INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Fun With Matches on December 15, 2021, 04:20:38 PM
-
In London:
-
Shit like this will just prolong the whole thing.
-
Is superspreader one word or two?
-
Fucktards
-
Shit like this will just prolong the whole thing.
Can't prolong forever. And I see no sign this is otherwise. It's too much like flu - and likely heading more in that direction.
-
Fucktards
QFT
-
Did anyone see footage of Piers Corbyn's speach yesterday telling his followers to burn down the offices of any MPs who voted for covid measure? Yes? Well apparantly so did the Police.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/piers-corbyn-arrested-protest-video-mp-offices-burn-b972788.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/piers-corbyn-arrested-protest-video-mp-offices-burn-b972788.html)
-
Fucktards
QFT
:indeed:
Anti-vaxxers are dangerously stupid.
-
Why do people label one whole group as “anti vaxxers”…the issue is bigger than that. You can still be vaccinated (or not) and disagree with the gagging of free speech and discussion.
-
What gagging of free speech is happening? Anti-vax types have full reign of it!
People are too free to spread any old bullshit these days, if anything.
-
Why do people label one whole group as “anti vaxxers”
I just assumed the topic is also anti-vaccine because the title says anti covid vaccine, rather than simply saying anti-mandate. :dunno:
-
Why do people label one whole group as “anti vaxxers”…the issue is bigger than that. You can still be vaccinated (or not) and disagree with the gagging of free speech and discussion.
"My free speech is being gagged" says people exercising their power of free speech?
But I guess you're right about the labelling. They're not just anti-vaxxers. They're also anti-maskers. Anti-social distancers. And anti-science-ers. They also think that there is a huge plot that includes every single world governemnt, every pharma company and every single Doctor to make us take a medicine so "they"* can profit.
But I guess the label is wrong, it should be "assorted fuck wits".
*No one ever explains who "they" are.
-
Do you like being labelled as one thing or another because of AS, for example? Do you like being told you have no feelings, or are always selfish, or awkward?
Labelling people as one thing is a dangerous practice. Not all people who have rallied are anti vaccines, and even if they are, isn’t that ok?
I’m not condoning violence by any stretch, but one label fits all is dangerous thinking and tells me you are buying into the black and white narrative.
People are gagged on many platforms. Yes. Does that sit well with you? Are you not on I2 because if it’s freedom to debate topics? Or has that all changed too?
-
Do you like being labelled as one thing or another because of AS, for example? Do you like being told you have no feelings, or are always selfish, or awkward?
Wouldn't care. It's mostly true. As is the fact that the marchers are not rightlyputting their side of the argument because their side is based on untruth and misinformation and is being exploited by the far right. There is no right on their side. If people tell you that the sun comes out at night it isn't neccessary to accomodate their point of view, it is neccessary to point out that they are fuck wits.
Labelling people as one thing is a dangerous practice. Not all people who have rallied are anti vaccines, and even if they are, isn’t that ok?
No. Stupidity is nmot a crime, but when it leads to them letting a pandemic propogate about and kill otherwise blameless people then it is wrong. Very wrong.
I’m not condoning violence by any stretch, but one label fits all is dangerous thinking and tells me you are buying into the black and white narrative.
I've not said anything about violence, have I. But that said, if the police wanted to steam in riot sticks I would watch it all with popcorn if possible. Fuck them. People die because of their moronic, uneducated beliefs.
People are gagged on many platforms. Yes. Does that sit well with you? Are you not on I2 because if it’s freedom to debate topics? Or has that all changed too?
People are not gagged on any platform. What has been stopped (unsuccessfully) is the blatant spreading of easily provable misinformation that is being spread by foreign "!bad actors" and people who generally aren't educated to the point of correct punctuation. It's not free speech, it's the willful or unwitting spreading of lies.
-
I'm of the opinion that it's OK to drive my car on the pavement. It's my car and my body so why shouldn't I do what I want? I demand my viewpoint is respected.
-
The problem is that the arguments simply do not add up. There is no truth or facts to anything anti-vax, anti-mandate etc, they all come from the same source of shite.
The real truth is that the government and people are fucking around too much, meaning COVID has mutated to the point we need a fucking booster shot. The whole thing could have ended in 2020 but everyone kept fucking around. All of this just proved how stupid humanity is as a whole, in my eyes.
I don't want to be wearing masks and such, I don't want to be constantly worrying due to Emma being vulnerable. I am fed up of listening to how the government is doing X and Y to try and stop it. But thanks to people being stupid as a whole, it means I have to.
The very fact they're protesting in droves more or less proves they're not being curbed in terms of free speech. They have a right to be stupid, I have a right to call them stupid.
-
So you are completely comfortable with a company that has predicted a $33Bn profit this year from a vaccine that clearly doesn’t work?
-
The real truth is that the government and people are fucking around too much, meaning COVID has mutated to the point we need a fucking booster shot.
Just like the flu. Every year if you wanna be safest.
Still a little more deadly, but it's coming down.
There's a point where you assess the risk compared to the annoyance and say "yep, I still think individual cars driven by non-professionals makes sense" or whatever.
As an anti-life advocate, I'm pretty much in favor of the culling, even if it won't stick.
-
So you are completely comfortable with a company that has predicted a $33Bn profit this year from a vaccine that clearly doesn’t work?
Which one are you referring to? To my knowledge there's solid data the vaccines help reduce the severity and spread.
-
So you are completely comfortable with a company that has predicted a $33Bn profit this year from a vaccine that clearly doesn’t work?
The vaccine clearly does work. The evidence of this is pretty substantial. Far less people get serious symptoms, far less deaths.
The booster is due to ongoing mutations, which are starting to circumvent the original effectiveness of the vaccines. The same mutations caused by idiots fucking around like in these anti-vax marches. Governments don't care, they care more about the economy than actually getting rid of COVID.
It's funny that you say these marches are not anti-vax in nature (they are), yet you respond with an inherently anti-vax position.
-
In Australia, I can assure you that a large proportion of those attending rallies are vaccinated.
So maybe define what your term anti vax means because your blending into a whole lot of territory to cling to a single label for protesters.
-
So you are completely comfortable with a company that has predicted a $33Bn profit this year from a vaccine that clearly doesn’t work?
The vaccine does work and has been proven to work by the combined might of science, medicine and documented fact. The fact it has not brought the pandemic to an end is because not enough people have taken it. This is because a) the rich countries are keeping it to themselves, and b) halfwits saying that it makes your door key stick to your face. Or is it over large testicles this week? I lose track on what the current bullshit is.
Why we know vaccines work (https://royalsociety.org/blog/2021/01/why-we-know-vaccines-work/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAk4aOBhCTARIsAFWFP9FDM5R36eoo-wRw4zrnV0isPAeAyD3vvDdUgKeeFSkJlsCj0Pwx8QgaAjaVEALw_wcB)
-
In Australia, I can assure you that a large proportion of those attending rallies are vaccinated.
So maybe define what your term anti vax means because your blending into a whole lot of territory to cling to a single label for protesters.
I refer to them as Anti-vaxxers because they were literally protesting against vaccine use and many carried placards denouncing vaccines. I cannot see why someone who was pro-vaccine would go to an anti-vaccine protest to protest against vaccines. But I guess I'm just not bright enough to work it out. I mean, the entire worlds combined Doctors and scientists have failed to work out that vaccines don't really work and are just made to make money, whereas some people with very little education have managed to work it out by themselves with no information other than what they read on social media.
Reporting from this weekends London protests.
https://news.sky.com/video/covid-19-anti-vax-protests-see-thousands-descend-on-london-to-demonstrate-against-latest-virus-restrictions-12499671 (https://news.sky.com/video/covid-19-anti-vax-protests-see-thousands-descend-on-london-to-demonstrate-against-latest-virus-restrictions-12499671)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/18/police-suffer-minor-injuries-in-london-scuffles-with-anti-vax-protesters (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/18/police-suffer-minor-injuries-in-london-scuffles-with-anti-vax-protesters)
Even Reuters...
https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/anti-vaxxers-protest-in-london-idUSRTXHFDCK (https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/anti-vaxxers-protest-in-london-idUSRTXHFDCK)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlvBP8f6S-I
-
In Australia, I can assure you that a large proportion of those attending rallies are vaccinated.
So maybe define what your term anti vax means because your blending into a whole lot of territory to cling to a single label for protesters.
Anti-vax doesn't always mean they're anti all vaccinations. It just means an unwarranted scepticism, usually laced with conspiracy theories and misinformation, on either a specific vaccination, or vaccinations as a whole.
We've seen this with the MMR vaccination back in the day.
-
So you are completely comfortable with a company that has predicted a $33Bn profit this year from a vaccine that clearly doesn’t work?
Actually they've raised their expected revenue by 7.5% so it's nearer $36billion. But that is revenue. Not profit.
But circling back, you think vaccines are wrong because companies charge money for them? Astrazenica is a non-profit. Take that one.
-
In Australia, I can assure you that a large proportion of those attending rallies are vaccinated.
So maybe define what your term anti vax means because your blending into a whole lot of territory to cling to a single label for protesters.
Anti-vax doesn't always mean they're anti all vaccinations. It just means an unwarranted scepticism, usually laced with conspiracy theories and misinformation, on either a specific vaccination, or vaccinations as a whole.
We've seen this with the MMR vaccination back in the day.
I've yet to be presented with a single piece of antivax "evidence" that wasn't easily and quickly disprovable or wasn't evidentally based on trash statistics or science. All the vaxxers do is throw up the next nonsensicle piece of "evidence". They tend not accept that maybe they're getting their information from bullshitters.
-
But circling back, you think vaccines are wrong because companies charge money for them? Astrazenica is a non-profit. Take that one.
1. Could you point out where I specifically said that?
2. Can you honestly say where there is an event, for example, where 1 in 6 attendees catch and spread the virus, that it demonstrates a vaccine that has efficacy?
3. It is not able to be proven if the vaccine actually reduces or on the flip side, exacerbates symptoms. Perhaps consider that it triggers adverse reactions. Perhaps consider that stats on adverse reactions are being suppressed, that medical staff are being coached to ignore issues. If you feel comfortable in a world like that, then so be it, but the core issue, is not anti vaccinations. It’s about suppression on many levels.
-
that it demonstrates a vaccine that has efficacy?
Here are the stats of deaths before vaccination rollout in the UK, and after.
(https://i.ibb.co/XDw1MC4/Screenshot-2021-12-22-at-08-32-48.png) (https://ibb.co/w7vVjzL)
And hospitalisations:
(https://i.ibb.co/Y22yC9f/Screenshot-2021-12-22-at-08-34-34.png) (https://ibb.co/hssZ652)
upload pix (https://imgbb.com/)
The vaccination drastically reduces severe symptoms/deaths. The above clearly shows this.
-
It could be perspective. The excess death rate tracker have been following shows that country hasn't been impacted as severely others, with highest excess death rates comparable to the lowest in the US and with current rates in the UK. While there has been change, the lesser overall impact for that country also means lesser improvement since the vaccine roll out, and rates were actually better a year ago before there was a vaccine, with highest excess mortality occurring after the vaccine.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline?time=2020-01-05..latest&country=GBR~USA~AUS
-
But circling back, you think vaccines are wrong because companies charge money for them? Astrazenica is a non-profit. Take that one.
1. Could you point out where I specifically said that?
2. Can you honestly say where there is an event, for example, where 1 in 6 attendees catch and spread the virus, that it demonstrates a vaccine that has efficacy?
3. It is not able to be proven if the vaccine actually reduces or on the flip side, exacerbates symptoms. Perhaps consider that it triggers adverse reactions. Perhaps consider that stats on adverse reactions are being suppressed, that medical staff are being coached to ignore issues. If you feel comfortable in a world like that, then so be it, but the core issue, is not anti vaccinations. It’s about suppression on many levels.
Jesus H Christ. Where do you get your information? Pretty much every part of every sentence is based on easily debunked junk science. Is this the University of Facebook, Twitterpedia?
I honestly can't even be bothered. You could fact check yourself from verifiable sources in two minutes using google to find resources. At this point your ignorance is entirely willful.
Seriously, if you're an Aspie you should know better than this.
Get some FACTS.
-
Nicely avoiding the first two issues raised in the quote.
Why would you even quote it all if you can't deal with the points?
-
Because the points are so laughably bad, they shouldn't really be entertaining them to begin with.
"Is the sky green?" - considering you're not colour blind, just look up.
I've dealt with anti-vax types - no amount of evidence will make them snap out of their stupidity. I've provided some basic evidence, but obviously it will be ignored.
-
Nicely avoiding the first two issues raised in the quote.
Why would you even quote it all if you can't deal with the points?
In the time it takes me to respond the other party could find a source of good informaiton and correct themselves. The fact that they have not done this so far means that any further effort I expend on correcting their willful ignorance will be a complete fucking waste of time. I'm done wasting my time on people who get their medical knowledge from the Facebook University of Fuckwittery.
The anti-vax agenda is being pushed by troll farms and nazis. If you believe then you are either a) a Nazi, b) a fuckwit, or c) a Nazi Fuckwit.
I'm done with these people. I have been polite for over a fucking year and I'm done. At this point in time if you haven't found a stream of truthful information for yourself then I'm too tired to continue. Just try not to take anyone of worth with you when your ignorance eventually kills you or someone you pass your pathogens on to.
-
No. Fuck it. Let's do one more deep dive into the realms of ignorance.
Can someone paste up a link to the "evidence" that one in six people catch covid from the vaccination centres they attend (or whatever today's meme is). Let's take a look at it.
-
No. Fuck it. Let's do one more deep dive into the realms of ignorance.
Can someone paste up a link to the "evidence" that one in six people catch covid from the vaccination centres they attend (or whatever today's meme is). Let's take a look at it.
That would be nice. But it may be a difficult burden - a less than fair demand by Eclaire to prove something that probably isn't all that important (and Omicron will probably provide that evidence). The more interesting one is where no one even has to do research. Just look at this thread.
I ain't seeing it. And, in order to maintain any semblance of intellectual honesty, you should be admitting your mistake - or pointing out what we've missed. When people brush off such factors completely, and don't own up to their own hyperbole, it helps create entrenchment in positions; the precise situation that is preventing rational discussions.
-
An entrenchment already has happened - typically in these debates, it's more showing how silly the person's position is to others, rather than trying to convince.
I think the former has already been convincingly demonstrated.
-
Yes, it has. Reinforcing it is precisely what we do not need though.
Because, both sides have their knee-jerk reactions that are not supportable.
The only means of realizing your own best path is to see things without them.
-
Why do people label one whole group as “anti vaxxers”…the issue is bigger than that. You can still be vaccinated (or not) and disagree with the gagging of free speech and discussion.
Exactly. I found out through JPSears that the Merriam Webster dictionary recently updated their definition of "anti-vaxxer" to include this:
a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
Now, whether anyone is for mandatory vaccines or not, I for one am NOT against vaccines, but am against mandating them as I believe it is a breach of human rights. This dictionary definition is clearly misleading. Look at one of the examples it gives also:
He said, while he will not get the COVID-19 vaccine, he is not an "anti-vaxxer" against all vaccinations.
Quoting "anti-vaxxer" as if what the man said wasn't believable or credible.
Before any of you jump on me, at least you can acknowledge that this dictionary definition is misleading and not precise. Right?
-
Yes, it has. Reinforcing it is precisely what we do not need though.
Because, both sides have their knee-jerk reactions that are not supportable.
The only means of realizing your own best path is to see things without them.
lol it's not a "both sides" issue.
One side is demonstrably correct, the other is based on misinformation and conspiracy nonsense.
The problem is once that someone gets in that tin foil rut, it's more or less impossible for people to convince them otherwise. Arguing with them with the intent to change that person's mind becomes pointless.
Arguing that you lot are idiots however, that's very convincing to most people on here.
-
Why do people label one whole group as “anti vaxxers”…the issue is bigger than that. You can still be vaccinated (or not) and disagree with the gagging of free speech and discussion.
Exactly. I found out through JPSears that the Merriam Webster dictionary recently updated their definition of "anti-vaxxer" to include this:
a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
Now, whether anyone is for mandatory vaccines or not, I for one am NOT against vaccines, but am against mandating them as I believe it is a breach of human rights. This dictionary definition is clearly misleading. Look at one of the examples it gives also:
He said, while he will not get the COVID-19 vaccine, he is not an "anti-vaxxer" against all vaccinations.
Quoting "anti-vaxxer" as if what the man said wasn't believable or credible.
Before any of you jump on me, at least you can acknowledge that this dictionary definition is misleading and not precise. Right?
Sorry, anti-mandate is indeed an anti-vax position, especially if most people protesting already were vaccinated - that more or less shows they're healthy enough to get another! Seriously, that very fact makes it all the more ridiculous. If there were actual issues with the vaccinations outside the usual rare allergic reactions, they wouldn't be well enough to protest.
There are alternate vaccinations for people who have allergic reactions to specific vaccinations. Even then, you can still get exemptions from vaccination if you have a valid reason, as detailed here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-medical-exemptions-proving-you-are-unable-to-get-vaccinated
-
No. Fuck it. Let's do one more deep dive into the realms of ignorance.
Can someone paste up a link to the "evidence" that one in six people catch covid from the vaccination centres they attend (or whatever today's meme is). Let's take a look at it.
That would be nice. But it may be a difficult burden - a less than fair demand by Eclaire to prove something that probably isn't all that important (and Omicron will probably provide that evidence). The more interesting one is where no one even has to do research. Just look at this thread.
I ain't seeing it. And, in order to maintain any semblance of intellectual honesty, you should be admitting your mistake - or pointing out what we've missed. When people brush off such factors completely, and don't own up to their own hyperbole, it helps create entrenchment in positions; the precise situation that is preventing rational discussions.
Saying that vaccines do not work is not a rational discussion. A rational discussion would end when the antivaxer is handed the evidence to disprove their idiotic point of view. But it doesn't. They just change their belief system to exclude the point just proven. That is not rational. It is simply a waste of fuking time and effort for everyone else.
If anyone wants to post up whatever stupid reasons there are for not getting vaccinated this week I'll gladly point out why they're dumb and paste up some links to easily found peer reviewed science that any moron could have found for themselves in two minutes on Google.
-
Why do people label one whole group as “anti vaxxers”…the issue is bigger than that. You can still be vaccinated (or not) and disagree with the gagging of free speech and discussion.
The anti-vaxxer issue is exactly that big. The people who refuse to get vaccinated vs the people who do. Nobody's shutting anyone up. The fact that they're not getting away with it does not equal the gagging of free speech, just that free speech is working.
Free speech is not about a safe zone.
-
Do you like being labelled as one thing or another because of AS, for example? Do you like being told you have no feelings, or are always selfish, or awkward?
Labelling people as one thing is a dangerous practice. Not all people who have rallied are anti vaccines, and even if they are, isn’t that ok?
I’m not condoning violence by any stretch, but one label fits all is dangerous thinking and tells me you are buying into the black and white narrative.
People are gagged on many platforms. Yes. Does that sit well with you? Are you not on I2 because if it’s freedom to debate topics? Or has that all changed too?
My mum put all of this very succintly: Nobody asked me if I wanted a polio shot. That would have been stupid.
The fact of the matter is that needlessly many people are dying because some people refuse to get vaccinated. Understandably, some survivors, vulnerable people and sentient beings in general think this refusal is moronic and selfish.
Debate all you want but don't say you aren't allowed to, and don't equate people disagreeing with you in not-so-polite terms with not allowed to have your say,
-
I would have thought it safe to say that the available vaccines do work. There's a lot of evidence to support this. The problem is that not enough people get vaccinated, which allows the virus to survive and mutate.
Understand that viruses mutate all the time. It's what they do. It's evolution. It's natural selection and, while not necessarily good news for us as a species, not very controversial. Allow the bug to continue and it will change.
There's nothing controversial or new about any of this. The vaccines are kind of new and exciting, but how they are supposed to work is not. I repeat: there is nothing controversial about any of this.
Or at least there shouldn't be. Science gave you mobile phones and the internet and Aspirin, and it now wants to give you this.
-
Yes, it has. Reinforcing it is precisely what we do not need though.
Because, both sides have their knee-jerk reactions that are not supportable.
The only means of realizing your own best path is to see things without them.
lol it's not a "both sides" issue.
Actually, it is. Because the economic costs of lockdowns and the societal costs of mandates are probably greater than the lives being lost.
One side is demonstrably correct, the other is based on misinformation and conspiracy nonsense.
Conspiracy nonsense has to be baked into the equation. Actions which, though backed by medical science should also
take into account the predictable reactions from a social sciences point of view. Manipulation is an art, and the heavy hand of
government mandates may cause more intransigence as well as tearing the fabric of the society apart.
The problem is once that someone gets in that tin foil rut, it's more or less impossible for people to convince them otherwise. Arguing with them with the intent to change that person's mind becomes pointless.
See? you get half of it. And the more you push people INTO that tinfoil rut, the worse it will be.
Arguing that you lot are idiots however, that's very convincing to most people on here.
Yet, you, in your own entrenched dogmatic position, cannot see any better than the conspiracy theorists can.
As I said - both sides are filled with knee-jerk conformists to a party line, further causing the issues.
-
No. Fuck it. Let's do one more deep dive into the realms of ignorance.
Can someone paste up a link to the "evidence" that one in six people catch covid from the vaccination centres they attend (or whatever today's meme is). Let's take a look at it.
That would be nice. But it may be a difficult burden - a less than fair demand by Eclaire to prove something that probably isn't all that important (and Omicron will probably provide that evidence). The more interesting one is where no one even has to do research. Just look at this thread.
I ain't seeing it. And, in order to maintain any semblance of intellectual honesty, you should be admitting your mistake - or pointing out what we've missed. When people brush off such factors completely, and don't own up to their own hyperbole, it helps create entrenchment in positions; the precise situation that is preventing rational discussions.
Saying that vaccines do not work is not a rational discussion. A rational discussion would end when the antivaxer is handed the evidence to disprove their idiotic point of view. But it doesn't. They just change their belief system to exclude the point just proven. That is not rational. It is simply a waste of fuking time and effort for everyone else.
If anyone wants to post up whatever stupid reasons there are for not getting vaccinated this week I'll gladly point out why they're dumb and paste up some links to easily found peer reviewed science that any moron could have found for themselves in two minutes on Google.
Google won't show where Eclaire made the statement that you claimed she did.
This forum doesn't reveal it to me.
And this is where you're being dishonest. You keep sweeping where you're clearly wrong away.
An inability to admit your own errors makes you fundamentally an untrustworthy participant.
-
Sorry, anti-mandate is indeed an anti-vax position, especially if most people protesting already were vaccinated - that more or less shows they're healthy enough to get another! Seriously, that very fact makes it all the more ridiculous. If there were actual issues with the vaccinations outside the usual rare allergic reactions, they wouldn't be well enough to protest.
There are people who are fully vaccinated who oppose the mandates.
Fully support and agree with vaccination, but don't see a reason to force it on people. So no, it ain't the same thing.
I supported mandates at one point, but am leaning further away from it as an unwise choice going forward NOW.
Mainly because the damage that such a step would cause now is greater than the harm it would prevent.
That wasn't so clear to me 6 mos. ago.
-
I would have thought it safe to say that the available vaccines do work. There's a lot of evidence to support this. The problem is that not enough people get vaccinated, which allows the virus to survive and mutate.
Understand that viruses mutate all the time. It's what they do. It's evolution. It's natural selection and, while not necessarily good news for us as a species, not very controversial. Allow the bug to continue and it will change.
There's nothing controversial or new about any of this. The vaccines are kind of new and exciting, but how they are supposed to work is not. I repeat: there is nothing controversial about any of this.
Or at least there shouldn't be. Science gave you mobile phones and the internet and Aspirin, and it now wants to give you this.
Here's the screwy thing about the vaccines (or natural immunity) - they still allow for lower level infections, which are sometimes perfect breeding grounds for more mutations, as the evolutionary pressures are heightened. A virus in a non-protected person has no such pressures and can live on.
The only strong argument for vaccine mandates is the fragility that we've built into our health care systems. And this can be obviated by requiring vaccination in order to be TREATED for COVID. Otherwise, just lock 'em up in isolation.
-
Here's the screwy thing about the vaccines (or natural immunity) - they still allow for lower level infections, which are sometimes perfect breeding grounds for more mutations, as the evolutionary pressures are heightened. A virus in a non-protected person has no such pressures and can live on.
That's simply not correct. A mutation is an error in DNA replication and will occur regardless. There are factors that may increase those errors but "evolutionary pressures" do not increase if you introduce a vaccine. Quite the contrary, if the vaccine works - fewer are infected and the virus is transmitted for a shorter period of time, meaning that the number of mutations has to go down.
The only strong argument for vaccine mandates is the fragility that we've built into our health care systems. And this can be obviated by requiring vaccination in order to be TREATED for COVID. Otherwise, just lock 'em up in isolation.
Actually, there is a strong argument for vaccine mandates if you want to move about in society. It doesn't have to be because you need treatment for covid - although if you remain unvaccinated and ignore social distancing, there's a good chance that's where you'll end up.
-
Here's the screwy thing about the vaccines (or natural immunity) - they still allow for lower level infections, which are sometimes perfect breeding grounds for more mutations, as the evolutionary pressures are heightened. A virus in a non-protected person has no such pressures and can live on.
That's simply not correct. A mutation is an error in DNA replication and will occur regardless. There are factors that may increase those errors but "evolutionary pressures" do not increase if you introduce a vaccine. Quite the contrary, if the vaccine works - fewer are infected and the virus is transmitted for a shorter period of time, meaning that the number of mutations has to go down.
Evolutionary pressures don't change mutation rates. They do impact which mutations are favored. Make life more difficult under circumstances (higher immune response) and the mutations which provide a benefit to evading the immune response are now favored. Of course, without the response to be evaded, there isn't any protection anyhow, so it's kind of a wash from our standpoint.
There is an interesting play between the quantity of mutations and dominance. You will get more mutations the larger infection rates. But there will be no incentive (in terms of suitability) towards evading immune responses that aren't present. What there will be an incentive for is reducing the virulence: because a virus which kills its host is less fit than one which doesn't. This is actually where we want mutations - and maybe should be playing to try to create a more infectious/less virulent strain (of course, that would be gain-of-function).
Actually, there is a strong argument for vaccine mandates if you want to move about in society. It doesn't have to be because you need treatment for covid - although if you remain unvaccinated and ignore social distancing, there's a good chance that's where you'll end up.
That only applies if the government is going to make other, even less wise choices - things like lockdowns in a disproportionate attempt to protect the stupid and/or severely vulnerable.
As to the "... there's a good chance that's where you'll end up." - yeah, if you're obese, elderly, or otherwise have a weakened immune system. But, I don't need a mandate to move around freely. Free and easily available vaccines are enough.
-
Allow me to give my two cents worth........at 66 y/o. I was vaccinated in my youth twice, for polio and smallpox, did I get those diseases NO, why?, the vaccines worked. The rest of my immunity was derived from getting Measles, german measles, scarlet fever, mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, etc. the old fashioned way...............I got the diseases and it was bloody fucking miserable. In my later years as a nurse, I got the Hepatitis B vaccine, tetanus, diptheria, etc. Did I get those diseases NO. Amber got the full range of vaccines, except for chicken pox, she got that. She also got the genital warts vaccine as well as the hepatitis vaccines.
To hear some of you fools talk.............makes me wonder about the idiocy of the human race in general. Oh yes, I also get the flu shots every year. I got vaccinated from covid with the booster, I wear my masks and keep my distance from people. And I am happy to say, I have not been sick in the last two years. Though reading some of this crap is enough to make any rational person nauseous.
-
No. Fuck it. Let's do one more deep dive into the realms of ignorance.
Can someone paste up a link to the "evidence" that one in six people catch covid from the vaccination centres they attend (or whatever today's meme is). Let's take a look at it.
That would be nice. But it may be a difficult burden - a less than fair demand by Eclaire to prove something that probably isn't all that important (and Omicron will probably provide that evidence). The more interesting one is where no one even has to do research. Just look at this thread.
I ain't seeing it. And, in order to maintain any semblance of intellectual honesty, you should be admitting your mistake - or pointing out what we've missed. When people brush off such factors completely, and don't own up to their own hyperbole, it helps create entrenchment in positions; the precise situation that is preventing rational discussions.
Saying that vaccines do not work is not a rational discussion. A rational discussion would end when the antivaxer is handed the evidence to disprove their idiotic point of view. But it doesn't. They just change their belief system to exclude the point just proven. That is not rational. It is simply a waste of fuking time and effort for everyone else.
If anyone wants to post up whatever stupid reasons there are for not getting vaccinated this week I'll gladly point out why they're dumb and paste up some links to easily found peer reviewed science that any moron could have found for themselves in two minutes on Google.
Google won't show where Eclaire made the statement that you claimed she did.
This forum doesn't reveal it to me.
And this is where you're being dishonest. You keep sweeping where you're clearly wrong away.
An inability to admit your own errors makes you fundamentally an untrustworthy participant.
You are deliberately trying to reframe the argument away from the point I did make.
The point being that the combined might of science and medicine has create a vaccine system that is relatively safe and effective and this exit strategy to a global pandemic is being undermined by people with little intelligence and even less education who think they have found something that the scientists couldn't from what they've pieced together from anecdotal and malicious data from social media.
That is my fucking point.
Stop wanking yourself off over symantics and post up your rebuttal. Shit, or get off the pot.
-
Allow me to give my two cents worth........at 66 y/o. I was vaccinated in my youth twice, for polio and smallpox, did I get those diseases NO, why?, the vaccines worked. The rest of my immunity was derived from getting Measles, german measles, scarlet fever, mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, etc. the old fashioned way...............I got the diseases and it was bloody fucking miserable. In my later years as a nurse, I got the Hepatitis B vaccine, tetanus, diptheria, etc. Did I get those diseases NO. Amber got the full range of vaccines, except for chicken pox, she got that. She also got the genital warts vaccine as well as the hepatitis vaccines.
To hear some of you fools talk.............makes me wonder about the idiocy of the human race in general. Oh yes, I also get the flu shots every year. I got vaccinated from covid with the booster, I wear my masks and keep my distance from people. And I am happy to say, I have not been sick in the last two years. Though reading some of this crap is enough to make any rational person nauseous.
This.
Try and ask an antivaxxer whether it's just this vaccine that they're not liking or is it all vaccines? You'll get a blank look and a lot of blinking in return.
-
rock hound and FourAceDeal:
Shut up. You're both being extremely rude and obnoxious. There is absolutely no need for it. Cut it out right now.
-
Allow me to give my two cents worth........at 66 y/o. I was vaccinated in my youth twice, for polio and smallpox, did I get those diseases NO, why?, the vaccines worked. The rest of my immunity was derived from getting Measles, german measles, scarlet fever, mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, etc. the old fashioned way...............I got the diseases and it was bloody fucking miserable. In my later years as a nurse, I got the Hepatitis B vaccine, tetanus, diptheria, etc. Did I get those diseases NO. Amber got the full range of vaccines, except for chicken pox, she got that. She also got the genital warts vaccine as well as the hepatitis vaccines.
To hear some of you fools talk.............makes me wonder about the idiocy of the human race in general. Oh yes, I also get the flu shots every year. I got vaccinated from covid with the booster, I wear my masks and keep my distance from people. And I am happy to say, I have not been sick in the last two years. Though reading some of this crap is enough to make any rational person nauseous.
This.
Try and ask an antivaxxer whether it's just this vaccine that they're not liking or is it all vaccines? You'll get a blank look and a lot of blinking in return.
Yep, spot on!
-
No. Fuck it. Let's do one more deep dive into the realms of ignorance.
Can someone paste up a link to the "evidence" that one in six people catch covid from the vaccination centres they attend (or whatever today's meme is). Let's take a look at it.
That would be nice. But it may be a difficult burden - a less than fair demand by Eclaire to prove something that probably isn't all that important (and Omicron will probably provide that evidence). The more interesting one is where no one even has to do research. Just look at this thread.
I ain't seeing it. And, in order to maintain any semblance of intellectual honesty, you should be admitting your mistake - or pointing out what we've missed. When people brush off such factors completely, and don't own up to their own hyperbole, it helps create entrenchment in positions; the precise situation that is preventing rational discussions.
Saying that vaccines do not work is not a rational discussion. A rational discussion would end when the antivaxer is handed the evidence to disprove their idiotic point of view. But it doesn't. They just change their belief system to exclude the point just proven. That is not rational. It is simply a waste of fuking time and effort for everyone else.
If anyone wants to post up whatever stupid reasons there are for not getting vaccinated this week I'll gladly point out why they're dumb and paste up some links to easily found peer reviewed science that any moron could have found for themselves in two minutes on Google.
Google won't show where Eclaire made the statement that you claimed she did.
This forum doesn't reveal it to me.
And this is where you're being dishonest. You keep sweeping where you're clearly wrong away.
An inability to admit your own errors makes you fundamentally an untrustworthy participant.
You are deliberately trying to reframe the argument away from the point I did make.
The point being that the combined might of science and medicine has create a vaccine system that is relatively safe and effective and this exit strategy to a global pandemic is being undermined by people with little intelligence and even less education who think they have found something that the scientists couldn't from what they've pieced together from anecdotal and malicious data from social media.
That is my fucking point.
Stop wanking yourself off over symantics and post up your rebuttal. Shit, or get off the pot.
Nope. I am deliberately pointing out what you won't answer - why you can't admit a mistake.
Intellectual dishonesty.
Which you are so completely invested in that you play every game you can to continue down the path.
This is far more concerning than your stance on vaccines. It speaks to your character and intransigence - not just whether you are deluded about evidence or some conspiracy theorist. It says you have a mind closed to further evidence, and are essentially no longer a rational being.
-
rock hound and FourAceDeal:
Shut up. You're both being extremely rude and obnoxious. There is absolutely no need for it. Cut it out right now.
Sorry, zero tolerance for anti-vax stupidity.
-
Here's the screwy thing about the vaccines (or natural immunity) - they still allow for lower level infections, which are sometimes perfect breeding grounds for more mutations, as the evolutionary pressures are heightened. A virus in a non-protected person has no such pressures and can live on...
No. This is 100% complete and utter bullshit and underscores what I've been trying to say. In the time it took you to type out the pile of bollocks above, you could have instead spent that time fact checking yourself and in 30 seconds found that what you were about to type wasn't true.
This is just anti-vax fake science meme of the week.
I'll find you a fact check on it (there are many) because I know you won't bother to look yourself.
SARS-CoV-2 variants are not caused by vaccines and numerous Variants of Concern (VOC) were detected prior to mass rollouts of vaccines, despite suggestions to the contrary online. (https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-mutations-vaccine-idUSL1N2OZ1PU)
The above quotes a CDC paper:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/scientific-brief-emerging-variants.html (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/scientific-brief-emerging-variants.html)
-
Nope. I am deliberately pointing out what you won't answer - why you can't admit a mistake.
Intellectual dishonesty.
Which you are so completely invested in that you play every game you can to continue down the path.
This is far more concerning than your stance on vaccines. It speaks to your character and intransigence - not just whether you are deluded about evidence or some conspiracy theorist. It says you have a mind closed to further evidence, and are essentially no longer a rational being.
What specific thing do you want me to answer? Type it out and I will reply.
-
rock hound and FourAceDeal:
Shut up. You're both being extremely rude and obnoxious. There is absolutely no need for it. Cut it out right now.
I have ran out of tolerance for people who repeat anti-vax memes as fact. They're not opinions. They are dangerous and willful lies and need to be addressed as such.
-
Anti-vaxxers in a nutshell:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/W8Frvblhk3SJgcwPj9MqraowoMpDiE4oHZp4dJykSDs.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=c15c1ad707e820c1ca5735d4aebde1584f6a2db5)
-
Here's the screwy thing about the vaccines (or natural immunity) - they still allow for lower level infections, which are sometimes perfect breeding grounds for more mutations, as the evolutionary pressures are heightened. A virus in a non-protected person has no such pressures and can live on...
No. This is 100% complete and utter bullshit and underscores what I've been trying to say. In the time it took you to type out the pile of bollocks above, you could have instead spent that time fact checking yourself and in 30 seconds found that what you were about to type wasn't true.
This is just anti-vax fake science meme of the week.
I'll find you a fact check on it (there are many) because I know you won't bother to look yourself.
SARS-CoV-2 variants are not caused by vaccines and numerous Variants of Concern (VOC) were detected prior to mass rollouts of vaccines, despite suggestions to the contrary online. (https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-mutations-vaccine-idUSL1N2OZ1PU)
The above quotes a CDC paper:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/scientific-brief-emerging-variants.html (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/scientific-brief-emerging-variants.html)
You're answering the wrong question. Mutations will happen regardless (see my response to Odeon). They are only more likely to be selected for evading immunity if immunity is present. My wording is a bit of a shortcut, which often seems to confuse people.
Not that there's a damned thing that can be done about it. If people don't get vaccinated, natural immunity will generate the same conditions.
This is no 'meme'. This is based on knowledge of natural selection under environmental pressure.
-
Nope. I am deliberately pointing out what you won't answer - why you can't admit a mistake.
Intellectual dishonesty.
Which you are so completely invested in that you play every game you can to continue down the path.
This is far more concerning than your stance on vaccines. It speaks to your character and intransigence - not just whether you are deluded about evidence or some conspiracy theorist. It says you have a mind closed to further evidence, and are essentially no longer a rational being.
What specific thing do you want me to answer? Type it out and I will reply.
But circling back, you think vaccines are wrong because companies charge money for them? Astrazenica is a non-profit. Take that one.
1. Could you point out where I specifically said that?
-
Sorry, Calandale, but you're wrong again. Evolutionary pressure can change the mutation rate. Google is your friend.
As for the rest, I guess you should read my earlier reply again, and 4AD's, for that matter. He provided links where I just can't be arsed.
-
Here's the screwy thing about the vaccines (or natural immunity) - they still allow for lower level infections, which are sometimes perfect breeding grounds for more mutations, as the evolutionary pressures are heightened. A virus in a non-protected person has no such pressures and can live on...
No. This is 100% complete and utter bullshit and underscores what I've been trying to say. In the time it took you to type out the pile of bollocks above, you could have instead spent that time fact checking yourself and in 30 seconds found that what you were about to type wasn't true.
This is just anti-vax fake science meme of the week.
I'll find you a fact check on it (there are many) because I know you won't bother to look yourself.
SARS-CoV-2 variants are not caused by vaccines and numerous Variants of Concern (VOC) were detected prior to mass rollouts of vaccines, despite suggestions to the contrary online. (https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-mutations-vaccine-idUSL1N2OZ1PU)
The above quotes a CDC paper:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/scientific-brief-emerging-variants.html (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/scientific-brief-emerging-variants.html)
You're answering the wrong question. Mutations will happen regardless (see my response to Odeon). They are only more likely to be selected for evading immunity if immunity is present. My wording is a bit of a shortcut, which often seems to confuse people.
Not that there's a damned thing that can be done about it. If people don't get vaccinated, natural immunity will generate the same conditions.
This is no 'meme'. This is based on knowledge of natural selection under environmental pressure.
That is quite literally what is answered in the CDC paper and article.
-
Doesn't look like he bothered to read the replies, tbh. He wrote:
Mutations will happen regardless (see my response to Odeon)
Before that I wrote:
A mutation is an error in DNA replication and will occur regardless.
Or maybe it's the one thing he did read but then made his own. Doesn't matter if the rest if what it is. /shrugs
-
I got my booster. Where is my sheep clothing? :zoinks:
On the plus side, this will end either way. Omnicron is already shown to be less serious than other mutations (still doesn't mean we shouldn't worry however).
Likely it will die down to a lesser mutation, to the point that these vaccinations will become a yearly thing like the flu jab. There is already normal medication currently being developed to combat it too.
Shit like this will become a thing of the past.
I think we all can agree on that, yeah?
-
Doesn't look like he bothered to read the replies, tbh. He wrote:
Mutations will happen regardless (see my response to Odeon)
Before that I wrote:
A mutation is an error in DNA replication and will occur regardless.
Or maybe it's the one thing he did read but then made his own. Doesn't matter if the rest if what it is. /shrugs
It's called agreeing. What I did in my prior post, and why I referred to it.
The weird thing about people's entrenchments is that they don't even take agreement without getting their hackles up, if the PERCEIVE
that someone is aligned differently.
Which is precisely what furthers those entrenchments. Fucking cycle.
-
I got my booster. Where is my sheep clothing? :zoinks:
On the plus side, this will end either way. Omnicron is already shown to be less serious than other mutations (still doesn't mean we shouldn't worry however).
Likely it will die down to a lesser mutation, to the point that these vaccinations will become a yearly thing like the flu jab. There is already normal medication currently being developed to combat it too.
Shit like this will become a thing of the past.
I think we all can agree on that, yeah?
Depends on what you mean by 'end'. The flu didn't end. And I really doubt most people get shots for it.
If you mean 'go back to normal' yeah. Probably could now if we held people to their choices, and didn't prioritize those who've made poor choices.
-
Sorry, Calandale, but you're wrong again. Evolutionary pressure can change the mutation rate. Google is your friend.
As for the rest, I guess you should read my earlier reply again, and 4AD's, for that matter. He provided links where I just can't be arsed.
You're putting words in my mouth (as was done with Eclaire). I NEVER stated there was no change in the rate.
4AD's links also did not address a damned thing about why mutations evade defenses - which is fucking elementary genetic selection.
I doubt you'd find research that deals with this in over a century. And that was the only thing I was talking about.
There ain't a thing we can do about it either. No vax? Post-infection immunity will cause the same circumstances.
We're all talking past one another here. You (and 4AD) are objecting to shit I never claimed, based upon your own preconceptions.
Although it's harder to tell with you - but what you said doesn't make a bit of sense in context, so you might just be an idiot.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's your laziness and tribal affiliation here at play.
-
Years after the attempted coup. Some things never change. ::)
-
Lol - the coup was successful. Democracy here was overthrown.
-
This is why I can't be fucked with the Vaxxers anymore. They make statement. You show them the evidence that disproves it. It makes no fucking difference to them. The evidence doesn't say what you said it says or you didn't understand what they said in the first place.
But whatever Calandale. The World's combined science and medicine can't compete with what you yourself have worked out. Write what you know on some paper and send it to the Nobel Prize committee. Your award awaits.
-
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts........for support rather than illumination." --Andrew Lang 1849-1912
-
You're putting words in my mouth (as was done with Eclaire). I NEVER stated there was no change in the rate.
Here you go:
Evolutionary pressures don't change mutation rates.
You're welcome.
-
Although it's harder to tell with you - but what you said doesn't make a bit of sense in context, so you might just be an idiot.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's your laziness and tribal affiliation here at play.
I'm the idiot because you post things that aren't true?
It's an interesting argument but doesn't really help your case. Sorry.
-
This is why I can't be fucked with the Vaxxers anymore. They make statement. You show them the evidence that disproves it. It makes no fucking difference to them. The evidence doesn't say what you said it says or you didn't understand what they said in the first place.
But whatever Calandale. The World's combined science and medicine can't compete with what you yourself have worked out. Write what you know on some paper and send it to the Nobel Prize committee. Your award awaits.
Understand...I'm not some anti-vaxxer. I'm just someone who is concerned when I see a problem.
Like, ignoring a charge that is supported by the evidence directly in the thread and shows the character of the poster.
-
You're putting words in my mouth (as was done with Eclaire). I NEVER stated there was no change in the rate.
Here you go:
Evolutionary pressures don't change mutation rates.
You're welcome.
Thank you. Yeah, that was wrong. In my rush to agree with what you were saying, I didn't bother correcting you.
Because it wasn't the point I was trying to get through - which is the evasion one.
-
Although it's harder to tell with you - but what you said doesn't make a bit of sense in context, so you might just be an idiot.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's your laziness and tribal affiliation here at play.
I'm the idiot because you post things that aren't true?
It's an interesting argument but doesn't really help your case. Sorry.
Nah. I don't think you're an idiot. I think you're lazy and obtuse because you're focusing on what isn't the point - which is that we're going to take X hit pretty much no matter what from the virus.
There are extraneous factors of importance though - like how we've arranged healthcare so that it no longer has the room to absorb the extra strain. Or that there is significant political fracture which is endangering democracy further. These factors can change the need for a localized response as well as a non-medical one.
-
I've said that people need to get vaccinated and that there is a good argument for vaccine mandates because only by enough people getting vaccinated (granted, they can totally isolate from the world for the next several years, too) can we slow the spread of the virus and maybe stop the next Greek letter from taking over. I've said that viruses mutate no matter what because it's what they do, and I've corrected you on a few occasions because you were posting falsehoods.
Thinking that's about it. Lazy and obtuse? Nah. But I may be an idiot for choosing to engage with you.
-
I've said that people need to get vaccinated and that there is a good argument for vaccine mandates because only by enough people getting vaccinated (granted, they can totally isolate from the world for the next several years, too) can we slow the spread of the virus and maybe stop the next Greek letter from taking over. I've said that viruses mutate no matter what because it's what they do, and I've corrected you on a few occasions because you were posting falsehoods.
Thinking that's about it. Lazy and obtuse? Nah. But I may be an idiot for choosing to engage with you.
No you are NOT. Your just engaging with someone who thinks we all are. He does the same on FB as well as here. Arrogance, shit stirring and such are his hallmark. And that will never change.......EVER. ::) I regret I ever took Peaguy up on his request to notify him of scraps suicide. NO MORE..............
-
I think you're lazy
Your momma's so lazy, when she works out she does diddly-squats. :zoinks:
-
I think you're lazy
Your momma's so lazy, when she works out she does diddly-squats. :zoinks:
My momma's dead now. This year. So yeah, she doesn't do much now.
-
I've said that people need to get vaccinated and that there is a good argument for vaccine mandates because only by enough people getting vaccinated (granted, they can totally isolate from the world for the next several years, too) can we slow the spread of the virus and maybe stop the next Greek letter from taking over. I've said that viruses mutate no matter what because it's what they do, and I've corrected you on a few occasions because you were posting falsehoods.
Thinking that's about it. Lazy and obtuse? Nah. But I may be an idiot for choosing to engage with you.
And this is where we disagree. Because the mutations happen anyhow and are more likely to evade a protection that exists than one that doesn't. Sure, there's some small effect to limiting spread - but it's too low for mandates to be worth the cost right now.
The corrections you've made have been to where I conceded points to you. And maybe stated things 'too simply' - but it's always been things in FAVOR of the line you were taking. Just to avoid going down stupid rabbit holes like this.
-
I've said that people need to get vaccinated and that there is a good argument for vaccine mandates because only by enough people getting vaccinated (granted, they can totally isolate from the world for the next several years, too) can we slow the spread of the virus and maybe stop the next Greek letter from taking over. I've said that viruses mutate no matter what because it's what they do, and I've corrected you on a few occasions because you were posting falsehoods.
Thinking that's about it. Lazy and obtuse? Nah. But I may be an idiot for choosing to engage with you.
No you are NOT. Your just engaging with someone who thinks we all are. He does the same on FB as well as here. Arrogance, shit stirring and such are his hallmark. And that will never change.......EVER. ::) I regret I ever took Peaguy up on his request to notify him of scraps suicide. NO MORE..............
Oh piss off. I've been lurking on and off here anyhow and saw the fucking thread.
I have no idea what your hair in your ass is about, but please go back to just quietly masturbating about me or whatever.
-
I've said that people need to get vaccinated and that there is a good argument for vaccine mandates because only by enough people getting vaccinated (granted, they can totally isolate from the world for the next several years, too) can we slow the spread of the virus and maybe stop the next Greek letter from taking over. I've said that viruses mutate no matter what because it's what they do, and I've corrected you on a few occasions because you were posting falsehoods.
Thinking that's about it. Lazy and obtuse? Nah. But I may be an idiot for choosing to engage with you.
No you are NOT. Your just engaging with someone who thinks we all are. He does the same on FB as well as here. Arrogance, shit stirring and such are his hallmark. And that will never change.......EVER. ::) I regret I ever took Peaguy up on his request to notify him of scraps suicide. NO MORE..............
Oh piss off. I've been lurking on and off here anyhow and saw the fucking thread.
I have no idea what your hair in your ass is about, but please go back to just quietly masturbating about me or whatever.
Ooooo, have I hit a nerve, E. Gaslighting is something you do well, E! Your not my species anyway! I prefer female intelligent human. :LOL: Enjoy yourself, have a snit as you reveal your true manipulating self, mind games have never been my forte. Have a good life, e. You are a worthless toxic sub humanoid.
-
I think you're lazy
Your momma's so lazy, when she works out she does diddly-squats. :zoinks:
My momma's dead now. This year. So yeah, she doesn't do much now.
Sorry about your momma, Calendale. :hug: I didn't know it was so soon. I'll probably still crack jokes about your momma in the future, but I'll give it more time. :tard:
-
Calandale: oh no this vaccination seems sus as fuck
Also Calandale: hmmm lemme put my dick into this cat real quick
-
I've said that people need to get vaccinated and that there is a good argument for vaccine mandates because only by enough people getting vaccinated (granted, they can totally isolate from the world for the next several years, too) can we slow the spread of the virus and maybe stop the next Greek letter from taking over. I've said that viruses mutate no matter what because it's what they do, and I've corrected you on a few occasions because you were posting falsehoods.
Thinking that's about it. Lazy and obtuse? Nah. But I may be an idiot for choosing to engage with you.
No you are NOT. Your just engaging with someone who thinks we all are. He does the same on FB as well as here. Arrogance, shit stirring and such are his hallmark. And that will never change.......EVER. ::) I regret I ever took Peaguy up on his request to notify him of scraps suicide. NO MORE..............
Oh piss off. I've been lurking on and off here anyhow and saw the fucking thread.
I have no idea what your hair in your ass is about, but please go back to just quietly masturbating about me or whatever.
Ooooo, have I hit a nerve, E. Gaslighting is something you do well, E! Your not my species anyway! I prefer female intelligent human. :LOL: Enjoy yourself, have a snit as you reveal your true manipulating self, mind games have never been my forte. Have a good life, e. You are a worthless toxic sub humanoid.
No. I was respecting your prior statement that you didn't want to waste time on communications.
Now, somehow, you see my posts and you can't help but get yourself all aroused again.
-
I think you're lazy
Your momma's so lazy, when she works out she does diddly-squats. :zoinks:
My momma's dead now. This year. So yeah, she doesn't do much now.
Sorry about your momma, Calendale. :hug: I didn't know it was so soon. I'll probably still crack jokes about your momma in the future, but I'll give it more time. :tard:
No worries. I took a certain pleasure in typing it.
-
Calandale: oh no this vaccination seems sus as fuck
Also Calandale: hmmm lemme put my dick into this cat real quick
sus? I don't know the meaning. Suspicious? I never said that.
I need one, because it's transmissible to cats. Deer too. Which is why we're not gonna vax our way out of this.
-
Sus is next-generation slang.
-
Sus is next-generation slang.
"Suspect" concatenated. Old school. Last generation slang.
-
Calandale: oh no this vaccination seems sus as fuck
Also Calandale: hmmm lemme put my dick into this cat real quick
sus? I don't know the meaning. Suspicious? I never said that.
I need one, because it's transmissible to cats. Deer too. Which is why we're not gonna vax our way out of this.
Fairly soon there will be three types of people. The vaccinated. The recovered. The dead. I know which group I'm in.
-
Calandale: oh no this vaccination seems sus as fuck
Also Calandale: hmmm lemme put my dick into this cat real quick
sus? I don't know the meaning. Suspicious? I never said that.
I need one, because it's transmissible to cats. Deer too. Which is why we're not gonna vax our way out of this.
Fairly soon there will be three types of people. The vaccinated. The recovered. The dead. I know which group I'm in.
I hope to be all three.
I've got two down.
-
Sus is next-generation slang.
"Suspect" concatenated. Old school. Last generation slang.
I figured. The other usage didn't make sense.
And the other is not that recent - been using it for at least a decade, unless there's yet another meaning.
-
I used slang mockingly and the analysts are coming out ::) :LOL:
-
Sus is next-generation slang.
"Suspect" concatenated. Old school. Last generation slang.
I figured. The other usage didn't make sense.
And the other is not that recent - been using it for at least a decade, unless there's yet another meaning.
Huh, okay, I hadn't heard it until recently and I thought it started with the video game Among Us.
-
"sus" on it's own has been general slang for a while, yeah.
Among Us popularised it even more over in the US, along with "sussy"
-
"sus" on it's own has been general slang for a while, yeah.
Among Us popularised it even more over in the US, along with "sussy"
Ok...maybe I don't know the meaning, because I can't sus out what 'sussy' might mean. :P
-
sus = either to figure something out, or if something is slightly suspicious
sussy = when it's VERY suspicious
-
And this is where we disagree. Because the mutations happen anyhow and are more likely to evade a protection that exists than one that doesn't. Sure, there's some small effect to limiting spread - but it's too low for mandates to be worth the cost right now.
The bit in bold doesn't make any sense. You can't evade something that doesn't exist.
-
And this is where we disagree. Because the mutations happen anyhow and are more likely to evade a protection that exists than one that doesn't. Sure, there's some small effect to limiting spread - but it's too low for mandates to be worth the cost right now.
The bit in bold doesn't make any sense. You can't evade something that doesn't exist.
Actually, you are. Most viruses inherently evade most potential antibodies.
But less likely could include a likelihood of zero.
But this is a great example of the kind of objections you raise - so pedantic that they're not worth fighting.
It's easier to agree with your simplifications, than to fight over every god-damned little point, when the key
issue is what can/should be done.
At this point, the answer is probably nothing. Let the shit run its course. It's weakening (as is the natural cycle) and interventions have probably already caused more damage than the virus would have (at least in terms of deaths - there are subtle changes I suspect the virus has introduced which may be worse).
-
On the other hand - if you want to find out whom to blame for the conspiracies....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f3aQcCER2g
-
sus = either to figure something out, or if something is slightly suspicious
sussy = when it's VERY suspicious
To figure something out is "suss".
Lovely, woniderful English.
-
It can also mean "suspect".
-
But this is a great example of the kind of objections you raise - so pedantic that they're not worth fighting.
This far you've not said anything worth more than a short dismissal.
-
Oh, and I do want to point out that this is wrong because it's generalised beyond any meaning:
Most viruses inherently evade most potential antibodies.
Why would I bother to engage any further? If your basic understanding is wrong, most of your conclusions will be, too.
-
Oh, and I do want to point out that this is wrong because it's generalised beyond any meaning:
Why would I bother to engage any further? If your basic understanding is wrong, most of your conclusions will be, too.
Give it up! You can't fix stupid! If they get covid, the Earth will be relieved of idiots. I feel sorry for the nurses (of which I am one and thankfully retired) and all hospital workers. I like the idea that they should be shunted to military tents in the parking lots and treated with the same procedures that trumpolini and his acolytes are following according to their google "doctorates". Bleach injections, horse dewormer, and infrared bulbs up their asses. 8)
-
But this is a great example of the kind of objections you raise - so pedantic that they're not worth fighting.
This far you've not said anything worth more than a short dismissal.
Your dismissals have been based on where I'm agreeing with you. Pedantry and nit-picking far from my argument.
You've entirely ignored the point - which are the relative costs.
-
Oh, and I do want to point out that this is wrong because it's generalised beyond any meaning:
Why would I bother to engage any further? If your basic understanding is wrong, most of your conclusions will be, too.
Give it up! You can't fix stupid! If they get covid, the Earth will be relieved of idiots. I feel sorry for the nurses (of which I am one and thankfully retired) and all hospital workers. I like the idea that they should be shunted to military tents in the parking lots and treated with the same procedures that trumpolini and his acolytes are following according to their google "doctorates". Bleach injections, horse dewormer, and infrared bulbs up their asses. 8)
You, on the other hand, for your unearned vitriol against me - we agree almost entirely here.
-
Oh, and I do want to point out that this is wrong because it's generalised beyond any meaning:
Why would I bother to engage any further? If your basic understanding is wrong, most of your conclusions will be, too.
Give it up! You can't fix stupid! If they get covid, the Earth will be relieved of idiots. I feel sorry for the nurses (of which I am one and thankfully retired) and all hospital workers. I like the idea that they should be shunted to military tents in the parking lots and treated with the same procedures that trumpolini and his acolytes are following according to their google "doctorates". Bleach injections, horse dewormer, and infrared bulbs up their asses. 8)
You, on the other hand, for your unearned vitriol against me - we agree almost entirely here.
"unearned"..............you make me laugh! :LOL:
-
Oh, and I do want to point out that this is wrong because it's generalised beyond any meaning:
Why would I bother to engage any further? If your basic understanding is wrong, most of your conclusions will be, too.
Give it up! You can't fix stupid! If they get covid, the Earth will be relieved of idiots. I feel sorry for the nurses (of which I am one and thankfully retired) and all hospital workers. I like the idea that they should be shunted to military tents in the parking lots and treated with the same procedures that trumpolini and his acolytes are following according to their google "doctorates". Bleach injections, horse dewormer, and infrared bulbs up their asses. 8)
You, on the other hand, for your unearned vitriol against me - we agree almost entirely here.
I'm probably wasting my time, but, I am going to give you a little window into my perspective about this. A few years ago a woman came to work at walmart in my group. She was in her seventies, smart, funny and we hit it off rather quickly. We bantered and by banter, I mean we started slow jesting and sharing quips and sharing life experiences. But, first the banter, we got comfortable with each other and eventually gravitated to bantering and taking the piss out of each other and laughing like hyenas at each others banter. She loved my favorite quote, "not my monkeys, not my circus". She would call me a brat and we would have some of our coworkers thinking that we were the worst enemies. BUT, we would sit together at breaks and lunch and still banter....her favorite was when I would give her the finger and she would say, "Oh how sweet, I am #1 in your life", then I would give her the double finger and she would just exclaim, "I'm so honored to be so honored". People who knew us by then, would be falling on the floor laughing. We gave and took and it made our job fun, we had fun, there was no malice, just two adults understanding each other and enjoying each others fine madness. Other times we would get serious and discuss our life experiences. She had apparently been involved in some state department stuff and traveled the world and saw things that were awesome and also horrible, even terrible. Quite eye opening to me who has an open mind. She also listened to me speaking of the wonders and horrors of my own life. She also had an open mind. She also was a major caretaker of an autistic grandson. Who upon learning from her about my love of peace signs and making them out of scallop shells, of which I made him one. Made me a leather peace sign, a travel pillow from peace sign cloth and found me a ceramic peace sign bank. I also made her one. Anyway, we gave and took and accepted each other and we had a blast at work. Then came the pandemic and she turned out to be suffering from stomach cancer and couldn't do the mask or vaccine stuff due to her being immunocompromised. I haven't seen her since, I miss her. My vitriol at you is me seeing you as a TAKER, not a giver AND taker. You love to give the piss, but, you can't take the response in return. Miriam was a worldly wise woman, a wise woman. And someone with a wise understanding of me and where I was coming from. We shared our vulnerabilities and were comfortable in sharing our strengths AND weaknesses. I miss her.
Anyway, make of that what you will. I am done with you. Enjoy your small victory.
-
You're partially right. I'm actually not into water sports at all - but it is true that I'd prefer to be pissing than pissed on.
-
What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.
-
What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.
If a woman gets an abortion it only effects her. Not getting a vaccine has an incrementally bad effect on society in general. Apples and Oranges.
-
Just read on facebook one of the local anti-vaxxers was complaining that it's difficult to get a face to face appointment with his Doctor. I'd point out why this is but my wife has banned me from flaming mutual friends on social media.
-
What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.
If a woman gets an abortion it only effects her. Not getting a vaccine has an incrementally bad effect on society in general. Apples and Oranges.
Have you forgotten about the baby?
-
What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.
If a woman gets an abortion it only effects her. Not getting a vaccine has an incrementally bad effect on society in general. Apples and Oranges.
Have you forgotten about the baby?
Whatever enters or exits a woman is entirely her choice to make. Personally I am against abortion but as I do not have a vagina my opinion is not valid. Whereas I do have covid infectable sinuses and should I have an accident or other bad illness I might require the use of an ICU bed that is currently occupied by a vaccination dodging fuckwit.
Again, apples and oranges. One is a moral issue. The other is a pillock taking up resources due to an entirely avoidable life choice based on bad information and poor education.
-
Believing in both is not hypocritical, because they're not remotely equivalent issues.
Choosing to either abort or keep the baby has no consequence to others in society, it is obviously a personal decision between yourself and your partner (if you have one). Not getting a vaccine does affect others.
Even with the mandate, you can be exempt if you have a genuine reason. It's not like people are being forced to at the detriment of their health or lives.
-
But this is a great example of the kind of objections you raise - so pedantic that they're not worth fighting.
This far you've not said anything worth more than a short dismissal.
Your dismissals have been based on where I'm agreeing with you. Pedantry and nit-picking far from my argument.
You've entirely ignored the point - which are the relative costs.
You really need to work on both your reading and writing skills, then.
-
What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.
How are the two even remotely comparable?
-
What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.
If a woman gets an abortion it only effects her. Not getting a vaccine has an incrementally bad effect on society in general. Apples and Oranges.
Have you forgotten about the baby?
No baby involved.
-
It's not like people are being forced to at the detriment of their health or lives.
But Nicki Manoj's cousin's friend's testicles????
-
It's not like people are being forced to at the detriment of their health or lives.
But Nicki Manoj's cousin's friend's testicles????
:arrr:
-
What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.
Iffy on vax mandate, but only because the political cost is too high for the effect.
Opposed to choice in abortion. It should largely be mandatory. Something like the one-child policy only stronger.
-
Have you forgotten about the baby?
From a genetic evolutionary point of view, every combination/life has some value to the survival of a species.
Humans increase this value because of societal contributions which allow fringe functionality to potentially provide values which are not merely about the survival of an individual. It is because of this that wealthier societies are able to afford to protect weaker and less useful members - keeping the aged around and giving up on actual infanticide (previously a fairly common practice). This can have some deleterious effects on short-term survival and per-capita welfare, but could also result in unforeseen advantages. We call this feature compassion, and it gets baked into societal mores and religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, that 'compassion' towards a potential person is in direct conflict with the needs of a functioning one in our modern society. There are strong pressures to not spawn (and good reason for those pressures). A breeding female is giving up significant opportunities to produce, as well as risking their own health, with each spawn. The society is no longer agricultural and there are no longer the close clan ties which make overbreeding a valuable trait. Just as hunter-gatherer (and Sparta too!) infanticide outlived its use, so too has the moral stance to try and create as many little humans as we can; better health care alone has driven this - though other factors in our richer society move us in this direction, as well.
Add to this the greatest human-induced threat - climate change which is directly linked to excessive population - and we should be doing whatever we can to reduce those numbers within our naturally evolving societal mores. We certainly should NOT be trying to force people who do not want to grow another human inside them to do so, at a cost to their own productiveness and health. Instead, we should be doing everything possible to discourage breeding - since it is essentially hard-wired in and very difficult to change physically. Nature and society are driving us in this direction; let's not oppose what is for our species' survival, by looking back toward medieval solutions to the high mortality rates. Let the modern compassion replace the antiquated version.
-
I'm actually pro-choice, FTR. I was playing Devil's advocate, I do that sometimes in debates to see what the other person is actually thinking (And to ensure some people do not automatically try to agree with me, because we're friends or whatever).
I think you need more babies in an aging population, like Italy.
Would you really force an abortion on a woman? (Not a "person who has babies").
-
I think you need more babies in an aging population, like Italy.
Would you really force an abortion on a woman? (Not a "person who has babies").
From a consumerist stance, you absolutely do want to keep flooding the population, to keep the economy (at least) stable.
But, we have too many people. We either need one hell of a technological miracle, or population will be decreased in far more painful ways.
I don't know if my personal ethics are up to the task of what is right for humanity. I also don't know if I'm in favor of humanity, so I probably wouldn't force an abortion on a female spawner. I sure the hell wouldn't incentivize procreation though. Indeed, probably the opposite.
Speaking of 'woman', I'm willing to accept that is a gender role rather than one intrinsically linked to age and sex.
It seems to fit me well to allow for this kind of identification - because I really don't think of myself as a 'man'.
I'm attracted to female humans, but often find myself completely repulsed by what I see as gender differentiations.
They seem...fake to me. Like identifying as a team fan in sports, and making your whole existence about that.
Anyhow, whatever the term, there are definitely gender based roles and behaviors. And I don't really care where the terms land.
So long as people ain't making themselves plural. That's an abomination.
-
Making themselves plural? You mean being both genders or being say two women in one body? The latter would be more of a personality disorder, right?
Being a woman, biologically, is an identity too, a massive one. (Most) Young girls automatically want to wear make-up and play with dolls, a lot of the time. I wasn't into dolls and make-up, more toy trains and stuffed animal toys, but I appreciate that A LOT of young girls typically fit their biological sex in terms of behaviour, without any pushing from their parents. Same with boys. There are definite differences.
Going a couple of posts back, I'm not sure if climate change is a real situation. Why did they introduce the concept of global cooling I think in the 70s...then global warming...then a more general "climate change"? How do we know we aren't being distracted?
-
Pretty sure gender is a social construct that is different to biological sex.
Also, what sex you are doesn't really define what behaviours you exhibit. Girls wanting to do makeup is due to being brought up in that specific gender role, there is no biological basis to it. Parents don't consciously push it upon them, but society's expectations of adhering to traditional gender roles definitely does play a huge factor.
Nature vs. nurture and all that.
-
As for you not being into typical "girl" stuff, I think a large factor in that is growing up with being on the spectrum. A lot of people on the spectrum already feel different to the "norm", so they're more likely to be atypical when it comes to gendered stuff.
I'm the same - I'm fine being a man and all that, but I don't really adhere to typical male gender roles. It's not some natural biological thing, it's just that my childhood was different to others and that played a large role in what I am today.
-
Also, what sex you are doesn't really define what behaviours you exhibit. Girls wanting to do makeup is due to being brought up in that specific gender role, there is no biological basis to it. Parents don't consciously push it upon them, but society's expectations of adhering to traditional gender roles definitely does play a huge factor.
Nature vs. nurture and all that.
One of those arguments we're never going to agree on, I'm afraid. Testosterone for instance very noticeably affects a persons' behaviour, even transgender people will admit to that. Men naturally have more testosterone than women.
Kids very noticeably rebel when they're made to do something they don't like. Most kids aren't forced into traditional roles, they crave it. My niece craves make-up and dolls, she adores that stuff. She lights up when she plays with those things. My nephew craves trains and loves the family dog. My sister may be lots of things, but she couldn't change her kids' interests if she tried.
As for me being on the spectrum - what I experience is just my experience. I can see my experience, i.e. being non-binary, doesn't apply to most people. You can see it in their body language, tone of voice etc. how they actually feel. I feel that a lot of non-binary people project their views onto most people and make massive assumptions that they know the way they think, based only on the way the NB think, which is an extremely limited set of possibilities. As limited a view as when an NT makes ginormous assumptions about the way autistic people think. It's not a valid way of determining how anyone thinks - it's pure guesswork, mass agreement and then popular opinion.
-
Also, what sex you are doesn't really define what behaviours you exhibit. Girls wanting to do makeup is due to being brought up in that specific gender role, there is no biological basis to it. Parents don't consciously push it upon them, but society's expectations of adhering to traditional gender roles definitely does play a huge factor.
Nature vs. nurture and all that.
One of those arguments we're never going to agree on, I'm afraid. Testosterone for instance very noticeably affects a persons' behaviour, even transgender people will admit to that. Men naturally have more testosterone than women.
Kids very noticeably rebel when they're made to do something they don't like. Most kids aren't forced into traditional roles, they crave it. My niece craves make-up and dolls, she adores that stuff. She lights up when she plays with those things. My nephew craves trains and loves the family dog. My sister may be lots of things, but she couldn't change her kids' interests if she tried.
As for me being on the spectrum - what I experience is just my experience. I can see my experience, i.e. being non-binary, doesn't apply to most people. You can see it in their body language, tone of voice etc. how they actually feel. I feel that a lot of non-binary people project their views onto most people and make massive assumptions that they know the way they think, based only on the way the NB think, which is an extremely limited set of possibilities. As limited a view as when an NT makes ginormous assumptions about the way autistic people think. It's not a valid way of determining how anyone thinks - it's pure guesswork, mass agreement and then popular opinion.
Testosterone can do a lot of things, but it can't influence someone's interests. There is no natural basis for how much testosterone or estrogen relates to how they're into dolls and makeup. How you're raised by your parents and what society expects of you can really shape who you are as a person.
I have VERY high testosterone levels. My unusually hairy body proves this. And yet, I'm non-violent, not afraid to do "non male" things etc. I was never naturally inclined to do just "men stuff".
As for trans women - they take estrogen for very obvious reasons for you know, transitioning. The estrogen they take is even jokingly referred to as "titty skittles"
-
Making themselves plural? You mean being both genders or being say two women in one body? The latter would be more of a personality disorder, right?
No. A grammatical one.
Being a woman, biologically, is an identity too, a massive one. (Most) Young girls automatically want to wear make-up and play with dolls, a lot of the time. I wasn't into dolls and make-up, more toy trains and stuffed animal toys, but I appreciate that A LOT of young girls typically fit their biological sex in terms of behaviour, without any pushing from their parents. Same with boys. There are definite differences.
Does 'woman' relate to gender or sex? If gender, then there is no biological reality. If sex, then societal expectations (like what toys to play with) don't apply.
Going a couple of posts back, I'm not sure if climate change is a real situation. Why did they introduce the concept of global cooling I think in the 70s...then global warming...then a more general "climate change"? How do we know we aren't being distracted?
There is STILL fear of a snapback causing an ice age. But, that's not what was happening in the 70's.
That was based more upon geological models, and you'll still see the defenders of these as climate change deniers.
It's like trying to defend copernican thought in the light of modern astrophysics - there are contradictory facts that show it doesn't apply.
The fact is that the scientific method has to be capable of changing predictions based upon new factors.
COULD it be all wrong? Yes, obviously. Just like the bus you see on the street might not be solid.
But you goes with the best information you have - and what we have now is pretty strong.
-
Climate change, I admit I don't know enough about. Otherwise:
...
My takeout from NB people:
They're ALL UNREASONABLE AND MAKE NO SENSE, AND IT DOES MY HEAD IN.
-
....it's not difficult to comprehend.
They're people who simply don't adhere to either gender. Either simply because they don't feel like they're either gender or just don't particularly care.
Makes complete sense when you realise gender is a social construct. If anything, it seems unreasonable to not allow people to identify whatever they want to be.
-
Simply put, no one is denying that biological sex is a thing. You're still biologically "male" or "female" even if you're trans (which is why the term "trans" is even a thing!), or to be more accurate, XY or XX.
But even then, biology is complex and not always at a binary. Intersex people exist, and lots of people are not 100% male or female.
The difference here is that gender is an arbitrary thing to ascribe to people based on those biological differences, but in reality that can wildly differ between cultures and in history. For example, most things about "womanhood" or "femininity" is not directly linked to having tits and a vagina - how is the colour pink related to your biology? How is makeup or wearing a dress related to your biology? They're not.
Some cultures in the past even had more than 2 genders, or their idea of gender was vastly different to ours, so it's not even a new or particularly controversial thing. Even in Europe, gender has changed massively over the years - have you seen how feminine a lot of renaissance men looked for example? Pink wasn't a "girly" colour until after the 1940s!
Then of course, you have to consider other animals, who literally have no concept of gender at all. Are female dogs naturally prepositioned to dresses and dolls?
-
I see gender as akin to caste - an essentially discriminatory set of beliefs enforced by society.
Then of course, you have to consider other animals, who literally have no concept of gender at all. Are female dogs naturally prepositioned to dresses and dolls?
You have something similar in both sex based roles and concepts of alpha supremacy in animals who have something similar to a society (the pack). It's easy to see how a more complex gender structure would develop in human society.
-
Pink wasn't a "girly" colour until after the 1940s!
Yeah - blue used to be the color for baby girls because of the association with the Virgin Mary. Pink was considered too active a color and better suited for boys.
-
Pink wasn't a "girly" colour until after the 1940s!
Yeah - blue used to be the color for baby girls because of the association with the Virgin Mary. Pink was considered too active a color and better suited for boys.
:indeed:
Even things like "male" hats, like the fedora/trillby, were originally designed for women.
It's almost like these gender things are arbitrary or something.
-
It's almost like these gender things are arbitrary or something.
Not the codpiece
-
Comparing humans to dogs ... can you come up with a better example? I mean, dogs don't really have a society or language like we do, and they don't dress either.
-
Comparing humans to dogs ... can you come up with a better example? I mean, dogs don't really have a society or language like we do, and they don't dress either.
That's my point.
-
Comparing humans to dogs ... can you come up with a better example? I mean, dogs don't really have a society or language like we do, and they don't dress either.
That's my point.
Depends on how broadly you want to consider 'society'. I'm not so specieist to consider broadly analogous roles
in other species to deserve to be divided off.
If you want closer, look to the other great apes. But even wolves (and I presume feral dogs) take on gender-based roles, although it's less telling than with the apes.
-
They take on roles more driven by instinct than anything else. They won't consciously understand things like gender - they just do whatever is expected by instinct.
Humans are much more complex than that. We evolved to get rid of most of our instincts, particularly when it comes to sexes. That's why you don't really see typical alpha/beta dominance hierarchy (despite what incels think) or such in human society, we see much more complex ones based on class, gender, race and other categories, all of which can overlap and are not always a binary. Some cultures vary, like having a caste system on top of that, while others don't.
This complexity of our behaviours and society is also why gender and sex can never be the same for humans. We're just utterly messy bags of meat, too messy to be reduced or understood in basic terms.
-
I just want to say here: I don't give a damn about BOJO having a party. Is that all the news can go on about?? Like it's important? Yes, it wasn't the right thing to do, but there's surely far worse things he could have done. Does anyone else think him resigning over those parties is really OTT?
Dirty Big Yoke, I don't think a human can just get rid of their instincts. You still get hierarchies in the categories you mentioned, as you said. So the more complex forms are still based on our innate need/instincts to form hierarchies, it's just using a different method (thinking) to achieve it instead of physical fights.
Just because we seemingly think more in detail than other animals, it doesn't get rid of our instincts. Maybe it can dampen them, though.
-
I just want to say here: I don't give a damn about BOJO having a party. Is that all the news can go on about?? Like it's important? Yes, it wasn't the right thing to do, but there's surely far worse things he could have done. Does anyone else think him resigning over those parties is really OTT?
It's all about what a human life is worth and in which context. If you're a leader and have been explaining how everyone should consider health care workers and how people can die unless you are careful, then you should absolutely resign because otherwise you are making everything conditional and you're saying that the rules don't apply to you because you were *working*. How is your garden party different from the others? How is it different from you meeting your elderly parents half the country away or celebrating your birthday with 20 of your closest friends?
I guess what I'm asking is what lies are acceptable to you and what aren't?
Different leaders kill in different ways, but if someone is this careless during a pandemic when literally what you have to do is follow your own rules, what do you suppose will happen if that person ever finds himself benefitting from going to a war half a globe away?
-
I just want to say here: I don't give a damn about BOJO having a party. Is that all the news can go on about?? Like it's important? Yes, it wasn't the right thing to do, but there's surely far worse things he could have done. Does anyone else think him resigning over those parties is really OTT?
Dirty Big Yoke, I don't think a human can just get rid of their instincts. You still get hierarchies in the categories you mentioned, as you said. So the more complex forms are still based on our innate need/instincts to form hierarchies, it's just using a different method (thinking) to achieve it instead of physical fights.
Just because we seemingly think more in detail than other animals, it doesn't get rid of our instincts. Maybe it can dampen them, though.
I think you should care about Bonji and his twat minions - plenty of vulnerable people died so they can party around like the cunts they are. One set of rules for them, another set for us! It's inexcusable when a civilian doing the same thing at the time meant being fined or worse, arrested.
Also: Humans are not instinct driven to a large degree, we literally have evolved most of them away. Only few remain, like fight/flight etc. If we were more instinctual, we simply would not be as complex or intelligent. Also, the hierarchies are not instinctual - if it were, how come we see vastly different and arbitrary hierarchies in different cultures? Wouldn't stronger instincts lead us to all same the same hierarchy? It doesn't line up to what is seen in reality.
-
They take on roles more driven by instinct than anything else. They won't consciously understand things like gender - they just do whatever is expected by instinct.
Ah...yes. There is that. Although....
Humans are much more complex than that. We evolved to get rid of most of our instincts, particularly when it comes to sexes. That's why you don't really see typical alpha/beta dominance hierarchy (despite what incels think) or such in human society, we see much more complex ones based on class, gender, race and other categories, all of which can overlap and are not always a binary. Some cultures vary, like having a caste system on top of that, while others don't.
Sort of a yes...but here.
My view of societal patterns is that they are a form of cultural 'evolution' (the word isn't quite right); very much cultural behaviorist. What this means is that I see the behavior patterns that cultures acquire are essentially tested by the same fitness tests that genetics have. And that the 'instinct' level of behavior is less pre-programmed (this depends on the critter of course) than you're probably seeing it.
Still, human society (and especially modern human society - an argument against this being anything hard-wired alone) is far more malleable than even that exhibited by the great apes. My point though is that this is essentially a natural progression - and that, like tool use, this is an adaption feature simply allowing for more rapid search over the possible formulations.
And don't imagine that there's not a great deal of complexity in what I'm tagging as gender roles in the animal kingdom. That's the point of the alpha/beta distinguishment. It essentially creates more than a simple two-gendered solution. It's just that these solutions are less adaptable (in general - exceptions can be found still due to environmental pressures).
-
Also: Humans are not instinct driven to a large degree, we literally have evolved most of them away.
Sure about this? Seems implausible to me.
-
Meh. We're still a pile of instincts underneath the reason.
-
Reason is because.
Instincts just are.
Next?
-
Also: Humans are not instinct driven to a large degree, we literally have evolved most of them away.
Sure about this? Seems implausible to me.
Emphasis on "large degree". We still have instincts, like irrational fears and fight/flight being some examples, just not to the extent compared to many other animals.
We have to learn from others on how to survive, while many animals have the instincts to do so without much issue. We have long evolved past having those instincts, instead opting for experience.
-
So basically put:
We're complex bags of meat. It's much more accurate to use terminology to reflect that complexity, especially for things like gender.
Nothing is black/white or 100% a binary in nature, even more so with humans because of our big meatbag brains.
The very fact we can't all agree on this, or talk about it without breaking out long essays on the matter is ironically a demonstration of that. :tard:
-
So basically put:
We're complex bags of meat. It's much more accurate to use terminology to reflect that complexity, especially for things like gender.
Nothing is black/white or 100% a binary in nature, even more so with humans because of our big meatbag brains.
The very fact we can't all agree on this, or talk about it without breaking out long essays on the matter is ironically a demonstration of that. :tard:
Zebras?
My take on the gender war is that I identify as a male, you (and I mean "you" as in everyone else) identify as whatever the fuck you want. We'll both go about our days happy.
As for bathrooms, there is standing up (the Express Lane of pissours) and there is sitting down (Premium). If women are fearsome to share their space with male to female trans folk then we should deal with the underlying issue of toxic male aggression - which is what they are fearing (a man in a dress meaning them harm?) and that's a fight that transfolk would probably be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder on.
How did we get here from vaccinations?
-
How did we get here from vaccinations?
Cal mentioned people who make themselves plural, meaning people who reproduce, and it was misinterpreted as a gender reference so that's the direction the conversation naturally took.
-
Sarah Palin's got covid, the anti-vaxxing, science refuting fascist bitch. I wouldn't wish harm on any of God's creatures, but that hell spawn can choke on her own evolution denying phlegm for all I care.
-
I thought she already died? :LOL:
-
How did we get here from vaccinations?
Cal mentioned people who make themselves plural, meaning people who reproduce, and it was misinterpreted as a gender reference so that's the direction the conversation naturally took.
No. It was a gender reference, I fear.
Things had already moved in that direction
-
How did we get here from vaccinations?
Cal mentioned people who make themselves plural, meaning people who reproduce, and it was misinterpreted as a gender reference so that's the direction the conversation naturally took.
No. It was a gender reference, I fear.
Things had already moved in that direction
I see.
-
Also: Humans are not instinct driven to a large degree, we literally have evolved most of them away.
Sure about this? Seems implausible to me.
Emphasis on "large degree". We still have instincts, like irrational fears and fight/flight being some examples, just not to the extent compared to many other animals.
We have to learn from others on how to survive, while many animals have the instincts to do so without much issue. We have long evolved past having those instincts, instead opting for experience.
"not instinct-driven" suggest a thought process. That's where I don't agree.