|
Post by azteccc on Jan 8, 2022 10:11:02 GMT -8
Ah damn, ya got nothing. Please let me know when Uncle Joe extends that CTC that halved childhood poverty. Wonder what happens when it expires, if implementation cut childhood poverty in half. Edit: Thought this was the other thread. Thanks for the answers though, you really do have nothing. I wonder how many boosters you’ll get to before you realize. You seem entrenched - maybe on booster 5 you’ll see the light? I have nothing but logic and information. You sir have already admitted you don't know why you think you should be able to forgo a mandated vaccination. I think tetanus takes 5 shots, should we bring back lockjaw? Nope not what I said. You were close, but looking at the timestamps the ole whiskey monster might have been psotting with you. I’ll let you try again sober today if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jan 8, 2022 13:16:19 GMT -8
Actually, was asking for peer-reviewed studies.
|
|
|
Post by darksidereturns on Jan 8, 2022 17:42:40 GMT -8
I have nothing but logic and information. You sir have already admitted you don't know why you think you should be able to forgo a mandated vaccination. I think tetanus takes 5 shots, should we bring back lockjaw? Nope not what I said. You were close, but looking at the timestamps the ole whiskey monster might have been psotting with you. I’ll let you try again sober today if you want. I'm so tired of dunking on you. It's not fun if you don't even try to respond and simply insult me or tell me I have no game. Here is what you said "I don’t know how to explain why I believe it" aztecmesa.proboards.com/post/1230310Your words. I don’t know how to explain why I believe it
|
|
|
Post by darksidereturns on Jan 8, 2022 17:50:58 GMT -8
Actually, was asking for peer-reviewed studies. No you were not. Stop being a bigot. I said "reports show" that. You asked for links. I gave you a handful. A reasoned reply would be 'thank you I will review' or 'thanks I'll check it out' Instead you go straight into moving goal posts. There is a reason the studies are not peer reviewed. It is discussed in a couple of the article. It is called TIME. If multiple reports are suggesting a pattern you take it into consideration while peer review takes place. You don't sit on your thumbs and do nothing because several reports suggest a pattern while peer review is underway. C'mon.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jan 8, 2022 20:11:11 GMT -8
Actually, was asking for peer-reviewed studies. No you were not. Stop being a bigot. I said "reports show" that. You asked for links. I gave you a handful. A reasoned reply would be 'thank you I will review' or 'thanks I'll check it out' Instead you go straight into moving goal posts. There is a reason the studies are not peer reviewed. It is discussed in a couple of the article. It is called TIME. If multiple reports are suggesting a pattern you take it into consideration while peer review takes place. You don't sit on your thumbs and do nothing because several reports suggest a pattern while peer review is underway. C'mon. Look, there is truth to both sides. We were informed initially that booster shots would provide people with immunity to COVID and stop the spread of COVID. They have done neither. But, people are more likely to get sick if they aren't vaccinated vs. if they are. And the longer that you are sick, the more time that you have to spread COVID (vs if you are vaccinated). Both sides are right and wrong. Thousands of people have died from vaccination (check OPEN VAERS if you don't believe me). However, vaccination has also saved thousands of people's lives. My take on it is that is that a one-size-fits-all approach to COVID doesn't make any sense. Let people make decisions for themselves, allow elderly and at risk to get vaccinated and get boosters every 6 months or whatever. Let younger people decide if they want to get vaccinated, or just get exposed to if and recover and build antibodies to it just like they do with the flu. ---------------- Independent of everything that was just said, I also argue that it's a morally wrong and a violation of people's civil liberties to mandate vaccination to hold onto or secure government jobs. It feels like something that the Gestapo or USSR would implement - you must be of the ruling party's affiliation, or else you can't work for the government! Pledge your allegiance to Stalin/Hitler/etc. Since as others have pointed out, more Republicans are against mandates, and more Democrats are for mandates (Although I did vote for Biden in the election, and am against vaccination mandates)
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jan 9, 2022 17:15:10 GMT -8
Nope not what I said. You were close, but looking at the timestamps the ole whiskey monster might have been psotting with you. I’ll let you try again sober today if you want. I'm so tired of dunking on you. It's not fun if you don't even try to respond and simply insult me or tell me I have no game. Here is what you said "I don’t know how to explain why I believe it" aztecmesa.proboards.com/post/1230310Your words. I don’t know how to explain why I believe it What are you even talking about dude? You quoted me refusing to try to teach you why you should believe in bodily autonomy? And you think that makes you look good? Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by darksidereturns on Jan 9, 2022 20:11:12 GMT -8
You quoted me refusing to try to teach you why you should believe in bodily autonomy? And you think that makes you look good? Yikes. FML. We've now regressed to the point where my role is to explain to you what you previously psoted. I'll try again. You were not refusing to teach me anything. That is incorrect. The reason we know this is one can't teach what one can't explain. I thought maybe if I put some information and facts in front of you, you would be able to get to a point where you had an opinion you could actually explain. Clearly that's not the case.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jan 9, 2022 20:52:24 GMT -8
You quoted me refusing to try to teach you why you should believe in bodily autonomy? And you think that makes you look good? Yikes. FML. We've now regressed to the point where my role is to explain to you what you previously psoted. I'll try again. You were not refusing to teach me anything. That is incorrect. The reason we know this is one can't teach what one can't explain. I thought maybe if I put some information and facts in front of you, you would be able to get to a point where you had an opinion you could actually explain. Clearly that's not the case. 😂 you’re not totally wrong dude I can’t explain bodily autonomy to a male in your demographic who doesn’t already believe in it. Props though for doubling down on not knowing why it’s important I guess
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jan 10, 2022 17:18:32 GMT -8
Actually, was asking for peer-reviewed studies. No you were not. Stop being a bigot. I said "reports show" that. You asked for links. I gave you a handful. A reasoned reply would be 'thank you I will review' or 'thanks I'll check it out' Instead you go straight into moving goal posts. There is a reason the studies are not peer reviewed. It is discussed in a couple of the article. It is called TIME. If multiple reports are suggesting a pattern you take it into consideration while peer review takes place. You don't sit on your thumbs and do nothing because several reports suggest a pattern while peer review is underway. C'mon. Sorry for triggering you. Well, no to be honest. I don't suffer fools well. TIME? Really??? Again, show me some actual scientific studies to support your point. A "TIME" article doesn't do that. Oh, what makes me a "bigot, by the way?"
|
|
|
Post by darksidereturns on Jan 11, 2022 19:05:48 GMT -8
Sorry for triggering you. Well, no to be honest. I don't suffer fools well. I'm sorry you mistook my slow, reasoned complete sentences for one who is triggered. I'm not angered in the least. Sad, dismayed, concerned or dumfounded would fit better. If we trying to have a discussion why would you start with mischaracterization and then throw in an insult. Have you ever formally debated anything, ever? To say "You're a fool" is ad hominem and it is a fallacy. But you back up the mischaracterization and insults with? A misquote. Brilliant. The phrase is suffer fools gladly. TIME? Really??? Again, show me some actual scientific studies to support your point. A "TIME" article doesn't do that. You edited your post to make sure this is what you wanted to say? Bruh. Let me try again. It takes an analog clock many many revolutions for a study to become peer reviewed. Most people call that a period of time. It takes time. Magazines do not review scientific study. That's not a thing anyone believes. If you read the articles you will find scientific study. Not magazines. letmegooglethat.com/?q=merriam+webster+bigot
|
|