Don't provoke him. His position is that anything can be argued with the right application of the craft of sophistry. He's not motivated by truth, only rhetoric.Tstorm pretty quiet on that last point
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
I actually didn't see it. Use the reply button if you want a response.Tstorm pretty quiet on that last point
Everyone dies. If someone is conceived in love, and their whole existence is the love of their parents, so be it. Death itself is not a crime. To be killed because they don't want you is the tragedy.
Are you aware that your first response to me in this back and forth was about how my post was laughable? And how I'm " afraid of the actual implications of everything you claim to believe". And here you did a whole rant about where you think my beliefs come from, and how irrational they are. And now you want anyone to believe you have nothing at all invested in me being wrong.
Like, this really isn't hard: living human organism = person, killing a person = bad. You are well within your rights to argue against either of those points, but they aren't complicated points, they aren't irrational, they aren't a contradiction. You've tried to claim they are all of those things in this thread, because you are throwing spaghetti at the wall to try and take me down a notch. But you've got nothing.
You all talk about how your skin cells dying isn't murder but killing an adult human is, but then when the real distinction between them is pointed to, one being a unique individual organism and the other being just parts, you claim that organism is an invented category. Maybe you'll all say something about size or intelligence after that, but you're not calling it murder if someone kills a dolphin. Maybe you'll make a point about being dependent on the mother, but children are dependent on adults way beyond pregnancy. And then you'll say something about being dependent on someone else's body and bodily autonomy being important, but then we've hit the point of "It's not killing someone... but if it is it's justified!"
You'll offer a half dozen contradictory positions, where the only thing they have in common is that they dispute what I'm saying, and then you expect me to believe that you have nothing investing in my argument being wrong and you're happy to concede to rational points... uhhhh, no.
The issue with abortion is that the woman's choice is just affecting herself, it's affecting the baby. Having an abortion is hurting the baby.
Again, community benefit was never a thing with the covid vaccine and we had already known that because of Israel. Israel was the 1st country to have a mass vaccination program and get people vaccinated in large numbers and they experienced a huge influx of infections post mass vaccinations and before the US's vaccination program got to a majority of people. So we already knew vaccination wasn't going to work to stop or slow covid from circulating in basically the same numbers as it was before and this was well before vaccine mandates were even thought of yet. The US experienced more cases in 21-22 cold season (post vaccinations) than in 20-21 (no vaccinations). The vaccine did not help to slow transmission, there's no evidence of it doing that, there was no point in mandating a vaccine that provided only benefit to yourself.
You seem to have (intentionally) ignored the bit about the significant numbers of pregnancies naturally lost before any party was aware it was present. Fuck those souls, eh?
I mean, other than those in northeastern Africa. There was a need to reduce system resource use and that seemed like the most merciful way.
There is almost certainly someone on this forum that knows exactly what I just linked without clicking it, and they are probably chuckling at the reference.
Only insofar as one actually believes in bodily autonomy as a principle above a duty to protect the life of others.
No, YOU think the community benefit isnt there. It definitely is, so is the economic benefit. It also means masks aren't necessary
The mandates were specifically around for people like you who decided they were more important than other people
Edit: I can understand Tstorm's misgivings about some women not being responsible around abortion and maybe they need restrictions ro help them make appropriate choices
You are those people in this issue
Last edited:
Well, I'm pretty sure when Phoenix first did the comparison, they meant the reverse.
I was just using their analogy. What other way did you think I meant?
No, it isn't, even Paul Offit said as much. Masks were never necessary, again there's no evidence basic masks work against an airborne disease. I had covid in March 2020 before any precautions were taken in the country, I didn't need a vaccine.
This event also demonstrated the covid vaccines weren't going to stop transmissions.
Ahhhh, so just fuck the ones from casual sex or assault. Right right. Weird God you got there.
This hasn't changed for them for years. They've made similar claims before.
God sure seems like a vengeful one. I wonder why people aren't going to church as often as they used.
It would also be cool if Christians opened up the Gospel and read it instead of making stuff up
You know you are the reason why there was any mandates, right?
Now, we are making the claim that vaccines were going to stop transmissions... you are fighting against a made-up straw man. No medical professional has claimed this because it would be utterly stupid to and is not how vaccines work. You made up an argument to score brownie points
You're literally just gaslighting me at this point. That was the narrative about covid vaccines for like a year and Youtube even banned you from saying vaccines don't stop transmissions.
USA Today is literally "fact-checking" social media posts that say vaccines don't stop transmissions. And the article is from Nov 2021, months after anyone with common sense could see vaccines in the US and across the world were not stopping covid transmissions.
Fact check: COVID-19 vaccine protects both the person vaccinated and those around them
"This is false information," Akiko Iwasaki, a professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale University, said in an email. "Vaccines provide significant protection from 'getting it' – infection – and 'spreading it' – transmission – even against the delta variant."
Fact check: Vaccines protect against contracting, spreading COVID-19
While vaccinated people can still get COVID-19, experts say the shots provide considerable protection against the virus.
www.usatoday.com
Last edited:
Maybe you want to read the title of that article again.You're literally just gaslighting me at this point. That was the narrative about covid vaccines for like a year and Youtube even banned you from saying vaccines don't stop transmissions.
USA Today is literally "fact-checking" social media posts that say vaccines don't stop transmissions. And the article is from Nov 2021, months after anyone with common sense could see vaccines in the US and across the world were not stopping covid transmissions.
Fact check: COVID-19 vaccine protects both the person vaccinated and those around them
"This is false information," Akiko Iwasaki, a professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale University, said in an email. "Vaccines provide significant protection from 'getting it' – infection – and 'spreading it' – transmission – even against the delta variant."
Fact check: Vaccines protect against contracting, spreading COVID-19
While vaccinated people can still get COVID-19, experts say the shots provide considerable protection against the virus.www.usatoday.com
See how they don't use the word 'stop'?
They (they here meaning the media, governments and disease centres around the world. I dont just mean the US, I mean over 100 countries around the world) will use the words like protect, reduce, limit or something similar because vaccines reduces your chance of getting severely affected by Covid. It just doesn't stop it.
Eg. You might be sitting in a classroom with someone who has Covid. Beforehand, you were likely to get sick if the ventilation is wrong for where you are sitting. Now with vaccines, you might not get sick on the first day. But if you are in the room everyday with sick people, eventually you will get Covid. The vaccine has dropped the Covid death rate from 500K per year to 100k per year. It hasn't stopped all deaths. It's a numbers game. Eventually, even with a vaccine, you will get Covid. That's how all flu vaccination work
But then, as you point out with Tstorm and abortion, me bringing what I think is facts into this is never going to change your opinion.
"Flatten the curve" was a popular one, though as we aren't seeing the big spikes that overload health systems so much that's gone out of favour nowdays.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you need a 100% reduction in infections/transmissions with the vaccination for a mandate, I'm saying there is literally no evidence that covid vaccines produced ANY community benefit (whether that is 80% or 40% or 10%). In science, you don't just get to claim things and not have any evidence to prove your claim. That is the case with covid vaccines and community benefit, there is no evidence they produced any community benefit. You show me actual evidence of community benefit and I'll change my mind. The fact that the US had more infections in the 21-22 cold season (post vaccination) vs the 20-21 cold season, the Massachusetts infection event that occurred, what happened in Israel and what happened post-vaccination in every country looks highly likely the vaccine offered no community benefit.
Can you believe the article at the end asks if covid vaccinations will be needed every few months? That is just fucking insane to even ask. That is how crazy people were with covid, and then anyone saying otherwise were people that wanted to kill grandma...
Vaccines could theoretically reduce transmission. Prevent it complete, almost certainly not.
Vaccination should mean someone's body combats the relevant infection faster and more effectively. This should mean they could have active virus for a shorter time, and a lower viral load such that they transfer less virus to others. So it is possible the window of time where they are infectious and the potential to infect others within that window would both be lower.
Or we can just use actual data and real world evidence (because we have that) and show that covid vaccines basically do nothing to reduce transmission.
A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people. The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients, requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.