61

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 16, 2022, 08:39:48 PM »

And despite your claim, as an unvaccinated
individual, he was a danger to others.

How was he a danger? He arrived in Australia, Covid free. If he got covid ... (unlikely as he'd just had it), then he's only another person getting a disease that was already present in Australia. And by the way ... covid isn't dangerous. This stupid shit about it being lethal ... its only lethal if a cold is lethal to you. In which case you should be out in public watching the tennis. 

  If he'd simply had the vaccination, like other foreign players

Djokovic hates drugs. Look at the skinny fucker. That's why he hates Nadal so much. He knows Nadal is roided off his tits. Nadal is a filthy drug addict and will literally put just about anything in his veins.
   

Imagine you are Novak, and this cheat is stealing millions of dollars from you in prize money and eroding your legacy? And Nadal has the audacity to make public statements about how you should just take drugs? No wonder Novak hates him.

Novak is anti drugs. A rare thing in this day and age. He refuses medications he doesn't need. And that includes experimental vaccines. I'm with him on this. Novak is one of the healthiest people on earth. He's literally the best tennis player alive. He knows about health and he doesn't need some fat Aussie politician telling him to pump himself full of Pfizer's untested muck.

competing in the Australian Open, then none of this debacle would've occurred.  Likewise, if he hadn't
deliberately lied on his visa application, then it wouldn't have occurred either.  His deportation was solely
Djokevic's own fault, coupled with his stubborn arrogance and disdain for Australian laws.

He didn't lie. He didn't even fill in his VISA. Obviously. He has people to do it for him and they made a few errors. Nothing that a reasonable no politicised situation couldn't have resolved. But Australia got coronavirus very wrong. Their people have had some of the harshest lockdowns in the world. And their Prime Minister is doubling down to cover his poor management of the situation, rather than come clean that their measures were ineffective and unnecessary. Also ... now that Novak isn't playing and you took out the best player ... who gives a shit about their tournament? I doubt many will watch now.

Contrast the UK. Our PM was having parties during lockdown. The instant it gets made public and he gets caught ... suddenly coronavirus isn't dangerous in the UK and all restrictions are to be lifted.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/16/encouraging-signs-plan-b-covid-measures-may-soon-be-lifted-in-england
Its politics, not science.

62

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince

« on: January 14, 2022, 08:18:52 PM »

The Queen and Royal Family has apparently already judged him. That's good enough for me.

Judged him by not removing his Dukedom, not removing his HRH status, not removing his Vice Admiral Position in the Navy and judged him by allowing him to continue to live at The Royal Lodge in Great Windsor Park for free? All he has lost is the ability to call himself Lord of the Sea Scouts and a bunch of charity obligations. Sounds like a not guilty verdict to me.

63

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince

« on: January 14, 2022, 05:02:24 PM »

I'd like to see Gates face charges. Gates isn't dumb. Gates is wicked.

I'm sure you have excellent evidence of that.

I know who would be the first witness I would call to the stand.

64

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince

« on: January 14, 2022, 04:37:47 PM »

It doesn't matter if it was out of stupidity or because he's a bond villain.

It absolutely does. The stupid can learn from making mistakes. Bond villains will actively pose a threat to others in the future. My guess is that Andrew has already learned his lesson. Again, he's dumb, not wicked.

I dunno.
I think people have had enough of the rich and powerful being able to do what they want without consequence.
One could argue that loss of reputation is a consequence, but he's still living a life of luxury.
I don't think it's a bad idea to send a message that they aren't above the law (even though often they are).

Then I come back to ... if I see Bill Gates facing charges, I'll be more supportive of Andrew facing charges. Andrew isn't important, doesn't pay off all the media and doesn't leverage massive financial power to engage in social engineering programs against the populace. I'd like to see Gates face charges. Gates isn't dumb. Gates is wicked.

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince

« on: January 14, 2022, 04:24:05 PM »

^ This post illustrates my point exactly. You start from the own fantasy of your imagination and dismiss the case based on that. That’s how children act.

The point I'm making is 'Is Andrew evil, or is he just stupid?'. My feeling is that he is stupid, but he is facing the charges of someone who is evil. He acts out of poor decision making, not out of malice. In society we don't punish the stupid. We punish the evil. I think his lawyers can build a case around these kinds of premises.

I'm not a million miles away from disagreeing with you, but you're saying he shouldn't be charged.
If he did something illegal and there's good evidence of that then of course he should be charged.

I'm saying charging him with rape and paedophilia are a little extreme. I think charging him with some kind of illegal contract law or something might be more appropriate.

But mostly I do think Giuffre has already been paid twice. I don't think she should get paid 3 times for having sex with a guy just the once. She got her damages. Andrew has already had fierce damage to his reputation. I feel like the scales of justice are already balanced. I would not have allowed the case if I was a judge. I'd have upheld the waver that Giuffre signed in exchange for damages. I think it was a political verdict rather than a fair one by the US judge.

It doesn't matter if it was out of stupidity or because he's a bond villain.

It absolutely does. The stupid can learn from making mistakes. Bond villains will actively pose a threat to others in the future. My guess is that Andrew has already learned his lesson. Again, he's dumb, not wicked.

66

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince

« on: January 14, 2022, 04:14:50 PM »

^ This post illustrates my point exactly. You start from the own fantasy of your imagination and dismiss the case based on that. That’s how children act.

The point I'm making is 'Is Andrew evil, or is he just stupid?'. My feeling is that he is stupid, but he is facing the charges of someone who is evil. He acts out of poor decision making, not out of malice. In society we don't punish the stupid. We punish the evil. I think his lawyers can build a case around these kinds of premises.

67

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince

« on: January 14, 2022, 03:58:31 PM »

your worth.

Also, of course Thork is being Thorky.
But he's not a million miles off here. Calling Andrew a pedo is harsh.
But he absolutely should be charged.

No-one in the UK cares much about Andrew.

Thork isn't an adjective.

I also think 'rape' is harsh. Again we are bouncing around legal technicalities and she is only a few months shy of everything being above board.

I imagine Andrew arrives at a large mansion via private jet. A concierge porter takes his bags and Epstein says "Welcome my friend. Here, have a glass of Champagne. How was your flight?". The next thing Andrew is eating olives, bullshitting about how important he is and a beautiful young girl comes over. A girl who has already been paid lots to be there.
Epstein: "Andrew, let me introduce you to Virginia".
Andrew: "Oh, hello. Pleasure to meet you. I'm a prince don't you know."
Virginia: "Oh hai!  You're a real prince, like the story books?".
Andrew: "Well almost but I'm much braver. I flew helicopters in the Falklands war."
Virginia: "Oh wow. So do you come here often?"

... a few moments later

Virginia: "Why don't you show me your room?".


'Rape' conjures images of women being held down, fists flying, tears, screaming, begging etc. This strikes me as absolutely consensual ... again but for the technicality that a 17 year old can't give consent for paid sex. Normal sex yes, paid sex no.

I've always thought this should have a different name in law. It shouldn't be classed as a rape. A man who would have sex with a 17 year old girl who agrees to do so for money is hardly the same as a monster who grabs a women in a public toilet and forces himself upon her. 

68

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince

« on: January 14, 2022, 03:37:22 PM »

I am once again quite happy that you don’t get to decide anything for the public.

What a lousy rebuttal.

69

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince

« on: January 14, 2022, 03:20:03 PM »

I'm going to guess that Giuffre received a shit ton of cash to be in the company of these men. 'Trafficked' is a fairly uncharitable term for an ambitious young women who is earning a truck load of green. Her being under 18 is the only sticking point. And she wasn't much under 18. I'm guessing it would be very hard to prove that Andrew knew she was under age beyond reasonable doubt.

Also paedophile. Mmmm. In the UK, and in fact in most countries on earth, the age of consent is 16. Its hard to look at Giuffre and decide that she looks physically like a child, rather than a woman.

So trafficked is a technicality, and paedophile is a technicality. I mean, sure, he's a dirty old man who paid to screw a young girl but he'd hardly be unique from that perspective.

I'd argue this isn't really in the public interest to charge Andrew. He isn't predating on actual children, and again trafficking suggests someone is taken against their will ... and she just looks like every other thirsty Instagram girl to me.

So it's a civil case ... and I think Giuffre has already been paid twice. Once for the work and she also took a cash settlement from Epstein many years ago in exchange for the promise not to go after any of Epstein's friends. The settlement was to cover all of them.

So it seems mostly like a witch hunt. I don't see Bill gates or indeed any US citizen getting chased. Andrew is hardly Epstein's closest or most frequent customer. If the likes of Bill Gates were facing charges, I'd be a little more sympathetic to this circus.

The truth is that Andrew is a total cock. Filled with his own self importance and utterly entitled. And no one likes him. So there isn't anyone high up who has any interest in protecting him unlike Bill Gates.

But my feeling is that this shouldn't have come to court. Giuffre already has her damages money and its not in the public interest.

70

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 14, 2022, 03:07:16 PM »

Then they found out that he was a liar

The Australian government is claiming that Djokovic is a 'danger to the public'. This sounds to me like their government are the liars. How is he a danger? Your citizens can all have the jab. The jab protects you, not others. Djokovic also recently had covid, so his immunity trumps the shit out of the immunity that a vaccinated person who hasn't had covid has.

He's no danger to the public. But their entire reason for deporting him is the 'danger' he poses. That makes Australia the liars.

71

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 11, 2022, 11:10:30 PM »

Assuming you meant "the vaccines only last a few weeks", you are still wrong.  We may indeed need a new jab every year, or maybe every 6 months, but not monthly.

Well I can take your word for it or a doctor's word for it. Imma choose the doctor.

The vaccines don't actually stop you getting the disease. So it can still mutate away inside me once vaccinated and I can still pass it on.

As I said, if you are vaccinated you beat it down faster so there is less chance of passing it on (but not zero chance of course).

And as I said, there is no 'beating it down'. Even with the jab you can still contract and spread the virus.

Eradicate coronaviruses, no of course not.  But eradicate this strain that is causing problems in humans, yes I think that is possible.  And we do not have evidence of it jumping from animals to humans as a common event.

You can't eradicate something that spreads regardless of whether you vaccinated people or not. These are vaccines ... not cures.

72

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 11, 2022, 10:38:19 PM »

The way to stop new variants is to vaccinated the world.

How would that stop new variants?

Variants are a natural outcome of (random mistakes during) replication of the virus.  The less replication, the fewer variants.  The more people that are vaccinated thus beating down the virus faster, the less replication there is.  The closer we can get to eradicating the virus the less chances there will be of new variants.  Do you disagree with that?

No. The virus only lasts a few weeks and then the effectiveness plummets rather quickly. So you'd need a jab once a month.
The vaccines don't actually stop you getting the disease. So it can still mutate away inside me once vaccinated and I can still pass it on.
It's a coronavirus. It lives in wild animals. Indeed they've found it in everything from Lions in the zoo to people's pet dogs. Vaccinating people wouldn't be enough. you'd have to vaccinate every creature on earth.
The fact that even with vaccines billions of people will still get the disease, you can't eradicate the disease as you mention.

In short, no. I don't agree with you. You don't understand how these vaccines work and are attributing powers to them that they do not possess.

73

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 11, 2022, 09:26:16 PM »

The way to stop new variants is to vaccinated the world.

How would that stop new variants?

74

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 07, 2022, 06:32:13 PM »

All that proves is that the vaccine can bring on debilitating bouts of Tourette's. What a foul mouthed woman.

75

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 07, 2022, 05:32:56 PM »

She makes a good point

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/oh-my-fucking-god-get-the-fucking-vaccine-already-you-fucking-fucks

All that proves is that the vaccine can bring on debilitating bouts of Tourette's. What a foul mouthed woman.

76

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification

« on: January 06, 2022, 04:04:31 PM »

This is like saying "Thork says there is no black people because there is no Blackland". You're arguments are ridiculous.

I'm glad we agree your position is ridiculous.

I said YOUR arguments are ridiculous. When you misinterpret even simple sentences I realise how much of my knowledgeable help is just passing you by. You're like a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

77

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification

« on: January 06, 2022, 03:59:34 PM »

no one held Irish citizenship. No one had an Irish passport. No one was Irish.

Nobody holds Welsh citizenship or has a Welsh passport today. So, according to Thork, are there no Welsh?

This is like saying "Thork says there is no black people because there is no Blackland". You're arguments are ridiculous.

78

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification

« on: January 06, 2022, 03:50:01 PM »

It is equally a big stretch to claim that Northern Ireland belongs to the Irish, being as there were no Irish until their independence in 1922 ... we were all British.

This is like saying there were no French in Paris in the 1940s. Being occupied by a foreign power doesn't suddenly change your national identity.

Of course it does. When the allies occupied Germany, those Germans became West Germans. Those occupied by the Russians became East Germans. The occupiers changed the names and borders and the Germans were who they were told to be.

If there was no Ireland for over 120 years ... no one held Irish citizenship. No one had an Irish passport. No one was Irish. Or are you trying to pretend that the people in France are actually Gauls, and that they will be Gauls again once they can break away from French rule? Will the Romans be making a comeback once they can overthrow their Italian oppressors? That's the exact same thing as claiming the Irish were Irish all along. They weren't.

79

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification

« on: January 06, 2022, 09:45:00 AM »

It's a pretty big stretch to say that "the Irish" refers to the prehistoric inhabitants of Ireland that we know very little about and not the Celts, who forged a distinctive national identity and culture and maintained it for thousands of years. It's true that the Celts weren't the first inhabitants of Ireland, but very few ethnic groups were the first inhabitants of the nations they now identify with. For example, Anglo-Saxons are usually seen as being quintessentially English, but they have far less historical claim to Britain than the Celts do to Ireland.

Precisely. It is equally a big stretch to claim that Northern Ireland belongs to the Irish, being as there were no Irish until their independence in 1922 ... we were all British. For them to claim independence in the South and suddenly also have the right to land in the North is an absurd claim. The people in the North (also British) decided to remain British via referendum and they live on the land they've always lived and their forefathers of thousands of years have lived. People in the South have no claim over the land of the North. Its not theirs. Never was theirs. Never belonged to their ancestors ... it belonged to the forefathers of those who now CURRENTLY live in Northern Ireland who choose to call themselves British.

80

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification

« on: January 05, 2022, 08:11:22 PM »

Mmmm, these people sound like they are from the modern day EU, conquered us English and then pushed on to conquer the Irish. England has no charge to answer.

So are you retracting your claim that the Irish never owned the land?

Sure they did ... but then they were all killed by the Celts in about 500BC. After this time there were no Irish. Just a bunch of European colonialists claiming to be the rightful owners of the land they conquered.