Winston
-
Posts
373 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Winston
-
-
13 minutes ago, H B Lowrey said:
See the willing carriers.
Willing carriers? Who is a willing carrier?
-
4 minutes ago, H B Lowrey said:
That might be beneficial to those who still listen to science and medical advice, sure. But no, we have written off COVID deaths and we'll continue to, for fweedumb.
I do not think we have written off Covid deaths, people are still quite upset with the medical community and leadership for failing to proactively manage the difficult situation.
-
8 minutes ago, Aristides said:
Look up VAERS and you will know.
I don't know. The CDC article first came out in 2019 but was updated Sept 2021.
Vaccine reporting system that is self reported would not give great results. Unless the data suggested a reoccurring issue, still not exactly causation.
Unless the CDC has strong data it seems they are just making a blanket statement. Unless the data suggested a reoccurring issue, still not exactly causation.
-
9 minutes ago, Aristides said:
You mean like VAERS?
I am not familiar with VAERS.
I am asking how did they determine that Covid is the cause of these "wide range of new, returning, or ongoing health problems "?
-
6 minutes ago, H B Lowrey said:
I don't think there's much debate around the fact that we've written off the susceptible, is there?
Medically we have not written off the susceptible, but societally we always have, just look at the jobs people with disabilities can attain.
If we want to protect the susceptible we should invest in treatments and biomedical technology.
-
7 minutes ago, Aristides said:
How did they determine that Covid is the cause of these "wide range of new, returning, or ongoing health problems "?
This is self reported?
-
On 1/18/2022 at 1:41 PM, jbander1A said:
Its easier then that, all the massive number of people in the hospital and dying now are all the dumb lames that won't get a little shot.
Statistically most of the deaths are from those with prexisting conditions and above 60s, realistically the majority of the population is not at high risk.
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#vaccine-outcomes
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#pre-existing-conditions
-
8 minutes ago, myata said:
Again taking Covid as example, health bureaucracy has already floated the idea of ongoing indiscriminate mRNA vaccination. This is novel; everyone is affected; no one knows what it could and wouldn't do to the population immunity in the long run, in generations. And there ready to go with nothing to balance or stop them if need be. That is plain scary, to me at least.
Its okay, if its for profit.
All jokes aside, there seems to be this idea that a "conspiracy" must exist in order for those who are responsible to be complacent or those deliberately take actions that do not benefit the collective, I am not sure why? This occurs naturally in the world.
-
6 minutes ago, myata said:
Exactly
It is why I think Covid is a distraction, what matters is how power in society is distributed, this tends to come from wealth.
Is it possible for corporations or institutions to fund and /or select individuals with certain beliefs, political standings or ideologies? If the majority of these corporations or institutions share a specific ideology could this ideology become prevalent within society, irrelevant of the future negative outcomes for society?
-
9 minutes ago, blackbird said:
Not purely a religious statement. Morality and ethics comes from belief in God and the Bible. Young people are being brainwashed in public schools, the media, and society today into believing in humanism, progressivism and liberalism as the central idea of life. The Bible and Christianity is being driven out of society by the cancel culture, political left, and liberals and fed other poisons.
Yes people believe in humanism, how is that immoral or unethical?
-
4 minutes ago, myata said:
Ok this is bordering on philosophical aspects with virtually unlimited breadth and depth of possible questions and angles. Let's note however that even if a duty of an individual to the collective is assumed, it does not necessarily mean or imply unquestionable and unconditional agreement with the dominant views or government agendas, even democratic governments.
Indeed, it can become quite complex.
I would argue the opposite(in agreement), it is the duty of the individual to question the dominant views or government agendas for the sake of the collective. The issue with dominant views or government agendas is they do not necessarily reflect the collective, instead they reflect the individuals who hold the power to introduce those agendas.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, blackbird said:
here is lots of evidence of God performing miracles recorded in the Bible.
What does this have to do with morality or ethics?
"Because of the evolutionary brainwashing, the indoctrinated now have no purpose to their lives and no eternal hope or perspective." - What does this have to do with morality or ethics? Its purely a religious statement.
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, myata said:
Not everything and anything with a proclaimed public benefit can be a ground for infringement and violation of individual rights; there's a threshold and standard, and the onus is on those promoting restrictions and infringements to explain, justify and prove their necessity.
Yes exactly. We must first draw a line at when we can and can not violate the rights of an individual.
Even ignoring Covid, crossing of that line requires tedious work, evidence and analysis by multiple parties for criminal/mental issues.
55 minutes ago, myata said:There's no explicit or implicit duty of a citizen to comply every time "public good" argument is claimed by the authority, as it's been claimed by every single authoritarian and totalitarian in history. On the contrary, the duty is to review, investigate and challenge all such claims until and unless they are strong enough to satisfy the standard.
Yes, as an individual who is part of a collective, there is a duty to carry out actions that are for the benefit of the collective, but there also is a duty for the collective to uphold the rights of the individual.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, blackbird said:
There is lots of evidence of God performing miracles recorded in the Bible. These were recorded by eye witnesses or passed on from eye witnesses to those who kept a record. Eye witnesses are given paramount importance in courts of law. Why not when they are recorded in the Bible?
http://www.graspinggod.com/support-files/list_of_old_testament_miracles.pdf
This is becoming extreme thread drift, please post this in religion or at least change the title.
-
25 minutes ago, myata said:
If we choose to ignore it because it's not a direct and obvious fit, it would only play into their hands.
With due respect I think ignoring it does not play into their hands. Because they focus on Covid rather than the underlying issue of rights violation. Changing the discussion from Covid to rights violation changes the premise of the argument.
For example are there situations where someone's rights to their own body can be violated?
There are many examples in society, criminal activity, insanity and if they pose an extremely high risk to others.
The question becomes at what level of risk can we violate someone's rights by force?
-
6 minutes ago, myata said:
I did not just say it. I think someone posted links to the polls where majority supported imprisonment for a failure to vaccinate earlier in one of the threads. So from some perspective at least it's real: someone has asked it, and many agreed.
I found this poll.
It represents 1506 individual opinions with weighting "The results have been weighted by education, age, gender, and region (and in Quebec, language) to match the population according to Census data which ensures the sample is representative of the entire adult population of Canada." Meaning you have a higher subset of older generation and university graduates.
Overall I can agree with you Myata, but bringing up the Covid virus is a distraction it has nothing to do with the issues we are commenting on. Freedom of speech, individual rights and distribution of wealth have little to do with Covid virus itself. (off topic)
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, myata said:
Now the majority thinks very little of the individual right over their body and even agrees with prosecution all the way to incarceration with very little to none factual justification.
I doubt this is true. The majority thinks vaccines are the way to stop covid, but when asked " do you have the right to determine what enters your body?", the majority answer yes. There is a small minority of extremists who may think individual rights should not exist and a small minority of extremists who think everything is about individual rights. They are just loud, on both sides.
Realistically most people will follow the mass, not necessary with thought to their actions, I agree.
1 hour ago, myata said:In my view, it would be difficult to deny. Not in the least, due to a simple question: what would stand in the way of it, what checks, restraints and balances? Do we have any, anything at all?
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
We actually have something quite powerful, the internet, where discussions can occur and action items can be planned.
But on the other side, the majority is so distracted by covid, that the real issues plaguing society are ignored. It is clever to those that desire this distraction.
-
23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:
How far away is our current “pandemic” state from the totalitarian dystopia I just described?
Still quite far away. I would say there will be more interest in climate change as a means of taxation and societal behavior.
But I would ask, to what end? Or is everyone operating on individualism without thought for the collective.
Generic automation is also quite far away, people are just too cheap to replace at this time.
-
44 minutes ago, West said:
"Why is God creating gays"?
The question is full of assumptions. Homosexuality, like anger, malice, envy, drunkenness, or other issues is a result of heart posture of sin.
Why is Homosexuality a heart posture of sin?
On 1/18/2022 at 1:55 PM, French Patriot said:If God, as believers think, then why is God creating gays?
I have it on good faith God is Bisexual, including gay. So the real question is "why is God creating heterosexuals?"
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, blackbird said:
No, it is not dishonest to say God created everything without having to explain how he created it.
Its dishonest to hold different evidence of value for science, if you read my post. If Science stated the universe was created with faith in science we would have the same "evidence" of science creation of the universe.
13 minutes ago, blackbird said:Why do you assume someone must explain it to you before you will believe it?
Is this a serious question? If I told you I made the universe you would just believe me, just like that?
13 minutes ago, blackbird said:What gives anyone the right to demand to be told how God created everything?
Because how do we know God created anything?
14 minutes ago, blackbird said:You cannot just assert you created the universe simply because you are not God as I explained above.
But I am God, why do you keep disbelieving. Would you like proof or evidence?
16 minutes ago, blackbird said:It is supernatural.
Great what is supernatural and how does one determine if something is supernatural or not?
-
7 minutes ago, blackbird said:
You cannot just assert you created the universe simply because you are not God as I explained above.
How did you determine that I am not God? Or how do you prove I am not God?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, blackbird said:
Accusing me of not being honest is a very poor argument.
Reread what I wrote, I accused you of not having an honest discussion. I am quite sure you honestly believe in a god.
It becomes a dishonest discussion to expect science to provide evidence but not creationism.
1 hour ago, blackbird said:I gave you many examples of the complexity of it which I believe is evidence of an intelligent designer.
You are missing the possibility that apparent complexity is from the system, not a designer.
Having the premise that an intelligent design created the universe is extremely complex, you would have to show how something that operates in time and space can manufacture time and space?
In this case tell me why I can not just assert that I created the universe and everything, including you? Or do you agree that I can assert that I created everything?
1 hour ago, blackbird said:That is not how God has chosen to operate.
You know how god operates yet you can not explain the method by which god creates.
1 hour ago, blackbird said:rational belief that a complex result had to have intelligence behind it.
But I can just show that a grain of sand as complex as it may be is just pure physics at work, no designer required.
-
16 minutes ago, Moonbox said:
Just like you wouldn't be form a proper argument on complex software coding alternatives without a programmer's background and training, you're literally not capable of forming an intelligent opinion on things like the metallurgical composition of experimental fusion reactors or the epidemiology of a virus.
Yes I can concede this point. It would be unrealistic to expect the general public to be current on any/all fields.
I am worried that experts may not have the publics best interest in mind unless they have a responsibility or vested interest in the conclusion. I would rather see expert opinions with pure transparency of methodology and data for those that wish to take the time to review the findings and learn the topic.
-
11 minutes ago, Aristides said:
That's the thing, it isn't specific. The internet is full of misinterpretation of studies, either through ignorance or intentional. This BS often has longer legs than the study itself. Once it gets loose it has a life of its own because if it fits a narrative, people won't fact check it.
Fair enough.
But I would not be in favor of limiting the general public to review scientific studies. People can hold their own opinion by their own review. It would be up to others to take it seriously or not based on the data and conclusion.
I would rather a society of people deeply thinking about topics, rather than being told what to think.
Time to Declare Endemic
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Putting words in my mouth again are we Aristides?