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

[Scott]

I defined contract killings in the totally normal way, and asked why you approve of them.

2 issues here, one more important than the other. The first, more minor issue, is that I have some doubts as to whether your definition is totally normal. For one, you seem to disagree with Wikipedia's definition of contract killings, without really explaining why beyond saying that you don't like Wikipedia.

The second more important issue is that you jumped to the conclusion that I approve of contract killings. I never said that.

 

[Scott]

I would classify a study as scientific study if it follows the scientific method.

Great. Now when you write "scientific study" I'll know you're talking about rigorous product reviews.

I'm not sure I've ever used the term "scientific study" in this thread or any other. I generally just say study or studies if there's more than one. I generally only cite studies or articles talking about studies from sources I trust will generally cite studies that follow the scientific method.

 

[domer76]

The act of getting a Covid jab is synonymous with ignorance.

See; turbo cancers, myocarditis, etc.

I am thankful every day I did not get one. Best decision I ever made.

All vaccines have risk, Jethro. Everyone knows that. This one has minimal risk and the instances you mentioned are rare.

The risk of getting very ill or dying from COVID is greater. Deaths from COVID are those of the unvaccinated, fool.

 

[Scott]

I certainly believe that a lot of studies, particularly in the field of virology, are not scientific, regardless of whether or not they claim to be.

Correct. They are simply research. Research is not science.

My main concern is whether or not studies are following the scientific method. Since I believe that the foundations of virology are pseudoscientific, I think it stands to reason that any studies based on this pseudoscience simply can't be following the scientific method.

 

[Scott]

If you believe there is -any- evidence for your assertion, why not simply quote and link to it?

I'll tell you what; I'll give you an example and you can research it to your heart's content.

Look through ThatOwlCoward's posting history. It won't take you long before you find conversations with a standard group that only slings poo.

I see you quote one of ThatOwlWoman's posts in post #936. I'll get to that in my next post.

 

[IBDaMann]

Here's the first definition from the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition's of the word definition:

• noun A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

Now all you have to do is verify that all other dictionaries have that same identical definition and you're golden.

Otherwise, all you have posted is one usage description from among many.

 

[AProudLefty]

You are being dishonest. You know that the topic is "contract killing." That is the topic about which I am asking you, and you are being intentionally EVASIVE because you see the threat to your beliefs and you know your position is indefensible.

You are fleeing to the hills. Stop being an intellectual coward, come on back, be honest, and engage in honest discussion on contract killings. Explain why you think they are OK. The word "abortion" doesn't ever have to come into play.

Who thinks "contract killing" is OK?

 

[Scott]

Hahahaha! Said the fearful twat who cringed inside her home for months and wouldn't leave w/o full protective gear not even to go to work.

@Scott, just bask in ThatOwlCoward's love and kindness, and take in the consummate joy that she is.

If your point is that ThatOwlWoman (TOW for short) can make some pretty insulting posts, I can certainly agree to that. But then, so can you and others on the right. This discussion had started with your assertion that some on the left only wanted to "sling poo", as you put it. I have yet to see any evidence of that. From what I've seen, I'm almost certain that TOW might say something similar to you- that she wouldn't start the insults, but she'd certainly retaliate.

I think all of this retaliation doesn't lead anywhere good. To quote a line from the Oscar winning 1982 Gandhi film:
**
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
**

 

[IBDaMann]

I thought it was clear that you were defining abortions as contract killings,

Nope. I was explicitly discussing "contract killings", a subset of "killing living humans" and what happens to be the superset of "abortion."

What you say about "contract killings" is what you say "abortion" so we can just stick with "contract killing" and "abortion" need never be mentioned.

I strongly suspected that you were attempting to twist the definition of abortion

Strange. Your English comprehension can't possibly be that bad. I explicitly defined "contract killing" and was not addressing any other words.

It was only in your response in post #771 that I came to realize that you'd actually decided to switch subjects from abortion

I didn't switch subjects. I raised the topic of "contract killing" because it covers much more than mere "abortion." I am genuinely interested in your explanation for why contract killings are somehow justified in your mind.

That is the topic, I assure you. Please answer my question.

 

[Scott]

Do you know what a "proper subset" is?

I got this from duckduckgo's search assist:
**
A proper subset in mathematics is a set that contains some, but not all, elements of another set. If set A is a proper subset of set B, then all elements of A are in B, but B has at least one element that is not in A, denoted as A ⊂ B.
**

Do you understand it?

Yes. I just wanted to make sure you agreed with this definition.

 

[IBDaMann]

If your point is that ThatOwlWoman (TOW for short) can make some pretty insulting posts,

Nope. Your reading for comprehension is not impressing me at the moment. My point is clear. ThatOwlCoward and others have not contributed in any positive manner on JPP. She and her cowardly others only fling poo.

This discussion had started with your assertion that some on the left only wanted to "sling poo",

Aahhh, you finally remember. Better late than never.

as you put it. I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Back to your old habits, I see.

From what I've seen, I'm almost certain that TOW might say something similar to you- that she wouldn't start the insults, but she'd certainly retaliate.

You would be greatly mistaken. Her first words to me were insults, along with others with whom she intended to gang-fling poo. That's all she does. You haven't presented any links to solid contributions on her part; why not? Is it because you know that there aren't any but you were somehow hoping to fool me?

I think all of this retaliation doesn't lead anywhere good.

I think that all this pretending that poo-flinging on the part of the poo-flingers is somehow retaliatory instead of recognizing it as all they do is what leads to the severe disappointment.

 

[IBDaMann]

I actually started a computer programming course, but never finished it.

It's never too late to finish it.

I know that computers need to be given precise instructions whereas humans can make do with more vagueness.

The correct word in this case is "ambiguity." Computers need formal instructions that are free from ambiguity. The human domain, especially all natural languages, are rife with ambiguity.

The point I'm making is that dictionaries are very much in the business of providing definitions for words

What I'm telling you is that you are mistaken. Dictionaries describe/explain the usage of words.

. I certainly agree that they are not as precise as computer language,

This is not the point. Word usage is the point.

 

[domer76]

He's one of the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" 2 page statement, signed by researchers and doctors who no longer believe there is any solid evidence that biological viruses exist. I get into the details of this 2 page statement in the opening post of the following 2 threads-
For those who like debating in regular JPP forums:

Thread 'Settling the Biological Virus Debate'

Dec 23, 2022

For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement...

• Scott
• Replies: 1,325
• Forum: General Politics Forum

For those who prefer the Above Plain Politics forum for controversial debates such as this one:

APP - Thread 'Do biological viruses actually exist?'

Mar 1, 2025

I made a thread that basically had the same premise as this one back in 2022. It had a good run, but then petered off for a long time. It's recently gotten a bit of a renewal, but I've come to believe that this is a subject that will get a lot of people to engage in personal attacks. I was hoping to avoid that this time around and this is the reason that I'm remaking this thread here. Note that I am not saying that the electron microscope photographs that virologists present aren't real microbes, just that they don't actually have the properties that would fit the definition of biological...

• Scott
• biological viruses evidence that biological viruses exist viruses
• Replies: 686
• Forum: Above Plain Politics Forum

He also has a website and a substack that are primarily dedicated to providing evidence that there is no solid foundation that biological viruses exist. They are here:

ViroLIEgy

Exposing the lies of Germ Theory and virology using their own sources.

viroliegy.com

ViroLIEgy Newsletter | Mike Stone | Substack

Exposing the lies of germ "theory" and virology using their own sources. Click to read ViroLIEgy Newsletter, by Mike Stone, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

mikestone.substack.com

You keep citing quacks.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not sure I've ever used the term "scientific study" in this thread or any other.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! #903

I generally just say study or studies if there's more than one. I generally only cite studies or articles talking about studies from sources I trust will generally cite studies that follow the scientific method.

Science is not a method or a study.

 

[Into the Night]

All vaccines have risk, Jethro. Everyone knows that. This one has minimal risk and the instances you mentioned are rare.

The risk of getting very ill or dying from COVID is greater. Deaths from COVID are those of the unvaccinated, fool.

Covid does not kill, Dumber.

 

[Into the Night]

My main concern is whether or not studies are following the scientific method. Since I believe that the foundations of virology are pseudoscientific, I think it stands to reason that any studies based on this pseudoscience simply can't be following the scientific method.

Science is not 'studies' or a 'method'.

 

[Into the Night]

Who thinks "contract killing" is OK?

You do.

 

[AProudLefty]

You do.

Imagining posts that aren't there doesn't help.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes. I just wanted to make sure you agreed with this definition.

I agree with your description, but that is not the definition. The definitions of interest are as follows:

[Subset] A ⊆ B ⇔ ∀x (x ∈ A → x ∈ B)
[Proper Subset] A ⊂ B ⇔ (∀x (x ∈ A → x ∈ B)) ∧ (∃y (y ∈ B ∧ y ∉ A))
[Union] A ∪ B = { ∀x | x ∈ A ∨ x ∈ B}
[Intersection] A ∩ B = { ∀x | x ∈ A ∧ x ∈ B}

Notice that for a standard mathemetics definition, I don't have to ask you if you agree to it. If you don't accept it, you have to explain why not.

 

[IBDaMann]

Imagining posts that aren't there doesn't help.

Your not denying that you are OK with abortion, and thus are OK with its superset, is appreciated.