4 edits
@no1marauder saidNo1 finds it amusing that 78 million fellow Americans are concerned that someone they personally know i.e. families and friends have died from a:
Are you a native English speaker? If so, why are you unaware that the phrase "people like X and Y" is not limited to the individuals X and Y?
Sure, I could waste time tossing insults, but the bottom line is you have presented no credible evidence that these vaccines cause death in anything but a tiny subset of those who receive the vaccines - well under one in a millio ...[text shortened]... use of the brilliant force of your arguments, but that's as laughable as the "arguments" themselves.
potentially harmful...
This is undisputed and proven, there are currently thousands of vax injury claims being processed in Australia. No1 acknowledges this, medsafe NZ acknowledges this. Known. Undisputed. Proven.
potentially fatal...
This is known, proven and acknowledged. No1 has even taken to stating this fact, he adds the 'sub set' qualifier but he does not dispute that the clot shot is potentially fatal. Medsafe NZ have recently changed their language regarding the juice to acknowledge this fact. Medsafe NZ: “By chance, some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly. This is a recent development (14/12/22 for medsafe) in both No1 and NZ Medsafe showing a smidge of integrity. Known. Undisputed. Acknowledged
untested and experimental...
...for long term side effects. This is a physical fact of the world we live in and a phenomena known as 'time'. The laws of physics being much more immutable than No1's shonky recycled stacked stats and dream feeling laws pooped out on a whim by goobermints. Known. Proven. Undisputed.
What I find funny, indeed LMAO funny, is that No1 has leaped onto the 'Metal Brain and Wajoma have influenced 78 million Americans by posting at RHP' bait. Primarily I'm here for the larfs and today it's No1 delivering. I'm here for my entertainment, and No1 is here for my entertainment ;^) No need to keep announcing your departure (again and again and again...) you're not Sir Elton John leaving twitter, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
No1:
"fall back on the usual evidence free conspiracy theories i.e. the government is lying.
Yes, lying by omission, autopsies are not routinely performed in NZ proximate to the customer receiving the seizure syrup. This is why the German study previously cited comes up with different conclusions than the NZ goobermint, convenient the evidence usually goes up in flames soon after.
@metal-brain saidNo surprise; it's a right wing tabloid rag owned by Rupert Murdoch.
I like the New York Post. What are you talking about?
1 edit
@no1marauder
https://www.dcclothesline.com/2022/12/13/senator-johnsons-round-table-shocks-the-world-again-data-shows-that-the-vaccinated-have-a-26-higher-mortality-rate/
https://www.newstarget.com/2023-01-05-covid-jabs-billions-broken-immune-systems.html
@shavixmir saidShag doody for brains. the way a pandemic normally works is that the mortality rate goes up during the pandemic, part of this is a lot of people who were close to the line anyway get mowed down early. The frail, the dementia patients, etc. Then what you expect to see on the other side of the pandemic is for that rate to drop below average, as unfortunate as it is the pandemic means some people die earlier, which means they can't die later, therefore lower than average mortality rates.
Maybe it’s part of his therapy.
But this time something different is happening, this time in the UK excess mortalities are not only above average, they're above what the rate was during the pandemic.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidPotentially harmful, potentially lethal, untested (for long term side effects)
Since I'm not aware of any deaths associated with the use of the vaccines nor do I trust your interpretation of "coercion", I cannot agree with such a statement.
Undeniable, indisputable, acknowledged stone cold hard facts.
And for these 3 reasons there should have never been any coercion from any state agency. Even one of these 3 reasons alone is enough to negate any coercion from any state agency.
No1 wants to stoop to yee olden tymes debating ploy of; what is the definition of coercion, then work his way through the dictionary until we end up with what is the definition of 'definition'. Threatening your job, your career, your business, your lifes work if you don't take the juice is coercion, it even got to the ridiculous state where pure bloods were banned from a whole range of events right down to getting a haircut, the hairdressers and barbers working the black market through word of mouth became criminals working on the DL wary of bootlicking dobbers.
But we don't need to get into the definition of coercion, all we need to figure out is what does 'zero' mean, as in 'zero coercion'.
After that if you want to shill for mega multi billion dollar drug companies and convince others of the wonders of the clotshot in your free time, go ahead, but try not to spam the board too much
Also, do not make false claims about their products, don't get carried away by your belief in miracles and start lying as the NZhorseface ("you may still catch covid, but you will not get sick and you will not die") primeminister did, technically that would be fraud and in a just world you would face legal consequences.
1 edit
@wajoma saidEvery single vaccine that saved countless lives could be fit in those characterizations. That the chances of such adverse outcomes is miniscule and that the chances of death and serious illness is high in a contagious disease would be included in any type of cost benefit analysis seems like a foreign concept to your dimwitted mind.
Potentially harmful, potentially lethal, untested (for long term side effects)
Undeniable, indisputable, acknowledged stone cold hard facts.
And for these 3 reasons there should have never been any coercion from any state agency. Even one of these 3 reasons alone is enough to negate any coercion from any state agency.
No1 wants to stoop to yee olden tymes debating ...[text shortened]... minister did, technically that would be fraud and in a just world you would face legal consequences.
Normally, you don't even consider economic coercion a reality, believing in a fairy tale capitalism where all economic decisions are freely arrived at by mutual consent. It's ironic to the point of laughable you've finally realized that economic circumstances can pressure individuals to accept conditions that they would otherwise refuse.
But none of that changes the basic principles involved. Like putting up traffic lights, measures that attempt to lessen the spread of a deadly contagious disease need only be "reasonable" to effect that goal while preserving any Natural Rights. But, unlike you, I find no "Natural Right" to give a deadly disease to someone else and thus find no philosophical justification for persons to refuse to abide by common sense measures to control such diseases.
You continue to:
A) Grossly exaggerate any possible dangers of the vaccines;
B) Refuse to concede their almost miraculous benefits in saving lives and health of millions;
C) Actually state any measures that equate to impermissible and unreasonable "coercion" that any nation has adopted.
Until you correct these three failures, your arguments are obviously based on either ignorance, bad faith or both.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidA traffic light can kill you and make you ill? What by falling on your head?
Every single vaccine that saved countless lives could be fit in those characterizations. That the chances of such adverse outcomes is miniscule and that the chances of death and serious illness is high in a contagious disease would be included in any type of cost benefit analysis seems like a foreign concept to your dimwitted mind.
Normally, you don't even consider eco ...[text shortened]... ect these three failures, your arguments are obviously based on either ignorance, bad faith or both.
I made a small correction.
"That the chances of such adverse outcomes is miniscule and that the chances of death and serious illness is high in a contagious disease would be included in any type of cost benefit analysis ***by the free individual, not you[wjm]***seems like a foreign concept to your dimwitted mind."
We're now on the same page.
@wajoma saidThe "free individual" in this case is choosing to increase the chances of others dying of a contagious disease.
A traffic light can kill you and make you ill? What by falling on your head?
I made a small correction.
"That the chances of such adverse outcomes is miniscule and that the chances of death and serious illness is high in a contagious disease would be included in any type of cost benefit analysis ***by the free individual, not you[wjm]***seems like a foreign concept to your dimwitted mind."
We're now on the same page.
No, he shouldn't have that "right".
@no1marauder saidWe've been over this stupid point of yours so many times. A person that does not have covid is not a risk to you, so you do not have a right to make them the subject of your medical experiment.
The "free individual" in this case is choosing to increase the chances of others dying of a contagious disease.
No, he shouldn't have that "right".
1 edit
@wajoma saidYes we've been over it and you continue to be an idiot about it.
We've been over this stupid point of yours so many times. A person that does not have covid is not a risk to you, so you do not have a right to make them the subject of your medical experiment.
There is no way to tell in advance which specific individual will have COVID in the near future; all we know is that the unvaccinated have a higher chance of getting it and spreading it (MB's moronity not to the contrary). Thus what you are insisting on is some "right" to spread disease to others and it does not matter if it is deliberate or not.
It is possible, even likely, that someone can go 80 MPH in a 40 MPH speed zone by an elementary school and not kill or injure someone. But we do not accept that just because specific individual A might not, that he has a "right" to be "free" to do so IF it increases the danger to others.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI don't mind the name calling, been known to occasionally indulge in it myself, so I'm not going to be a hypocrite and whine about it.
Yes we've been over it and you continue to be an idiot about it.
There is no way to tell in advance which specific individual will have COVID in the near future; all we know is that the unvaccinated have a higher chance of getting it and spreading it (MB's moronity not to the contrary). Thus what you are insisting on is some "right" to spread disease to others and it ...[text shortened]... idual A might not, that he has a "right" to be "free" to do so IF it increases the danger to others.
But you're not making it easy with these analogies of yours. The traffic light one fell flat, so you're switching it up with the speeding analogy, not just any speeding, but speeding near an elementary school to try and power up the analogy a bit. awww the poor little kiddies awww.
No where is anyone coerced into taking a potentially lethal experimental drug because they might go 42mph in a 40 zone. Please stop using this analogy, I'm experiencing secondhand embarrassment.
No1: "There is no way to tell in advance..."
This is the crux of it, and we're very close to you experiencing an epiphany. You don't get to punish someone because they may speed by the kindergarden in the future, you don't get to punish innocent people.
@wajoma saidWe do "punish" those who increase the danger to others routinely. Speed limits and traffic lights are perfect analogous examples whether you can understand why or not.
I don't mind the name calling, been known to occasionally indulge in it myself, so I'm not going to be a hypocrite and whine about it.
But you're not making it easy with these analogies of yours. The traffic light one fell flat, so you're switching it up with the speeding analogy, not just any speeding, but speeding near an elementary school to try and power up the analogy ...[text shortened]... e because they may speed by the kindergarden in the future, you don't get to punish innocent people.
Someone who drives 80 mph in a 40 mph zone might be "innocent" in a vacuum but he has increased the danger to others and society can rightfully ban him from doing so and "punish" him if he disobeys that prohibition.
If you can't understand the applicability of that example to the discussion at hand then I can only suggest a few courses in Philosophy - hopefully ones where discussion of crank ideas like Objectivism are extremely limited.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidOops hit the wrong button, I'll let it stand.
We do "punish" those who increase the danger to others routinely. Speed limits and traffic lights are perfect analogous examples whether you can understand why or not.
Someone who drives 80 mph in a 40 mph zone might be "innocent" in a vacuum but he has increased the danger to others and society can rightfully ban him from doing so and "punish" him if he disobeys that ...[text shortened]... Philosophy - hopefully ones where discussion of crank ideas like Objectivism are extremely limited.
No1:
"We do "punish" those who increase the danger to others routinely."
After, after, after.
Not before, before, before.
No1. "punish" him if he disobeys
after, after, after
not before, before, before
I did want to ease into an objectivist versus libertarian point after we established that nowhere people are coerced into taking part in a medical experiment because - traffic lights. I think Yaron Brook a well known objectivist is a fan of the juice. Not sure where he stands on making people take injections because they might do 42 in a 40 zone.
@wajoma saidIF we say an unvaccinated person can't work in the healthcare field, are they being "punished" before or after they make the decision to go unvaccinated and thus increase the health risk to others?
Oops hit the wrong button, I'll let it stand.
No1:
"We do "punish" those who increase the danger to others routinely."
After, after, after.
Not before, before, before.
No1. "punish" him if he disobeys
after, after, after
not before, before, before
I did want to ease into an objectivist versus libertarian point after we established that now ...[text shortened]... e. Not sure where he stands on making people take injections because they might do 42 in a 40 zone.