BT

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: You don't merely lack self-awareness, you actively deny it. Hilarious. You still can't explain the lack of relevant jurisdiction of your original comment. It's been over a month now. You really didn't think this through, did you? 🤡

Thank you for admitting (2) You do not have a "right to control" me.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: So it seems your threshold is three tries, then declaring yourself the winner anyway. Why even bother going through with the performance, if not as a self-serving masturbatory exercise? Did I already link this earlier? I can't be bothered to scroll back to check, but here you go: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess 🤡

I'm so proud of you. You can count to 3.

Did you have three opportunities to admit or deny the numbered point?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Only you would consider counting to three to be some kind of achievement worthy of mention. So this is the extent of your arsenal, eh? Socrates, you are not. Still waiting for you to elucidate the jurisdiction of your initial claim. I'm pretty sure you've had far more than three opportunities now. 🤡

(3) You do not have "authority" over me.
Admit or deny.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: At least you've given up on the "STFU" option. 🤡

I'm doing what I know I should not do. I'm feeding the troll. Trolls don't STFU.

Second presentation.
(3) You do not have "authority" over me.
Admit or deny.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: You know, you would save both you and me a lot of time if you skipped over the theatrics, and simply declared what I supposedly know and don't know, since you're going to do that anyway. At this point, I'm just letting out more rope. 🤡

Dale: As I said earlier, you're completely predictable and no different from every other conspiracy theorist I've put in their place. But do go on! 😇

➽ As I said earlier, you're completely predictable and no different from every other conspiracy theorist I've put in their place.

That is a claim.

I accept your request that I follow your red herring.

What conspiracy, specifically, are you claiming I am theorizing about?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Finally, a change of pace! Let's start with your stance that there isn't really a pandemic, and then you can talk about how you believe there is a conspiracy to cover up violations of the Nuremberg Code and "Natural Law/Rights".

➽ Let's start with your stance that there isn't really a pandemic

Yes. Let's start with your straw man claim. I never specifically claimed there is not a pandemic. I posted a meme - comment card with these specific words:

⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺ ⍺
WHY THE FUCK AM I NOT DEAD YET?
Where's all the dead bodies after over a year of this "Pandemic"?

As of 6 December 2021

0.157% Ratio Deaths to Wisconsin Population
1.027% Ratio Deaths to Confirmed Cases
5.27% Ratio Hospitalized to Confirmed Cases
19.5% Ratio Deaths to Hospitalized
Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω

➽ and then you can talk about how you believe there is a conspiracy to cover up violations of the Nuremberg Code and "Natural Law/Rights"

The word "conspiracy" has only been used by you. Seven times so far. So your second straw man can now be ignored.

➽ conspiracy to cover up violations of the Nuremberg Code and "Natural Law/Rights"

My original post was never about covering up violations. You failure to understand what you read is on you. As you might have figured out, I am willing to put the time into discussing differing thoughts.

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.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Again, you are just making stuff up now. You posted an image that put the words "pandemic" in scare quotes, along with information typical of those who claim "there is no pandemic!" What you are now basically saying is "just because I post it doesn't mean I'm making that claim". If so, then that calls into question the legitimacy of everything else you said, because nobody can be sure whether you're making that claim, or just posting it for no apparent reason. 🤷‍♂️

Yeah... I notice you ignored the "OFFICIAL" Wisconsin Dept. of Health's numbers and what those numbers show.. (I hope I didn't scare you by putting OFFICIAL in quotes.)

Again, here's what those numbers show:
As of 6 December 2021

0.157% Ratio Deaths to Wisconsin Population
1.027% Ratio Deaths to Confirmed Cases
5.27% Ratio Hospitalized to Confirmed Cases
19.5% Ratio Deaths to Hospitalized

Second presentation:
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.

[Dale Eastman]

Bill: A new milestone! 😅

Dale: I'm not ignoring the Wisconsin numbers, but they're not the thing that's problematic with your graphic. It's your implication that there is no "pandemic" (quotes included) because of those stats. Yet you provide no justification for that position. It would seem that, for example, that having nearly 1 in 5 people die after being hospitalized due to an illness would be quite alarming? Or having 1% of people merely contracting the disease dying afterwards? And why bring up the first ratio at all? That's not how mortality rates are measured.

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? 🤔

➽ That's not how mortality rates are measured.

Do tell.

And while you're at it, do tell how one calculates the mortality of playing Russian Roulette.

You have previously shown me that I need to limit how much I present to you at one time to keep you from being overwhelmed.

I am specifically NOT yet addressing this set of your words at this moment:
➽ 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 repeat your words because you have asked the correct questions. I'm only setting them aside for the moment. I'm chomping at the bit to address those words.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Where have I "previously shown [you] that [you] need to limit how much [you] present to [me]"? Are you aware of the "Gish gallop"? You attempt to overwhelm your opponents with quantity rather than quality. This is plainly seen in your very first comment... and yet you still have not addressed any of my concerns. This is just another example of your projection: you accuse others of not being able to digest information quickly enough, but it is inarguable that you are the one actually guilty of this.

What is the "Russian roulette" part of this? I can only assume you are aware that mortality rates are calculated not on the entire population size, but only on the relevant strata. You are attempting to minimize the impact of COVID-19 because it supports your conclusion that it isn't a pandemic, or at least not as serious of one as you believe the media is portraying. There's a reason why we use IFR and CFR, and not simply dividing the number of deaths by everyone.

Please, address all my words, because you seem to be making up excuses not to.

Dale: Where have I "previously shown [you] that [you] need to limit how much [you] present to [me]"? Are you aware of the "Gish gallop"?

There you go, calling me by your maiden name... Again.

The Gish Gallop is what you have been doing from your very first reply.

Please, address all my words, because you seem to be making up excuses not to.

There you go, calling me by your maiden name... A third time.

Right back at you: "Please, address all my words, because you seem to be making up excuses not to."

Third presentation:
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.

In case you have forgotten, that is the first paragraph of my post that you felt compelled to comment on.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: I'm not sure you know what "maiden name" means. Nor, apparently, what the Gish Gallop is. Here you go:
https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/
Why do you keep repeating the same questions that I've already answered? Is it because you don't like my answers? Or because my answers are factual and logical, and you've so far ignored facts and logic? Or do you have some personal ritual where you must ask something three times, and then you simply declare the answer you wanted to hear? I guess we'll find out soon enough! 🤡

Fourth presentation:
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.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: As I said, "why do you keep repeating the same questions that I've already answered?"

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? 🤔

➽ why do you keep repeating the same questions that I've already answered?
Because, contrary to your lying bullshit, you have NOT answered my question(s).

Fifth presentation:
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.

If you do not have a specific objection to this paragraph, say so and I'll move on to the next.
I you do have a specific objection to this paragraph, articulate your objection.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Again, you make statements without any basis in fact, and indeed are plainly untrue. Do you think merely repeating yourself makes a statement true? It would be behaviour with conspiracy theorists. 🤔

➽ Dale: Again, you make statements without any basis in fact, and indeed are plainly untrue.

Sixth presentation:
Which statement, specifically, in the first paragraph is untrue?

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.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Now you're moving the goalposts. You previously asked if I had an "objection" to the paragraph, a term you used twice in the last sentence of your comment before this one. Now you're asking which statement is untrue. Why the sudden shift? I never mentioned anything about truthfulness of that paragraph, but relevance. Again, since you seem to be attracted to repetition:

➽ Dale: Again, you make statements without any basis in fact, and indeed are plainly untrue.

Seventh presentation:
Which statement, specifically, in the first paragraph is untrue?

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.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Why do you deliberately misinterpret other people's words? You really don't understand context, do you? I never said whether any of that paragraph is true or untrue. I only mentioned relevance. What does my quote above have to do with that paragraph? Or are you taking it out of context again? Perhaps this will help:

Why do you deliberately refuse to clarify your words when questioned about them?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Are you at the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of discourse? Did I not correct your misinterpretation just above? Did I not rephrase my challenge to your initial comment when you asked? Have you any examples where I "deliberately refuse to clarify [my] words when questioned"? If there are any examples, I suspect it is because you are asking those questions in bad faith, or the questions themselves are irrelevant.
I'll score this one as another example of your projection: you accuse me of refusing to clarifying my words when asked, and yet you still have not clarified your initial assertions, despite repeated challenges. More hypocrisy on your part. So again, I draw your attention to the highlighted questions: