Enraged. incandescent

The Question

Eternal
You’re going off on yet another tangent. First you argue against vaccines because you’re scared of getting cancer.
Remember that thing I noted you don't do? You don't read attentively. I've never used the word 'cancer' in this thread, previous to this post. And I'm not 'scared' of anything. Your attempt to assign a motive is the cheapest kind of gaslighting.

But I'll tell you a secret, lady... you can't gaslight somebody who really IS crazy...
Willem Dafoe Smile GIF

And I have no idea what you think you're going to pull with that triple negative. As the NIH abstract states, and as Fauci repeats in the linked podcast, the vaccines' efficacy is actually minimal and across some data trends deleterious. The data trends in Israel prove this, and what's been coming to light in Israel first is rapidly proving out across a total of 68 nations and in counties across the United States.

Now then, "She-Jay", you get one more chance to desist from acting stupid before I conclude that you're not acting and send you to the cornfield.
 

USUC

Trollzilla
Re: the cancer thing I mixed you up with some other nitrous oxide inhaling monkey…Jaster. My bad.
Here is a summary of the the NIH data that you keep harping about. As I have said…no doubt the vaccines effectiveness is waning but even without boosters it’s still preventing hospitalizations and death. Don’t see how you can argue the vaccines are deleterious.
“Analyzing the government’s [Israel] national health statistics, researchers estimated that the Pfizer shot was just 39 percent effective against preventing infection in the country in late June and early July, compared with 95 percent from January to early April. In both time periods, however, the shot was more than 90 percent effective in preventing severe disease”.
 

The Question

Eternal
You waited all that time just to flunk lunch. Well, that was your last chance to smarten up. But it's time to go back to W.C. Fields' advice: "Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump."

Hope you're not working for Pfizer for free. Later, chump. ;)
 

The Question

Eternal
So... here's something... fun.

Why, sure, they'll let us know what the deal is with the vax! In 55 years.

(Note: That's Reuters, right there, not Breitbart. Let's just Not, this time, with bitching about the source in an attempt to weasel past the issue.)
 

The Question

Eternal
Specious. You've probably had a teaspoonful of NyQuil at some point in your life, too -- if some Karen threatens to get you fired from your job for refusing to chug cough syrup when you don't happen to feel like it, the former is not a suitable excuse for the latter.

Make no mistake, that's what these mandates are -- Karenism run fully fucking amok. You show them contradictory data, they just ignore it. So let's just boil off all the bullshit: The bootlicking supporters of mandates are Karens. "Do what you're told!"

No.
:naughty:
 

USUC

Trollzilla
Specious. You've probably had a teaspoonful of NyQuil at some point in your life, too -- if some Karen threatens to get you fired from your job for refusing to chug cough syrup when you don't happen to feel like it, the former is not a suitable excuse for the latter.

Make no mistake, that's what these mandates are -- Karenism run fully fucking amok. You show them contradictory data, they just ignore it. So let's just boil off all the bullshit: The bootlicking supporters of mandates are Karens. "Do what you're told!"

No.
:naughty:
“Karens,” a slang term for middle-aged white women (which seems to have stemmed from the popular “Can I speak to a manager?” meme,) who have become infamous online for their shameless displays of entitlement, privilege, and racism — and their tendency to call the police when they don’t get what they want.
Really Question? You’re blaming vaccine mandates (or everyone who chooses to get vaccinated) on privileged, middle aged white women?
You have a problem with women (although I kinda like the power you give us).
Yeah bad boy….get your damn vaccine or I’ll spank your dwarf fat ass. Jesus.
I actually agree that the FOIA release time is absurd. I don’t necessarily think it’s nefarious but it’s at least terribly incompetent.
 

The Question

Eternal
"Enraged. incandescent" = "Angery and magnesium"
 

Volpone

Zombie Hunter
Here's my calculus on the whole thing: First off, can we agree that the vaccine doesn't do a particularly good job of stopping the delta variant? From what I've read you're about as likely to get the delta variant if you've had the vaccine or not. And can we also agree that they've decided that the initial 2 shots are not enough to be effective and you will also need a booster shot--and may need future booster shots? That's in order to ensure you have basically the same chance of getting the virus as someone who hasn't had the shot.

So as it stands, I have to decided if I'm willing to risk the 1% of 1% chance that I'll get a slight cold that eventually goes away on its own or if I should get the shot...so I can have a 1% chance of a 1% chance of getting a slightly milder cold that eventually goes away--and, 15-20 years down the road, when I'm watching late-nite TV and the attorney comes on to ask if I had the COVID vaccine and now I've sprouted 6 large hairy teats out of my back, I drool constantly and uncontrollably, and have metastasized stage 4 non-Hodgkins lymphoma, I can call their 800 number and get my share of the settlement money--if it turns out the vaccine is wonky. Hmm...that's a tough one.
 

The Question

Eternal
Here's my calculus on the whole thing: First off, can we agree that the vaccine doesn't do a particularly good job of stopping the delta variant? From what I've read you're about as likely to get the delta variant if you've had the vaccine or not. And can we also agree that they've decided that the initial 2 shots are not enough to be effective and you will also need a booster shot--and may need future booster shots? That's in order to ensure you have basically the same chance of getting the virus as someone who hasn't had the shot.

So as it stands, I have to decided if I'm willing to risk the 1% of 1% chance that I'll get a slight cold that eventually goes away on its own or if I should get the shot...so I can have a 1% chance of a 1% chance of getting a slightly milder cold that eventually goes away--and, 15-20 years down the road, when I'm watching late-nite TV and the attorney comes on to ask if I had the COVID vaccine and now I've sprouted 6 large hairy teats out of my back, I drool constantly and uncontrollably, and have metastasized stage 4 non-Hodgkins lymphoma, I can call their 800 number and get my share of the settlement money--if it turns out the vaccine is wonky. Hmm...that's a tough one.
What tips the scale for me is that they want people to feel like villains for making that medical decision for themselves.
 

Volpone

Zombie Hunter
If you have to be persuaded, bullied, pressured, incentivized, lied to, guilt-tripped, coerced, socially-shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished, and criminalized, if all of this is necessary to gain your compliance, you can be absolutely certain what is being promoted is NOT in your best interest.
433

So wearing a seatbelt, not driving drunk, trying to prevent the insane from owning guns and not smoking in restaurants are not in YOUR best interests? Too bad. They’re in my best interests.

How about banning abortion, castrating gays to prevent the transmission of HIV, and summarily executing drug addicts to prevent drug-fueled crime? Those are in the best interests of others, too -- you cool with any of them?

That’s not just a slippery slope; it’s a fucking avalanche. Shut up until you have something intelligent to say.
So you're really going to use the reductio ad absurdum fallacy and then complain when someone counters with the slippery slope fallacy? :marathon:
 

The Question

Eternal
So you're really going to use the reductio ad absurdum fallacy and then complain when someone counters with the slippery slope fallacy? :marathon:
Thing is, with "progressives", the slippery slope is less often a fallacy than it should be.

Remember when religious nutters on the right clutched pearls about how increased societal acceptance of gays would eventually lead to a point where we see progressives pushing for societal acceptance of kiddie diddlers? Remember how they were for the most part accused of promoting a slippery slope fallacy?


Granted, this weirdo appears to be a one-off, for now. But the fact that he felt comfortable enough with his position to talk openly about it in an interview indicates that that slope isn't as slippery as it was made out to be. That's usually the case with "progressives."

Another example: Saule Omarova, an actual Communist who has argued that individuals shouldn't have private bank accounts, getting nominated to be in charge of our currency. I guess we expect slippery slopes of the left mostly for the reason that the left keeps flinging themselves head-first down slippery slopes.
 

Volpone

Zombie Hunter
Oh, I know. Or they come up with a policy that is almost certain to cause runaway inflation and, when you point this out, they say "shut up, we know what we're doing." Then a year later you get Elizabeth Warren demanding the DoJ investigate why turkey is suddenly so expensive. (Hint: It isn't because of foolish policy decisions, it's because the eeeevil Capitalists are gouging the poor helpless proles.)
 

The Question

Eternal
30cb4e47e68ef84f.png


"B-b-b-b-but... I was a GOOD boy! I... I did everything they told me to doooohoohoohoohoo! :wah!:"
LMFAO
 

USUC

Trollzilla
Here's my calculus on the whole thing: First off, can we agree that the vaccine doesn't do a particularly good job of stopping the delta variant? From what I've read you're about as likely to get the delta variant if you've had the vaccine or not. And can we also agree that they've decided that the initial 2 shots are not enough to be effective and you will also need a booster shot--and may need future booster shots? That's in order to ensure you have basically the same chance of getting the virus as someone who hasn't had the shot.

So as it stands, I have to decided if I'm willing to risk the 1% of 1% chance that I'll get a slight cold that eventually goes away on its own or if I should get the shot...so I can have a 1% chance of a 1% chance of getting a slightly milder cold that eventually goes away--and, 15-20 years down the road, when I'm watching late-nite TV and the attorney comes on to ask if I had the COVID vaccine and now I've sprouted 6 large hairy teats out of my back, I drool constantly and uncontrollably, and have metastasized stage 4 non-Hodgkins lymphoma, I can call their 800 number and get my share of the settlement money--if it turns out the vaccine is wonky. Hmm...that's a tough one.
I think at last check you’re 14 more times likely to die from Covid if you’re not vaccinated. Personally I don’t care about people who die who chose not to get vaccinated….just stay out of the hospitals and stop raising all the numbers creating lock downs and mask mandates. Just take ur unvaccinated selves and go die quietly.
 

The Question

Eternal
stop raising all the numbers creating lock downs and mask mandates.
The politicians are the ones creating lockdowns and mask mandates.

And they're doing it because dipshits are complying with their illegal bullshit, which emboldens them to engage in still more of the same illegal bullshit. You're not going to "obey them into submission."
 

The Question

Eternal
Makes you think. Well, depending on whether or not you engage in that dirty, dirty "thinking" habit, of course.

98c7d5a6d3a6bcb8.jpeg
 
Top