Covid Follies #5: Sez who?

Concart said:
ROTFLMFAO!!!! Let's put the bullets in jail. Come on. You're digging your hole even deeper. Your argument is beyond lame.
Click to expand...

No, I am not.

If every single person that has died of a disease is a victim of Taichiliberal because he wouldn't get vaccinated he would have had to, in your scenario, go to each door and spit in every mouth of every person who had died. Pointing a gun at you and pulling a trigger is an action that creates a victim. Not getting a vaccination is the opposite of an action and does not create a direct victim of an action as I noted earlier.
 
Damocles said:
No, I am not.

If every single person that has died of a disease is a victim of Taichiliberal because he wouldn't get vaccinated he would have had to, in your scenario, go to each door and spit in every mouth of every person who had died. Pointing a gun at you and pulling a trigger is an action that creates a victim. Not getting a vaccination is the opposite of an action and does not create a direct victim of an action as I noted earlier.
Click to expand...

Nope. You are apparently unfamiliar of the legal principles of 'but for'. In order for me to be guilty of a crime against another person, I do not have to directly harm that person. If my actions caused the harm, whether directly or indirectly, I am guilty. You make the lame claim that the only victims of a crime were persons who were directly injured by the perpetrator. Not a gun, not a knife, but their bare hands. Otherwise it was the bullet that killed them. That is contrary to our laws and our norms. It's just utter nonsense.

This is a practical question. At what point to we take measures to protect us from those who have decided to utterly obliterate societal norms. You appear to suggest that we do absolutely nothing, because to do so would impose on that persons freedom. That's bullshit, and you know it.

What is even a lamer argument is the one that you advance to make a distinction between action and inaction. Inaction is OFTEN a cause for a negligence charge. So that one is even more nonsensical.
 
Concart said:
Nope. You are apparently unfamiliar of the legal principles of 'but for'. In order for me to be guilty of a crime against another person, I do not have to directly harm that person. If my actions caused the harm, whether directly or indirectly, I am guilty. You make the lame claim that the only victims of a crime were persons who were directly injured by the perpetrator. Not a gun, not a knife, but their bare hands. Otherwise it was the bullet that killed them. That is contrary to our laws and our norms. It's just utter nonsense.

This is a practical question. At what point to we take measures to protect us from those who have decided to utterly obliterate societal norms. You appear to suggest that we do absolutely nothing, because to do so would impose on that persons freedom. That's bullshit, and you know it.

What is even a lamer argument is the one that you advance to make a distinction between action and inaction. Inaction is OFTEN a cause for a negligence charge. So that one is even more nonsensical.
Click to expand...

I would agree if it was less than one step away to victim.

If I don't do this, then victim... That's good for a law. Not if I don't do this, then I catch a disease, then I am somewhere in the vicinity of you, then you also catch the disease.. then even though you are protected you have to go to a hospital, then there are too many folks in the hospital you go to... no. That is not a "but for"... That is just an angry guy shouting at the universe.

Basically if I don't do this, then this, then this also, then this has to happen, then finally you are at a hospital and there are other folks there... No. That is waaay too many steps to blame the homeless guy who couldn't get one because he didn't have an address for them to verify if he had already gotten one...
 
Damocles said:
I would agree if it was less than one step away to victim.

If I don't do this, then victim... That's good for a law. Not if I don't do this, then I catch a disease, then I am somewhere in the vicinity of you, then you also catch the disease.. then even though you are protected you have to go to a hospital, then there are too many folks in the hospital you go to... no. That is not a "but for"... That is just an angry guy shouting at the universe.

Basically if I don't do this, then this, then this also, then this has to happen, then finally you are at a hospital and there are other folks there... No. That is waaay too many steps to blame the homeless guy who couldn't get one because he didn't have an address for them to verify if he had already gotten one...
Click to expand...

And you think we should make zero attempt to protect ourselves from those irresponsible actions? Seriously? Just let it go? Nope. Not interested. I'm not trying to find a perp. I'm trying to stop them. Based on your argument, you also support:

Allowing drunk driving. No problem, as long as you make it home ok.
Indiscriminately shooting off a firearm. As long as no one gets hit, you're cool with it.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater. You aren't the one that trampled those people to death

And I also assume you are fine with my plans for the meth lab. As long as no one gets directly hurt, you won't infringe on my freedom.

Cool, let me know when you're in power. I have the blueprints ready.
 
Concart said:
And you think we should make zero attempt to protect ourselves from those irresponsible actions? Seriously? Just let it go? Nope. Not interested. I'm not trying to find a perp. I'm trying to stop them. Based on your argument, you also support:

Allowing drunk driving. No problem, as long as you make it home ok.
Indiscriminately shooting off a firearm. As long as no one gets hit, you're cool with it.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater. You aren't the one that trampled those people to death

And I also assume you are fine with my plans for the meth lab. As long as no one gets directly hurt, you won't infringe on my freedom.

Cool, let me know when you're in power. I have the blueprints ready.
Click to expand...
Again, nope.

I already covered Drunk Driving in an earlier post, it is simply being disingenuous to pretend it didn't happen. Direct victim. Drunk drives, they hurt people, they are criminal. Like shooting into a crowd. Sometimes you wouldn't hit anyone, but your action makes immediate victims, it is a crime. I would support these laws. Direct line to victim, not 17 steps and the hokey pokey, then you turned yourself around and they are criminals...

Your argument is nonsense. Even if you say "nope" a bunch.

I am stunned I have to explain simple libertarian principles to folks on this website still. I sure hope you absorb the information, we will often disagree, I don't want to pretend like you have never heard of a libertarian before that day too.
 
Damocles said:
Again, nope.

I already covered Drunk Driving in an earlier post, it is simply being disingenuous to pretend it didn't happen. Direct victim. Drunk drives, they hurt people, they are criminal. Like shooting into a crowd. Sometimes you wouldn't hit anyone, but your action makes immediate victims, it is a crime. I would support these laws. Direct line to victim, not 17 steps and the hokey pokey, then you turned yourself around and they are criminals...

Your argument is nonsense. Even if you say "nope" a bunch.

I am stunned I have to explain simple libertarian principles to folks on this website still. I sure hope you absorb the information, we will often disagree, I don't want to pretend like you have never heard of a libertarian before that day too.
Click to expand...

No, I enjoy this intellectual exercise because it shows the total impracticality of libertarianism.

Drunk drivers who arrive safely at home don't hurt people. Therefore BY YOUR STANDARD they have done nothing wrong. If you don't hit anyone with that gun, there are NO immediate victims. You have been hoisted by your own petard. YOU made that argument. Now you are backtracking on it. Because, well, it doesn't make much sense. Deciding to not be vaccinated and not wear a mask in public is the same as deciding to drink and get behind the wheel. You can drink. You just can't drive. You can be unvaccinated, you will just be restricted in what you can do. That is a clear and unambiguous analogy. Yours is a nonsense stew.
 
Concart said:
No, I enjoy this intellectual exercise because it shows the total impracticality of libertarianism.

Drunk drivers who arrive safely at home don't hurt people. Therefore BY YOUR STANDARD they have done nothing wrong. If you don't hit anyone with that gun, there are NO immediate victims. You have been hoisted by your own petard. YOU made that argument. Now you are backtracking on it. Because, well, it doesn't make much sense. Deciding to not be vaccinated and not wear a mask in public is the same as deciding to drink and get behind the wheel. You can drink. You just can't drive. You can be unvaccinated, you will just be restricted in what you can do. That is a clear and unambiguous analogy. Yours is a nonsense stew.
Click to expand...

Not by my standard. This is the same thing as shooting aimlessly. It is a crime, just less of one. Our laws actually agree with me on this. If you are caught just driving, because you are shooting aimlessly you get much less of a sentence than if you hurt someone... The same goes with literally shooting aimlessly. One is not a felony, while hurting someone is... we treat these things very differently.

This also works with whether driving recklessly hurts somebody or not. One is a ticket, the other can be a felony.

Now, being a dick and having a car aren't enough to get you busted for anything though. It takes too many steps to get to victim in that case, much like being alive and not having a vaccine does. Too many steps to get to victim.

Now if they come to your house and swab you with disease. Now we got something.
 
Damocles said:
Not by my standard. This is the same thing as shooting aimlessly. It is a crime, just less of one. Our laws actually agree with me on this. If you are caught just driving, because you are shooting aimlessly you get much less of a sentence than if you hurt someone... The same goes with literally shooting aimlessly. One is not a felony, while hurting someone is... we treat these things very differently.

This also works with whether driving recklessly hurts somebody or not. One is a ticket, the other can be a felony.

Now, being a dick and having a car aren't enough to get you busted for anything though. It takes too many steps to get to victim in that case, much like being alive and not having a vaccine does. Too many steps to get to victim.

Now if they come to your house and swab you with disease. Now we got something.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. Just because you can't IDENTIFY the persons victim, there is still a direct line. Unvaccinated, five times more likely to have Covid. Unmasked in a public place, again, much more likely to spread it. So just like testing a driver to see if they are drunk, we test the person to see if they are vaccinated. If not, don't be here. Don't sit in this movie theater, because you might spread Covid. Don't sit on this airplane, or attend this concert, or go to this restaurant until you get vaccinated and lessen the risk to our other patrons. Talk about weak. If you think that is somehow an infringement on your freedom, you are as weak as they come.
 
Damocles said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You've just regurgitated the SOS from the previous post...it's still a moronic contradiction. And since you seem eager to endorse/support the mandates of a system you claim to be against regarding these Covid "vaccines", you just dig that hole deeper.

Oh, and here's a little tidbit to keep you up at night.....this format we are communicating on was created by the government.
Click to expand...


Arguing against mandates is not supporting them. You clearly do not understand information given to you and don't bother to actually try to understand what was actually said in conversation around you. I wonder if your "friends" notice.
Click to expand...

To quote you, "... I am against government solutions in almost every aspect of life."

Last time I checked, the FDA was affiliated with the government system. So by the logic of your own words, you are against anything that the FDA dictates that is reinforced through federal law..or state law, for that matter. Same goes for the CDC and NIH. So if what you say is true, STFU, get off the grid completely, move to some remote location where you can grow your own food, make your own clothes, etc. Or join some separatist compound where the local gov't suits you EXACTLY. Until, just put the insipid stubbornness aside and deal with the reality that the status quo regarding Covid and it's "vaccines" does not stand up to scrutiny too well.

The OP stands valid, as do the subsequent posts...your lame attempts at dodging that fact with childish personal attacks non-withstanding. Carry on.
 
Darth Omar said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
No chuckles, I'm just tired of repeating myself to proud,willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest wonks like yourself. So far, you and your scared sheep can't disprove or refute the reality of the OP or subsequent topics related to it. You just BS and dodge or flat out deny....logic be damned. But if you have the stones, you can always discuss points in supplied information or provide your own that you think will make your case. That's a real debate, and one I would look forward to.

Until then, Laugh, clown, laugh
Click to expand...

You criticize me for claiming that the death count is inaccurate on the same page of the same thread where you chide someone else for not acknowledging that PCR tests are inaccurate.

Are you trying to make me chuckle again?
Click to expand...


:palm: Okay, once more for the intellectual impotent:

I criticized you for near blind support of the statements and actions of the medical status quo based on their purported facts and statistics....I did this by showing that the criteria they used to reach such conclusions was seriously contradicted by carefully reading their own reports. I also corrected yours (and others) ignorant statements that the PCR tests were valid by referring to a clip by the man who invented the process. That is a matter of fact and history that is verified by the chronology of the posts.

To date, all you've shown is denial, insipid stubbornness and a absurd attempt at revisionism (aka lies). No doubt you'll continue in this vein. Carry on, chuckles.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Okay, once more for the intellectual impotent:

I criticized you for near blind support of the statements and actions of the medical status quo based on their purported facts and statistics....I did this by showing that the criteria they used to reach such conclusions was seriously contradicted by carefully reading their own reports. I also corrected yours (and others) ignorant statements that the PCR tests were valid by referring to a clip by the man who invented the process. That is a matter of fact and history that is verified by the chronology of the posts.

To date, all you've shown is denial, insipid stubbornness and a absurd attempt at revisionism (aka lies). No doubt you'll continue in this vein. Carry on, chuckles.
Click to expand...

When have you EVER heard me say PCR tests were anything but junk lol?
 
Darth Omar said:
When have you EVER heard me say PCR tests were anything but junk lol?
Click to expand...

Okay chuckles, listen up:

I STAND CORRECTED ON THIS POINT, AS IT WAS LV426 WHO STATED SUCH. I WAS WRONG IN CONFUSING YOU WITH HIM. APOLOGIES.

Now, that being said.....if you go over our exchanges, the fork in the road concerned stats from the status quo. Now, if you and I are in agreement over the "junk" PCR tests, then there should be no difference in the evaluation of everything else, as the test are the rock for all things Covid.
 
Micawber said:
I know medical doctors who aren't particularly bright either. Nurses? LMAO At least a pharmacist can count.
Click to expand...

So the nurses that assisted in your delivery were idiots? Hmm, did they drop you on your head? No? Then your statement is dubious at best. Read the exchanges here on this. Might help.
 
Broadway play Autumn was put on hold because of an outbreak of the China virus despite the fact every cast member, entire crew, and audience had to produce proof of vaccination.
(CNN)Disney's "Aladdin" on Broadway canceled performances Friday for the second time this week after more coronavirus cases were detected within the theater company, the show said.

The production was paused Wednesday -- a day after officially returning -- due to Covid-19 cases, and it resumed Thursday.
But after more breakthrough cases were detected, the show decided to cancel performances starting Friday through October 10. The next performance is slated for October 12 at 7 p.m. at The New Amsterdam Theatre.
 
Lionfish said:
Broadway play Autumn was put on hold because of an outbreak of the China virus despite the fact every cast member, entire crew, and audience had to produce proof of vaccination.
(CNN)Disney's "Aladdin" on Broadway canceled performances Friday for the second time this week after more coronavirus cases were detected within the theater company, the show said.

The production was paused Wednesday -- a day after officially returning -- due to Covid-19 cases, and it resumed Thursday.
But after more breakthrough cases were detected, the show decided to cancel performances starting Friday through October 10. The next performance is slated for October 12 at 7 p.m. at The New Amsterdam Theatre.
Click to expand...

Which (again) raises the question...WTF are the "vaccines" good for if people "test positive" after whatever brand and number of shots they have...and/or if that makes them carriers?
 
aa-jpg.834071
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top