BT In My Sandbox

[Dale Eastman]

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

[Dale Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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.

[Dale Eastman]

« 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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

➽ 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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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.../

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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?