Are the COVID choices you're being offered ACTUALLY choices??

Into the Night said:
RQAA. Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Trolling. Spamming. No argument presented.
Click to expand...

That is a rather good description of almost all of your posts. I guess that makes this an inversion fallacy on your part, doesn't it?

Or should we just remind everyone of your continued use of the fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster, almost always Into the Night but sometimes it's gfm7175 who insists they are not Into the Night, in order to avoid addressing the topic and to try make themselves look more intelligent then they really are claim other posters are using fallacies without explaining how the poster created a fallacy.
 
Into the Night said:
Contextomy fallacy. Attempt to void. RQAA. Trolling. No argument presented.
Click to expand...

That is another good description of almost all of your posts. You certainly do like to fall into the inversion fallacy on a continuing basis.
Or this could just be another example of your continued use of the fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster, almost always Into the Night but sometimes it's gfm7175 who insists they are not Into the Night, in order to avoid addressing the topic and to try make themselves look more intelligent then they really are claim other posters are using fallacies without explaining how the poster created a fallacy.

Let's see if you can do a post like this again. I'll bet you can. In fact I will put up $100 that you will make a similar post within the next week where you simply declare fallacies without explaining why the fallacy exists. I will bet that at least 2 out of your next 20 posts will be similar to the one quoted here. You are so predictable in your ignorance.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Are you sure you aren't Into the Night since you seem to parrot him so well and also like him you are oblivious to sarcasm. You and Into the Night are two peas in a pod. Both ignorant but pretending you know so much more than you actually do.

I have been told numerous times what RQAA means? Care to find even one instance of me being told what RQAA means? Oh wait. You just like to lie and then refuse to back up your lies when asked to show us evidence in support of your claim. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to find even one time you explained RQAA to me since it has never occurred since I have never asked what RQAA means before now. Once again, are you sure you aren't Into the Night since you use the same tactics he uses in that rather than giving an actual explanation you simply declare that you already did but then can never point to where you did what you claimed.
Click to expand...
Continued sock accusations... You've already been told what RQAA is.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Based on what court ruling?
Click to expand...
Incorrect question. The authoritative source on the matter is the constitution itself, not a court ruling.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Your opinion is not a valid metric for constitutionality and is not accepted in any court of law.
Click to expand...
See above.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Are you sure you aren't Into the Night since you make the same mistakes in logic as he does and also like him don't understand sarcasm. Simply declaring "paradox" doesn't make something a paradox nor does it clarify how you think something is a paradox. I know exactly what a paradox is. It's something you and Into the Night seem to have a problem with defining or explaining when you throw out the term in order to avoid discussing the actual topic.
Click to expand...
:fap:
 
Into the Night said:
RQAA. I have already described this to you. Stop asking the question.
Click to expand...
No argument presented by you. If you care to show me where you "described" as opposed to defined your term, I will apologize. Until then you are simply trolling by refusing to discuss and answer questions.
No evidence needed. The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution. OHSA is unconstitutional. Yes. That includes all the rules that OHSA produces.

I did not make this statement. Ask gfm. He made the statement. I assume he located a paradox of yours and called you on it. He's actually pretty good about that.

You cannot resolve a paradox by denying it dude. You cannot wish it away either.
Click to expand...
No argument presented.
No evidence needed. See the Constitution of the United States, which you discard.
Click to expand...
No argument presented.
YALSA.

Trolling. No argument presented.
Click to expand...

An interesting paradox. Into the Night responds to a post directed at gfm as if the post was directed to Into the Night and yet they claim they are 2 completely different people.

Then Into the Night has the exact same belief that gfm has that OSHA is unconstitutional and Into the Night has the same amount of evidence for that belief that gfm does, zero. In fact Into the Night seems to take pride in having no evidence when he claims "no evidence needed." The US Constitution says nothing about OSHA. OSHA is not listed in Art 1 Section 9 under powers denied Congress. If the Constitution is the only authoritative reference than one would expect that something that is a power denied to Congress would be listed under the powers denied to Congress. The Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states in Article I section 8. It would be impossible to regulate commerce if the business that conduct that commerce can not be regulated. OSHA is a business regulation and as such would appear to fall under the powers of Congress to regulate commerce. But then OSHA is also about safety which can be considered the welfare of citizens and the Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States under Article I section 8. So there are two separate powers granted to Congress that can be used to support OSHA and no powers denied to Congress than can be used to declare OSHA unconstitutional. Claiming the Constitution is the authoritative source for you belief is undermined by the Constitution itself since it does not deny Congress the power to create OSHA.
 
Into the Night said:
Yes.

Not a medical procedure. Redefinition fallacies.
Click to expand...
SO now you are denying that tests for Covid can be done using mucus or saliva? It seems you want to pretend that Covid tests can only be performed in one way when the reality is not that way at all.
Yes.

Not a medical procedure. Redefinition fallacy.
Click to expand...


It looks like I was being overly pessimistic in saying you would require 20 posts to resort to the fallacy fallacy twice. You were able to commit the fallacy fallacy in 2 out of your next 4 posts. Congratulations. You continue to prove you are quite good at not having any intelligent discussions.
 
All the possible real options for Covid are offered, except allowing the unvaxxed to give it to vaxxed. Want to work in a company with over 100 employees, they will give you a free vaccine. Don't want to, then do not work there or, wear a mask. Lots of options.
 
gfm7175 said:
Continued sock accusations... You've already been told what RQAA is.
Click to expand...
I am still waiting for your evidence of when you told me. Don't have any? Can't find any? Happy to tell lies because you have no morals? All of the above? (Those are choices. You free to pick one or more.)

Incorrect question. The authoritative source on the matter is the constitution itself, not a court ruling.
Click to expand...
An interesting argument. Care to show where the US Constitution says OSHA is unconstitutional? Let me tell you the same thing I told Into the Night when he made the same claim and since you claim you are not the same person and then perhaps unlike Into the Night you can provide an actual argument using the US Constitution to support your belief that is not grounded in any Constitutional text.

The US Constitution says nothing about OSHA. OSHA is not listed in Art 1 Section 9 under powers denied Congress. If the Constitution is the only authoritative reference than one would expect that something that is a power denied to Congress would be listed under the powers denied to Congress. The Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states in Article I section 8. It would be impossible to regulate commerce if the business that conduct that commerce can not be regulated. OSHA is a business regulation and as such would appear to fall under the powers of Congress to regulate commerce. But then OSHA is also about safety which can be considered the welfare of citizens and the Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States under Article I section 8. So there are two separate powers granted to Congress that can be used to support OSHA and no powers denied to Congress that can be used to declare OSHA unconstitutional. Claiming the Constitution is the authoritative source for your belief is undermined by the Constitution itself since it does not deny Congress the power to create OSHA.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your argument based on the Constitutional text since I doubt you have ever read the US Constitution let alone understand it. If you were to make a cogent argument using the Constitution that would go a long way toward proving you are not the same as Into the Night. You two peas sure live in the same pod. Break out and prove you can think on your own. I still won't hold my breath. I like to breathe. It keeps my head clear. Maybe that's your problem. You need to take a few deep breaths before you stumble Into the Night.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
That is a rather good description of almost all of your posts. I guess that makes this an inversion fallacy on your part, doesn't it?

Or should we just remind everyone of your continued use of the fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster, almost always Into the Night but sometimes it's gfm7175 who insists they are not Into the Night, in order to avoid addressing the topic and to try make themselves look more intelligent then they really are claim other posters are using fallacies without explaining how the poster created a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Bulverism fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Mockery. Trolling. No argument presented.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
That is another good description of almost all of your posts. You certainly do like to fall into the inversion fallacy on a continuing basis.
Or this could just be another example of your continued use of the fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster, almost always Into the Night but sometimes it's gfm7175 who insists they are not Into the Night, in order to avoid addressing the topic and to try make themselves look more intelligent then they really are claim other posters are using fallacies without explaining how the poster created a fallacy.

Let's see if you can do a post like this again. I'll bet you can. In fact I will put up $100 that you will make a similar post within the next week where you simply declare fallacies without explaining why the fallacy exists. I will bet that at least 2 out of your next 20 posts will be similar to the one quoted here. You are so predictable in your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Bulverism fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Trolling. No argument presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top