1: The second one. I actually am reasonable, though I can be a jerk to I admit.
2: That is true. I welcome any corrections, even if they are intended to hurt me, like this comment was, which didn't work because I am not a wimp.
For the love of all that is holy, use the quotation function and address points that way.
1: It was not directly stated in your post that I was spreading misinformation. It was implied that I was.
3: What were you referring to specifically?
Your anti-vaxxer comments, your at times blatant lies about COVID. You are spreading misinformation.
I never lie. I might not always be correct, because I speculate a lot, but I never lie. What would I have to gain from that in this case?
In which case you are clearly gullible. In the middle of a pandemic, you're here stating it can't be dangerous or that bad because no one you know died. Over 5 million people dead in less than 2 years from this virus.
You are spreading misinformation about COVID on this site. You aren't questioning. You aren't even bothering to do any research. You're just spouting rubbish.
1: I do make estimations.
What have you calculated? Because that's what "estimation" means. That you've calculated something.
You keep using it in sentences and making no sense. You haven't calculated anything.
2: I do not spread misinformation
Oh?
I know the virus might be dangerous, but then it might not be. I know that the so called vaccine might actually be a vaccine, but then again it might not be. I know that the lockdowns might be happening just to prevent the spread of the virus, but then again they might not be. I basically have no idea what to believe here, but I do know that something about this whole fiasco seems very, very wrong. I do not doubt the existence of the virus. I have heard that there are medical tests verifying it's existence. I do however doubt that it is AS dangerous as it is made out to be, because, delving into the hypothetical's here, if it was I probably would have seen at least one of the numerous people I knew drop dead from it, and yet I have not. Like most viruses, it is probably a little bit dangerous, at least to the elderly, and especially to them because they are ridiculously frail.
However, delving into the hypothetical here yet again, wouldn't it just be easier to directly inject the spike protien of the virus into the person than to inject mRNA enclosed in lipid capsules into the body to be absorbed by the body cells, so that the mRNA could then trigger the cells to produce the spike protein? I have been told that the coronavirus vaccine works like so. It seems unnecessarily and suspiciously complicated. It seems like gene therapy.
I personally was under the impression that violating somebodies freedom of movement, with the exception of stopping them from trespassing, was against some piece of legislation which said that everyone had the freedom of movement, and that this piece of legislation was valid in most countries. It appears that this piece of legislation, whatever it was, has been simply thrown away, and that does not bode well. That is dangerous. Which vital law will be thrown out next?
It is just that I'm frequently seeing freedoms degraded before my eyes and everyone seems really scared and Hitler like.
That's just from the first page.
3: I would say that very few of my estimations are harmful.
You compared a vaccine to gene therapy in the middle of a pandemic that's killed over 5 million people thus far, you've denied that it's even dangerous, you've pulled out some crazy BS about laws that have been thrown out, etc.
And for god's sake, look up the word "estimations".
4: I don't think poorly. I think that you might think poorly however from what I have just read, especially when you get all angwy about something.
People like you should probably be bullied to discourage them from being cruel to anyone who can't handle it.
Encouraging bullying...
Lovely!
1: But anti vax information almost is censored unofficially by those who don't like it.
Oh, it's not unofficial. Our policy has always been to not allow it on this site, particularly during a pandemic that's killed millions of people and still killing people.
It's not a matter of not liking it. It's because it's dangerous and deadly. We do not allow it for the same reason we do not allow people to threaten others on this site, promote violence, promote hatred, bigotry, sexism, racism or supremacism of any kind. Anti-vaxxers are dangerous.
4: I don't think that my words endanger very many people.
Middle of a pandemic, you likened the vaccines to gene therapy and deemed you didn't think the virus was that bad because it hasn't killed people you know, while promoting other anti-vaxxer rubbish.
It is more about being a pedantic little nit wit.
The rules are there. Try to follow them.
Well, the citizen can go and hide in a hidey hole and take all of their impositions with them I guess, or just go to the many places the un vaccinated aren't allowed, which contrary to what you say gives everyone a great way to tell who has been vaccinated and who hasn't been.
Why do you think the "unvaccinated" should have more freedoms than those who are vaccinated in a time of a pandemic?
I'm not stupid. I interpreted determine consent in this context to mean persuade to agree to be in the restaurant, or figure out the extent to which one wants to be in the restaurant.
No. Consent
does not mean keep at it until they say yes!
How can you be a 17 year old and not understand what consent actually means?
Okay. But they don't have many freedoms, because those freedoms are gradually being degraded in the name of hindering the spread of the virus.
*Sigh*
How are freedoms "gradually being degraded"? What do you mean by that? Is it starting off at a low level of disrespect and then gradually turning to contempt? Were those freedoms good at first and they have the value of something from a discount store where nothing is more than $3?
Just various freedoms of movement, like for instance when pretty much the whole world was in lock down.
You do realise that countries have the right to implement laws and control their own borders, yes?
Also, I have heard that some people are losing the right to determine what happens to their own properties, for instance with restaurants not being allowed to serve the unvaccinated.
You have heard? Care to provide some proof?
In the majority of places, restaurant owners get to determine that. Certainly, some may impose such rules, but it's in the interest of public safety, particularly when the majority are vaccinated and the minority refuse to, the majority should not be punished or placed at further risk because of objectors to the vaccine.
Not many freedoms are being degraded here yet, I concede, but I take all of this as a warning sign against totalitarianism.
You are not making any sense.
Do you mean eroded? And what's a warning sign against totalitarianism? Do you even know what that is?
I don't know how many freedoms the average person has. I would say a few hundred, decreasing rapidly.
Can you name 20?
Out of a few hundred, should be pretty easy.
Here is my example of degraded freedom: Lock downs. Here is another: The government telling restaurant owners that they have to turn away the unvaccinated.
How has it "
degraded freedoms"?
I want you to define degraded, in the context of that sentence..
That sounds reasonable, except for the not being allowed to shoot in that air for fun part.
This is becoming painful..
No, shooting guns in the air can and has killed and injured people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
In my opinion, and probably in real life, people should be allowed to let whoever they please into their own property, unless that person is meant to be in prison, as in, the one they let in is meant to be.
Real life doesn't work that way. Thankfully!
