Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates

[Scott]

When it comes to abortions, this clearly isn't just about the mother and the person performing the abortion. It's also about society as a whole. A large chunk of people in North America believe that the mother's wishes are more important than the fetus' life. I know there is also a large chunk of people who don't believe this, which is why the U.S. has various states that allow abortions and various states that don't.

Democrats are not society as a whole.

Agreed.

 

[Scott]

Define 'mainstream publication'. Who decides whether a publication is 'mainstream'?

A good question. I know you don't like Wikipedia, but on a subject such as this one, I think their article on mainstream media is pretty good:

Mainstream media - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm drawn to their "big five" section, which lists Comcast, the Walt Disney Company, News Corp/Fox, Warner Bros. and Paramount.

 

[Scott]

No, we agree on math.

Incorrect. You are rejecting set theory

Not true.

 

[Scott]

Well, I tried to find common ground for word definitions with you, but I think at this point it's become a lost cause.

You only looked for common ground in Wikipedia

Not true. I believe the primary source I tried to find common ground in when it came to a definition for abortion was actually dictionaries. Feel free to try to find a definition for abortion in the following online dictionary that you like and I'll see if I would agree:

abortion — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Or look for any online dictionary's definition and I can see if I'd agree to the one you find and like, assuming you're able to.

 

[Scott]

I never said that I support "supremacy", let alone "killing supremacy".

I don't care that you never stated what can be logically derived from what you have stated.

Can you provide evidence for your assertion?

Let's use the word "proof"

A contract killing is the ordered killing of a living human by a customer who hires a professional killer to unalive said living human.

You support the particular subset of contract killings in which a woman orders the killing of her own child in the womb, by hiring a professional killer to unalive him, and usually to also dispose of the body.

As I've said before, I object to your use of the word killing. If you look at the definition of abortion in the following online dictionary, you'll see that the word kill or killing isn't used:

abortion — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Instead, terms such as "inducted termination of a pregnancy" or the "removal of a fetus from the womb prior to normal delivery" are used instead.

 

[Scott]

In JPP as a whole, I've referred to a -lot- of articles that in turn refer to a lot of other articles.

Fortunately, you also have me available to you; I'll take you directly to the correct answer, or at a minimum, point you in the right direction.

I certainly think that some of our conversations have been productive, but that doesn't mean that I trust that you always have the right answer or even know where the right answer may be found. I believe we do agree on some subjects, however, such as how math and set theory works, as well as the harms of the covid vaccines.

 

[Scott]

There is only one subject I can think of that I discuss where I've referred to a fairly limited amount of sources, though some of these sources have a lot of articles. That subject is the lack of evidence that biological viruses exist.

You don't get to cite your ignoring of evidence as a lack of evidence.

What evidence do you believe I've ignored when it comes to alleged biological viruses?

 

[Scott]

Yes, however the articles you refer to refer back to those 3 books and articles you began with.

I have no idea where you got this idea that all my articles refer back to 3 books and 3 articles.

Damocles was making a point about the "circular reference" nature of your nonauthoritative sources.

Damocles made the assertion that all the articles I refer to refer back to 3 books and 3 articles. I simply pointed out that I have no idea where he got that idea. If Damocles wants to argue that he meant it as some kind of parable, he can certainly do so.

 

[IBDaMann]

Preaching is easy. Providing evidence frequently isn't.

I congratulate you on clearly seeing your disease, which is, as they say, half the cure. You advocate for supremacy positions, even killing supremacy, without feeling any need to justify/support your position. You preach and EVADE.

At least you now recognize what you are doing.

The main issue comes down to what we each consider to be evidence for a given position.

Nope. The main issue is your denial of math, which is a component of your EVASION.

Sure. I'm simply pointing out that you haven't provided a shred of evidence that Wikipedia in any way resembles drug pushers or pimps.

EVASION. You support contract killings. That's a shitty thing for you to support.

I'm not talking about editing Wikipedia itself

Yes, I am talking about Wikipedia's content. It is Marxist disinformation, and that's all I need to know to not accept it. I see that you drink it in like water when you are parched. You have Marxist disinformation do your thinking for you. This is probably why you support supremacist positions and support leftist killing with impunity.

We can certainly criticize Wikipedia passages that we find to be untruthful in online forums

Nope. You absolutely will not, because you aren't able to recognize anything untruthful in Wikipedia. You presume that everything in Wikipedia is objective truth, just as a fundamentalist Christian rushes to quote the Bible. You can't see errors in the disinformation you have doing your thinking for you.

I will never allow anyone or anything to do my thinking for me, so no, I will not be turning my cognitive functions over to Wikipedia staff, thank you very much. I used to be a Wikipedia contributor, until my work correcting errors and bringing Wikipedia in line with its stated standards was undone because their Marxist propaganda was simply "locked down." I realized that their stated standards for content were a sham, just as any Marxist propaganda, and that no one can edit anything that they have declared is officially worded doctrine that has been carefully crafted, blessed and not to be altered.

I truly feel sorry for you.

I've certainly done this in the past.

Let's look at an example: Wikipedia's usage of "Contract Killing"

Contract killing (also known as murder-for-hire) is a form of murder or assassination in which one party hires another party to kill a targeted person or people.[1] It involves an illegal agreement which includes some form of compensation, monetary or otherwise.

This is erroneous. This description includes the words "murder" and "illegal" which are merely incidental in US society. If Congress were to legalize contract killing, it would apparently no longer be contract killing. Stupid. The legality of contract killing, or lack thereof, is not a component of contract killing. Ergo, Wikipedia should be describing contract killing as:

Contract killing is the killing of a living human whereby one party hires another party to kill a targeted living human.

By the way, I gave you the obviously correct version, which you rejected as you rushed to the erroneous version, simply because you allow Wikipedia to do your thinking for you, which requires you to reject anything differing from what Wikipedia declares you shall accept.

 

[IBDaMann]

Damocles made the assertion that all the articles I refer to refer back to 3 books and 3 articles. I simply pointed out that I have no idea where he got that idea. If Damocles wants to argue that he meant it as some kind of parable, he can certainly do so.

Do you understand what "self-referencing" means?

 

[IBDaMann]

If Wikipedia's sources in a particular article are bad, they can frequently be shown to be bad.

If you refuse to accept any Wikipedia entry as erroneous, you've got problems. In any event, I do not accept Wikipedia and I will never accept errors.

The point is, at least they have sources that we can take a look at.

Teachable moment: prepositional phrases always begin with a preposition; they never end in one. You should have written "... at least they have sources we can examine."

Folding in what Damocles was saying, what if those references are themselves bogus, pointing to a common set of bogus references? You have never gotten that far. You have never investigated just how bogus the references are such that the Wikipedia article is essentially the unsupported propaganda that it appeared to be on its face.

Many mainstream publications don't even list their sources,

I suspect that when you refer to "mainstream sources", that you are actually referring to totally bogus, leftist indoctrination sources.

meaning you frequently can't even figure out where they got their information from.

I totally get it.

 

[IBDaMann]

I know you dislike Wikipedia,

I reject Wikipedia as a source.

but Wikipedia certainly isn't my only source of information.

If I were you, I wouldn't be focused on expanding the quantity of sources that do my thinking for me, but would instead be focused on eliminating such.

Not only that, but on some subjects, such as vaccines, I'm generally not a fan of Wikipedia's information and so I tend to use other sources for that subject.

Who does your thinking on vaccines?

 

[IBDaMann]

No, I wish for the opposite here, clarity. That's not always easy to accomplish, however.

It is, in fact, impossible to accomplish if you refuse to think it through and instead opt to just go with whatever Wikipedia tells you to believe.

 

[IBDaMann]

What's the difference between a definition or definitions of a word and the use or uses of a word?

Don't you think you should have asked me that up front? There is a huge difference.

A definition is unique and must be forthwith adhered. If you and I define a word, we must both use that same definition or we are in breach and errors result, software doesn't work, bridges collapse, space shuttles explode, one of us is in breach of contract, etc.

If you have two dictionaries and the description of the usage of a given word differs, in any way, to any extent, between the two dictionaries, you clearly don't have definitions. Period. You have descriptions. Descriptions of what? Usage.

When a traffic accident occurs and witnesses recount to the police what happened, do they all recite the same passage, word for word, or do their descriptions vary, sometimes wildly so? As you can imagine, witnesses do not define what happened, the describe what happened.

You can describe word usage in many ways, but you need authority to define a word, to assign its definition.

 

[IBDaMann]

Not to me,

Great. You can have a conversation with yourself on the matter.

At the heart of this is what we should value.

I believe you should value human life, not advocate for contract killings.

I believe that a being's intelligence is more important then what species the being belongs to.

Why do you support contract killings?

 

[IBDaMann]

Link to one such occassion then.

I think I get to choose the quantity.

Anyone advocating for inequality under the law, is advocating for some type of supremacy. LGBT has all the same rights as everyone else, and they are ardently fighting for more rights, which would give them preferential treatment under the law. This is undeniably a goal of supremacy, even if they are dishonestly using the wording "We are fighting for LGBT rights." They currently have equality; they are fighting for supremacy to which they believe they are entitled.

Let's correct your perspective: Much of the population disapproves of indecency in public. The L+ movement will not tolerate mere equality and being restricted by laws that apply to everyone. The L+ movement will not rest until its members can violate laws with impunity.


The L+ community cries VICTIM! whenever they are denied SUPREMACY. If they are subjected to laws just like everyone else, they give the impression that they are being executed via crucifiction.

This is L+ disinformation that totally mischaracterizes the prohibition against public indecency as a prohibition against homosexuality.

i.e. you believe that there should be additional protections for members of the L+ movement that are not afforded to everyone else. The term for this is SUPREMACY. Of course, you will whine and snivel and gripe and wail and cry like a baby that you are such a VICTIM! as long as your SUPREMACY is denied.

i.e. crimes committed against members of the L+ movement should be met with stiffer fines and penalties than those same crimes committed against everyone else. The term for this is SUPREMACY. Of course, you will whine and snivel and gripe and wail and cry like a baby that you are such a VICTIM! as long as your SUPREMACY is denied.

You aren't fooling anyone by totally pushing the "Eternal VICTIM" narrative and completely avoiding the legitimate concerns that Russia is trying to address.

LGBT is a movement. Your OP did not talk about it. Your OP did not mention anything about the subject matter. Your OP veered immediately into a separate topic of Gay-and-Lesbian-Supremacy and how they are such victims if their supremacy is denied recognition.

Fuck that. NO SUPREMACY FOR ANYONE. There is no amount of crying "WE'RE SUCH VICTIMS!" that legitimizes supremacy. In the United States, the Founders outlawed nobility for exactly this reason, i.e. everyone is equal under the law.

Russia is doing the right thing by forcing homosexual Russians to be equal and not supreme.

Sure. Your movement attacks straight people who don't acknowledge your supremacy. You call them your oppressive victimizers, while you refer to yourself as an oppressed victim suffering in oppressive victimhood.

You seek to marginalize straight people and normalize LGBTTQQIAXXXXXXX+ supremacy.

Au contraire, mon frère, the article states clearly in the very first sentence that the topic is gay supremacy, and what follows are simply battles in attaining that goal. "The fight for gay rights in the United States has come a long way." Gays are not fighting for equality, which would be wholly unacceptable. Gays are fighting for supremacy, for gay rights that are not to be granted to others. If gay supremacy is not recognized, they will assuredly cry "VICTIM!".

gay rights = gay supremacy

This is directly from your article. The very first sentence gives it away.

 

[Scott]

Get used to it. Marxism is global and entrenched. Much of it is behind the various supreacies that you support. It's not my problem if I am the first person to enlighten you to this.

Preaching is easy. Providing evidence frequently isn't.

I congratulate you on clearly seeing your disease [snip]

I was referring to you. It's easy to preach things like "Marxis is global and entrenched". What's generally much harder is to provide evidence for one's assertions.

 

[Scott]

The main issue comes down to what we each consider to be evidence for a given position.

Nope. The main issue is your denial of math

Do you have any evidence that I have denied math?

 

[Scott]

Drug pushers give people a place to start. Pimps give women a place to start. Wikipedia gives people a place to get indoctrinated into hardcore Marxism.

I haven't seen you provide a shred of evidence that Wikipedia is marxist or that it can be compared in any way to drug pushers or pimps.

For someone who supposedly teaches English, you certainly should understand that one can compare and contrast anything.

Sure. I'm simply pointing out that you haven't provided a shred of evidence that Wikipedia in any way resembles drug pushers or pimps.

EVASION.

You're certainly practicing it. To recap for the audience- IBDaMann stated that "Wikipedia gives people a place to get indoctrinated into hardcore Marxism". To date, he has provided no evidence for this assertion.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. [Fortunately], there are honest people who can do the debunking.

Nope. Nobody can alter any dogma that Wikipedia staff has locked down.

I'm not talking about editing Wikipedia itself, I'm talking about the discussions we have here about it.

Yes, I am talking about Wikipedia's content.

I wasn't. I was talking about the fact that when there are passages in Wikipedia on a given subject that contain false information, honest people who are knowledgeable on said subject can point these out.