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
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 08:30:07 AM »
you want to talk about FE in a thread about Trump now.
I’m not talking about FE.
I’m talking about you.

Your argument that someone else allegedly did something bad as apparent justification or dismissal to the media's lies to the public is beyond ridiculous. You are arguing in favor of lying, which just shows you to be an unethical fellow willing to argue that black is white if it suits you. How can you get around the consequence to your argument and debate tactics that you are justifying the media lying to the public?

Here was your thought process when you made your argument "I can't really contradict this, so I am going to justify this by arguing that someone else may have done something bad."

Yeah, you certainly came out ahead in this by attempting to justify the media's dishonesty. I am sure that with what you are arguing that you are inches away from making the world think that it's okay for the media to lie to the public. ::)

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 07:56:51 AM »
It's not okay to lie. The media portrayed the report as saying something contrary to what it said. The quality and truthfulness of the report is a different matter than honestly reporting on what it said. They were unable to honestly relay to the public what the audit reported. Picking out a single sentence from a report and cutting out the rest which says the election is tainted and should be decertified is rather unethical, and defending this unethical behavior by the media shows how dishonest you guys are as well.

I can predict that response to this will be to argue that you think that someone else did something bad, and that's why it's okay to lie. That is the justification you guys tend to give for this sort of unethical behavior. No, it's not okay to lie.

So you finally agree that cherry picking quotes is dishonest. I hope you will stop doing it then  :)

Ah, so you were completely wrong on this, so you want to talk about FE in a thread about Trump now. Now someone else allegedly did something bad, so it was okay and two wrongs make a right and the matter is justified or some such logic. Incorrect. You were wrong. You have made neither a true argument or a legitimate argument. You even doubled down on the media conclusion earlier and you were still wrong. Embarrassing.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 02:03:32 AM »
Maybe you should actually watch it. A number of their hosts are left leaning, especially on daytime Fox.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 01:48:44 AM »
So you guys accept that the liberal media was lying about this, apparently give them a pass, and then immediately accuse the other side of lying.

Wow.

How about just accepting that the liberal side are being dishonest liars about this through and through?

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 25, 2021, 05:40:27 PM »
Go on. Let’s see the part where Trump won.

It doesn't say anything about whether they were able to pick apart the inconsistencies from the inconsistent ballots and deleted files. It says that the concluded that the results are severely tainted and recommended decertification. How does that turn into an argument that the media reported honestly on this?

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 25, 2021, 04:05:13 PM »
The report the media was reporting on didn't conclude that they confirmed Biden's win and the official numbers. It said that there were a bunch of unacceptable issues and recommended to decertify the election. At one point the report says that they counted the ballots and got a similar number as the official results, but then they have a ton of stuff about how those ballots are tainted and invalid. Like I posted earlier, the media snipped out a single sentence and did not report on the bulk of the findings, the questionable votes, or the recommendation to decertify, so they lied.

Here's what the media said in that msn article that was posted on the last page:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz



Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf



An Arizona senator's reaction to the recent audit results and the Arizona Senate video presentations after they were released yesterday:


7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 24, 2021, 04:29:30 PM »
Or maybe the reporters just lied and published that Joe Biden won the count
lol. OK, who had
"ThE rEpOrTeRs WeRe LyInG"
in the Tom sweepstake?
This is quite a fun game  ;D

And when it turns out that they lied you will argue that it doesn't matter that they lied because someone else did something bad, or you will argue they were 'technically right' on Biden's end vote count and the part where those were fraudulent votes can be ignored because it's false. Always some delusional excuse from you where two wrongs make a right and unethical behavior is ignored, and the painting of a world where Joe Biden is the most ethical and smartest US President who has ever lived. Please double down on this again.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 24, 2021, 04:17:29 PM »
Or maybe the reporters just lied and published that Joe Biden won the count, but conveniently cut out the part that many of those votes were fraudulent.


9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 24, 2021, 07:10:04 AM »
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.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 24, 2021, 04:40:05 AM »
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.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 24, 2021, 04:04:06 AM »
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

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 24, 2021, 02:05:32 AM »
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


13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 24, 2021, 12:21:03 AM »
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.

14
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.

15
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


16
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.

17
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.

18
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.


19
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/


20
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 418  Next >