too. Even into the early 90s, there was widespread public thought that HIV might be spread through saliva, even though the research was pretty clear it was spread almost exclusively via anal sex and intravenous drug use (and blood transfusions from an HIV+ donor).

Now contrast that approach with mandates and arresting store owners and closing businesses.

Which will, of course, galvanize those who are skeptical of the vaccine and the intentions of our bureaucratic overlords. And because that's so obvious, it makes the conspiracy-theorist squirrel part of my brain wonder if that's the point.

Not necessarily. What is the bar to be defined as "scientific research"? What is the bar for "peer review"? Considering the massive amount of evidence that a large amount of "peer review" doesn't review much and that a measurable amount of "scientific research" is inadequate and sometimes outright fraudulent, any pursuit of truth shouldn't be built exclusively on such a weak foundation. But to your point, good research should hold more weight (and does!).

> If you're pushing a narrative that implies that you shouldn't get vaccinated, then yes, that's "anti-vax".

And yet concerns about the long-term safety of these vaccines are, by definition, untested. The long term efficacy of these vaccines are certainly in doubt. Both are reasonable concerns worth debating and exploring. But will get classified as "anti-vax" and will become subject to censorship "for our own good".

I am vaccinated. I believe these vaccines represent an astounding accomplishment. I believe people should have access to all information in order to make the best decisions for themselves.

I also have some skepticism regarding the messages and messaging that comes from the CDC and NIH. I also distrust the role they've played in any discussion regarding the origins of Covid.

Why we (in America at least) can watch abject government incompetence in the DoD, FBI, CIA, ICE, IRS, and on and on but pretend the CDC and the NIH, the ultimate gatekeepers of the Covid and vaccine narratives, are immune to such failings is beyond me.

Looks like quite the stereotype you've identified "nonbinary people". You'd do well to start comparing yourself to actual people instead of the stereotypes you have of them.

The general idea is that there are many (the book outlines 5) ways to express love. If you express love one way and your spouse in another way, you may simply miscommunicate. Your anecdote seems to map perfectly to the "love languages" that the author outlines: you'd be a "words of affirmation" type and she's an "acts of service" type. You need to focus on being helpful because "acts of service" moves the needle for her. She needs to be more verbal because "words of affirmation" move the needle for you. And neither you of you should mistake the behavior of the other as being loveless - it's just not expressed in an effective manner.

Marrying my wife is the smartest thing I've ever done. We have three very young children (all three 5 and under), never get to go out, never get a break, and are taking an absolute ass-kicking between kids getting sick, potty-training, and all the other normal stuff you deal with. And I've never been more content and happier in my life.

— C. S. Lewis

They have been taught the magnitude of their outrage makes them righteous. And their outrage is never satiated. These people are toxic and sometimes evil. They'll eventually come for you too no matter how much you generally agree with them.

Some of them are certainly sincere. But as Milton Friedman once said, "sincerity is an overrated virtue". The damage they cause is the same irrespective of how sincere they might be.