1981

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Taliban Won

« on: August 17, 2021, 12:45:00 PM »

Although I understand wanting the US gone and having their imperialism stifled, I am not sure how one could be happy the Taliban are in power.

Could be that lack of understanding you have with the Afghans having a big problem with outsiders coming to their country and trying to spread their woke bullshit getting in the way.

Yes, not wanting women treated like slaves is just far-left woke politics.

I have no idea why you suddenly want to pretend to care about Afghan women, let alone women in general.

None of them could give two shits about your thoughts on anything.

1982

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Taliban Won

« on: August 17, 2021, 12:25:25 PM »

Although I understand wanting the US gone and having their imperialism stifled, I am not sure how one could be happy the Taliban are in power.

Could be that lack of understanding you have with the Afghans having a big problem with outsiders coming to their country and trying to spread their woke bullshit getting in the way.

There is no such fucking thing as "The Taliban."

That is some fucked up imperialistic word utilized by the woke neocon assholes that got us into this shit to begin with.

I hope they keep kicking ass and taking names, at least until the giants come out of the caves over there again.

1983

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Taliban Won

« on: August 17, 2021, 11:05:40 AM »

I am very happy the Taliban have succeeded, just as I was very happy they succeeded (when they were called the Mujahudeen, when formed by the US administration of Czar Bushy the I, the single biggest mass murderer ever seen) during the war with Russia.

1984

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

« on: August 09, 2021, 07:01:45 PM »

Two doctors wrote the paper.

If you get sick with a respiratory illness that prevents you from breathing and also affects your cognitive abilities, taking away your taste and smell, will you email those two doctors or will you go to an ER?

How long did it take to formulate the question?

I realize you are part of the crowd wanting me to get sick and die, but I got news for you.

I won't die from covid and I am not going to get the vaccine.

1985

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

« on: August 09, 2021, 05:06:02 PM »

Two doctors wrote the paper.

You posted a court decision that I wasn't able to find.

Hoo fucking ray.

Give yourself a firm pat on the ass and an attaboy for doing one thing right in your life.

1986

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

« on: August 09, 2021, 01:53:29 PM »

So much for the extensive clinical trials you were trying to praise, Rama.

Pure, disgusting crap posted by you once again.

"Even though far from being comprehensive or even adequate, this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer— as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public.
1The same data may also have been filed in the U.S. and other wester countries, but the FDA and the corresponding health regulators did not release them to the public. "

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/randyhillier/pages/958/attachments/original/1628198186/Pfizer-pharmacokinetics-and-toxicity.pdf?1628198186

And you called us out for posting documentation on "unofficial sites".  Can't get anymore unofficial than your own google drive. XD

Also: an Ortheopedist and a retired microbiologist probably aren't the best group to be reliable in vaccine results.

I posted a peer reviewed paper, written by two doctors.

Please post the link to the journals it appears it as well as the peer reviews. 
Also, as you'll not note, I didn't attack the validity of their data, just your hypocracy of decrying the link used while using an even less credible link.

I didn't decry the link to the paper.

Wtf are you writing about.

Google docs is a recognized storage area for documents.

Quit posting your bullshit here.

If you don't have anything contradicting the findings of the paper, then you got shit, which is par for the course coming from you.

The paper reports on the processes utilized in mRNA vaccines and the results of the Pfizer protocols used in the development of the vaccine.

Allegedly.  Gonna wait for those peer review links there buddy.

Nothing alleged about it, it describes the processes in full.

You got shit, once again.

Go lie down in the corner somewhere.

Your writings and musings are useless here.

Nah, I have things to do.

Nothing important obviously.

1987

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

« on: August 09, 2021, 11:58:30 AM »

So much for the extensive clinical trials you were trying to praise, Rama.

Pure, disgusting crap posted by you once again.

"Even though far from being comprehensive or even adequate, this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer— as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public.
1The same data may also have been filed in the U.S. and other wester countries, but the FDA and the corresponding health regulators did not release them to the public. "

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/randyhillier/pages/958/attachments/original/1628198186/Pfizer-pharmacokinetics-and-toxicity.pdf?1628198186

And you called us out for posting documentation on "unofficial sites".  Can't get anymore unofficial than your own google drive. XD

Also: an Ortheopedist and a retired microbiologist probably aren't the best group to be reliable in vaccine results.

I posted a peer reviewed paper, written by two doctors.

The paper reports on the processes utilized in mRNA vaccines and the results of the Pfizer protocols used in the development of the vaccine.

Go lie down in the corner somewhere.

Your writings and musings are useless here.

1988

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

« on: August 08, 2021, 12:20:43 AM »

Firstly, learn to be bbcode. If you are so mad you can’t post coherently, take a break. Second, drawing broad inferences from a sample size of five is just horrendously off the mark.

Stop trolling.

I fixed it.

73 percent of ICU PATIENTS IN MASSACHUSETTS were double vaccinated.

The paper I cited is legitimate.

You are trolling and got nothing as usual.

Your break will come.

I feel much better and actually am better than you.

1989

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

« on: August 08, 2021, 12:13:00 AM »

Hey, a vaccinated person got hit by a car. Using Logic, vaccination makes it inevitable that a car will hit you.

Using the paper cited logical thing to do. The paper draws no statistical references to cars.

Everyone can now officially ignore your obvious trolling

1990

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

« on: August 07, 2021, 11:41:07 PM »

Don’t you think it’s not dangerous at all?

There are a significant amount of other things more dangerous than something that kills at a 1 percent rate.

Like the vaccin… oh no wait. That’s not even close to as dangerous as COVID.

We don't know that yet. 70 percent of hospitalizations are vaccinated people.

@Dr. Eugene Sloan 73% in Massachusetts ICU are double vaccinated so please do not mislead others.

The recent mortality and morbidity report from the CDC showed that 74% of new COVID in Barnstable, Massachusetts were vaccinated but only 4 of them were hospitalized. So actually 80% were hospitalized in a statistically insignificant anecdote. (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w)

I look forward to you saying how super significant this small sample size is.

73 percent of the ICU patients being double vaccinated and being treated for covid is very super significant.

Your BS is irrelevant to that fact.

Nice double negative.

How does it feel to have to stoop so low?

I obviously feel great, better than you even, I'm sure.

I’m glad you are so sure.

Terrific! Probably the first time you've posted a fact on this forum!

1991

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

« on: August 07, 2021, 10:12:50 PM »

I don't really don't know what we're talking about

So according to you, you don't know what you're talking about, admit that plainly, and yet you claim that you are capable of deciphering truth from fiction and opinion from fact on this topic. Not a compelling argument there. I would suggest that you should start by having a clue of what you're talking about.

I would suggest that rather than you paying attention to silly memes and Mike Huckabee, you might want to expand you intellectual curiosity toward people that actually work and research in the fields relevant to the topic being discussed.  You might actually learn something of value and perhaps be able to decipher truth from fiction - Something you haven't been able to demonstrate yet.

And I would suggest you commence actual reading, prior to typing.

The source Tom provided is legitimate and has a wealth of information from doctors who went to something called a school, a place that you're probably unfamiliar with at this point, based on your contributions on this forum.

1992

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

« on: August 07, 2021, 10:00:25 PM »

Don’t you think it’s not dangerous at all?

There are a significant amount of other things more dangerous than something that kills at a 1 percent rate.

Like the vaccin… oh no wait. That’s not even close to as dangerous as COVID.

We don't know that yet. 70 percent of hospitalizations are vaccinated people.

@Dr. Eugene Sloan 73% in Massachusetts ICU are double vaccinated so please do not mislead others.

Nice double negative.

How does it feel to have to stoop so low?

I obviously feel great, better than you even, I'm sure.

1993

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

« on: August 07, 2021, 09:55:59 PM »

 So much for the extensive clinical trials you were trying to praise, Rama.

Pure, disgusting crap posted by you once again.

"Even though far from being comprehensive or even adequate, this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer— as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public.
1The same data may also have been filed in the U.S. and other wester countries, but the FDA and the corresponding health regulators did not release them to the public. "

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/randyhillier/pages/958/attachments/original/1628198186/Pfizer-pharmacokinetics-and-toxicity.pdf?1628198186

1994

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

« on: August 07, 2021, 09:23:33 PM »

Don’t you think it’s not dangerous at all?

There are a significant amount of other things more dangerous than something that kills at a 1 percent rate.

Nice double negative.

1995

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

« on: August 07, 2021, 07:42:06 PM »

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/opinions/how-to-move-people-from-hesitant-to-vaccinated-bregman-jacobson/index.html

I'm not sure this guy "gets it".

At this point, I'm not lashing out at the unvaccinated in the hopes that it will change their minds. These morons are too thick-headed and mired in conspiracy theory groupthink to ever expect them to change.

I just want them to know they're assholes, and make sure that, even though their feeble little brains are not sophisticated enough to understand it, I've at least articulated to them why they're assholes. At that point the decision to continue being an asshole (which is a decision you can bet they will make, which is why I'm beyond trying to change minds) is theirs. And that's why they are worthy of being treated as pariahs (well that and the fact that it really is just the medically responsible thing to do).

I hope to see lots more draconian restrictions imposed on the unvaccinated in the coming months. Not because I think the assholes will stop being assholes, but because I just want to see them suffer for being assholes. They deserve it!

So yeah, I'm well aware that I'm not changing any minds by calling these idiots out. It's just cathartic, and I suspect that's how a lot of people who are doing it see it. And I will continue doing it, only because it feels good. Fuck 'em.

I hope the vaccinated catch the delta variant quickly and suffer convulsions and long lasting effects.

Fuck em.

1996

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a FE, why does the night sky appear different depending on your position?

« on: August 07, 2021, 07:19:32 PM »

I am stating there is going to be interference with line of sight caused by objects arising from the earth with these stars and it is an impossibility for it to be otherwise.

Why does it matter?  Forget the stars that you might not see due to obstructions, being generous cal that 20 degrees up from the horizon in all directions.  Focus on the 140 degrees you can easily see in all directions.  What is the explanation of why the stars in that region change as you move north/south such that at far north compared to far south latitude they are completely different.  Exactly what you expect when changing your position on a sphere, exactly NOT what you expect when doing so on a plane.

The angle of the view certainly changes, and you certainly are viewing them from a different direction. Sounds more like a celestial sphere to me.

As I explained earlier, one would expect to see different things overhead as you move on the flat earth plane.

1997

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a FE, why does the night sky appear different depending on your position?

« on: August 07, 2021, 02:39:42 PM »

I am stating there is going to be interference with line of sight caused by objects arising from the earth with these stars and it is an impossibility for it to be otherwise.

1998

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a FE, why does the night sky appear different depending on your position?

« on: August 07, 2021, 11:43:55 AM »

You will see 20 degrees up if that is the angle at which your eyes are aimed. But it matters not when those stars you claim should be visible to you are below a 20 degree position. You act as if your unfamiliar with a protractor.

1999

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: On gravity and the solar system.

« on: August 06, 2021, 01:27:51 PM »

I want to thank you for providing your input.

I have always believed gravity to be a lie and the idea of a solar system to be a complete and utter fabrication of fanciful sci fi enthusiasts. If it were as they say, then the entire thing could be rendered visually via a computer monitor or hologram, utilizing the values required to do so.

Of course, since it cannot, the entirety of it (i.e., the solar system, galaxies, etc.) is just pure BS. 

2000

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a FE, why does the night sky appear different depending on your position?

« on: August 06, 2021, 01:12:49 PM »

The night sky seen from the northern and southern hemispheres is radially different.  No matter how powerful your telescope you can not see stars that are on the other side of the planet from your position.  That is what we observe and it makes perfect sense for a ball earth.  But why would it be true for a flat earth?

Despite the height of an object above our heads, it will eventually be obscured by objects arising from the flat earth plane.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Okay, let me elucidate.

A plane is flying from N to S.

You do not see it immediately due to clouds between you and the plane, but can hear it.

Then, it appears to you from between the clouds, then disappears again briefly, but reappears.

As it makes its way further S, it disappears behind a ten foot tall tree immediately behind you, then reappears briefly, only to disappear behind a water tower 1/2 mile away from you.
Then it finally disappears from your sight behind a distant line of low level clouds 10 miles down range of your position.

In the far north or far south the stars are completely different. How can you explain that for a flat earth?

That has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

I would expect to see different things over my head as I move about, even in a 10x12 room.