Originally Posted by AustinMike
Nice deflection. I'm glad that you're willing to stand by something that we both agree about. But, this is the what you said that we were discussing, "What name were you called? Were(sic)?" This you completely ignored. But I get it. You were wrong and instead of admitting it, you deflect. Did you learn that at logic school?
This is getting comical. You keep arguing against something nobody has said. I asked you before and I'll ask you again, "Where did Ben very directly, right here, on this same page, in the transcript say the action is justified if there is a possible choice to break the law or accept the consequences of pressure." Or in other words, when did Ben or I say "whenever the victim can choose to suffer the consequences the use of coercion is acceptable?"
Wow, more comedy ensues. A link was posted earlier in this thread and Post #1377 was your response to the link. I realize the math needed to understand the numbers is probably above third-grade level, but I'll see if I can explain it to you. You said, "the link reports 89% of the province has taken a shot." What does that mean? Out of 100 people, 89 have gotten a shot. That means 11 have not. That means 8 people have gotten the shot for every person who has not gotten the shot. You further state that there are "3X-4X as many vaccinated patients as unvaccinated." Let's conservatively use the 4X number. That means 4 people in the hospital with covid have gotten the shot for every person in the hospital with covid who has not gotten the shot. See where I'm going? If the shot risk reduction was miniscule, as you claim, there would be 8 people in the hospital with covid for every person who has not had the shot. But there are only 4. That is a 50% reduction in the risk of being hospitalized by getting the shot. Is 50% miniscule? I think not.
Again, arguing something nobody else is.
Again, arguing something nobody else is.
At least you end on a high note. Comedy is almost always a high note.
I see you invoked Goodwin's Law elsewhere. Do you even know what Goodwin's Law states? If so, then please point out where I made any comparison to Hitler or Nazis. There are none. But, I guess it is my fault. I overestimated your level of intelligence. Although in my defense I did try to help you. See how I mentioned Ben's argument about the word choice is when I entered. I talked about the horrible options the woman was given. I put the word "Choice" in the title in bold. I pointed out there were no complaints about the title. This shows that even though the woman wasn't given any good options, the word "Choice" was still used in the title. Contrary to your definition of the word "choice." To further illustrate your denseness, if you really think what I did was reason to invoke Goodwin's Law, consider this. If we're talking about human resiliency in the face of adversity, I couldn't bring up Anne Frank because Nazis are involved in her story. If we're taking about people courageously putting their life on the line for others, I couldn't bring up Schindler's List because Nazis are involved in his life. Are you really that dense or are you just deflecting again?
Based on your constant deflections, arguing points only you are talking about, and utter denseness, I'm done with you. Have fun spewing you mental diarrhea.
Troll on.
|