BT In My Sandbox

[Dale Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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?

[Dale Eastman]

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

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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 Eastman]

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.

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 Eastman]

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?