Jump to content

Winston

Members
  • Posts

    373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Winston

  1. Possibly and probably. However most of the general public is wondering about the same problems addressed in MP Joël Lightbound speech. He criticized some of the stances of his own party and mandate justification/effectiveness. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-mp-politicization-pandemic-1.6343730 It would be good to see the discussions heading towards this direction of accountability and expecting measurable outcomes.
  2. Absolutely, better masks that actually work would help the situation. However, it could be optional, most would voluntarily wear comfortable effective masks. It is quite odd that the thousands protesting without masks and some without vaccines who are in close contact with each other appear to be safe. Theoretically, shouldn't most of these protesters be sick or dying due to COVID?
  3. The title states " Will eliminating vaccine mandates .." We can just talk about PPE, could you please list what exact PPE should be mandated?
  4. We can agree that the virus is transmissible. I have no idea how one could prove transmission between people? Cold, flu ect could follow suit of such claims. I would also add, an uninfected person has zero ability to transmit the virus. Indeed, but keep in mind each of those safeties mentioned can be removed or "taken off", the vaccine is permanent. A permanent comparison would be more usable in this discussion. Masks? I would also add, what is the safety factor of say seatbelts vs masks or vaccines? Is it comparable?
  5. Individual safety is generally based on individual choice. You can choose to be more safe than others. But in general we do not force others to provide safety for the individual. The easiest method is the method already implemented, allow the individual to behave in a safe manner up to which the individual deems necessary. Could you please extrapolate, car insurance and seatbelts share the burden of what exactly?
  6. Use personal protection. You can decrease individual risk based on individual behavior and PPE.
  7. There is a growing group of people in Ottawa. This group is in the thousands. Interacting daily, touching, without masks, some without vaccines/partially vaccinated. Shouldn't the problem solve itself? Theoretically all these protesters should be sick and/or dying due to COVID? After all this is why there is a mandate for masks and vaccines.
  8. There are 4 options, end the mandate, use force, the convoy becomes aggressive, the convoy goes home. Only two of these will end well. Given the growing mass of the convoy and global publicity/support, home is several weeks away.
  9. Go for it. My point is anyone can find polls indicating their desired outcome. Cherry picking polls is also easy. Unless you counter for bias and use large sample sizes, polls have little value. Instead counter with solid arguments. For example, The convoy is probably not going to end well, thus a different route should be taken to push a position.
  10. That is precisely my point. Polls do not indicate anything useful unless you counter for biased samples and use massive sample sizes.
  11. Don't spread false info. 86.31 % of 56,495 support the convoy of truckers protesting the vaccine restrictions to Canada. https://www.saanichnews.com/web-poll/poll-do-you-support-the-convoy-of-truckers-protesting-vaccine-restrictions-in-canada/ The polls you link are extremely small, find larger sample sizes. Also reread your polls, they do not say what you claim they are saying.
  12. It is not as simple as the article would like to have you think. They are basing it on this data https://covid19monitor.org with a time frame of 01/04/2022- 01/10/2022, this does not account for February or late January. Also this is based off of number of responders of n = 2339, roughly 0.00615 % of the entire population. If we are going to use polls, use a number in the n 'million' plus category, that might be representative of the population.
  13. I think it was by negligence rather than intent. Most people operate based on the individual rather than the collective. There is no system that can indefinitely manage itself, as we see today people tend to not care about the collective country or it's future direction. However, distributing wealth, ie power, may help prevent total loss of control.
  14. Right, its not limited to housing, but since housing is a huge problem financially ( claims usually more than 30% of income, rent or purchase) it would change society drastically. One could instead focus on distribution of wealth, which would solves some of the financial issues. A bit of a contrarian view, if there was an annual wealth cap say of 50 million per year, this would limit the amount of power an individual can obtain throughout their lifetime. One would change the system of corporations also with a multi ownership basis and limitations of corporate wealth. Distribution of wealth from overflow could be decided upon by the individual. The goal being more wealth distribution over a greater number of individuals.( please keep in mind this is not a thesis, rather a too simplistic thought) But again this does not benefit the people who are already benefiting from the system now. These same people also tend to be the people hold positions that could change the system.
  15. Every statement you made there requires evidence or reasoning. You keep making these statements, but every time I show you how your "evidence" or logic is flawed or actually just assumptions/guessing you run away for a few days and come back with the same claim to "evidence". I was even willing to go down the road of spiritual evidence, but you can't even provide how this is verified, meaning it can be "made up". I asked this question before, how does an individual verify that a God exists outside of pure assumptions or guessing?
  16. Exactly. Blackbird and I have had several hours of discussion that lead to us conclude there is no evidence. But after a few days, Blackbird will post the same arguments over and over as if nothing happened. Please view here for more context.
  17. The reasons for this is primarily foreign investment ( including PR) and low interest rates. Can this be fixed? Restrict foreign investment into housing, allow ownership of only one property and increase interest rates slowly. Limit foreign company owned housing. The results of this would be catastrophic for the majority owners. We sold our houses for 10x profits. At the individual level it was a success, but at the collective level it destroyed the market for the next gen.
  18. Blackbird has no idea how one can verify God. Blackbird is merely suggesting that one can either believe in a god or not, it is purely based on the individual's feelings, no scientific evidence or verifiable "spiritual" evidence.
  19. Actually, it does. Extortion of those that do not vaccinate by the government is exactly why they "loose" their job without consent. If the vaccine was only "recommended" and not enforced, your argument may hold weight. But it is enforced, without consent, court hearing or ability to appeal.
  20. 100% agree, I strongly support your recommendation. It's time for the Canadian Forces to be called in, force these violent people out of the city. It will do wonders, globally ;)
  21. 1. That is fine, we don't need to use scientific evidence. But then how does an individual verify that a God exists outside of pure assumptions or guessing? 2. The dishonesty comes from expecting scientific evidence for science but not expecting scientific evidence for a God, reread what I wrote. I never accused you of holding dishonest beliefs, I accused you of making a dishonest discussion, very different things. You can not have a discussion if your expectations of evidence for one position is different than the other position. 3. "The reality is there is no rational explanation for the creation of the universe"- This is 100% correct, we do not know exactly. That is it, you can not say anything after this statement, unless you have strong verifiable evidence. You don't just get to assume a creator, because we may not have an answer. 4. " life apart from an intelligent designer or Creator, who we call God." - This is a claim of knowledge, meaning it requires evidence to support that claim, where is this verifiable evidence? Again they can not just assuming a creator out of convenience.
  22. Again your assuming a designer with no evidence. If you demand scientific evidence for the natural creation of the universe, then you must also provide scientific evidence of the creation of the universe by a designer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence Simplified - If you demand scientific evidence for the natural creation of the universe, I demand scientific evidence for the creation of the universe by a designer. If you can not agree to the above statement, then I am wasting my time. As soon as the rules of evidence only apply to my position but not yours, then discussion is not an honest discussion.
  23. Or just at least an explanation on how an electron is designed and created would be nice? Work our way up from there. A grain of sand or a snowflake is quite complex but are there examples of how it is designed? I would say a grain of sand or a snowflake is not designed, we could show that mathematically the shape and surface is directly affected by the physics within our environment. The Earth is not perfect for anything other than matter, most of the earth is not habitable, only 47% of the Earth is habitable, it’s not perfect for humans at all. Could the Earth be slightly different? Yes, could it be majorly different no. But either way it is not evidence of design. It is evidence that the Earth can only be this way, maybe with slight variations. It is an illusion to look at the Earth from the perspective that it perfectly "fits" the system. Instead the Earth exists in this exact way due to the system, not that the system fits the Earth. The system only allows for the Earth to exist in a specific manner, we would not expect the Earth to exist outside the laws of the system.
  24. Are you assuming design through a guess or do you have knowledge that it was designed? If design is the intended proof, one would have to supply detailed evidence of specifically how the designer created the design, method and process. Complexity does not equate to a designer unless proven otherwise.
  25. I'll adjust my language, extorting those that do not vaccinate removes free will consent. What does going to jail for smoking pot have to do with vaccination consent?
×
×
  • Create New...