[Tom Bishop]

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?

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

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.

[Rama Set]

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 justify implementing illegal laws.

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

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.

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.

[Roundy]

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 justify implementing illegal laws.

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

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.

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.

That's why it's impossible to take him seriously??

[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?

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.”

So what’s the issue here?

This seems to be his real concern:

“To misuse the Ten Stages of Genocide model and claim it supports the false, unscientific ideology of the anti-Vaxxers is morally reprehensible. Pretending to be concerned about a non-existent genocide and its non-existent victims demonstrates complete disregard for the real victims of past and present genocides.”

Additionally, you said:

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. 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.

You never answered the question. Where does the article say that?

Are you going to back up your claim? Or are you ok with it being known that you made that up?

[Shifter]

So what's the conspiracy? Big pharma wants to kill billions of its customers?

Governments in the developed world want to suicide their nation's in favour of the developing world which aren't getting the vaccines?

Governments want to kill off all the people that do what they are told in favour of leaving all the anarchists?

Like, what's the endgame here? What's the point?

If conspiracy theorists took just 2 seconds to try and see the logic of their conspiracy they'd know it doesn't add up

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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.

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.

[stack]

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 premeditation. Instead, the argument is a weaker 'you don't know for sure' variant.

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.

I’m not sure why you are not getting this.

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.

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.

If a Dr thinks a person is less likely to die than another person, triage will prioritize the less likely to die. No where does it say anything about vaccinated versus unvaccinated. You completely fabricated that. And triage applies to all patients, not just COVID patients. If they are short on ICU beds, 1 left, 2 heart attack patients come in, triage choices occur.

The unvaccinated are also called out on that same page:

Called out on the same “page”? That’s your argument? Because a mention of the word “unvaccinated” on a page? How, does “Hospitalizations, especially among the unvaccinated, have also climbed” translate into your claim?

Seems like you should focus on the word “hospitalizations” instead because they are admitting lots of unvaccinated people.

As an aside, has it occurred to you that maybe there really is a pandemic considering that two states are running out of resources to the point that they have to implement triage procedures? When was the last time that happened?

[Tom Bishop]

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"

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

[Lord Dave]

Wait...


Is Tom actually thinking standard emergency triage is a conspiracy?  Does he even know what Triage is?  Does he know what "limited resources" is?  Does he know this is exactly what we were trying to avoid with masks, quarentine, and social distancing?

Also, I thought this was a virus developed by China to kill people and weaken the US economy, not the US government going genocidal on people who don't get vaccines.

[Tom Bishop]

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:

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:

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

[stack]

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"

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?
You have really lost the thread now.

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.

Where does it say anything is based on vaccine status?

If the doctors are anything like these ones they might:

“If”? Nice speculation. Not very becoming.

[Lord Dave]

Unvaccinated people on a ventelator have a much lower chance of survival than other patients.  When resources are limited, you triage the patient most likely to survive.  This is triage 101.
So if you have two patients, one with covid but no vaccine (hence why they're there) and one with stage 4 lung cancer, Covid person wins.
If its lung damage from a chemical burn, chemical burn person wins.

But then, Tom probably thinks it should be first come, first serve.  First to need s ventelator gets a ventelator until they don't need it anymore.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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.

“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.

[Shifter]

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

That's because people like you are a net negative to society and no one gives an F if you die.

You have your choice. Not societies problem if your brain is so retarded it can't critically think.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

TL;DR - What's her evidence?

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?

“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.

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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.

[Shifter]

Tom, can you even spell out what this conspiracies end game is? What kind of person is behind it to think murdering billions of people will make their life better? And how somehow, that this detail was missed by hundreds of thousands of scientists and professionals but somehow a numpty like you figured it all out?

[Lord Dave]

Tom, can you even spell out what this conspiracies end game is? What kind of person is behind it to think murdering billions of people will make their life better? And how somehow, that this detail was missed by hundreds of thousands of scientists and professionals but somehow a numpty like you figured it all out?

There is only one:
The most powerful people in the world want to exterminate humanity.  Including themselves.

[stack]

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. Congratulations.

I have no idea what your ramble meant. "You presented argument, counterargument, then moot, back to argument, double moot..." You're sounding as crazy as Ms Maria.

Let me try and lay this out for you so you don't pop a vein:

- You posted a meme referencing the 10 Stages of Genocide and how people claim covid lockdowns, vaccines, the pandemic itself, ticks off the boxes
- Dr. Stanton is the guy who came up with and published those 10 Stages of Genocide back in 1996 or so. He is a recognized and lauded Genocide scholar.
- Presumably the meme all got started by this H Maria from Norway and of course spread like wildfire in various forms
- Dr. Stanton got pissed that Ms Maria was shoehorning her craptastic pandemic/vaccine conspiracy theories into his stages and trying to make a crap correlation - Using his work to somehow justify her delusions.

How you don't get this is, well, congratulatory unto itself.

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?

Right about here:

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

I see no where in any of the documentation/articles you presented or that I could find where that was said. You literally made that up.

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 not sure what that was all about, but at least you're now admitting that what you claim isn't said anywhere. Good, now we're getting somewhere.

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

When did murder become legal? What in the world are you talking about? What does legalized murder have to do with an emergency situation in two red states where they are running out of healthcare resources? You're making no sense.

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.

So emergency triage is equal to discrimination?

Why do you think Idaho and Alaska are in this situation where they are running out of resources and have to resort to triage? What would you suggest they do instead? In other words, how would you handle the situation?

[AATW]

Interesting. Let me know when people have started preventing liberals and gays from buying food at supermarkets.

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.

Once you've seen one shopping centre you've seen the mall...
(The mall, them all, see...oh if I have to explain it...)

Tom seems to have gone full Helen Lovejoy (won't someone please think of the unvaccinated).
Clearly we're not heading for a genocide
But if you strip away the trolling and hyperbole, I think there's a reasonable point about a 2 tier society which I have concerns about.
I mean, how much risk are the unvaccinated anyway? That's hard to quantify, but I would suggest it's not that high.