Scott Mayers

Here I am first going to post a second post with the quote above.

This is a post I am testing to determine the posting problems when attempting to add more content.

Good luck, Comrade! As long as there are misinformants out there attempting to gaslight the meek and gullible citizens of our Western democracies by doing whatever it takes to destroy the credibility of trustworthy facts and logic in an attempt to divide us by pushing our people's governments and corporations to censor content for such overt online deception and abuses, I too will have to keep on fighting! ?

The video had no mention of politics but used the illusion because, with respect to our scientific evolution through discoveries of the world, many things can be intepreted SENSIBLY in polarizing ways. I'm not sure how you jumped to the racist implication? However, "racists are conservative" is a true statement, ...since being racist implies favoring ONLY one's own kind with strict conservation ...but "conservatives are racists" is not true, ....because one can desire emotional conservation of those they love while not believing that others are less worthy of protection for their own causes with respect to lawmaking. That is, one who is racist will want to conserve their 'family' interests with absolute priority. That many conservatives DO happen to argue for "family" values, when it is a universal given regardless of political view, does imply that many who believe this are more likely to be racist because they think that lawmaking should not help those who are suffering that is not of their own. [And yes, that makes the particular Indigenous who fight for their own kind uniquely just as 'racist' for their conservation measures regarding culture, even if they politically align to the Left at the present. The majority of the plural cults on the left are just as deceptively using that side with a handshake to other similar believers in there by merely agreeing NOT to harm each other as they attempt to eliminate those who are not 'pure' in their mating. This is just as illusive.] Note to self (and others paying attention): Can those in Russia, China, or other similar outsiders see our youTube feeds here or do they only see the title of the links for youTube???? Did you just slip up, Comrade?

You are not likely able to change any view regardless of any logic anyone can use. In fact, the term "conservative" as it is used politically means that one wants only to prevent the loss of your present fortune or condition and why no matter the logic, you will use ANY MEANS to get your way, including lying, cheating, deceiving, and using the Machivelian tactics used to simply win the war. The "progressive" concept of which the "liberal" views imply means that they desire a system that permits change because there is no actual 'true' political ideology. Rather, they believe in liberating themeselves and others in some way by basing it on "democracy", versus the authoritarian views you hold about your own 'superiority'. As for how anyone will percieve their favored side of politics, here is an analogy of what human politics is comparable to this illusion in general: Now BECAUSE of the actual any-means-to-an-end philosophy only of the most conservative extremes like you hold, you don't care to be able to look at the issues objectively and thus are doomed for maintaining consistency of abuses to which the Left today is embracing their justification for censorship as their counterabusive defence So you are not helping the conservative cause but helping to defeat it. If you argue without compassion of the oppossing views, you PROVE that you have something to FEAR and why you hide behind anonymity and can only argue best by using insults and begging. This is a dillemma that other conservatives who MAY have sincere hope for are also being penalized and what makes the majority on the left become less tolerant in kind. Are you not able to recognize this logic?

https://globalnews.ca/news/8230677/river-quebec-legal-person/ I don't know how I feel about this given I am skeptical also about business incorporations. But can you imagine the potential? Maybe I can 'incorporate' my coffee cup and then get it to apply for social assistance so that it can have the right to always be filled with coffee? Hmmm.....incorporate a toilette so that it doesn't have to ever take shit from any other person again? Other ideas?

Now you're warming up. CTV, CBC, CNN and Fox all have a news hour, and each one of their news hours is anywhere from "mildly biased" to "completely biased to the point of being outright lies". CTV, CBC and CNN are on the extreme edge of 'outright lying'. Please give particular examples when you use the term, 'lie'. For instance, do you think that Trump won the U.S. election? (Fox supported Trump without validity. The rest did not.) What is an example, "lie", that you interpret the mainstream media perpetrating and how do you KNOW the opposite is not a "lie"?

I've cited hundreds of examples of the leftist MSM being fake here. It's a proven fact now. The MSM is, at best, drivel for idiots. What is the 'alternative' sources that you find so much more convincing? Please list them so that I can make a fair comparison. Of course "this" refers to this site. Don't confuse this with the "Trudeau is dreamy" FB site where you can post leftist drivel and it will stand as 'established facts'. I unaware of the forum(s) you are implying exist nor that this site was a private club for conservatives only. (?) Can you please show me where this site was set up to provide the conservative view only? How do get the idea that people have to go to segregated forums? Do you need a 'safe space'? I was guessing at your age based on your willingness to soak up blatantly false propaganda. Asserting that anyone uses "blatantly false propaganda" without backing it up is just an immature insult, not a proof of anything. The rhetoric should support a logical argument, not be the logic. I certainly do NOT practice faith in any sources that I use and my strength in argument is not based upon appeals to authority but to actual self investment in thinking on my own terms. By contrast, you seem to have a faith in certain non-main-stream sources that I'll have to wait to see whom you support. What is your definition of "mainstream" regarding media? ....popular? Do independent individuals who can afford the time and space to set up a youTube channel with the freedom to be able to make it about anything qualify as more trustworthy a source? Don't hold back, give me an example of your superior qualifing news sources and tell me how you KNOW that these sources are more valid than the mainstream competition? That was a ridiculous jumble of tired CNN commentary. Fox News is a mixture of news coverage (Brett Baier is the best anchor in America right now) and political commentary (Carlson, Perrino, Watters, Hannity, etc). Of course you laugh at Hannity, but if you go back and look at his coverage of Russian collusion you'll find it quite prophetic, compared to the drivel at CNN and MSNBC which was and still is pathetic (99% lies and innuendo). Hannity predicted all the firings and demotions in the FBI, and he laid out the connections to Hillary years ago. It was just a couple of weeks ago that a lawyer from Perkins Coie was charged criminally for his part in it (ie, the things that he did at Hillary's behest which were crimes. He's the fall guy). You have a right to your beliefs. You are defending some particular single source here as though it were some Church who refers to God for their vetting process . I do not require proving that all the other sources are 100% true as you do of your 'alternative news' favorites because, unlike you, I do NOT blindly believe in any single source for news. Do you think it appropriate to trust someone absolutely or distrust them absolutely with stict exclusion. You sound like the person who ONLY likes one band or style of music and disrespects all others as garbage. Your favoritism is based only on whether the reporting is in your literal 'favor'. And given your favor is absurdly narrow, how does your MINORITY preference not come across so shallow minded? Besides Fox, which other sources are you asserting as exclusively "all knowing" and how do you KNOW that their declared "facts" are in fact, 'true' or 'false'?

P.S. This thread is about the border and I do NOT personally think that people are unreasonable to be concerned as I mentioned above and likely where even many of those on the Left are against too. I know that the CNN philosophy and many of my own favorite commentators and entertainers elsewhere are jumping on the rhetorical interpretation of blindly letting people in. But unlike a conservative who might religiously defend what comes out of the mouth of those at Fox, viewers on the Left are not fooled by this and agree with some things and disagree with other things FROM THE SAME personalities all the way up to the network as a whole. I believe that we neglect too many at home and having BLIND acceptance of open invitations makes those who suffer at home stand alone and more isolated. I believe in also the TACTIC of separating the kids, as Trump had opted to do but WITHOUT prejudice. We could do better by helping repair conditions in their own country. When massive immigration is percieved effective in relieving their homeland systems, such abusers, where they exist, would ENCOURAGE and AMPLIFY this. Fact 1 of Evolutionary theory by Darwin was noticing that where animals SUFFER more, they pop out more babies. By accepting immigrants from such suffering countries, you then burden those countries better off by 'colonizing' them via population representation. So see, I'm on the side of the 'conservative' on this issue! I just have likely very differnt motivating reasons for it.

I interpret all politics as lacking logical resolution because we are still ANIMALS and rely most strictly upon EMOTIONS with priority. But the problem with the Right is that its ideology is against government and so when IN office, their funciton is to destroy the very system and leave ONLY those institutions that POLICE IN FAVOR of those with privileged ownership 'rights' at the cost of the whole. That is, it is a view that intends to destroy a 'democratic' system of ALL people because you believe that the special class "owners" suffices to ACT as private governments. Those doing this cannot APPEAR as self-doubting because those RUNNING the movement from above are intentionally deceptive and use Machivellian tactics to manipute their dumb followers who, like you, have an apparent FAITH in Fox's sincerity as being 'real'. You are a devout anti-intellectual PAWN or are in the loop and being intentionally DECEPTIVE, as Trump is regarding his mystery 'win' of the election. The anti-democratic ideal of the devout conservative is "Imperialistic" [believe in superior Royalty for the OWNERS just as they would believe in some religion.] and believe those who do not own, should not have a say. "Republican" means "for the public by few superior people", contrary to their 'popular' The 'sexism' of the conservative is obvious and is a subset of 'race'. But the racial discriminators who HAVE something are dominant of the majority of those who own which represents the power of those who are 'white' and 'male'. While this is NOT true initially of many, the counter-identity extremists, like the KKK and NeoNazis exits ONLY on the Right. By contrast, the LEFT, who also have the racists and sexists too are LESS ABLE to get empowered because these people are not unified by some particular common cult/culture. If you have distinct cults segregating on the LEFT, they AGREE not to go against each other's domain and so are relatively unable to affectively harm anyone where they exist.

Bullshit. If you want to make accusations of fake news then you have to show them first. You don't just get to look at fake news from the Dem/s CNN and then make your baseless accusations against anyone you want. I was arguing that if those who cry out that the mainstream "media" is all so "fake", then their attitudes (not mine), coming from the Right in particular (of whom Shady was implicitly supporting) should be questioning their own sources, which are ever more sensational, religious, and absurd than those mainstream networks. I think there is something wrong with your logic given you cannot properly interpret what I said. How you interpret me in some opposite way is weird. You drank the Kool-Aid, now you're here regurgitating it like a good little boy. Grow up kid, this isn't a leftist echo chamber where people are going to treat your bigoted, idiotic opinions as facts. I've got hundreds of posts on here calling CNN and CTV fake news and if you go back and look, a lot of it isn't just daily drivel like this that goes away after a week or two. There are things like Russian collusion that went on for years that were fake, fake, fake right at the top of primetime, and all throughout the day. Leftist dolts gobbled up more lies just from the Russian collusion hoax than people used to see in their entire lifetimes unless they joined a cult. I'm an athiest and strongly at odds with 'culture' (root of the term, 'cult') being imposed upon people in government positions. This separates me from the liberal majority on my side. What is the "this" that I underlined above you refer ato? It is ambiguous and lacks a preceding noun that it refers to in context. Are you saying 'this site'? If so, I didn't see that there was a definition of membership here to require being 'conservative'. I'm NOT a kid either and am likely your senior! [Any search of my name will not determine who I am if you were Googling it! I don't have active accounts in social media!!] I am interpreting that you cannot even recognize maturity in one's language (rhetorically or logically) by your responses here. I can understand why you might not be able to understand the difference of what is or is not 'real' versus 'fake'! HINT: start questioning your own sources! I trust Fox News dude, Tucker Carlson, Jessie Watters, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perrino, etc. If you'd like to try to find some video of those guys lying like this I'd love to see it. Now you need to chime in with some news sources that you trust Scott. This is gonna be hilarious. I am sufficiently BROAD in my viewership regarding news. I don't BLINDLY TRUST any source, even those reporters or commentators I DO like. I also can find value in Fox but KNOW that its philosophy is INTENTIONALLY sensational. That Network was set up to mimick the show "Hard Copy" as its model. They noticed that since MORE sales and attention are given TO sensationalism, they wanted to create a NEWS-like Network in the rag magazine style. You are the ideal obediant non-thinking viewer they PROFIT from. They also do NOT use the common standards of 'reporting' and do not SEPARATE the distinction between 'commentator' versus reporting. I personally find it entertaining to laugh at sometimes. It is an 'entertainment' network PRETENDING to be a news network! Remember John Stewart's MOCK news program? It was mocking the 'fake news' with ONE exception: they do not 'fake' that they are literally real and have an audience who helps let you know when or where one is 'faking' through entertainment. Fox's view is to NOT let anyone think they are NOT real and so lack the intention to let the viewer be able to tell the difference. And while many, like myself, thought that no one would actually take them literally serious. Commentators are NOT 'reporters'. Even CNN uses personalities but you know that they are commenting AS they use news they assume is true BY their reporters and let you know that they are just expressing their view where they go beyond reporting. Reporters generally do NOT reveal their particular bias where they are good. It doesn't mean that those selecting which reports they place up front aren't biased. But a NORMAL intellectual knows this and are not literally FAITHFUL of any of them.

By the way, I, who leans to the Left, actually question those who think there should be some open policy on immigration. That is, I believe that you should not simply open your doors to outsiders if you cannot repair the problems of those in your own house first. As such, I think the only reason the Left favors more open immigration policies more than those on the Right relate to the 'sub-Conservatives' who still dominate on the liberal side. But if you agree, you'd have to recognize some appropriate compassion for all people here, not simply your own cult. For many here, I doubt that any compassion would be inversely granted towards reparing things with the Natives here given the faults that have tended to isolate them on reserves in the first place are the very "Christian" beliving institutions here under which NO party seems willing to challenge. So do you guys still agree (who may have) regarding fixing ALL people's issues here BEFORE any outsider? I doubt it.

All news is 'fake' under this attitude. But nonetheless, the kind of 'news' that many of the far rightwingers tend to believe is absurd, religious-like, emotionally driven, and SENSATIONAL. You guys are attracted to rag magazine appeal. It is sufficient for you to know that rag magazines are sold openly and with more popularity to justify in your heads that it MUST be the actual truth. While mainstream media seems 'leftwing' to you, the nature of the money that is needed to keep them alive rely on capitalizing on the lowest common denominator. Fox's philosophy, for instance, is NOT 'truth' but PROFITS, with PRIORITY. The other media tend to at least TRY to have some validity but require MORE money by those who have a non-preferential appeal to mere profits. But they it is accepted at a loss. Such 'liberal' views in them will thus not be without bias but rather favor a subset of people with shared ideals that have more inclusion in the TYPE of news they report. And what is worse, since all news programs gain more profit by the least intelligent and most emotionally VOLITILE interests, even if more variable, the more the conservative they are, such as Fox, the more ANTI-Logical they will appeal. The advertisers who pay for most news still favors the BLIND BELEIVERS over those who think with any careful LOGICAL depth. If you disagree, can you please tell me WHICH sources you trust and why? Do you ONLY use such selected sourcea of information or do you seek the various news prior to judging?

People at odds with this differ in beliefs about the facts. You cannot argue facts nor can you argue authority. This issue is not resolvable. As a 'proof' of this for me, I just spent a long invested amount of time and care writing a thread here about how the viruses and vaccines work, as I have tried using logic in similar attempts here and elsewhere. But if it isn't simply a mere tweet or two long, no one will care to read it. So, IF it could possibly have value ....and possible effectiveness....within a mere hour, it gets ignored and eventually buried and forgotten. Note that even if my arguments there were 100% able to 'prove' to any reader my thesis, the nature of any participation on these forums are FOR the 'negation' or to what we disagree with. That is, other than accolades of 'thanks' or 'likes', if we agree to something, there is nothing to add to the thread and it 'closes'. But then that gets buried never to be seen again and we return back to arguing for what we disagree about as though 0% of the whole could not possibly agree to anything!

I haven't (yet) bothered to determine the depths of encryptian/decryption but can rationally recognize that you need a means to first assure each party has the same encryptian key/code. On trivial attention that I paid to it thus far, I understand that two keys are needed, a 'public' one and a 'private' one. The 'public' one I can only guess needs some downloaded software. The coding of it by its compiled nature would make it possibly this 'public' key and would be difficult to determine how it might make a private key without knowing how the progam was compiled. But if one's Internet activity is itself monitored WELL, then this can determine what one is doing by the intermediate provider. Then (if prepared) they could redirect one to download an apparent VPN software you think belongs to the named company, and given you are using their own tweeked program that is used to make your own privately shared key can be determined. The odds are low now probably but in principle this could occur. I'll have to learn about encryptian to see what they use to assure this can't occur. But I'm likely being too overly concerned. (?)

That's why I mentioned 'text' (plain) but that didn't work. I'll try again by some other route. Thanks again.

I've been putting this off but probably should. But even this may still not work securely because here in Canada, we lack the same security options that the U.S. has. The law here I believe has formally commanded the providers be able to monitor our access and so VPNs may itself be 'virtual' here. All our internet goes first through our ISPs before we can access the world wide web.

I'll have to check my provider first and get back here if it is not determinable. I was testing email and 'text' is more correctly, "plaintext" given some sites can opt to block html or richtext.

Thanks. It might also depend on provider.

I just tried to email CNN but get blocked and believe that this has to be coming from our country. Does anyone here possibly know why this is the case? If you can, test it for yourself: email: [email protected] I'm wondering if others are having this problem too or if this is just me. Just send a simply text message there and see if you get a return. Thanks.

Oh, and yes, you CAN send $1 if you like this. Just make sure it is MY name on the top, thank you!?

This is an explanation on what viruses and vaccines are, why and how they operate, and what the particular root of the politics are that are creating a chaos of misunderstandings. I will try to relate this to the least knowledgeable by using a comparative analogy to chain letters, given many might make better sense of the background. What are viruses? A virus is just a packette of data in the form of rib(b)ons of linked amino acids that originated as a mechanism for single celled organisms to alert other cells of what to change in order to better protect themselves of some common external threat. They are 'dumb' in that they are identical in kind to a chain letter in function. These are much older than multi-cellular beings, like plants and mammals, and are originally something that had to exist in order to have evolved into more complex beings. If you are unfamiliar with chain letters, let's first discuss this to be sure the analogy makes sense. A chain letter is a letter that (1) contains some value in the form of information and (2) contains information on how to copy itself for redistribution. The idea relates to network marketing or pyramid schemes and is the actual foundation FOR them. A chain letter may thus look like: This is the simplest kind and note that you don't include what I wrote in the brackets, "[", "]". These are just to help explain the content's meaning. A virus is thus like an envelope plus the chainletter inside it. On any envelope you would place your friend's address. For a virus, this is done by designing a unique package or envelope plus some 'address' in the form of a key that defines who and how to open it. For a letter, the language and format of the address acts as a 'key' that the recipient can use to determine whether this was meant for them and where it came from. Think of the postal code, for instance as a 'format' unique to Canadians that act as a 'key' that Canadians understand. A virus uses chemicals usually in the form of some unique shape as its key. The outer packet of the virus is the same as the letter's shape of envelope (or package) and the keys the same as the envelope's written "To:" and "From: data as well as the stamp. But just like the possibility of some letters to be accidentally be sent somewhere else, a virus may be accidentally sent elsewhere unexpectedly. Normally, the post office or couriers have means to reduce the possibility of it being lost or sent to some unintended recipient. For living things, we have this too in the form of 'antibodies' and related immunity cells which act as wandering security gaurds seeking to remove unwanted 'bodies'. The 'virus' doesn't care whether the recipient is legitimate or not and so should not normally be a threat. Likewise, ANY letter doesn't care who receives it and we expect that if it has no use, the recipient is the one who decides whether to open it or not. Unlike letters, viruses are sent without delivery personel and so just wander about. Also the copies of it act more like the chainletter type of letters most specifically. They act like spam or unsolicited junk mail to which many copies are made and distributed. The recipient then chooses whether it will accept it versus tossing it out in the same way as antibodies and other related protection cells. [Note that the antibodies are more like the process of tossing out ones letters whereas our reading of the outer envelope is what is used to determine what is important or not before tossing them out. Thus, the antibodies are technically the response of immunity cells that have to first notice the foreign bodies before rejecing them by covering them with 'antibodies'. This is thus more like tagging the unwanted letters with something and putting it in a pile to be tossed out later. But I'm sure you get the point. So viruses, just like chainletters, do not necessarily represent anything harmful. It can also be comparatively used with sincerity like a public notice to watch out for some danger and spread it around. However, where they become harmful is if some recipient opens the letter if it was not intended for them. Of course chainletters are more formally understood to be the 'scamming' part even to those the letter is intended for. The analogy fits sufficiently though as we will later see. What is RNA, mRNA, DNA, and ribosomes? The actual structure of the letters or symbols of our language that creates the contents of the chainletter represents RNA, mRNA and DNA. The differences between these are like the difference between single sentences versus parargraphs or whole pages, etc. For biology, all RNA and DNA normally come only from the nucleus of the cell and represents the 'N' in "RNA" and "DNA". The "D" and "R" represent whether the string of data are mere segments or the whole collection. The RNA are simple segments or "ribbons" and what the "R" represents. [They just shortened it to "ribo"] Oxygen acts like cut ends that make the long string of DNA into small segments. So RNA has oxygen by default at its 'ends' so to speak that act as scissors whereas the 'D' for "deoxy(genated)" means that they are uncut. [It might have been better to name RNA (or "ribo-nucleic-acid") to RONA (for "ribboned-oygenated-nucleic-acid) and then DNA (for "deoxy(ribo)-nucleic-acid" as RUNA (for "ribboned-unoxygenated-nucleic-acid" instead, right? But it doesn't matter any more than how we might spell things differently in words like, "center" versus "centre". RNA are copied segments of DNA. The RNA act as individual protein creating instructions whereas the DNA is the 'masterplan' for ALL cells in the bocy. The DNA always stays in the nucleus. But the RNA once made is evicted out of the nucleus and is the referred to as "mRNA" for "messengerRNA". This term is was created after recognizing that viruses have RNA too but don't originate from the particular cell and so only the "mRNA" are used for the INTENDED cell's functioning. The collection of mRNA that defines the function of a particlar cell's construction and operation are approximately what we mean by the "gene". That is, a gene is actually the parts of the DNA that gets used in a particular cell that becomes the collection of mRNA outside the nucleus. Once outside the nucleus, the mRNA floats around until it runs into a unique creator complex protein, called the 'ribosome" that takes RNA or mRNA and translates it while it makes a more complex string that becomes the proteins. Proteins are the elements of construction for all parts of a cell. Comparative analogies to these using our chainletter would be like comparing a whole library to a mere sentence. The whole library is the DNA while the RNA are like books; or you can think of this as also a whole book versus a single page or sentence. The ribosomes are like the mind interpreting or creating sentences, books, or whole libraries. In the cell, the do the 'reading' of the RNA and 'interpreting' it by the final created protein; the creation of RNA might be understood as the reverse process, a protein that creates it to which the DNA has components that do this in the nucleus. Bacteria creation of viruses These processes in the cell also occur in single-celled organisms, like bacteria. Since all cells begun evolutionarily as individual cells like bacteria, viruses act as the original means of sharing information between distinct cells and what formed our DNA in stages of past evolution. The bacteria here are what act as the creators of the chainletters, even though larger cellular complexes may do this (?). The bacteria that runs into its own threats can communicate this to other bacteria, usually of its own kind. Thus the virus is more like the chainletter without intended deception, like a public service alert. The copies it intends to make when it reaches new bacteria recipients is likely limited in the same way I restricted the names at the top of the letter to five. Thus, they do not likely have the threat they pose to duplication in the cells they are intentionally sent to. The message part is the significant point of them whereas the copying part is just the means of assuring the message is more likely to get passed on. A single cell may even just make one copy before stopping the process. The chainletters within some community may be harmless and act as entertaining or useful simple 'memes' among friends. But they are relatively 'immature' and thus the bacteria can be compared to communication between less mature people or the young learning to read and write. As such, while recognized as a root of our more complex means of communicating, we often interpret the attraction of those who rely on chainletters are either potentially deceptive where it is used by someone more mature used to manipulate those less mature. To the recipient, they are more likley to pass on the deception immaturely or unaware of any intended harm. The problem begins when the message that the virus represents between bacteria gets accidentally sent out and intercepted by more mature cellular complexes of non-bacterial life and falsely interpreting it as valid intake. The destructive factor of viruses ...occurs because when it accidentally gets interpreted as a harmless friendly guest particle, it robs the normal functioning of a cell because the ribosome cannot differentiate between the mRNA versus foreign RNA. It accepts any RNA that is like its own nucleus, not foreign nucleii. Then given these created viruses have no other functional utiliity for the cell, it builds up, reopens some of its new creations when they get torn apart by other parts of the cell and eventually kills the cell as it then explodes filled of a much larger quanity of viruses that it begun with. Our immunity cells where they are themselves not attacked (like HIV/AIDS) normally have a list of identifiers they can use to notice foreign particles. They are expected to release antibodies that surround the foreign matter that flags them for removal. They can be removed by urination, sweating, defecating, saliva, semen, or the exhalation of the lungs. The 'exit' process depends upon things like the size of the particle and is how we infect others. Given it only takes one virus to begin the process of destruction, such a small amount of them are not always enough for the immune system to notice before a triggered cell is infected. Each kind of virus usually has a particular unusual key that opens an unintended host cell of one kind. So one virus might infect only lung cells for instance. The analogy using mail would be like how someone might be tricked into opening some junk mail (or spam for email) that could be disguised as legitmately for you. But it can be even undeceptive like should you quickly open any mail in an envelope without confirming that it is for you. You might get a letter for a neighbor only to discover something upon reading it that affects your behavior before you noticed it was a mistake. You might have difficulty trying to forget something that might be damaging of another person's reputation in your eyes, for instance. It is thus hard NOT to be affected by such reading as it can when a cell's ribosomes begins interpreting viral RNA. Discovering how this happens has led us to the creation of vaccinations: Vaccines are any set of possible intakes that contain 'hints' of the original virus used to trigger the system and grants it time enough to become immune to its potential harms. This can be compared to the difference of someone naively interpreting chainletters as literal. The deceptive forms attempt to draw upon your emotions the most. If you were fed less harmful or fake chainletters, like the one above as an example, it can "immunize" you without creating harm. The vaccines operate by taking the actual virus and create a nondestructive version of it. So it requires to be as close as possible to the real thing and in a large enough dose so that the immunity cells have a chance to notice the intruder before it gets to be affective. Because it is the envelope that holds the means to get noticed first, the usual means of creating a vaccine is to tear apart whole original non-destroyed viruses and destroy the inner RNA data. Then, using the leftover remnants of the envelope, use this to tease the immunity system into noticing it and give it time to develop the identification factors that the immunity cells can use to police them. It is akin to sending "wanted posters" used to catch a criminal. If you followed the logic here, you should have enough information to understand why vaccines have effectiveness. But note that this can still cause other side effects, one of which is that your system might over-react chaotically. You then may die from an 'allergic' reaction that acts 'scared' of unknown particles. It might be like if you discover some violent mass murder in your neighborhood but not know who it is. But nobody thinks that NOT informing the public of such danger is responsible. Well, maybe this does actually happen at times because the police might fear the overreaction of the public like how riots may be unintentionally created and become destructive. So this is the background that everyone should at least require before further speaking about the politics on vaccines. I hope this has helped and encourage others to add their own means of describing this by analogy. Note that what I did not mention about the chainletter above is that IF such a letter were convincing enough to get people to copy it, the destructive effects occur at the post office when they get flooded of them. This is the main reason they are no longer legal and why the skepticism against pyramid type schemes that many Network Marketing schemes constantly attempt to relegalize by technical means. Amway distributers, for instance, uses the soap as a 'legal' product that goes along with the chainletter role of the scheme. If you carried out the above scheme and it succeeded, by the time your name gets to the top of the list 6 layers down, you would gain a fortune in dollars being sent to you. It is exponential and is NOT able to actually operate far beyond that level because you'd end up having to get the whole world's population playing into the scheme. I won't deal with all the possible good math examples here given the awkward lack of means to express math terms here and that this may just be too much for many. However, take a simple online input in google, "6^6". It is 46656. Yes, I know I used 5 names in the above example. I chose '6' because it is somewhat a popular scheme that those Network marketers and other related schemes like to use and might make some of you familiar to it. That number means that the person on the top of a 6 person list would make $46, 656! Another simple six layers needed to permit the person on the bottom of the list to reach their $46, 656 means that the person on the top would require that number to the powet of 6 = 1.0314425e+28 which is $ 10,314,425,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and of course would need just as many people! So now copy my post and send it to all six friends and maybe we can get everyone to have the vaccine and eradicate Covid in a little over 6 levels! ? This is my attempt to immunize you of the ignorance of viruses and vaccines with a bonus in immunizing you from pyramid-chainletter related schemes!

Read my response to Army Guy as it is based upon your argument that he's supporting. As to my argument about the value of the unborn versus a fully grown person is about the degree to which one has conscious experience. I'm not 'for' killing babies; I am arguing that the act of respecting a mother's unborn versus the mother is itself naive, ...like how we tend to favor puppies or kittens but as soon as they appear 'mature' and grown up, they are dismissed as irrelevant. It is an EMOTIONAL response you are having with respect to abortion because you BELIEVE the conceived being is an 'innocent' sufferer who lacks the power to protect some VALUE of LIFE that they COULD hold. You assume the 'virtue' of the contested determination of some 'soul' that might suffer should be granted predecedence when I interpret your emotions as disrespecting the POST-baby that the mother represents as a non-aborted mature adult. I get and agree to the disappointment of those who might use abortion as a mechanism for chosing NOT to use contraceptives. But most conservatives are also anti-contraceptive (like Catholic conservatives) which demonstrates that the anti-abortion lobby is about some religious belief that you are imposing upon other's freedoms. I hold to the "liberal" ideal: "to have as much freedom so long as it doesn't affect the freedom of others." While the question of whether an unborn child is a soul that exists in equal value to others alive, the mothers ARE actually AGREED with certainty among both of us that these mothers ARE alive. If you want to challenge this argument without religion, you'd require accepting and using science to determine whether an unborn child is both alive and somehow worth MORE than the mother's life.

Is this one of those ideas based in science, if you can not remember your birth, proves that a new born is not human or worthy of life...You claim a new born does not fell pain or pleasure, i call bullshit, in fact I'm not even sure how you can make a such a claim, and because we don't remember our birth is not a valid reason....I also don't remember a few nights out on the town but that does not mean none of it happened.. In fact others have begged to differ... Have you asked a doctor why they slap a babies bottom once delivered, and why they cry.. , why do they cry when you accidental hurt them. if they don't feel pain or hunger, or anything as you suggest.. of course the baby knows it has to clear it's lungs for some reason... natural extinct maybe, i guess it would be to much of a jump if it also felt pain, or could feel pleasure ...I guess you have never seen a baby smile or being content, perhaps it is my imagination.. or perhaps it makes you sleep better knowing that these babies are nothing more than skin, bone and water that feel nothing when they are extinguished. Given my argument to Betty on her religiosity AND that you now gave support for her, here is the argument: (1) You (and Betty) [or the general Conservative] believe that you SHOULD have a right to IMPOSE your choice onto other people's freedom to have an abortion. (2) Yet you believe that the non-Conservative SHOULD NOT have a right to IMPOSE upon others to wear masks AND/OR take the vaccine. (Conclusion): Conservatives SHOULD have a special biased privilege to 'free choice'. An extended logical argument here is about the DEGREE to which expected impositions SHOULD be taken into account. So compare the degree of: (1) ...one IMPOSING masks that are used to protect OTHERS' potential of getting a virus that KILLS. (2) ...one IMPOSING a vaccine that is used to protect ONESELF and OTHERS from permitting evolution of a virus' ability to learn how to defeat the vaccine. OR (3) ...one IMPOSING upon OTHERS their right to remove a part of one's OWN BODY that, should a law require they KEEP the child regardless of the harm of the parent's inevitability to be both burdened against their choice to have to pay for the cost of raising the child regardless of her maturity and to the imposition upon the unborn child to have to be FORCED into a life with an inherent DEBT they must overcome in order to succeed. [Adopting parents often interpret adoptees as charity cases who are seen as 'pets' relative to their own biological children.] [Conclusion]: The degree of freedom imposed upon the non-Conservative uniquely BY Conservatives is absurdly extreme. It is thus HYPOCRITICAL to demand 'free choice' for oneself on even the remotest TRIVIALITY while expecting OTHERS' to be denied their 'free choice' on the most SIGNIFICANT violation of one's right to their own body. (Supporting additional argument via religious freedom? The argument that you are responding to above can be considered my own 'religion' should you disagree. If you have a right to declare supremacy of nature's favor towards yourself without provability [as 'religious freedom' implies], I don't think you stand any grounds to argue against those of us who might argue that a being that is yet to be born is conscious of the same degree of suffering of those whom we all AGREE is "alive" and can "suffer". That is, we both can agree that a life of one who IS born should not be killed and thus 'AGREE'; But we disagree about whether a being unborn is equivalent to being a 'person'. I don't IMPOSE upon those who choose NOT to abort to abort. YOU choose to impose upon others, whose welfare you could care less about regardless, to OBEY YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEF IN AN "ESSENCE" or "SOUL" that enters us upon conception. This last argument, like the one I challenged Betty, is ONLY an extended argument about 'freedom' that you may also agree: the 'freedom of religion', ....also a personal free choice. Which of our competing choices is superior with regards to competing beliefs where one contradicts the other? AS to the Hitler addition in your own odd comparison, National Socialism is a RIGHT-WING extreme where Communism is a LEFT-WING extreme. With respect to my above arguments, the Conservative is more fittings with Hitler's ideals, given you expect YOUR right to 'freedom' to be respected ABSOLUTELY for some particular INDIVIDUAL over all others. [No one is saying you cannot take your mask off or refuse the vaccine in YOUR 'own' private spaces....only in places we are required to SHARE equally, for instance.] Communism's form of abusives comes about due to the nature of reducing 'freedom' to the LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR of ALL citizens at the expense of the rouge individual view, regardless of value. Even that extreme can be anti-abortion. So note that most fiscal support to the LEFT comes from SEGREGATE Multi-Conservatives and so are not necessarily "liberal" (and what the underlying cause of those 'leaders' who steal the power as a Conservative dictator under the label of 'communism' derives from.) [Thank you for taking the vaccine, btw.]