Moonbox

Nobody is arguing that isolation is healthy. That's why solitary confinement is such a problem in prisons. The argument is that you're not socially isolated just because you can't crowd together in pews with a hundred other people during a pandemic. How did all of these other worshippers in Canada survive?

Sure, but they cost more. You die if you don't eat. You do not die if you don't go to Church.

I would say he went this route because he screwed the pooch with the Emergency Act and he's vulnerable. Give it 3.5 years and people will forget about that and he figures he can rehabilitate his image. Personally, I don't think it will last that long, but we'll see.

There are other ways to get social interaction. You don't die because if you can't go to Church.

So we're not getting that reference then?

Can you reference this please? I'm genuinely curious.

Go have some warm milk and a nap-nap. You'll feel better after.

I'm not the one peeing my pants and signaling the impending death of freedom and democracy. Stop projecting. ?

because people die without groceries. They don't die because they can't pray in tight, confined spaces with a crowd of people during a pandemic.

I'll ask again, what does the Emergency Act have to do with the WEF? This is good though....to say THIS: and then to follow up with THAT: Is a truly majestic display of critical thinking. ?

After it happened, but why do you figure it was Jason Kenney's decision? As Queen Mandy said, it was a court order. What is he going to do about it when it "comes across his desk"?

Why is that a high-profile case? You don't seem to really understand how the justice system works. Quelle surprise.

The PPC voter/libertarians aren't enough to form a government. They cost the CPC at most 5-6 seats in the last election, with only around 50% of PPC voters considering them as the next best alternative. The social conservatives already vote PPC or CPC, so the math doesn't really work here. Is anyone surprised? It begs the next question: How is pandering to the handful of seats lost over PPC protest votes going to overcome the weight of a Liberal/NDP coalition? Poilievre is barking up the wrong tree.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Azov battalion is law-abiding or humanitarian organization. What's interesting, however, is how much attention you give to them while ignoring the separatists they've been fighting - the armed separatists that Amnesty International has concluded are responsible for most of the kidnapping and torture going on in the region. Your Russian propaganda sources also don't talk much of the treatment of the Roma or Tatar people in Crimea or eastern Ukraine. Because it's not a fact, clown. If you used your brain for .5 seconds you'd ask yourself why the US would fund top-secret bioweapons research mere miles from the Russian border, in a Russian-speaking region no less? Indeed it's hard to imagine a sillier place to do it. Those questions don't even cross your mind, however, because you're gulping little-man Putin's propaganda without a moment's thought. Anything that even remotely supports your anti-establishment rambling is 100% true, regardless of how dumb it is.

Can't tell you why? Your claims are farcical nonsense, and your logic is demonstrably bad. Your rantings and ravings are easily dissemble, the "evidence" you post is usually silly bullshit and when you faceplant and are clearly proven wrong you change the subject and move on. Dumb stuff like this. The Emergencies Act was a Canadian thing and an obvious subversion of the Law in Canada, but what on earth did it have to do with the WEF? ?

but...this is coming from the MSM. It must be false. ?

Sure I have. I just don't attribute moustache-twirling to their initiatives. No, the WEF is not a conspiracy. You're right. The things you say about it are batshit though. You've been spoon-fed (not spoon feeding). The "arguments" you present here are like a box-ticking exercise from a Qanon 4dchan page. This coming from the guy who just said: It takes a special type of self-delusion to criticize anyone else's critical reasoning skills when you come up with a gem like that.

but can't intelligently explain why...just vague, Illuminati-style conspiracy theories and a lot of absurd ranting and hyperbole.

Well nobody was really talking about Canada so...okay. Well that's sort of the whole problem with the UN and international courts from the start. They have little actually authority and are more symbolic than anything, since as you say countries just sort of pick what they like out of it and ignore what they don't. It's a court for judging 3rd rate powers or collapsed regimes and losers of wars and not a whole hell of a lot else.

The US gets to play by their own rules and adhere to or ignore the Geneva Conventions as they see fit. Nobody was talking about Canada, so I'm not sure why you figure that's relevant. International is the whole point of the conventions - the very purpose of their existing.

I think Trudeau's a clown. This is you projecting your limp anger on others. I'm not watching every moronic clip you put in front of me. Russel Brand's bullshit has been so regularly debunked and his exercises in historical make-believe are peerless. The dude is a former heroin addict/comedian/provocateur and has only slightly more credibility than your pal Alex Jones. I'm not concerned by conspiracy buffoons' exercises in make-believe. Literally nobody of sound mind needs your "halp" jumping down this bozo rabbit hole.

Ask all the questions you want, but Russel Brand is a burnt out-nutter whos publications and statements are regularly lampooned for their historical inaccuracies and made-up bullshit. He has no credibility whatsoever and the only people who listen to him are the losers who get psyched-up by his hot-takes. Dr. Bridle's claims have been widely discredited as bad science by far better scientists than him. The errors he made in both his conclusions and the interpretation of the studies he cites were numerous and substantial, but that doesn't matter to you. All that matters is that you were able to comb the world for an "expert" who sort of said something you liked, and because of this you've raised an associate university professor up as the eminent authority on these things (which he is most certainly not). The only counter-argument you have here is, "but but but WHO! Dr. Fauci! CDC! Media CONSPIRACY!" which is the same used-up rag you been wipe yourself with every time the evidence/science/reality is against you.

You see the problem with your quote there, right? These aren't arguments rooted in international law, but rather the United States' self-serving codification of excusing themselves from the parts of the Geneva Conventions they find inconvenient. I provided a direct quote from the ICRC, the group mandated by the signatories of the Geneva Conventions and the only entity named in International Humanitarian Law as a controlling authority. They're saying the exact opposite. The Americans, as we have already determined, make their own rules based on strength rather than any legitimate arguments in International Law. They're regularly criticized for their abuses by the ICRC, the UN and within their own borders (particularly with Guantanamo Bay and the appalling subversion of rights that it represents), but their answer is basically, and the answer is nothing, because nobody really can. This is rule by might rather than rule by Law No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm clearly showing you what the only organization named as a controlling authority in International Humanitarian Law has ruled, and I quoted it directly from their website. Your Wikipedia quotes don't really stand up to that, I'm afraid, especially as interpreted by the US. That's not to say the US flaunts the Conventions entirely, but rather that they uphold them as long as they agree with them and then will rationalize/justify not upholding them when they're inconvenient and don't serve their purposes.

Russel Brand is what you consider a reliable source of information? A British comedian and mind-warped former heroin addict is the expert you're brining into the debate?

First off, the overwhelming majority of doctors, researchers, health authorities and scientists across the globe all support the vaccines and their safety, and that's not void of reality - that's a fact. The "appeal to authority" fallacy is also something you clearly don't understand, since you're appealing to authority yourself by invoking Dr. Christian and Dr. Briddle. The strength or lack thereof in these arguments will depend on the body of evidence supporting them. In the case of Dr. Christian and Dr. Bridle, most of their claims have been peer-reviewed and determined to be to not be supported by science and misleading. Dr. Bridle's conclusions, specifically, have been roundly rejected around the world.. Not influencers - you have experts. This isn't a social media contest. Even amongst the most directly involved COVID/vaccine researchers, the consensus is that the vaccines are safe and effective. This isn't two equal sides duking it out for hearts and minds. This is the medical and scientific community around the world (from top to bottom) coming to the same conclusions and then there being a handful of dissenters looking for their 15 minutes promoting (mostly) bullshit. 96% of physicians were fully-vaccinated in the US by July 2021. Though they may not all be directly involved in vaccine research, they're far better judges than you on the published findings of the top and most directly-involved researchers, as are the top scientists who review those findings and the medical journals that publish them. You've convinced yourself that an associate professor at the Ontario Veterinary College is a top authority on these matters, and the only reason for that is that he's one of the few public dissenters you can cling to in your desperate search for anyone/anything that may provide a hint of credibility to your worldview.