The Microchip in the Vaccine

[Cow Poke]

Of course you think it's accurate because you have a nasty little habit of mischaraterizing your opponent's position in the least charitable way possible. I'm giving you benefit of the doubt that it's unintentional.

The pattern seems to be to mischaracterize his opponents' position in the worst light possible, then bend over backward to take the most charitable view possible of those "on his side".

Trump absolutely clearly instigated the insurrection!!!!
vs
"I don't recall anyone legitimately bashing the vaccine itself because of Trump"

The hypocrisy is astounding. OR, he's simply so incredibly biased he can't see it for himself.

[oxmixmudd]

It's called an analogy. And, yes, the facts say that the China flu vaccines represent an unacceptably high risk, and I honestly believe that if this were not a politically charged issue that they would have been recalled months ago due to the excessively high number of negative outcomes being reported by health professionals. VAERS, which traditionally only captures around 5% of all cases, recently doubled the number of China flu vaccine deaths from 6000 to 12,000. This number, of course, does not include other significant harms suffered by test subjects.

Without conceding your claim, what might have happened if this was a vaccine for the common cold is in many ways irrelavent. This is a vaccine for a deadly disease that has killed 20 times as many as a typical flu already, and that is using every mechanism we have to stop its spread. And they did stop use of the j & j vaccine when a sufficiently strong adverse reaction was indicated.

Of course you think it's accurate because you have a nasty little habit of mischaraterizing your opponent's position in the least charitable way possible. I'm giving you benefit of the doubt that it's unintentional.

I think it's accurate because i believe it is accurate. I dont ever attempt to make anyone 'look bad' or purposefully mischaracterize a person's claims. But feel free to make the case it is not if you genuinely believe that.

[oxmixmudd]

He didn't say everyone should be vaccinated.

There is a statement I made where I didn't repeat the obvious medical exceptions I've mentioned multiple times.

[oxmixmudd]

You're so full of yourself.

Irrelavent. Do you have a rebuttal or do you concede the point?

[Mountain Man]

I believe it was Spock who gave his life in STII "The Wrath of Khan" because "The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few".

The line is actually "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few ... or the one." While Spock is supposed to be coldly logical, this is not a particularly logical statement since it is full of hidden premises. For example, how many? How few? Which many? Which few? What needs? Outweighs according to what point of reference? Why are the needs of the many necessarily considered more proper than the needs of the few? And so on.

Of course if Spock was a modern liberal, he would have been shoving Kirk into the radiation chamber while shouting that line.

Anyway, as much as I love Star Trek, it's usually best not to take ethics lessons from Hollywood.

[NorrinRadd]

what you are calling a 'collectivist mindset' is- in fact- what scripture teaches us to do.

Source: Phillipines 2:4

Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others

© Copyright Original Source

Source: jesus

...and love your neighbor as yourself

© Copyright Original Source

the Christian faith nowhere teaches the sort of me first, to h with everyone else attitude you are advocating.

I accept that is a potentially correct interpretation of Scripture. If I believed it extended to commanding sheeple to accept something not proven to be safe or effective long-term in order to *maybe* protect others, I would seriously consider abandoning the Faith.

[NorrinRadd]

BTW, I am in the at-risk group: Over age 50, overweight, with HBP (that's multiple "cormorbidities"). My application of "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Treat others as you would have others treat you" is to not whine at people to get vaxed or masked for my sake. I *do* strongly prefer that people who are symptomatic -- with ANYTHING -- stay the hell at home.

[oxmixmudd]

I accept that is a potentially correct interpretation of Scripture.

If I believed it extended to commanding sheeple to accept something not proven to be safe or effective long-term in order to *maybe* protect others, I would seriously consider abandoning the Faith.

I'm not using scripture to justify a governmental policy. wrt the verses I am quoting, I'm speaking in terms of our obligation as Christians regardless of what the government requires or does not require.

But separate from that, I do believe that wrt infectious disease and pandemics with large loss of life, the government does have the right, even a responsibility, to compel vaccination. An unvaccinated person under such conditions is, in fact, an imminent danger to themselves and others. It is no different than what gives the government the right to compel quarantine, to force incarceration of the mentally insane and dangerous, or the distribution and use of weapons of mass destruction.

[Ronson]

The line is actually "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few ... or the one." While Spock is supposed to be coldly logical, this is not a particularly logical statement since it is full of hidden premises. For example, how many? How few? Which many? Which few? What needs? Outweighs according to what point of reference? Why are the needs of the many necessarily considered more proper than the needs of the few? And so on.

Of course if Spock was a modern liberal, he would have been shoving Kirk into the radiation chamber while shouting that line.

That's a good one.

Anyway, as much as I love Star Trek, it's usually best not to take ethics lessons from Hollywood.

I brought up Star Trek because liberals/progressives will sometimes remind me of its Borg civilization. For those unknowing, the Borg civilization is modeled after a bee hive, with a queen and drones. There is no individuality among them; the "collective" civilization thinks as one and behaves as one.

A dystopian nightmare for anyone who values freedom and individual choice and responsibility.

[oxmixmudd]

BTW, I am in the at-risk group: Over age 50, overweight, with HBP (that's multiple "cormorbidities"). My application of "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Treat others as you would have others treat you" is to not whine at people to get vaxed or masked for my sake. I *do* strongly prefer that people who are symptomatic -- with ANYTHING -- stay the hell at home.

I don't think asking people to respect the rights of others to life is 'whining'. And you don't need to nor should you think of it in terms of 'for your sake'. The entire issue is the effect of this virus on millions of people, and these policies and requests are applied 'for others sake'. There are millions of people this virus can kill in the US alone if they are infected. It has already found 600,000+ of them. Why not look out for the well being of the other 2.5 to 4 million of them?

[oxmixmudd]

The line is actually "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few ... or the one." While Spock is supposed to be coldly logical, this is not a particularly logical statement since it is full of hidden premises. For example, how many? How few? Which many? Which few? What needs? Outweighs according to what point of reference? Why are the needs of the many necessarily considered more proper than the needs of the few? And so on.

The question was since I am a Star Trek fan, why my comments did not evoke the borg. The answer is given in like terms MM.

Of course if Spock was a modern liberal, he would have been shoving Kirk into the radiation chamber while shouting that line.

And if it was a modern conservative, they'd go hunting for an immigrant alien new to the ship that ought not be there in the first place.

Anyway, as much as I love Star Trek, it's usually best not to take ethics lessons from Hollywood.

In this case it served it's purpose in that caring for others and having a perhaps self-effacing responsibility to society in no way should evoke images of the Borg.

[Cow Poke]

Irrelavent. Do you have a rebuttal or do you concede the point?

You mean irrelevant. And that's what anybody else's posts are to you.

I wish you well, Jim.

[oxmixmudd]

You mean irrelevant.

Indeed - I did. And what you think of me ...

You're so full of yourself.

is in fact irrelevant to the point of the post you are responding to. But you know that is what I meant, in spite of your bluff and bluster implying otherwise.

[Cow Poke]

Indeed - I did. And what you think of me ...



is in fact irrelevant to the point of the post you are responding to. But you know that is what I meant, in spite of your bluff and bluster implying otherwise.

"bluff and bluster"

[oxmixmudd]

"bluff and bluster"

see sig.