Harry Leggs
Super Member
Tell it to your pals in dressesNeither did the Abolitionists, then, apparently...
Tell it to your pals in dressesNeither did the Abolitionists, then, apparently...
The most irrelevant sidestep I've ever seen on here.Tell it to your pals in dresses
Then I have good news for you indeed! Because he doesn't require that.No; one that doesn't involve the deity commanding his followers to conquer nations that don't kowtow to him.
Yeah, when Donald Trump suggest that we not do that as a nation his detractors seem to find fault with it. Why do you suppose that is? You remember that policy "America first?"Maybe the Romans could have refrained from conquering everything they set eyes on... if only there were a god to tell them not to.
Then why did he do so in the Old Testament?Then I have good news for you indeed! Because he doesn't require that.
That's not why I find fault with him.Yeah, when Donald Trump suggest that we not do that as a nation his detractors seem to find fault with it.
Because that's what everybody in the world did in those days. It wouldn't make very much sense to have a country that could not exist in a world that existed at the time.Then why did he do so in the Old Testament?
I shudder to be more direct.That's not why I find fault with him.
The better question is why DO you "trust" any news source nowadays? I don't.I mean...what source DO you trust on this information then? Your own intuition? What link do you have that shows the opposite of the info I gave you?
Then you're an idiot.
Idiots think stuff like objectivity, trustworthiness, bias and credibility are binary. ie. you've either got it, or you don't.
The reality is that all four things lie on a sliding scale. A person can be somewhat trustworthy or somewhat biased (for example).
The better question is why DO you "trust" any news source nowadays? I don't.
They tried to build my trust and then they went ahead and instituted "fact checkers" drawn from among themselves. It can't get any clearer than that, university man.
It's ok if YOU trust them though, what is it to me?
If I know what bias they have, why does it matter if I know the name?
I use some local commentators that you probably do not know. Plus beyond the initial reporting i pay scant attention to any analysis or commentary.
Well sure, see the story from all sides, look at the facts alone (if they leak them), make up your own mind.This is why I compare stories from different political angles to see what’s lining up and making sense. I’m skeptical by nature.
I’m an idiot for thinking it’s important to know what a source’s political bias is?
Go jump in a lake you clown. That’s EXACTLY what people should be doing when consuming “news”. If you don’t do that then YOU’RE the idiot.
Just name one and we will see how accurate it is. Unless you name one, it is impossible to see a comparison.Generally, any source not a part of the ruling class establishment.
Why should I trust your judgment of accuracy?Just name one and we will see how accurate it is. Unless you name one, it is impossible to see a comparison.
Yes, there is. We have almost two years of field data. But I noticed you changed the words into "prevents transmission". The claim is that the vaccine reduces transmission (not prevents), and data show that it does.There is no basis in fact from which to make the assertion it prevents transmission.
No, the clinical trials did not consider the question of community transmission. That does not mean science doesn't consider the question.So you want us to believe the science, until the science didn't even consider a question,
I am reporting what the science says. So don't bother to say "instead".and then we're supposed to believe whatever it is that you say, instead of the science.
You're welcome.Thanks for that spectacular example of Crystal clear thinking.
Yes, they design tests of community spread - after the vaccine is available in the community. The clinical trials before any kind of release have a much narrower focus. This narrower focus is natural to observe in times of crisis when a lengthy trial for unnecessary factors (like community spread) would cost many lives because of the delay.That is among the more stupid things that we will ever hear asserted on this thread I'm sure for the next 12 months. Scientists do in fact design tests for precisely this kind of thing.
The vaccine was not "untested". It was very thoroughly tested for safety - the most important factor. It also was tested for effectiveness at reducing symptomatic infection, which it also passed.If you think that the scientific method includes rolling and untested vaccine out into the community and seeing "what happens" you're out of your stark raving mind.
Yet "transmissibility" is the very factor that you are complaining was not tested. So yes, in your argument it very much is the implied criticism.At the bottom of every one of these stupid fact checks is a restatement of the question which completely changes the question. Here's how they do it in this fact check:
"posts claiming that a Pfizer executive “admitted” the company did not test its COVID vaccine’s ability to prevent virus transmission before receiving marketing approval imply that the company had been required to do so or claimed to have done so,"The requirement to test transmissibility was no part of the argument and absolutely no part of the implication.
So there is never any disagreement in science. All the scientists think alikeYes, there is. We have almost two years of field data. But I noticed you changed the words into "prevents transmission". The claim is that the vaccine reduces transmission (not prevents), and data show that it does.
No, the clinical trials did not consider the question of community transmission. That does not mean science doesn't consider the question.
I am reporting what the science says. So don't bother to say "instead".
You're welcome.
Yes, they design tests of community spread - after the vaccine is available in the community. The clinical trials before any kind of release have a much narrower focus. This narrower focus is natural to observe in times of crisis when a lengthy trial for unnecessary factors (like community spread) would cost many lives because of the delay.
The vaccine was not "untested". It was very thoroughly tested for safety - the most important factor. It also was tested for effectiveness at reducing symptomatic infection, which it also passed.
Yet "transmissibility" is the very factor that you are complaining was not tested. So yes, in your argument it very much is the implied criticism.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:What part are you addressing as it relates to slavery in the Constitution? What part of the constitution codifies slavery? Your quote was below and you used slavery as an analogy to gun rights.
Yes, and I don't fault the founding fathers for being a product of their time. And I don't fault them for adding the 2nd amendment in their time. But now is not their time. Modern society is very different, and requires different rules.And slavery was not a fact of life at the time of the Constitution?
Me, I am no one. If a decision is made on owning guns it will not be made by me. It will be made by the people - with all of them having a say. As for the saturation level, you only have to compare the number of guns per person in the US and every other developed nation to see what a saturation level looks like.How so? What is saturation level and who are you to say how many guns a citizen may legally own?
Ah, you don't trust anyone to see where you get your news from! You are not very confident in the reliability of your sources, are you? It is much easier to criticize the mainstream media as long as you don't have to hold up any other source for comparison!Why should I trust your judgment of accuracy?
I have told you that I do not follow any particular source, I take the amalgamation of sources. I know that does not fit your preconceived narrative that you want to believe, but I do not careAh, you don't trust anyone to see where you get your news from! You are not very confident in the reliability of your sources, are you? It is much easier to criticize the mainstream media as long as you don't have to hold up any other source for comparison!
And I take note of what bias they have.Ah, you don't trust anyone to see where you get your news from! You are not very confident in the reliability of your sources, are you? It is much easier to criticize the mainstream media as long as you don't have to hold up any other source for comparison!