Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: February 16, 2022, 09:24:16 PM »

Quote from: 2113 16 Feb
Dale: Don't change the subject. We're still talking about your points, since this is your thread.
Quote
➽ We're still talking about your points, since this is your thread.

There are "my" points and there are "your" contrary points.

So here's the first paragraph of my words that you took exception to:
I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

The above is a (re)statement of "my" points.

Your turn. Please articulate, with specificity, exactly what your contrary point(s) are in relation to my (re)posted points.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: February 06, 2022, 06:25:32 AM »

Quote from: 0727 06 Feb
➽ It merely indicates the consequences of violating the law in question.

The consequences for refusing the clot shot are?
Quote from: 0731 5 Feb
Statistically greater risk of hospitalization, ICU, ventilation, and death.
Quote from: 1520 16 Feb
➽ Statistically greater risk of hospitalization, ICU, ventilation, and death.


Quote from: 1034 10 Feb
Well, I guess Dale Eastman has ceded all his points... whatever they were.
Quote from: 1518 16 Feb
So tell me, what are your points, whatever they were?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: February 04, 2022, 06:34:25 PM »

Quote from: 1543 3 Feb
Dale: "Didn't you have to help Trudeau with all those conspiracy theorist truckers converging on Ottawa?"

You have a bad habit of repeating questions (even rhetorical ones) that have already been addressed. Perhaps if you stopped acting in such a childish manner, you'd actually experience what a productive discussion is like?

"You were spewing?"

What was I spewing? As I said, nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated. But then you inexplicably posted a Fox News link about GoFundMe freezing a fundraiser. Does one have anything to do with the latter? Since you are such a fan of Latin phrases, are you familiar with "non sequitur"? Because that's what this is. One does not (logically) follow the other. Perhaps you can explain how GoFundMe's decision is proof that people are being forced to vaccinate?
Quote from: 1933 4 Feb
Quote from: 1836 4 Jan
➽ Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.

Quote from: 1734 6 Jan 2022
➽ You'd think if everyone really was forced to be vaccinated, the only people not vaccinated now would be off the grid and in hiding somewhere. But they're not, so the only logical conclusion must be that the vaccinations are not forced.

"Support pours in for Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate (FOX NEWS DIGITAL)"

So you don't know how cites work? Okay. I've omitted the cite where the paragraph just above was copied from.

Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
Quote from: 2006 4 Feb
Dale: You really love to prove me right, don't you? 😂 And yet despite that wall of repetitive text, you not once provided any supporting evidence of anyone being forced to vaccinate. Protesting something does not mean they are being forced to do that thing.
Quote from: 2011 4 Feb
Dale Eastman: Looks like there's a term for people like you... OPCAs.

• The common theme amongst OPCAs is a distrust for governments/institutions, and a belief that these individuals have some sort of secret knowledge of loopholes or "get out of jail free cards" that other legal professionals do not know about.

• OPCAs originated primarily from left/center-left political groups in the mid-20th century, but have dramatically shifted towards the right/far-right of the political spectrum within the last couple decades.

• Their roots stem from freemen-of-the-land, de-taxers, and sovereign citizen movements. Most people would be familiar with those terms from American culture/media influences, but it's important to note that those ideologies have arisen from Anglo-American society contemporaneous to each other in UK, Canadian, and American society.

• Their recent popularity can be attributed to the rise of the internet as a consumer resource. Prior to the widespread adoption of the internet, most OPCAs were relegated to fringe literature, but with the rise in popularity of the internet de-taxers and sovereign citizens began creating websites and blogs dedicated to sharing and selling these types of legal council/advise in order to dupe customers into buying their services/information.

• They operate by citing nonapplicable statues and laws, outdated or misappropriated legal terms/laws, and making claims that they are multiple people or entities in order to evade or escape liabilities. This includes things like citing the Magna Carta (rejection of the authority of the Crown), claiming they are two entities at the same time (a physical person and a corporate person to evade financial liability), discrediting tax codes (claiming the Stamp Act releases them from the CCC), etc etc.
Quote from: 1247 5 Feb
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate"

According to you, a vaccine mandate is not forcing people against their will to be vaccinated.
Quote from: 1701 5 Jan
Dale: That is correct, just as a seatbelt law does not force anyone to wear a seatbelt. It merely indicates the consequences of violating the law in question. And a mandate isn't even as "strong" as a law, yet here you are complaining about vaccine mandates, but not seatbelt laws. Curious, don't you think? 🤔
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: February 03, 2022, 12:12:29 PM »

Quote from: 1325 3 Feb
Quote from: 1836 4 Jan
➽ Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.

Quote from: 1734 6 Jan 2022
➽ You'd think if everyone really was forced to be vaccinated, the only people not vaccinated now would be off the grid and in hiding somewhere. But they're not, so the only logical conclusion must be that the vaccinations are not forced.

"Support pours in for Canadian truckers protesting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's COVID-19 vaccine mandate (FOX NEWS DIGITAL)"

https://www.foxnews.com/world/gofundme-freezes-canadian-freedom-convoy-page-after-it-raises-10m

You were spewing?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 30, 2022, 09:17:31 PM »

Quote
What, specifically, is the is the central point?



Find anti mandate truckers image.

Champion's comments on canceling the two scientists. The vid that has been cancelled played on Joe Rogan.

Finish the who is dr. X.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 29, 2022, 11:41:17 AM »

Quote from: 1121 29 Jan
Dale: LOL, "immoral statist cretins"... a sure sign you have run out of things to say. But that happened weeks ago, didn't it? It takes you a full day each time to scrounge up some sort of talking point to make your case. And even then, you simply fall back to repeating yourself. The cognitive dissonance must be crippling. And why would Trudeau need my help? You should jump on their Zello and listen in. Like all conspiracy theorists, you just have to let them do their thing, and they'll eventually implode on their own. It's free entertainment, much like you.

Quote from: 1121 29 Jan
Oh, Dale Eastman... the human broken record. 🤡


Quote from: 1627 2 Feb
Didn't you have to help Trudeau with all those conspiracy theorist truckers converging on Ottawa?

https://youtu.be/rvqWV61VV9U

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 28, 2022, 10:30:32 AM »

Quote from: 1106 28 Jan
Dale: You're late today! Did it take you extra time this morning to copy and paste the exact same questions that were already addressed? It doesn't seem like you've adjusted your style at all... it is literally the same thing over and over again. Just another example of your delusion. 🤡
Quote from: 1135 28 Jan
Conspiracy theorists like you are easy to spot. You ignore the more reasonable and realistic arguments, and go straight for the looney toons ones. Isn't it funny how you haven't approached it from the angle of equitable access to healthcare for everyone?
https://unric.org/en/who-mandatory-vaccinations-are-a-last-resort

The World Health Organization (WHO) warns against mandatory vaccinations unless all other options have been exhausted.

Dr Hans Kluge, the Europe Director of WHO told a press conference today that vaccinations should not be made mandatory “if you haven’t reached out first to the communities.”

“Mandates around vaccination are an absolute last resort and only applicable when all other feasible options to improve vaccination uptake have been exhausted.”

Quote from: 1138 28 Jan
How's it going with the Nuremberg Trails 2.0? Make any headway yet? If you believe you have such an airtight case, surely the courts would have already ruled in your favour?

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-icc-israel-covid-idUSL1N2LM2FS
Quote from: 1139 28 Jan
Seems like you have an uphill battle, though...

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-nuremberg-mandate-idUSL1N2ST1XP
Quote from: 0828 29 Jan
➽ Conspiracy theorists like you are easy to spot.

Immoral Statist cretins like you are easy to spot. You won't discuss morality for fear that your lack thereof will be exposed.

Because of your style of "honest" discussion... I have adjusted my style of discussion to match your "honest" methods of discussion. Therefore, I have adjusted my questions for you.

❶ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

❷ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

❸ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

❹ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

Don't you have to help Trudeau with all those conspiracy theorist truckers converging on Ottawa?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 27, 2022, 10:14:57 AM »

Quote from: 1109 27 Jan
Dale: Why would you expect me to conform to your dictates? You Don't Own Me, after all, right? And we've been down this road before. You've even admitted that you ignore what I post, and will even lie to support your case (e.g., putting "sixth" in quotes as if it were incorrect, and falsely accusing me of Gish Galloping while you yourself are guilty of that conduct). You have provided no evidence that you have learned from your previous mistakes.
Again, I will re-engage once you decide to discuss in good faith.


Quote from: 1059 28 Jan
Because of your style of "honest" discussion... I have adjusted my style of discussion to match your "honest" methods of discussion. Therefore, I have adjusted my questions for you.

❶ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

❷ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

❸ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

❹ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 26, 2022, 04:52:29 PM »

Quote from: 0902 26 Jan
Dale: So you're still just copying and pasting your old responses? In other words, not adding anything new to the discussion? I already answered above. Let me know when you're ready to move forward.
Quote from: 1104 27 Jan
➽ I already answered above.

Didja now?

ME:
1013 14 Jan 2022
Assuming arguendo, some nasty person puts a gun to your head and says, 'I'm going to shoot you in your hand or your foot. You get to choose where I shoot you.'
Is this forcing of you to choose harm A or harm B moral or immoral?

YOU:
1013 14 Jan 2022
That would be immoral.


You agreed that forcing somebody to choose how they will be harmed is immoral. You've caught yourself out in a bold faced lie. You have NOT answered four specific questions about the four permutations of forcing somebody to be injected.

Because of your style of "honest" discussion... I have adjusted my style of discussion to match your "honest" methods of discussion.

You need to type either moral or immoral to honestly answer each question.

Let's try this again.
❶ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

❷ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

❸ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.

❹ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

_________________  ⇇ Your one word answer goes there.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 25, 2022, 09:33:49 AM »

Quote from: 0956 25 Jan
Dale: Already answered above. You are simply declaring by edict that I have not. Sounds like something a tyrant or dictator would no, does it not? 🤔
Quote from: 0956 25 Jan
Checking in to see if Dale Eastman has posted any legitimate information yet. No? Here's another one debunking his claim that people are being forced to get the vaccine. DJ Ferguson chose to not be vaccinated. Neither the hospital nor any of the doctors working there have forced the vaccine in him. No government official or entity has either. I see no coercion (and certainly no extortion, which you also claim there is).
https://boston.cbslocal.com/.../covid-19-vaccine-heart.../
Quote from: 1000 25 Jan
Dale: So what is that counterpoint? You simply say you do, then provide no evidence supporting your claim... as usual.
Quote from: 0854 26 Jan
I have been earmarking ANYTHING you've posted that needs to be addressed. Because of your style of "honest" discussion... I have adjusted my style of discussion to match your "honest" methods of discussion. So you are just going to have to wait until I address each of your Gish Galloping points.

Now back to the four questions you have refused to answer.

❶ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❷ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❸ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❹ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

Your refusal to answer those four questions is just another thing confirming what I suspect about you.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 20, 2022, 09:14:53 PM »

Quote from: 1340 20 Jan
Dale, I do respect you & I don’t want to go there- I don’t have any answers to something that’s always going to be an individual’s personal preference.
Quote from: 1158 21 Jan
➽ Do you have a counterpoint to that then? I'll start with one of my sources: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

The answer is yes.

Repeat: I have been earmarking ANYTHING you've posted that needs to be addressed. Because of your style of "honest" discussion... I have adjusted my style of discussion to match your "honest" methods of discussion. So you are just going to have to wait until those earmarked questions of yours come up in the rotation.

I've added that link to the list of earmarked points to be addressed.

Now back to the four questions you have refused to answer.

❶ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❷ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❸ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❹ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
Quote from: 1200 21 Jan
➽ I don’t have any answers to something that’s always going to be an individual’s personal preference.

So noted.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 20, 2022, 11:34:06 AM »

Quote from: BF at 1124 20 Jan 2022
Here’s the deal, I’m triple vaxxed, my Antivaxer Bro In Law isn’t, I probably got Covid from him on Christmas Day, I’m triple vaxxed so I was just sick as a dog for two days, and done- I think everyone should get vaxxed, but I’m not sure I can be 100% on board for mandating everyone get it, because some people actually have bonafide reasons for not getting it.
Quote from: 1152 20 Jan 2022
Bill: Those who cannot get vaccinated, I simply call "unvaccinated". Those who _refuse_ to get vaccinated, I call "anti-vaxxer". That's the distinction. Mandates are never without exception. It's like masking policies in stores. If you don't want to wear a mask, it doesn't mean you cannot shop there. It just means you can't go inside to shop. Someone can bring your order out to you, or you can shop online.

One way I can spot the conspiracy theorists is that they ignore the more reasonable and realistic positions, and go straight towards the extreme. And in many cases, it's an imagined extreme. For example, Dale believes that if you don't get the vaccine, you will end up homeless and starving. This is demonstrably false, but the truth does not suit his narrative, thus he has to substitute it for something of his own making.
Quote from: 1156 20 Jan 2022
Dale: Can you show me where I've confused my opinion with fact? Is it my statement that "vaccinations do far more good than harm"? That's not my opinion. I am simply stating a fact. Perhaps you can take issue with "far more", but that does not change the basic premise that vaccines are a net positive for public health.
Perhaps you are referring to "occasional recipient who ends up worse off"? Is that not true? I'm saying that sometimes vaccines can cause injury. Again, that is a fact and not my opinion.
Maybe you don't believe "getting vaccinated is many orders of magnitude safer than contracting COVID-19"? Do you have a counterpoint to that then? I'll start with one of my sources: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
Quote from: 1200 20 Jan 2022
Dale: "This has always been about morality."
And thus we go back to my original point. What jurisdiction do you believe will hear your grievances based on morality? You agree that you have no legal standing then, and never had? It seems you want it both ways, depending on how badly your current line of argument is failing. I addressed this approach weeks ago... or have you forgotten already?
file:///C:/Users/kitty/Pictures/Saved%20Pictures/bt13.jpg

Quote from: archived November 28, 2021
Dale: Waiting on me for what? The burden of proof does not magically shift from you to me. You're still the only one making any claims regarding "Natural Law". All you did so far is quote from the Declaration of Independence. From that, I'm assuming you're a subscriber to Lockesian philosophy. Or are you more the old-school type, and a scholar of Aquinas? In either case, you're confusing philosophy with law. You should be looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not the DoI. And even then, you're only relying on "Natural Law" because every other avenue you tried has proved fruitless. You can't even argue based on morality or human rights, which would be the closest adjunct to your "Natural Law", because you've not been successful with those approaches either.

Now you know why I originally said you need to take this up with a Natural Law judge or the Natural Rights tribunal... assuming you can find one. 😉
Quote from: 1208 20 Jan 2022
Dale: If you believe this to be solely in the domain of morality, then you are free to decide whether something is moral or not. But that is a subjective opinion, and not a matter of law or of fact. You may also be surprised to learn that not all opinions are correct. It is quite possible (as you have demonstrated) to have an opinion that is not concluded from fact, therefore invalidating it.

For example, I may have the opinion that "tomatoes are delicious". That is not a fact, but it is an opinion. On its face, it is neither right nor wrong. I think tomatoes are delicious, and you may think they are disgusting. Both positions are valid. However, if I say that "this tomato is delicious because of the blue colour" when in fact it is objectively red, then my opinion is invalid.

Now apply this to your example: you believe vaccines do far more harm than good, and therefore it is immoral to force people to get them. Your stance is predicated on vaccines being harmful rather than helpful. This is provably and objectively incorrect, and therefore your premise is flawed, and thus your opinion is invalid.

At this point, you should either change your opinion to be consistent with the facts, or you may attempt to disprove the facts. Cognitive dissonance (a phenomenon I know you are familiar with) will guarantee that you attempt the latter. The many screenshots I have prove this. 🙂
Quote from: 1336 20 Jan 2022
I respect you (so far...) with your admission that you are NOT "100% on board for mandating everyone get it."
HOWEVER, you are starting to lose my respect every time you support BT's "honest" methods of discussion. In fact, I am going to have to start presuming that you are just as "honest" as BT.

I started a thread specifically for you and I to hash out our thoughts on the shot. I've neglected that discussion deliberately. As I pointed out, just this morning, I fully intend to discuss... The Science with BT regarding the shot. When that happens, I'll address the discussion of the difference of opinion you and I have on the issue.

Please note that every thing your friend has accused me of, he has done to me. What he has done is of no matter. I've figured out his 'honest' method of discussion. I now attribute that same 'honest' method of discussion to you. When BT refuses to answer a simple question, I attribute to you a refusal to answer a simple question... Of which there are four questions outstanding.

Please note my attempts to break this discussion down to its two constituent parts: Natural Law and the CV science. Please note that Natural Law is all about morality. Please take notice of your friend's refusal to answer four questions regarding morality. Please note how your friend has attempted to drag the discussion away from morality at every turn. Especially his last post (1208 CST).

Now back to the four questions your friend has refused to answer... With an added point:

BT, In YOUR opinion:
❶ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❷ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❸ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❹ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

BF, How about you answer these in YOUR opinion questions also.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 20, 2022, 09:58:46 AM »

Quote from: 1029 20 Jan 2022
Dale: I've answered plenty of your questions, but you just repeat the same question when you don't like the answers, so you've demonstrated that you are not having this discussion in good faith. Now to keep things balanced, go back in this thread and in Bill Field's thread and pick out any of my questions that you've ignored. I won't dictate which one you must address, but I will if you refuse to pick one yourself.

> Thank you for your opinion.

Not surprising that you confuse opinion and fact.
Quote from: 1100 20 Jan 2022
➽ Not surprising that you confuse opinion and fact.

Not surprising that you confuse YOUR opinion with fact. I told you I fully intend to address this particular part of our contention about the clot shot in detail.

➽ Now to keep things balanced, go back ... pick out any of my questions that you've ignored.

Things are NOT balanced. I don't care to expend the energy copy-pasting all of my questions with your non-answers replies to prove that claim.

I have been earmarking ANYTHING you've posted that needs to be addressed. Because of your style of "honest" discussion... I have adjusted my style of discussion to match your "honest" methods of discussion. So you are just going to have to wait until those earmarked questions of yours come up in the rotation. Against my better judgement, I've taken the bait of you demanding tit-for-tat on the questions... So... your reply to this morning's post has earned you a second post today.

➽ So you're no longer beating the extortion drum, but playing the morality angle now?

This has always been about morality. From the very first post I made that started our... for lack of a more defining label... discussion.

Now back to the four questions you have refused to answer.

❶ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❷ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❸ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❹ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 19, 2022, 09:48:24 AM »

Quote from:  0940 19 Jan 2022
Dale: Just as you've conflated "extortion" with "coercion", you seem to be mixing up morality with safety. Maybe you're doing this deliberately to obfuscate your arguments. But at least you are (very slowly) getting closer to the truth.

At the population level, vaccinations do far more good than harm, thus it is a net positive action. There may be the occasional recipient who ends up worse off, but the very small risk and very mild outcomes are worth the overall benefit it brings to society. Getting vaccinated is many orders of magnitude safer than contracting COVID-19. That's the bottom line.

I look forward to more of you beating around the bush!
Quote from: 1024 20 Jan 2022
➽ I look forward to more of you beating around the bush!

As I look forward to you refusing to directly answer direct questions. Like the four you just ignored.

You have agreed that forcing somebody to choose how they will be harmed is immoral.

❶ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❷ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❸ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❹ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?

➽ At the population level, vaccinations do far more good than harm, thus it is a net positive action. There may be the occasional recipient who ends up worse off, but the very small risk and very mild outcomes are worth the overall benefit it brings to society. Getting vaccinated is many orders of magnitude safer than contracting COVID-19. That's the bottom line.

Thank you for your opinion. Now please answer the four questions.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 18, 2022, 01:15:48 PM »

Quote from: 1102 18 Jan 2022
Dale: I do understand what it means, but it seems you do not. It simply means "for sake of argument", but it does not mean "make up your own facts". Now, can you use actual facts in your arguments instead of making them up?
Quote from: 0935 19 Jan 2022
➽ Now, can you use actual facts in your arguments instead of making them up?

Yes. I can. When I'm communicating with somebody that can follow sequential points.
Moving on.

You have agreed that forcing somebody to choose how they will be harmed is immoral.

❶ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❷ If the shot does not harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❸ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?
❹ If the shot does harm the injectee, and the shot does not protect others, is forcing the injectee to take the shot moral or immoral?