Private Social Media Platform
4 => Discussions; Public Archive => Topic started by: Dale Eastman on December 31, 2021, 05:55:31 PM
-
Brian Tao, You have been fucking with me since you first replied to a comment I posted under Bill Field's original post.
I asked a friend to check out our discussion on Bill's wall. He could NOT access the discussion.
Therefore. I'm inviting you to come play in my sandbox.
If I'm the idiot you believe I am, what better place to prove this than on my status / history / timeline / wall in front of all my Fecalbook friends.
Have you got the wherewithal and the cajones to meet me in this public stadium?
For the audience, Bill's OP stated in part:
"Unfortunately, General Hospital has let me go, because of the vaccine mandate that was put in place to safeguard the cast and crew from COVID-19." "I did apply for my medical and religious exemptions, and both of those were denied, which, ya know, hurts," he added. "But this is also about personal freedom to me. I don't think anybody should lose their livelihood over this."
In response to the quoted words, I posted this pre-written collaboration of which only the first paragraph is shown:
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.
And this, dear audience, is where Brian Tao started fucking with me.
He posted this:
Dale: If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated, then you better take it up with the Natural Rights Tribunal, and maybe haul the rest of us in front of a Natural Judge in their Natural Court!
It is very obvious that Brian Tao has an issue with what was posted. Exactly what, he refuses to say. He has accused me of everything I have observed him do to me. He has accused me of doing the Gish Gallop. So to avoid MY Gish Galloping, I'm going to go through what I posted, one paragraph at a time.
Presentation count reset to one.
What, specifically, do you object to in this first paragraph?
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.
https://www.facebook.com/bill.field.313
https://www.facebook.com/brian.tao
-
I suspect Dale knows exactly what I'm going to say, but he'll probably ignore it just like the previous five times I repeated myself. I guess he is the definition of "insanity": doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Your lack of context and nuance continues, exemplified by your mention of "natural rights" and "Nature's God" and the "Declaration of Independence". As I've already said multiple times already, what is the relevance? Are you implying that vaccines are somehow contrary to the DoI? That they are in violation of certain "Natural Laws"? If so, why do you think this is important? Do you expect some action to be taken? Is there a court somewhere taking up your case? 🤔
➽ I suspect Dale knows exactly what I'm going to say, but he'll probably ignore it just like the previous five times I repeated myself.
How prescient of you.
You have been fucking with me since you first replied to a comment I posted under Bill Field's original post.
Bill's OP stated in part:
"Unfortunately, General Hospital has let me go, because of the vaccine mandate that was put in place to safeguard the cast and crew from COVID-19." "I did apply for my medical and religious exemptions, and both of those were denied, which, ya know, hurts," he added. "But this is also about personal freedom to me. I don't think anybody should lose their livelihood over this."
In response to the quoted words, I posted this pre-written collaboration of which only the first paragraph is presently shown:
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.
In reply you posted this:
➽ Dale: If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated, then you better take it up with the Natural Rights Tribunal, and maybe haul the rest of us in front of a Natural Judge in their Natural Court!
What, specifically, do you object to in this first paragraph?
-
Dale: So much for "mUh fReEdOm oF sPeEcH", amirite? 🤡
I posted this pre-written collaboration of which only the first paragraph is presently shown:
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.
In reply Brian Tao posted this:
➽ Dale: If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated, then you better take it up with the Natural Rights Tribunal, and maybe haul the rest of us in front of a Natural Judge in their Natural Court!
Brian Tao refuses to address this question:
What, specifically, do you object to in this first paragraph?
-
Dale: I addressed it six times already. Why do you keep repeating yourself as if I haven't? I even reposted it earlier in this thread.
My apology. I overlooked your posted image. I'm assuming you are engaging using a phone. Makes copy and paste a PITA.
So I will recap with the missing piece.
The first post:
"Unfortunately, General Hospital has let me go, because of the vaccine mandate that was put in place to safeguard the cast and crew from COVID-19." "I did apply for my medical and religious exemptions, and both of those were denied, which, ya know, hurts," he added. "But this is also about personal freedom to me. I don't think anybody should lose their livelihood over this."
Second post; Pre-written collaboration of which only the first paragraph is shown here:
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.
For brevity and in light of Brian Tao's insistence that his comment adequately expresses his objection and contention with the first paragraph (Though I suspect this objection is against the entire apprisal posted), here's Mr. Tao's words:
➽ Your lack of context and nuance continues, exemplified by your mention of "natural rights" and "Nature's God" and the "Declaration of Independence". As I've already said multiple times already, what is the relevance? Are you implying that vaccines are somehow contrary to the DoI? That they are in violation of certain "Natural Laws"? If so, why do you think this is important? Do you expect some action to be taken? Is there a court somewhere taking up your case? 🤔
I submit that it is your lack of understanding, a refusal even, of understanding the context, that is the problem. I will take the hit because this lack of communication means I will need to express my point in a much simpler fashion. (BTW, simple means less nuance.)
The context is: Somebody was forced out of work because of the waxxinaton (sic) extortion. Take the shot or starve.
➽ Are you implying that vaccines are somehow contrary to the DoI?
Are you implying the forcing somebody to be injected against their will is not extortion? Are you implying the forcing somebody to be injected against their will is not a violation of their equal rights?
➽ Are you implying that vaccines are somehow ... in violation of certain "Natural Laws"?
No. I am not.
I am straight up saying forcing people to take an injection of an experimental chemical concoction (the clot shot) against their will is a violation of Natural RIGHTS.
➽ why do you think this is important?
This is where Natural LAW comes in. If you try to harm me, I have every right to defend myself, using escalating defensive force until your attempt to harm me is neutralized. Ditto any attempt to kill me.
➽ Do you expect some action to be taken?
That depends entirely on the person who is being extorted (a harm) to be injected with an experimental chemical concoction (another harm). And then there is the potential adverse reaction (which is yet another harm when the potential harm becomes an actual harm.)
➽ Is there a court somewhere taking up your case?
The answer to that question is addressed in a later paragraph.
-
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2022, 08:44:14 PM »
Dale: So you admit to not even reading what I (and likely others) post, despite repeated attempts. This is not a discussion in good faith, and that fault falls squarely on you.
Furthermore, your use of nonsensicalk terms ("waxxination", "clot shot", "experimental chemical concoction") belies your conspiracy theory bent, which you of course deny.
Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
The vaccines are not some "experimental chemical concoction".
You still have not elucidated what "Natural Law" authority grants you the right to defend yourself. Is this in the Declaration of Independence? In the Nuremberg Code? In the Bible?
"The answer to that question is addressed in a later paragraph."
This is the last line of your post. There is no "later paragraph". It has also been an hour since your post, with no subsequent paragraph.
➽ Dale: So you admit to not even reading what I (and likely others) post, despite repeated attempts. This is not a discussion in good faith, and that fault falls squarely on you.
I admit to overlooking your "sixth" posting, that which you posted the first time in this thread. I admit that your Gish Galloping made it extremely hard for me to understand what your contention of the apprisal was in the other thread. (You accused me of Gish Galloping. Pot-Kettle-Black.)
Regardless, your counter claim received my full attention in spite of your... Ah... Posting style.
➽ Furthermore, your use of nonsensicalk terms ("waxxination", "clot shot", "experimental chemical concoction") belies your conspiracy theory bent, which you of course deny.
The deliberate misspelling and the use of a metaphor is because I don't want Zuckerberg and his AI bots adding adding his gaslighting bullshit on my post. Never mind Zuck's provable censorship.
I'll follow your red herring this far, and this far only: If there is a provable conspiracy, then it's not a "Theory". Zuck's censorship is NOT a theory. (That this is happening and happened on other platforms is not within my intended purview for the purpose of this discussion.)
➽ Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
⍺ ⍺ ⍺
Litigation Update
OSHA is gratified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dissolved the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard. OSHA can now once again implement this vital workplace health standard, which will protect the health of workers by mitigating the spread of the unprecedented virus in the workplace.
To account for any uncertainty created by the stay, OSHA is exercising enforcement discretion with respect to the compliance dates of the ETS. To provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance, OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard. OSHA will work closely with the regulated community to provide compliance assistance.
https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2
Ω Ω Ω
⍺ ⍺ ⍺
1. Mandatory Vaccination Policy Template
The OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on Vaccination and Testing generally requires employers to establish, implement, and enforce a written mandatory vaccination policy (29 CFR 1910.501(d)(1)).1 Employers may use this template to develop a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for their workplaces.
...
Vaccination is a vital tool to reduce the presence and severity of COVID-19 cases in the workplace, in communities, and in the nation as a whole. [Employer Name] has adopted this policy on mandatory vaccination to safeguard the health of our employees from the hazard of COVID-19. This policy complies with OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard on Vaccination and Testing (29 CFR 1910.501).
...
This Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy applies to all employees of [Employer Name], except for employees who do not report to a workplace where other individuals (such as coworkers or customers) are present; employees while working from home; and employees who work exclusively outdoors.
...
All employees covered by this policy are required to be fully vaccinated as a term and condition of employment at [Employer Name].
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-ets2-sample-mandatory-vaccination-policy.docx
Ω Ω Ω
⍺ ⍺ ⍺
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is issuing an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers (100 or more employees) from the risk of contracting COVID-19 by strongly encouraging vaccination. Covered employers must develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or elect to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-23643/p-3
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/05/2021-23643/covid-19-vaccination-and-testing-emergency-temporary-standard
Ω Ω Ω
➽ Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
From the OP:
"General Hospital has let me go, because of the vaccine mandate that was put in place ... I don't think anybody should lose their livelihood over this."
You are incorrect. This guy refused the waxxine (sic) and lost his job.
⇊ ⇊ ⇊
➽ The vaccines are not some "experimental chemical concoction".
Set aside for future, in-depth discussion.
Unfortunately I did not collect and save all the links that would support my "presently unsupported claim" that the waxxines (mRNA) are in fact an "experimental chemical concoction".
⇈ ⇈ ⇈
There are two parts to the apprisal. ❶ The why it was written (OUR "presently unsupported claim", it was written as a collaboration). ❷ And the defense against the forced injection.
⍺ ⍺ ⍺
arguendo
A Latin term meaning "in arguing" or "for the sake of argument". When one assumes something arguendo, the person is asserting a hypothetical or other statement for the purpose of argument.
https://www.law.cornell.edu › wex › arguendo
Ω Ω Ω
So for the time being, let's "assume arguendo" that my claim is correct. If correct, then what? Your next sentence does segue into discussion of the defense.
➽ You still have not elucidated what "Natural Law" authority grants you the right to defend yourself.
Your statement (plus others previous not in this thread) indicates to me that you either have no clue as to what Natural Law is. Or you know exactly what Natural Law is and you don't like the repercussions of applied Natural Law.
What authority denies me the right to defend myself?
To be noted, this term "authority" is subject to equivocation and if we don't agree as to what "authority" means, further communication error.
➽ Is this in the Declaration of Independence?
Yes. It is.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
The right to life includes the right to defend it from any that would take it. ("It" being either the right to life or the life itself.) To quote the fellow who penned most of the D of I:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
➽ In the Nuremberg Code?
Pay attention.
➽ In the Bible?
Yes. In the bible. Exodus 21: 23-27, not that I give a shit about believers in the invisible sky daddy. (Censors self to remain on topic.)
⍺ ⍺ ⍺
talion, Latin lex talionis, principle developed in early Babylonian law and present in both biblical and early Roman law that criminals should receive as punishment precisely those injuries and damages they had inflicted upon their victims. Many early societies applied this " eye-for-an-eye" principle literally.
https://www.britannica.com
Ω Ω Ω
➽ "The answer to that question is addressed in a later paragraph. "This is the last line of your post. There is no "later paragraph". It has also been an hour since your post, with no subsequent paragraph.
As I type this reply, much more than an hour has passed. How does this negatively impact you?
We are still only on paragraph one of the apprisal text. The reference to a "later paragraph" refers to a later paragraph in the apprisal.
Paragraph 2:
Your continued violations of your fellow humans' Natural Rights will have Natural Law repercussions regardless of ANY inferior so-called "legal qualified immunities".
-
Dale: So you ignored the other five times I posted in Bill's thread, on your (repeated) requests? I mean, it would be one thing if I just offered that information up unprompted, but you specifically asked for it, and then ignored it. That is the definition of "bad faith". You also do not know the definition of the Gish Gallop, despite me linking the definition and examples for you. Then again, it is unclear whether you subscribe to the same meanings of words and phrases the rest of us do. Remember your bizarre reference to my maiden name? What was that all about?
Since when does the word "vaccination" or "vaccine" or "mRNA" or anything like that cause Facebook to add "gaslighting bullshit"? If this is provable, show me the proof... and not your conspiracy theorist "proof". You'll also have to define "censorship", again because you have shown a track record of playing fast and loose with the definitions of words and their context.
BTW, the attached is what a Gish Gallop looks like. Virtually all the points are ignorable, and I predict that your response to this comment will further prove my claim.
Thank you for that post. That post is exactly what I meant when I stated in the first post of this thread, "You have been fucking with me since you first replied to a comment I posted..." under another OP in another conversation thread.
The screen cap you posted IS my explanation as to why you are flat out WRONG about the waxxination (sic) being forced. Plus some other of my addressing specific points you stated.
Somebody (me) wrote some stuff [Points: ❶ ❷ ❸ ❹]
Somebody (you) rejects the information in the brackets [4 Points] having never read the points; having never addressed the points.
My response is to again attempt to drag your focus back on specific points you are ignoring. When people like you start playing at being stupid, I pretend that you are, right along with you. So breaking it down to fewer words at a time.
You claimed:
➽ Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
You ignored this quote and the words within.
⍺ ⍺ ⍺
Litigation Update
OSHA is gratified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dissolved the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard. OSHA can now once again implement this vital workplace health standard, which will protect the health of workers by mitigating the spread of the unprecedented virus in the workplace.
To account for any uncertainty created by the stay, OSHA is exercising enforcement discretion with respect to the compliance dates of the ETS. To provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance, OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard. OSHA will work closely with the regulated community to provide compliance assistance.
https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2
Ω Ω Ω
Tell me in your own words, what did OSHA and dot GOV just tell you about the "Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard" A.K.A. The standard?
-
Dale: No, I read everything your wrote, which is why I was able to correctly, objectively, and inarguably claim that what you say is BS. I said "nobody is forced against their will to be vaccinated". You respond with an unrelated announcement from OSHA. Again, your definition of "forced" appears to be overly broad. People are certainly being encouraged in very strong terms to be vaccinated... but nobody is being forced. You are given the option, and although the consequences of one option may be dire, that option still exists.
After all, if everyone is being forced to vaccinate, why isn't everyone already vaccinated at this point? Not enough vaccines? Not enough health professionals? Are you anti-vaxxers all on the run and have successfully evaded the roving gangs of nurses armed with syringes and vials? I mean, I know government can be inefficient at times, but it's been a year now. 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. 🤔
➽ Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
From the OP:
"General Hospital has let me go, because of the vaccine mandate that was put in place ... I don't think anybody should lose their livelihood over this."
You are incorrect. This guy refused the waxxine (sic) and lost his job.
-
Dale: Exactly... it was his choice to refuse. You even said it yourself... "this guy refused the vaccine", not "the state forced him to get the vaccine". The loss of his job was the consequence of his choice. It is fascinating to see how your proof that people are being forced to get vaccinated... is someone who didn't get vaccinated. 🤔
Get waxxinated (sic) or starve and be homeless.
Do what we tell you to do or we will harm you.
Select your choice from the alternatives the extortionist(s) allow.
Thank you for affirming what I suspected about you.
-
Dale: What did you suspect about me, and how does what I said confirm this? Are you starving and homeless? The anti-vaxxers in the article below certainly don't seem to be starving or homeless. Again, reality disagrees with your claims.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sunwing-cancun-flight-1.6304854
Do you consider the consequences of other laws to be harmful to you as well? Or do you believe that if you don't "do what we tell you to do", that you should not be held to the consequences? 🤔
Dale: Now, if you had said "get vaccinated or die" instead of "starve and be homeless", you'd have a more valid point.
https://www.theguardian.com/.../rightwing-radio-host-dick...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/08/rightwing-radio-host-dick-farrel-anti-vaxxer-dies-covid?
Dale: Was she homeless and starving? Sure doesn't look like it... 🤔
https://www.cbsnews.com/.../kelly-ernby-california.../
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kelly-ernby-california-deputy-district-attorney-dies-covid-complications/
➽ Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
Do what we tell you to do or we will harm you.
That's called EXTORTION.
Dale: So you think all laws are inherently extortion then? "Don't murder someone, or we will harm you by putting you in prison for the rest of your life", etc. You still haven't addressed the rest of your false claims about homeless and starvation, or the very fact that if people are actually being physically forced to vaccinate, why there are still so many who aren't. Are they that good at evading government vaxx forces? 🤔
-
Dale: This will really grind your gears... a wise man once said "if you don't want a nanny state, stop acting like a f*$&ing baby". 🤷♂️[/color]
Dale: This will really grind your gears... a wise man once said "if you don't want a nanny state, stop acting like a f*$&ing baby". 🤷♂️
Off topic; Non sequitur.
Dale: Not at all... you are railing against a government "controlling" you, like a nanny. I'm telling you how to escape that.
Dale: Or have you now changed your tune, and you welcome government oversight of public activities and behaviour?
It seems some tennis players understand the concept of consequences, while others do not...
-
➽ Dale: What did you suspect about me, and how does what I said confirm this?
What I suspect about you is 'merely' my opinion of you. I will not tell you what that opinion 'is.' I will tell you when and if I can tell you what that opinion 'was.'
YOU:➽ Nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated.
ME: The general hospital guy refused the waxxine (sic) and lost his job.
YOU:➽ Dale: Exactly... it was his choice to refuse.
ME: Get waxxinated (sic) or starve and be homeless.
Do what we tell you to do or we will harm you.
Select your choice from the alternatives the extortionist(s) allow.
Do what we tell you to do or we will harm you.
That's called EXTORTION.
YOU: [SNIP]
I decline to follow your red herring at this time.
When your red herring becomes a germane point of the discussion, I will follow the point.
The issue, the point right now, is your belief that an alleged choice presented by an extortionist is somehow actually a choice.
This is the generic choice given by extortionist(s): "Do what we tell you to do or we will harm you."
This is the generic choice given by extortionist(s): "Accept harm A or accept harm B."
"Accept harm A or accept harm B" is EXTORTION.
Notice, harm A and harm B are NOT specified.
-
Dale: Why are you putting the words "merely", "is", and 'was" in quotes? Are you unsure of their meaning, or you haven't decided which meaning to ascribe to them yet? Why won't you reveal what suspicion of yours was confirmed? Or are you waiting things out so you can retroactively tailor your answer to suit your needs? A variant on Schrodinger's Douchebag, I suppose.
You do not know what a "red herring" is either. I asked for an example of someone who was forced to get vaccinated. You responded with an example of someone who isn't vaccinated. You then further claim that unless one is vaccinated, one will starve and be left homeless. The person in your example is neither. So if there is anything not germane to the discussion, it's your example.
Do you have another example that actually supports your claim instead of annihilating it? Once you have done that, then we can discuss specific examples of "harm A" and "harm B" from your next example.
Brian, good argument!
Bill: I agree! 😁 Also, it seems Dale doesn't know what "extortion" means, and this is another example of him stretching the meaning of words. Perhaps he means "coercion"? But really it sounds like he is describing "assault", in which case I invite him to provide examples of successful assault convictions of any health professional or government official because of a vaccination mandate.
"Accept harm A or accept harm B" is EXTORTION.
Admit or deny.
"My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse... Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains, or his signature would be on the contract".
- Michael Corleone, "The Godfather", 1972
-
Dale: Available evidence suggests that Steve Burton, the person mentioned in Bill's original post, is not in fact starving nor homeless, despite your assertion that refusing the vaccine will result in both. Is there some sort of effect lag? How long do you expect Burton to have before his impending and apparently unavoidable destitution?
https://tvshowsace.com/.../general-hospital-steve-burton.../ (https://tvshowsace.com/.../general-hospital-steve-burton.../)
Brian, 3 million?!? WHAT A PAUPER! 🤣🤣🤣
Bill: I wonder how many vaccine doses $3 million will buy?!?
Brian, they’re free in the states, so a gazillion at least!
Bill: "iT's nOt fReE iF tHe tAxEs pAy fOr iT!!!!!11!!1!"... although that makes me wonder how many vaccine doses Burton's taxes paid for without him knowing. 😉
Brian, I remember that stupid show he premiered on, playing the boyfriend of an alien, who’s dad’s voice on the show was BURT REYNOLDS! 🤣🤣🤣
Bill: STEVE BURTON REYNOLDS!!!
Well, I guess this question has been answered with certainty. 😃Have you got the wherewithal and the cajones to meet me in this public stadium?
Brian- a BEFORE/AFTER puzzle on Wheel of Fortune!
"My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse... Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains, or his signature would be on the contract".
- Michael Corleone, "The Godfather", 1972
Forcing anyone to "Accept harm A or accept harm B"
Moral or Immoral?
-
Dale: Moving the goalposts now? So you're no longer beating the extortion drum, but playing the morality angle now? At least you are getting closer to where I was from the start: "natural law" is philosophy, not law. The answer is "it depends". How does "harm A" compare to "harm B"? What are the consequences of accepting either choice, and how do those consequences compare? You are slowly coming to the realization, I can feel it!
Forcing anyone to "Accept harm A or accept harm B"
Moral or Immoral?
It's a simple question.
Apparently not simple enough for you.
Forcing anyone to "Accept harm.
Moral or Immoral?
-
Dale: The simplicity of the question is not the issue. As I said, you seem to be flailing about with your scattershot arguments. You are also exhibiting another classic conspiracy theorist trait: oversimplification of complex issues. If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man on the planet.
You may refer to my previous response.
Forcing anyone to "Accept harm.
Moral or Immoral?
-
Dale: I'm not sure why you ask me questions when you deliberately ignore my answers. Are you playing this game again? It backfired on you the last time, but I'm guessing you have no other move, so this is all you have left.
The answer is "it depends". How does "harm A" compare to "harm B"? What are the consequences of accepting either choice, and how do those consequences compare?
Harm is harm. PERIOD.
Is forcing anyone to accept harm moral or immoral?
-
Dale: That depends on your definition of "harm". Are you saying all "harm" is equal? Because that is obviously not true. So let's assume "all harm is harm". My point still stands: How does "harm A" compare to "harm B"? What are the consequences of accepting either choice, and how do those consequences compare?
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?
-
Dale: Morality is not the primary concern in your example, but okay. That would be immoral. What does that have to do with people choosing not to be vaccinated? Amazing that after two months, you still cannot properly articulate your point.
Good we have agreement that forcing somebody to choose how they will be harmed is immoral.
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.'
Are you going to claim that you are not being extorted to choose which harm you will suffer?
-
Dale: That's still not extortion, but I would not want to be shot in either the hand or foot. Now you must answer my question: are you equating shooting someone in the hand or foot (presumably with a gun loaded with bullets) with a harmless medical procedure?
Dale: Since you refuse to participate in a good-faith discussion by not answering my questions, I'll answer them for you. You may then assess how accurate my understanding is... assuming you can be truthful and honest.
You, like all conspiracy theorists, exaggerate beyond reason the effects and outcomes of the situation. You call vaccines poisons. You believe vaccinations are a death sentence. You believe government mandates are tyranny. You equate the choice between getting a safe vaccine and losing one's job to choosing between getting shot in the hand or the foot.
You lack the ability to process context and nuance, which is why you recognize only the extreme ends of the spectrum, and nothing in between. That's why I asked earlier whether you believe all harms are equal, which you did not answer. I asked to compare the outcome of choosing A over B. You also did not answer. I think it's about time you actually provided some answers.
➽ Dale: Since you refuse to participate in a good-faith discussion by not answering my questions, I'll answer them for you. You may then assess how accurate my understanding is... assuming you can be truthful and honest.
You posted your second comment 50 minutes after your first comment of Saturday 15 January. Which just happened to be after I copied your first comment to my website for composing a reply. I did not learn of your second Saturday post until I logged on to Fecesbook, today, Sunday 16 January to post my reply.
In case you have failed to notice, I'm only posting once per day in this discussion with you.
With the above written, here is the scheduled reply:
➽ are you equating shooting someone in the hand or foot (presumably with a gun loaded with bullets) with a harmless medical procedure?
No. I am not.
I am equating shooting someone in the hand or foot (with a gun loaded with bullets) with a NON-harmless medical procedure. Remember, I asked you to assume arguendo that my view is correct for purposes of discussion of Natural Law & Natural Rights. I intend to enter into a detailed discussion with you as to why I hold that (for the moment until proven) opinion.
➽ That's still not extortion
How would you like to label making a person choose between two harms?
-
Dale: “I asked you to assume arguendo that my view is correct for purposes of discussion of Natural Law & Natural Rights.”
Ah, finally! You admit that one must presume something is true for your argument to hold water. Whether it _is_ actually true or not is irrelevant to you. In this case, the "it" being that vaccination is a harmful procedure rather than a helpful one.
That's all I need to know.
Congratulations. You earned a second post today.
ME morning January 6:
There are two parts to the apprisal. ❶ The why it was written (OUR "presently unsupported claim", it was written as a collaboration). ❷ And the defense against the forced injection.
⍺ ⍺ ⍺
arguendo
A Latin term meaning "in arguing" or "for the sake of argument". When one assumes something arguendo, the person is asserting a hypothetical or other statement for the purpose of argument.
https://www.law.cornell.edu › wex › arguendo
Ω Ω Ω
So for the time being, let's "assume arguendo" that my claim is correct. If correct, then what? Your next sentence does segue into discussion of the defense.
YOU afternoon January 6:
➽ Dale: No, I read everything your wrote,
YOU today, January 16:
➽ Ah, finally! You admit that one must presume something is true for your argument to hold water.
Thank you for providing evidence that you do NOT read everything.
Thank you for notifying myself and the other readers that you are clueless to what 'assuming arguendo' means.
-
Dale: What evidence is there that I do not read everything? All you provided was two unrelated statements. Since you seem to be a fan of using Latin to make yourself feel smarter, I'm sure you are familiar with the term "non sequitur"? You seem like a big fan of it.
As I said, you want me to presume something that is true for the sake of argument. Whether it _is_ actually true or not is irrelevant to you. In this case, the "it" being that vaccination is a harmful procedure rather than a helpful one. Care to try again with an argument that is actually true, and not just something you've declared to be true?
Dale: Further evidence of projection on your part. This instance is you accusing me of not reading everything you typed here, when in fact it is you who are guilty of that. You have even admitted it. It would not surprise me if you choose to not read this either. 🤷♂️
file:///C:/Users/kitty/Pictures/Saved%20Pictures/BT12.jpg (http://file:///C:/Users/kitty/Pictures/Saved%20Pictures/BT12.jpg)
Quote from: 1015 15 Jan 2022
➽ That's still not extortion,
Quote from: 0840 16 Jan 2022
How would you like to label making a person choose between two harms?
Quote from: 1914 8 Jan 2022
➽ Bill: I agree! 😁 Also, it seems Dale doesn't know what "extortion" means, and this is another example of him stretching the meaning of words. Perhaps he means "coercion"? But really it sounds like he is describing "assault", in which case I invite him to provide examples of successful assault convictions of any health professional or government official because of a vaccination mandate.
➽ Care to try again with an argument that is actually true, and not just something you've declared to be true?
Care to try understanding what assuming arguendo means.
-
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?
➽ 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?
-
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!
➽ 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.
-
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.
➽ 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?
-
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.
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.
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/
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 (http://file:///C:/Users/kitty/Pictures/Saved%20Pictures/bt13.jpg)
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. 😉
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. 🙂
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.
-
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.
➽ 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?
➽ I don’t have any answers to something that’s always going to be an individual’s personal preference.
So noted.
-
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? 🤔
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.../
Dale: So what is that counterpoint? You simply say you do, then provide no evidence supporting your claim... as usual.
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.
-
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.
➽ 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.
-
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.
(https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1202.0;attach=550;image)
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.
-
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. 🤡
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.”
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
Seems like you have an uphill battle, though...
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-nuremberg-mandate-idUSL1N2ST1XP
➽ 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?
-
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.
(https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1202.0;attach=556;image)
Oh, Dale Eastman... the human broken record. 🤡
(https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1202.0;attach=558;image)
Didn't you have to help Trudeau with all those conspiracy theorist truckers converging on Ottawa?
https://youtu.be/rvqWV61VV9U
-
What, specifically, is the is the central point?
(https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1202.0;attach=560;image)
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.
-
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?
-
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: 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
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.
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.
"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.
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? 🤔
-
➽ It merely indicates the consequences of violating the law in question.
The consequences for refusing the clot shot are?
Statistically greater risk of hospitalization, ICU, ventilation, and death.
➽ Statistically greater risk of hospitalization, ICU, ventilation, and death.
(https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1202.0;attach=575;image)
Well, I guess Dale Eastman has ceded all his points... whatever they were.
So tell me, what are your points, whatever they were?
-
Dale: Don't change the subject. We're still talking about your points, since this is your thread.
➽ 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.