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

[Into the Night]

Sure, and I certainly believe that cells exist, as well as bacteria. I also suspect that some microbes that are classified as biological viruses are actually bacteria.

Nope. They are viruses.

The issue here is not that people don't see microbes that are labelled as biological viruses in electron microscopes.

It is possible to see a virus in a sufficiently powered microscope.

The issue is whether they actually fit the description of actual biological viruses.

They do.

* They are not alive.
* They invade cells as a parasite and reprogram them to reproduce more copies of the virus.
* They consist of a membrane enclosing RNA.

 

[Into the Night]

Can we agree that vague instructions are frequently ambiguous as well? Another thing I thought I'd mention, virology uses ambiguous language with its own twisted definition of isolation. From an essay on the subject of biological viruses:
**
Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmitting between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing.

Science is not evidence.

The evidence of viruses is NOT missing. They can be observed directly through a sufficiently powerful microscope. Their presence can be detected by indicators.

One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles

A virus is not a particle. It is a complex structure.

directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases.

Viruses invade cells, causing the cell to make copies of the virus. The normal functioning of that cell is disrupted. The immune system first responds by destroying the cell.

The effects of this damage and the immune system response is the disease, often showing up as congestion, a runny nose, sore throat, etc.

After a few days, antivirus cells matching that virus begin replicating.

After about a week in most cases, the virus is eradicated from the body by antivirus cells, which are capable of doing a much better job than the white blood cells that first responded.

In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.
**

Science is not a method. The dictionary does not define any word. A virus is not a particle.

Source:

https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/A-FAREWELL-TO-VIROLOGY-Expert-Edition-V1.2.pdf

False authority fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know about it being "marxist", and I'm sure that -some- contributors can still alter things, but I definitely think that the wrong people are in charge there.



Again, I don't see this "marxist" thing, but people need starting points. Wikipedia offers them.



Sigh. I mentioned his name as a way of pointing out that I'm not alone in my own view on the subject. Wikipedia certainly has its flaws, but at least it always lists sources for its material. Many mainstream news publications don't.

Illiteracy: Proper nouns are always capitalized. Tense problem.
Logic errors: False authority fallacy. Red Herring fallacy. Compositional error fallacy (selective->general).

 

[Into the Night]

I believe women should be allowed to choose whether or not they want to remove a fetus from their body.

So you condone contract murder. Why?

 

[Into the Night]

Does a chicken or a cow get their day in court before getting slaughtered for consumption?

No. The law does not apply to animals.

They are highly intelligent creatures, after all:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/the-intelligent-hen-chickens-smarter-than-toddlers/news-story/ee489b1bb6455dde2b18381285651ec2

Cows: Science Shows They're Bright and Emotional Individuals

Thinking of cows simply as "food products" ignores who they truly are. In fact, science shows they have rich and deep cognitive and emotional lives.

www.psychologytoday.com

You have obviously have never raised either chickens or cows.

As you point out, we don't eat human fetuses, so I would say there is more deference towards human fetuses than adult chickens or cows, but I doubt there are few if any examples where a human fetus has an intelligence that is in the same ballpark as its mother. This is why the mother's wishes on whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term must take precedence.

A human being is not a chicken or a cow.

Why do condone murder?

 

[Into the Night]

Fortunately, the courts disagree, at least to some extent.

Void reference fallacy. No court has the authority to cancel the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme court has now decided that individual U.S. states decide are to decide whether abortions should be legal or not, and if legal, under what circumstances. Which means U.S. Citizens have the ability to vote with their feet as to what laws they want to live under.

Why do you condone murder?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We gotta start calling Scott "Timex" because he takes a lickin' but keeps on clickin'...

He's certainly consistent.

 

[Scott]

We gotta start calling Scott "Timex" because he takes a lickin' but keeps on clickin'...

So does pretty much everyone else around here. I do take breaks sometimes too, I suspect I'm not the only one. Honestly, I think I actually don't get the worst of it- I tend to read a fair amount of posts not directed towards me in threads I focus on and I've seen stuff that's generally worse then what's been sent my way. I suspect that part of the reason is I tend to avoid insulting people for the most part and the natural reaction is that I tend to get less insults sent my way as a result.

 

[Scott]

I don't know about that, but it looks like we agree that personal definitions for words can cause a lot of problems.

So stop redefining words.

Why do you think I redefine words?

 

[Scott]

IBDaMann = Into the Night = gfm7175 = Sybil, a schizophrenic. I suspect he's also Uncensored2008

Your credibility in regards to deciphering who is and isn't a sock is rather tarnished,

You don't get to decide 'credibility' for anyone.

Ofcourse I do- for myself. I can also influence how a person's credibility is viewed for those who believe that I myself am credible.

Your credibility in regards to deciphering who is and isn't a sock is rather tarnished, considering you accused -me- of having socks here. I've never had a sock here, or in any other online forum.

The jury is still out on that.

It appears the jury is still out, in Dutch's mind, as to whether you are IBDaMann, gfm and Sybil as well. I suspect -you- know that you aren't any of those others, though, just as I know that I have no socks here or elsewhere.

IBDaMann and Into the Night seem to get along fairly well, but getting along with someone is definitely not the same thing as being the same person. They also do have some minor differences of opinion from time to time.

Heh. Sometimes even major ones!

I'd be interested in knowing what those major differences are.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, and people tend to disagree the most on definitions when they're personal ones instead of common ones that can be found in dictionaries.

Do tell, what do dictionaries have to do with anything? Unless you believe that "dictionaries" somehow own the language, you shouldn't even be mentioning them.

 

[IBDaMann]

Have you ever considered that it's convenient for your beliefs that you -do- see a difference?

Nope. I understand the serious problems to which you are blind. Why do you believe that your position is somehow more authoritative and less erroneous just because you discover an erroneous website that agrees with your erroneous position? It does not help matters that you try referring to said erroneous website as "authoritative" because I know it isn't. You should be seizing the opportunity to learn instead of holding fast to your position of supremacy. You really should be letting go of your stupid supremacy and opening your mind to equality under the law. Your shenannigans involving the rejection of learning is idiotic and explains why your positions seem to be mostly erroneous.

You could say that you have defined a Chilango as someone who is black. I could tell you that that's not how it's generally defined, but you could say you don't care and insist that that's the way -you- define it.

You are arguing that I could do what you are, in fact doing right now. I agree. I could. You also could be taking notes on what I am teaching you. Yes, you could. You choose not to. You choose to cling to your position of supremacy.

It would be a mess in terms of trying to have a discussion with you on chilangos though.

So you see why it's not possible to explain to you why your position on supremacy is absurdly wrong. At least you won't be wondering what the problem is.

This is what you're attempting to do with abortion.

Incorrect. You are the one saying that 3 + 4 = 23. I am using math to show you that the correct answer is 7. You refuse to accept the values of 3 and 4, just because you don't want to be seen as recognizing that they add to 7. When presented the math, you flee, you EVADE, you run to the hills. You make every lame excuse possible because your belief that 3 + 4 = 23, a belief that someone else told you to believe and you OBEYED, is too important too you. Obviously if you will deny math, you will deny anything. You have thrown all honesty out the window.

You are averse to using definitions for abortion [that have been placed on the internet by supremacist defenders of contract killings] precisely because that's not how you yourself define the term.

FTFY. Correct. I will never support your supremacy, especially not killing supremacy. That is the shittiest thing anyone can do, i.e. kill another living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die. Absolutely the shittiest.

You are a killing supremacist. I do not support you.

 

[IBDaMann]

When it's clear that logic has no home in a conversation, it's best to throw in the towel.

I disagree. When all honesty has left a conversation, it's time to roll and get in a good workout for free.

 

[IBDaMann]

So you choose to remain illiterate, calling your grammar problems a 'small mistake'.

Illiteracy: Proper nouns are always capitalized. Misspelled words. Use of comma instead of period. Sentences begin with a capital letter. Missing comma. Double verb. Improper contraction.

Logic errors: False authority fallacies. Genetic fallacy. Red Herring fallacies.

We'll just refer to you as the "unabridged" version.

 

[IBDaMann]

That doesn't mean I can't improve.

Actually, that's kind of what you wrote.

 

[IBDaMann]

Wikipedia offers people places to start on just about any subject

You are chanting, and being totally dishonest. 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.

Your denial of the Marxist underpinnings of Wikipedia are stupid; who do you believe you are fooling? (I hope you don't think that I'm one of them)

and, generally speaking, I think they have good information on their site.

... says the guy who can't recognize the myriad of errors he reads on Wikipedia.

Sometimes, sure, but then those can be debunked.

Not by dishonest people who are pushing those errors.

And as mentioned, at least they list their sources.

How does that change anything?

Many mainstream [non-authoritative sources] don't even offer their readers that common courtesy.

FTFY. That's why you should stick with authoritative sources.

Courtesy Reminder: All references to Wikipedia will be summarily dismissed. All of them.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think we may need to agree to disagree on this one.

Agreement doesn't come into play. You are engaging in a Special Pleading fallacy. Your agreement/approval is not needed.

 

[Nordberg]

RFK is doing fine. It used to be like this. If he has his right-wing way, it will be again. https://www.bing.com/videos/rivervi...=E605030F3DAC4C56988FE77A75FD5DA7&FORM=VAMGZC

 

[IBDaMann]

Does a chicken or a cow get their day in court before getting slaughtered for consumption?

Is a chicken or a cow a living human? Anybody?

@JPP - Is a chicken or a cow a living human? Does anyone know the answer? @Scott and I are trying to figure this one out. We really need to know because if chickens or cows are living humans, then killing them can bring about murder charges, but if they are not then we can probably eat them for lunch without any problem.

Anyway, any help is appreciated.

They are highly intelligent creatures, after all:

Omniscience fallacy. How do you know chickens and cows are highly intelligent? My last chess partner was a cow and I beat her 80% of the time.

I doubt there are few if any examples where a human fetus has an intelligence that is in the same ballpark as its mother.

I doubt that there are any mothers whose bones are as flexible as their fetuses' bones. Also, fetuses have more teeth than their mothers.

This is why the fetus' wishes on whether he wants to live or be killed must take precedence.

 

[IBDaMann]

RFK is doing fine. ... If he has his right-wing way, it will be again.

Nordberg, Nordberg, Nordberg ... RFK is a lifelong Democrat from a family line of Democrats ... who happened to change parties because the Democrat party became too ridiculously far-left. Everything about RFK is left-wing. Only extremely far-left loons could refer to RFK as "right-wing."