Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 418  Next >
1
What evidence did she give that the pandemic actually fits the stages of genocide? Just pointing at someone else's work and yelling, "SEE!" doesn't cut it.

I watched the video that made Dr. Stanton so incensed. So incensed because she used his scholarly work, especially around a subject like genocide, to manufacture some conspiracy around the pandemic and vaccines. She's got us at stage 9, extermination, not just piddly old stage 7. According to her, the vaccines will kill everyone and in the mean time we're being micro-chipped, and on and on and on. If you want to die on Ms Maria's version of genocide, feel free. She is batshit crazy.


Like I said, she is batshit crazy. He's right. Watch her video in question. It's enlightening as to how whacked a person can get and still seem barely credible to a daft few. And like I said, what evidence did she provide? I couldn't find any in her rambling 25 minutes of twisted garbage.
At least the guy, Dr Stanton, wrote the stages and knows what he's talking about in regards to his own scholarly work. And they are not just the bullet points you have in your meme, there's a lot more to it. Maybe look it up.

Wow, way to nullify your original argument. You suggested it was the same argument, so I trusted you. If you are now arguing that her argument is entirely different than presented then I guess your counterargument was moot from the beginning. It's not the same argument according to you, and therefore any response to it by any person is likewise invalid, as they are not discussing what you originally presented and implied. Now, according to you, the genocide author might be calling something else crazy that isn't directly related to the original image. You got yourself back to zero and wasted the time of all involved. Congratulations.

Quote
Quote from: stack
Quote
The state gave the doctors the power to let people die based on their vaccination status, if they think there is a risk difference.

Where does it say anything is based on vaccine status?

You already conceded that the rule change gave them the power to do that. It's possible, so I am correct. They have the power to do that.

Where does it say anything is based on vaccine status like you claim? Let's deal in facts, shall we?

Where did I say that it did?

If the government writes a law that it is now legal to commit murder and I say that people can now legally murder each other with guns what is the point of asking where it says in the law that it's legal to murder with guns? The law allows them to do so and so the statement that people can now murder each other with guns is correct. Asking where it says in the law that it's legal to murder with guns is nonsense.

I'm afraid your argument is woefully inept. You're basically saying, "Something is a problem if someone does something." Don't you see how inane that is. It's literally the weakest argument I've seen for anything in a long time.

Obviously if murder was legal, people would have a problem with "someone does something" if that something is murdering them or their family.

Likewise, people have a problem with doctors discriminating against people for life-saving treatment, and don't take kindly if they or their family are discriminated against for their weight, smoking, their age, life choices, etc.

Trivializing that as "someone does something" is rather insane.

2
Quote from: stack
What do you mean how would he know? Know what? How would the crazy person he was specifically writing about know there is a global conspiracy behind COVID?

The woman is using the author's own celebrated and accepted rules to identify a potential genocide for one. She puts it forward as evidence. The author then berates her and states that there is no conspiracy and that she's crazy and provides zero evidence in either direction. Looks like only one person provided any amount of evidence in that.

Quote from: stack
Quote
The state gave the doctors the power to let people die based on their vaccination status, if they think there is a risk difference.

Where does it say anything is based on vaccine status?

You already conceded that the rule change gave them the power to do that. It's possible, so I am correct. They have the power to do that.

Quote from: stack
“If”? Nice speculation. Not very becoming.

Not very intelligent on your end. It is a problem "if" they do that. And apparently a number of doctors out there wouldn't feel too bad about doing it. Usually you want your state health laws to limit bad things people want to do, not allow them.

3
It's not standard to deny medical care to people who haven't gotten a drug or vaccine because of some future risk they might possibly encounter. When has that ever happened?

I see that the commie sympathizers are now coming out to argue that people should die based on a future possibility.

From that last NBC article:

Quote
Thus, anger and frustration with people whose actions, even if they’re potentially provocative, don’t themselves prevent a doctor from providing effective treatment in a safe environment don’t make refusing services ethical.

But when actions that cause anger and frustration do interfere with doctors’ ability to meet their obligations to provide safe and effective treatment, refusing services can be ethical.

Hilarious. Want to defend this one?

"The unvaccinated made me so mad that I couldn't do my job. So they should not be treated."

It says a director of Medical Ethics at the NYU School of Medicine wrote that:

Quote
By J. Russell Teagarden, member of the Working Group on Compassionate Use and Preapproval Access, and Arthur L. Caplan, founding director of the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU School of Medicine

4
You’ve completely lost the thread. All he is saying is that people conspire in order to fulfill a genocide and that there is no conspiracy, no collusion among a cabal to commit genocide utilizing the pandemic and/or vaccines. He’s directly responding to that women’s crazy claims that there is a conspiracy to do so.

Really, and how would this author possibly know? He argues that there is no collusion without providing any evidence either way.

"Here are my rules to identify a genocide guys"

"Nooooo, you can't use it that way, you need to have knowledge of their nefarious plot"

::)


Quote from: stack
It literally doesn’t say anything like that. It simply says, “give healthcare providers the power to prioritize patients - largely based on their likelihood to survive.” Now how does that translate into your claim, “If a doctor thinks that a vaccinated person is at less risk than an unvaccinated person he is free to let the unvaccinated person die now.”

I could just as easily say, If a doctor thinks that an unvaccinated person is at less risk than a vaccinated person he is free to let the vaccinated person die now. You are literally conjuring up a scenario like it’s the only one that exists.

Actually, it does say that doctors are free to decide now. You just conceded that it's possible. Therefore my statement is correct. If a doctor thinks that a vaccinated person is at less risk than an unvaccinated person he is free to let the unvaccinated person die now.

The state gave the doctors the power to let people die based on their vaccination status, if they think there is a risk difference.

If the doctors are anything like these ones they might:

https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/its-very-frustrating-seeing-unvaccinated-patients-virginia-mason-doctor-says/281-d06d9f21-330f-47d8-a05b-04aee517c714



https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-08-17/vaccinated-covid-doctor-shot



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/18/doctors-caring-unvaccinated-covid-patients



https://globalnews.ca/news/8144159/unvaccinated-b-c-man-walk-in-clinic/



https://wbckfm.com/doctor-refuses-treat-patients-unvaccinated/



https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/doctor-says-he-wont-see-unvaccinated-patients-reports-say



https://www.dailybreeze.com/2021/09/10/difficult-to-be-compassionate-some-front-line-workers-frustrated-by-unvaccinated-patients/



https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/if-covid-vaccine-refusers-are-turned-away-hospitals-doctor-offices-ncna1277475


5
I don’t get this hang-up on the conspiracy business. Dr Stanton wrote, “In order for a genocide to develop there must a real conspiracy to commit acts of genocide. Henna Maria's "conspiracy" is entirely imaginary. It is a product of her anti-Vaxxer ideology.”

He does not deny that they appear to be fullfilled, but argues that she doesn't know that there is a "real conspiracy" in her analysis. It it supposed to be reassuring that the signs are there and the only thing stopping it is their publicly known intent?

Basically "Nah uh, we don't know what they intend for sure" ... is this even an argument against what she's claiming? I'm pretty sure that part of her argument is that they would not publicly reveal their intent if they had it. Pretty weak. A better argument against the assertion would have been to argue that the steps are not being fulfilled at all, considering that publicly known intent isn't part of the steps, and nor were genocides publicly known before they occurred in history or that they necessarily required long-term premeditation. Instead, the argument we get is a weaker 'you don't know for sure' variant.

It is concerning that the author's rebuttal on the apparent fulfillment of his rules is so weak on this and is not significantly contradicting the basis of the analysis by showing that the rules aren't being fulfilled.

Quote from: stack
You never answered the question. Where does the article say that?

Right here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/22/covid-delta-variant-live-updates/



If the health-care provider thinks that vaccinated should be given life-saving treatments over the unvaccinated they are allowed to make that call and leave the unvaccinated to die.

The unvaccinated are also called out on that same page:



Already, if hospitals wanted to allow unvaccinated to die they are increasingly given the power to do so.

Quote from: Rama Set
Tom, chill baby. You are so dead set on making enemies. If the laws were illegal, then it’s good they are repealed. I simply challenged your overly dramatic proclamation that people were being prevented from buying food or water in an effort to genocide the unvaccinated. It’s hilariously hyperbolic and it’s impossible to take you seriously because of it.

The fact that they are attempting to pass and enforce illegal laws to limit access to goods and services shows their motivation quite clearly. It's certainly moving to be more and more draconian as time goes on.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 23, 2021, 10:56:51 PM »
Quote from: stack
He came up with the stages:

Gregory H. Stanton is the former Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at the George Mason University in Fairfax County, Virginia, United States. He is best known for his work in the area of genocide studies. He is the founder and president of Genocide Watch,[1] the founder and director of the Cambodian Genocide Project,[2][3] and the Chair of the Alliance Against Genocide. From 2007 to 2009 he was the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

He seems far more accomplished in the field of Genocide studies than you do.

The author of this doesn't deny that the steps are being fulfilled. His concern is whether we have a known plot.

And according to your recent comments a known plot is not required. Which is it?

Quote from: Rama Set
Nice propaganda. There is no law in France banning people from buying food or water. They are not allowed to enter malls. Some malls have groceries. Stop with the hysteria.

You don't think they could have made an exception when drafting that law? Those laws are illegal, regardless of the size of the store. It's not surprising that you side with the authoritarians and are here justifying limits on people's access to food and water and in implementing illegal laws.

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/France-Covid-An-end-to-the-health-pass-in-shopping-centres

Quote
As of August 8, the Covid health pass has been required for entry to shopping centres larger than 20,000m2, and in those where the local prefecture has issued a decree requiring it.

Prefectures have the power to require the pass if the incidence rate (number of cases per 100,000 inhabitants) in the area has been higher than 200 for a week.

But now, several of these decrees have been challenged in court on the basis that they are not legally valid, with the departments of Yvelines, Essonne and Hauts-de-Seine (Ile-de-France) having now had the rule annulled in court.

The court found that the restrictions in question did “not allow for adequate access to enable customers without a pass to buy essential goods and services”.


Under the rules, all shopping centres must still permit people to enter without a health pass if they are buying essential items, or accessing a transport station that is located within the centre.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 23, 2021, 09:48:04 PM »
The other state to implement this 'crisis standards of care' was Idaho. They directly cite the unvaccinated:

https://coronavirus.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CSC-Declaration.pdf


8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 23, 2021, 09:26:49 PM »
Is he endorsing that article? That's even worse. The person who is recognized for it isn't even denying that the steps are being fulfilled and questions if there is a known 'plot'. Scary.

Quote from: stack
Like I said, there's nothing about having to "declare" anything. I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

Right, it isn't necessary for people to know about it for it to happen.

Quote from: stack
Is the Alaska triage thing built on "Are you vaccinated or not"? Or is their triage built upon how bad off a patient is in their current state?

Maybe read the article. It's a response to Covid. The law changes equal treatment and leaves it up to the health provider. If the health provider thinks that a vaccinated person is at less risk than an unvaccinated person he is free to let the unvaccinated person die now.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 23, 2021, 08:49:17 PM »
The countries in the past didn't openly declare their intentions of genocide in the years and months leading up to it. The person is ignorant of history. It is possible that some countries which committed genocide didn't even intend it or premeditate it and it just happened as the persecution gained momentum. The author does not account for that possibility either.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16352745



A number of scholars argue that it is possible that genocides that were not premeditated and that it just happened.

If some countries aren't letting people shop in shopping centers and other countries are letting unvaccinated people die in hospitals and are building Covid quarantine camps it's obvious that they don't really care too much about the lives of unvaccinated.

Can you promise that they will stop tomorrow and that it's not going to escalate?

Again, the steps have been fulfilled so far and it isn't even denied. Your rebuttal is that someone random you plucked from a website on the internet doesn't think so, as if genocides are always premeditated as a "plot" or are openly expressed.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 23, 2021, 08:23:37 PM »
Interesting. Let me know when people have started preventing liberals and gays from buying food at supermarkets.


11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 23, 2021, 07:37:04 PM »
"In order for a genocide to develop there must a real conspiracy to commit acts of genocide" is a pretty weak rebuttal. Nazi Germany or the Armenians didn't declare that they had a conspiracy to commit genocide before it occurred. A lot of their populous saw them as the good guys leading up to it. The author of that article doesn't even deny that the steps have been fulfilled so far.

States are telling hospitals that they can let the unvaccinated die now and no longer need to treat them equally; official approval:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/22/covid-delta-variant-live-updates/


12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 23, 2021, 07:28:41 PM »
You didn't notice that conservatives and conservative media have launched all seven steps against homosexuals, liberals, immigrants, skateboarders, potheads, and anyone else they don't like.

It is possible that there are some people who want extermination of liberals and gays. They don't have the power to do it though. Governments, however, do have the power to commit genocide.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 23, 2021, 07:14:09 PM »
Prior to Covid some scholars have noted that genocide historically seems to go through certain stages - search 'stages of genocide'. In relation to Covid, if this were an event leading up to genocide, it is interesting that that a few countries seem to be approaching stage 7:


14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 21, 2021, 09:41:27 AM »
Those graphs are a hot mess. You might want to get a better ones. I don't remember 2019 being when Covid started:



And why is it suggesting that there was Covid in 2015?

And why is Total Excluding Covid higher than Total Including Covid? Total Including Covid suggests that it contains everything and should be higher. Nonsense.

If the blue increase is supposed to represent an increase in non-Covid deaths then it just illustrates the point that there were a general increase in deaths that the excess Covid deaths can be attributed to if they were erroneously counted. But again, those graphs don't make much sense. It is unsurprising that you are promoting them.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 21, 2021, 08:22:53 AM »
It keeps going around and around because you neglect to account for the deaths that were up generally during the pandemic, which taints your argument. People were delaying medical care due to fear that they would get Covid in the hospital or clinic, as stated by a source several pages ago.

https://www.nwpb.org/2020/11/25/further-proof-that-2020-stinks-more-people-are-dying-during-the-pandemic-not-just-from-covid/



If those excess Covid deaths are erroneously counted, then they may be attributed to the general increase in excess deaths that we know existed as the time. This other factor of a general increase of deaths during the pandemic ruins your argument.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 20, 2021, 10:25:29 PM »
England is miscounting in the same way as the US and Canada:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916035/RA_Technical_Summary_-_PHE_Data_Series_COVID_19_Deaths_20200812.pdf



Related article about miscounting in England:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/21/analysis-why-englands-covid-19-death-toll-is-wrong-but-not-by-much

Quote
Following the health secretary’s move on Friday, Yoon K Loke and Carl Heneghan, of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, wrote in a blogpost: “It seems that PHE regularly looks for people on the NHS database who have ever tested positive, and simply checks to see if they are still alive or not. PHE does not appear to consider how long ago the Covid test result was, nor whether the person has been successfully treated in hospital and discharged to the community.”

A Department of Health and Social Care source summed this up as: “You could have been tested positive in February, have no symptoms, then be hit by a bus in July and you’d be recorded as a Covid death.”

When the Guardian put this to a source at PHE, they said that such a scenario would “technically” be counted as a coronavirus death, “though the numbers where that situation would apply are likely to be very small”. PHE says it calculates deaths in this way because, in most circumstances, it cannot dismiss the possibility that Covid-19 could have played a role in the death.

Except for the fact that people die every week in England by the thousands from all sorts of different causes, not just busses.  ::)

A professor argues in favor of the method:

Quote
Speaking at a meeting of the Independent Sage committee, Prof Christina Pagel, a professor of operational research at UCL, said: “If someone [got Covid-19] in mid-March, recovered early April, the chances of them then dying from something completely different in the last couple of months is quite low. So I don’t think it has caused a massive distortion.”

Uh, no. People are consistently dying in large numbers every day by things that are not Covid. If large numbers of people are getting asymptomatic Covid, this counting method is faulty. What an idiot. This is either stupidity or deliberate evil.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 20, 2021, 07:54:07 PM »
Nevada's current guidelines for Covid deaths as of July 12, 2021:

https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Programs/OPHIE/Docs/COVID-Death-Definition.pdf

Quote
Updates were made July 12, 2021

~

COVID-19 Death:
• Decedents with a positive PCR COVID-19 lab report (≤ 30 days from death or post-mortem)
• Decedents with a death certificate that lists a COVID-19-related term as a cause of death in Part I and have a
history of a positive PCR COVID-19 lab report
     •  COVID-related terms include names for COVID-19, such as SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus, coronavirus-19, etc.
• Decedents with a pending cause of death that had a positive PCR lab test within 30 days of death AND
symptoms indicative of COVID-19 (per investigation or medical report)
• Decedents with a death certificate that does not specifically list a COVID-19-related term that had a positive PCR
lab result ≤ 30 days before death and/or died within 30 days of COVID-19 symptom onset AND died in a manner
of death deemed to be ‘natural’ on the death certificate
• Exception: Deaths due to non-natural causes (e.g. accidental, intentional self-harm, homicide) should not be
counted as a COVID-19 death even if the deceased had a confirmatory positive lab test within 30 days of death

So anyone who was dying of end stage cancer, heart attack, end stage liver disease, etc, but who has had a positive Covid test in the past 30 days is counted as a Covid death.

Is there any justification for this? They have changed the way deaths are reported. This is not done for other diseases.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/a-covid-death-the-bureaucracy-decides/



Author:


19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 20, 2021, 06:10:51 PM »
Peter Evans didn't say they were reporting deaths that way. Toronto Public Health did.

Also, it's not the celebrity chef Peter Evans in the comments:

https://twitter.com/peteevans66?lang=en


20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 20, 2021, 05:46:46 PM »
The same misreporting has been occurring in Canada. What a coincidence.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 418  Next >