User

You didn't actually respond to the issue... you said one thing, that was a bad assertion, then you pivot to saying something else.

This is not what you originally said, though, nor what was being argued against. You said: "Logic would tell u that there are an unlimited number of planets in the Universe that could support life as we know it. " That is a different statement from now saying: "The idea that life could exist on other planets is a logical concept supported by both scientific reasoning and empirical evidence."

Just saying it is true doesn't make it so. You pretending that everyone on here is on your side doesn't make it so and is little more than an appeal to popularity fallacy. I need to go back and look, you might hit every single known logical fallacy in this thread LOL. So, again, you just want to keep at this or maybe actually back up your assertions this time? No, you didn't. Just claiming you answered them doesn't make it so. Eh, read the part above again about the appeal to popularity fallacy... So, again, you just want to keep at this or maybe actually back up your assertions this time?

So... you just want to keep claiming you did something you didn't over and over again? If you have all this time to sit here acting like this, just prove it. Show me you answered all those questions. Where?

No, they are not. You love making the assertions over and over again, and continuing to call me names over and over again... you just never have the time to actually back up your crap. LOL, just claiming you answered the question doesn't answer the question. Just another baseless assertion.

LOL, you posted one short paragraph of rambling incoherent babble.

So did your assertion about life elsewhere.

Yeah... come back when you can form a more coherent point.

Yeah, except, your side changed the rules to create the hockey game, where your team could show up with no practice, no training, no skills, and just skate around hitting pucks while you have the refs on your side forcing the other team to sit in the penalty box most of the time... Of course all you want to talk about is winning, because the way you won is complete dog shit.

The guy who sits on here day after day dismissing everyone because they are not lawyers is not pretending to be one. ROFL Well, no, clearly it is not as serious to make the threat to kill someone as it is to actually go plan it out and try... but it is still a criminal threat. and wrong. Keep hiding coward. You are pathetic.

You don't get to pretend you are some tough, logical, and honest person on here anymore when you ran away and hid like the coward you are because I was calling you out for the shit you posted.

Of course you don't. It is much easier to push the trans madness onto the confused children when you do it behind their parents backs.

I don't need to tackle that question to point out that your claim about statistics and life elsewhere was silly and wrong.

So... you still want to push this shit on people, just not to the complete absurdity of forcing women to have to compete against men. Yeah, stalls do not help when the trans dude is in there jerking off and all the women outside can clearly see and hear what is going on in there. Stalls don't help when they still feel unsafe and uncomfortable being in the bathroom as a whole with some dude trying to look like a woman. Stalls do not help when that dude trying to look like a woman decides to assault or rape them. Stalls do not help in a general locker room setting, having to see some half-dressed or fully naked dude pretending to be a woman in the same room with you... Stop trying to normalize this shit and expect women to be OK with it. It is not an idea where leftists get enough power and control, they set the laws and policies to transition children socially with or without a parent's consent, and they oppose measures or laws that say parents must be informed and approve. I have not personally been murdered, but I still care about others not being murdered and support laws to prevent that and punish people for doing so. See how that works?

[Assertion] [Not an answer] [Assertion] [Not an answer] [Assertion] [Not an answer] [Assertion] [Not an answer] [Ad hominem] [Unsupported accusation of lying] [Moral condemnation] [No argument] If you already answered all these questions... it should be easy to just answer them again or link to where you did.

Oh wow... [Ad hominem] [Dismissive assertion] [Gatekeeping] [Appeal to authority of self] [Ad hominem] [Accusation without demonstration] [Unsupported accusation of lying] [Assertion that questions were answered] [Tribal signaling] [Guilt by association] [Ad hominem]

This is a self defeating statement. How can you say something is infinite when it is unknown?

Reminder of what a cowardly, lying, POS @BeaverFever is:

Elimination of the disease is what we want, and that is what vaccines give us. Death is not the only consequence. Before the vaccine, there were still an estimated 3-4 million cases a year and about 800,000 reported cases, some 50,000 severe enough for hospitalization, and thousands with severe brain swelling. (That is based on population numbers from the 60's) When you are trying to ignore what vaccines did and pretend that deaths being down shows that the vaccine didn't do anything, THAT is the dishonest anti-vax nonsense, as there were still A LOT of people getting infected. The vaccine reduced that to zero or near zero. For decades, we had zero cases or very small outbreaks among... the unvaccinated. Not endemic with the vaccine. It was a death sentence for more kids than you sit here complaining about people being harmed by the COVID vaccine. Yeah, some parents certainly believed this, but that is a perception argument; that was not the view of health care professionals, as I pointed out above, who dealt with those dead, severe side effects, and hospitalizations. Why suffer through any of that at all... when we have a vaccine? Remember, you said you were not anti-vax, but here you are pushing your anti-vaccine talking points yet again. So... you ever gonna tell me what vaccines you support? As to the rest of your claims about how great the disease is or how its better to live with it... Let's see your evidence.

*criminal threat. Yes, yes, it clearly was. Captured on film. The stupidity of hiding behind the presumption of innocence is just an obfuscation tactic from these cowardly, pathetic leftists who don't want to admit the obvious.

Well, that is certainly what you are defending being forced onto little girls and women in their private spaces.

So, lets review... ignoring all this: [Ad hominem] [Patronizing framing] [Poisoning the well] [Guilt by association] [Tribal signaling] [Unsupported assertion] [Begging the question] [Ad hominem] [Dismissive characterization] [Mind-reading] [Attribution of motive] [Appeal to political identity] [Personal insult] [Bare assertion] [Ad hominem] [Psychologizing opponent] [Straw man] [Mind-reading] [Unsupported accusation of lying] [Appeal to group identity] [Condescension] [Moralizing] [Patronizing conclusion] If you want to go back to your original assertion, about the only thing of substance here, that Canada did not adequately warn of the risks, that is your job to prove: What risk? <-Define the risk When did officials know? <- You say they should have done more, so... what did they know before and what evidence do you have? What did they say publicly at the time? <- What was it they said you think is proof of them downplaying the risk (and remember, you must define that risk) What should they have said instead?

Once again, this is the classic leftist bullshit pushed by the folks pushing this madness. I am no more obsessed with this than it takes for me to respond to what is being pushed.

Maybe we talked about Measles sometime earlier... but the discussion was on Polio before. The gist of your bad argument is still the same though. This is a neat trick you anti-vaxxers love to play. Notice, you are using the death rate chart. Yeah, scienctists tend to agree that improved sanitation, hygene, and medical care advancements all contributed to a decrease in DEATHS. You are conflating a reduction in DEATHS to a reduction in the disease. You see, this is the chart showing measles reductions with the introduction of the vaccine and the recommended booster: Is this where I infer you are blind? That you are an irrational person who can't be reasoned with? ROFL

See, you are still lying. It is clearly more than a fad.