Moonbox

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.

I've an bussiness/econ grad, but whatever. I'm soooo ashamed I'm educated. ? Your statement above is hilarious though. On one hand you're complaining that I don't listen to the one doctor who got fired for bullshitting and spreading conspiracy theories, but you're disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of experts is...what? Smart? How do take yourself seriously making this sort of argument? The delusional hypocrisy of it is mind-boggling.

That's fine, but your asking me to defer to your experience as a soldier is a bit hypocritical considering how unwilling you were to the same on issues like the above. Like I said, I'd never for a second question your understanding of the Canadian Rules of Engagement, especially in Afghanistan. On the Geneva Conventions, however, you're not correct. You continue to oversimplify or say stuff that is flat out wrong. Gosh Omar Khadr is about the worst example you could use to make your case. Not only was he a Canadian citizen working with a known terrorist group (which muddies things up considerably), his actions were never recognized as a war crime in international law and his incarceration at GITMO and tribunal proceedings were determined to be violations of international law, and by the SCoC itself. That's not to say Omar didn't commit crimes, because he obviously did, but even as an enemy/unlawful combatant it was clearly determined he still had rights. Everyone has rights - always. They don't magically vanish if you find yourself in a war zone. Stealing from civilian populations (looting) is considered a war crime in itself, and though some amounts of commandeering for things of military value (food, gasoline etc...) may be "okay", taking life-threatening amounts is not and can qualify as a war crime as well. Wrong again. Nobody has no rights under the Geneva Convention. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007#:~:text=Every person in enemy hands,covered by the First Convention. Which weakens the credibility and authority of the Geneva and Hague Conventions as well as the ICRC. In most cases, war crimes prosecution is reserved for losers and rarely for winners. There's little legal or moral authority behind these exceptions, but the practical realities are what they are. Most war crimes probably go unpunished because, as you say, if you're going to commit one you're probably not too against eliminating witnesses, or in the case of the USA you hold yourself above international law.

but only that guy, and not the other 99% of doctors and experts around the world who disagree with him and can highlight the errors in his conclusions. It's only the dudes who tell you what you want to hear and who parrot your conspiracy theories back to you that have integrity. This is what psychologists like to call cognitive dissonance. Trying to rationalize your farcical world views must be exhausting. You're coping so hard.

Who knows? Maybe nothing, maybe he liked the attention. It doesn't mean his science was good. The better question is why you figure that a small potatoes associate professor at Guelph's Veterinary College is the most authoritative figure on these debates, other than the fact that he's one of the relative few dissenters that places like Rebel Media can comb the world for to support their narrative. but not any other the other trauma surgeons in Canada who disagree with him, or the ones in the US or Europe or everywhere else in the world. The ONLY health professionals that matter are the few that Rebel Media or Fox News or Telegram can highlight. ? Florida's vaccination rates are high, like New York's, they were not ground zero for COVID-19 in the USA (no JFK airport) and it's warm there, so people aren't stuck indoors swapping germs like they are in New York during late winter/early spring. Mississippi's death per capita (helps to filter out population size, in case you don't know) was high because it's an uneducated Bubba state with low vaccination rates.

Show me where and why. There was LOTS of published research about the negative effect of lockdowns on children from universities etc, and from what I understand few/none of them were threatened/censured for talking about the negative effects of isolation etc. The physicians who were disciplined were the ones making shit up about how vaccines would hurt kids and nonsense like that. It's too bad the statistics don't confirm that, with New York falling well behind the numerous 9 other states for deaths per capita despite being the epicenter and ground-zero for COVID-19 when it first spread to the USA. The worst performer? Unsurprisingly, Mississipi. It's almost as if there was a clear correlation between low vaccination rates and the number of deaths per capita ?.

What they generally faced issues with was promoting garbage science and issuing bullshit vaccine exemptions. The licensing body disciplined nobody for merely questioning the justification for mandates. and the results speak for themselves in a lot of these countries - particularly in the USA.

I have about as much experience navigating the Geneva Convention as you do with central banking policy (zero), but that didn't stop you from debating central banking, did it? I'd never for a second debate Canadian Rules of Engagement with you. On these matters I'll happily defer to you as the expert. Not nearly as simple as you make it out to be, and I don't know why you'd bring up Gitmo considering it's widespread condemnation in international law. Sorry bud, but this sort of argument doesn't really cut it in a legal setting. You've demonstrated a fairly poor understanding of how even the Canadian court system works in the past, so excuse me if question your logic in an international setting. Consider, for example, if a squad of Russian soldiers raided a Ukrainian farm, kidnapped the farmer's teenage daughter and then took her to the barn for some "fun". If this farmer grabbed his rifle and attempted to rescue her, are you trying to tell us that he'd be a criminal? He would not. His status as a not-lawful combatant would not diminish his rights to defend himself or his own, nor would it erase his rights under the Geneva Convention. A Russian tribunal might deem him an "unlawful combatant" or whatever they want to call him, but if he's not protected as a PoW under the Third Geneva Convention, he'd be protected under the 4th as a civilian and the Russians would have to make a criminal case against him as a civilian. Since Russians observance of the Law (whether domestic or international) is highly questionable in the first place, it's doubtful how fairly regardless. and this is why wars of conquest haven't really been seriously undertaken in the last 70-80 years. Occupying territory where the natives don't want you is generally a disastrous affair, rarely worth the lives and resources. When a civilian/partisan resistance group forms, most of the people involved do so understanding the inherent danger, knowing that their lives are very likely forfeit if they're caught and that the occupiers will treat them harshly (and very possibly be summarily/extra-judiciously executed). In international law, this is a pretty murky area (as evidenced by GITMO). Denying them rights, representation and fair trials is at the peril of the occupying forces. Ask the convicted Nazi war criminals how they fared for executing French and Soviet partisans. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as you'd like to think it is. In the case of the USA and Russia, might unfortunately often makes right. The US is likely guilty of a host of war crimes over the years, but their status as the dominant economic and military power makes prosecution difficult/impossible. The Russians and Chinese are blessed with similar protection.

and you don't think doctors in South Korea, or Turkey, or India can examine and filter the CDC's conclusions? Considering that virtually every country in the world treated COVID-19 as a real threat and had some sort of mandate/restrictions to combat it, and considering how heavily they all pushed vaccines, it's pretty silly to say there wasn't consensus on most (though maybe not all) of the major findings...but sure. Tucker Carlson knows better - always.

The echo chamber spanning across borders, ideologies, institutions and even hostile competing nations? Yeah...that definitely makes the most sense.

Not by default, but listening to and acknowledging a consensus of experts across the world and their expertise would be a sign of intelligence. Listening to smarter, more knowledgeable people than you is a type of intelligence in an of itself. Reading stuff on social media and determining that you know better is the opposite of that.

The problem with this logic is that both COVID-19 and Climate Change are global problems requiring global solutions. The simplest and most obvious explanation (that these problems are real and that everyone in the world isn't lying) is usually the correct one. You'd no doubt prefer to stick your head in the sand and pretend both are conspiracies, but this logic requires to believe that everyone around the world is all on-board and in on the scheme. Both the health and climate scientists in Canada, the US, Europe, India, China, Japan etc are all following the same shadowy agenda, along with all of the scholars and journalists and educators...and all to accomplish what, exactly? Control of everything? The debasement of the white race? The end of democracy? It depends on the day and what particular conspiracy theorist you're talking to. ?

You need to trim your replies and organize your thoughts better. No offense intended, but past a certain point the quality of responses you get will diminish with the size of your word count and the number of big paragraphs you lay on us. I'm highlighting that you're oversimplifying and mischaracterizing both the formal rules and the practical realities of how this works. What I quoted is part of the Third Geneva Convention (1949), Article 4, and like I said it's just one example of where you go wrong. It's not illegal nor a war crime to pick up and use a weapon as a civilian against an invading occupier, as you claimed, nor is your right to defend yourself, your property, your family and community based purely on some declaration of your status. Sure, but being a "not-lawful" combatant doesn't make you a criminal and especially not a war-criminal. Your status would be determined upon capture by the occupying forces and their laws. In the case of Ukraine, that would be Russia, whose observance of the Law (both international and domestic) is questionable at best. When you're occupied and no longer in contact with your government, your defacto government becomes your occupier, who obviously aren't going to authorize anything. Your survival at that point depends on their observance of the rules and their goodwill, but so too do your rights and obligations as an occupied "civilian". Ask the French resistance how many of their people were convicted of war crimes, vs how many German occupiers.

If you say so, but economics are both what I went to school for and how I earn a living. I promise you don't want to debate me on this. From the sounds of it, you don't understand them yourself. You're just parroting vague and poorly explained nonsense that you've dredge up from the interwebs. So you can't answer any of the questions I've asked or explain any of the points you're trying to make. Got it.

an example of what? How does it have anything to do with the WEF and why you figure it's so scary?

@West I was asking a legit question. When I ask something specific you just seem to veer off vaguely in another direction about something unrelated, hoping/assuming people just sort of go with it or something. What does the Emergency Act and the Banks freezing people's accounts have to do with the WEF and travel documentation software?