First a trickle....Now a flood

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

The fact that I responded answered your question. I also responded to your BS assertion about lying. 
 

 

Of course you didn't. LOL and look at you dance and dodge, like a mouse cornered by a cat  

It's a simple enough question, obviously this very subject made you lose your shit enough to lie as you did and freak out...  why?   Did some anti vaxxer steal your girl or something?

[User]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course you didn't. LOL and look at you dance and dodge, like a mouse cornered by a cat  

It's a simple enough question, obviously this very subject made you lose your shit enough to lie as you did and freak out...  why?   Did some anti vaxxer steal your girl or something?

What lie?

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, User said:

What lie?

 

Still running away from me like a coward huh? wow you sure are a scared little boy when you're not facing weak minded lefties aren't you

Answer the question. 

[User]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Still running away from me like a coward huh? wow you sure are a scared little boy when you're not facing weak minded lefties aren't you

Answer the question. 

Are you really too stupid to grasp that you asked a loaded question based on the premise that I lied?

What lie?

 

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, User said:

Are you really too stupid to grasp that you asked a loaded question based on the premise that I lied?

What lie?

 

THe premise is you had an emotional melt down from the get go as i said. And you've lied and been dishonest since, utterly desperate to try to discredit a statement that was so obviously true, even after you yourself provided evidence of it and after i did as well. 

So why? Why are you so emotionally invested in this that you would act like a complete twat like that? And i've pointed out the lie many times, go read the interaction from the start instead of pretending otherwise. 

Nobody's buying the "ii don't know what you're talking about' routine any more than the "I never said any quote i don't know what you're talking about' routine from earlier.  Pathetic. 

So why are you like this? did someone who was anti vax touch you inappropriately? Steal your wallet? Kick your dog? There's a reason you're acting like an irrational twat, what is it?

[User]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

THe premise is you had an emotional melt down from the get go as i said. And you've lied and been dishonest since, utterly desperate to try to discredit a statement that was so obviously true, even after you yourself provided evidence of it and after i did as well. 

So why? Why are you so emotionally invested in this that you would act like a complete twat like that? And i've pointed out the lie many times, go read the interaction from the start instead of pretending otherwise. 

Nobody's buying the "ii don't know what you're talking about' routine any more than the "I never said any quote i don't know what you're talking about' routine from earlier.  Pathetic. 

So why are you like this? did someone who was anti vax touch you inappropriately? Steal your wallet? Kick your dog? There's a reason you're acting like an irrational twat, what is it?

Loaded: "emotional meltdown" <- Emotional personal attack

Loaded: "you've lied" "been dishonest" <- Baseless assertions

Loaded: "utterly desperate" <- Emotional personal attack

Blah blah blah.... etc...

,So, when you can grow up, act like an adult, stop with the petty petulant child routine, let me know. 

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, User said:

Loaded: "emotional meltdown" <- Emotional personal attack

Loaded: "you've lied" "been dishonest" <- Baseless assertions

Loaded: "utterly desperate" <- Emotional personal attack

Blah blah blah.... etc...

,So, when you can grow up, act like an adult, stop with the petty petulant child routine, let me know. 

 

Quit running away and answering the question. You're sounding like a complete loser wimp

You have life repetitively throughout this. And I've pointed it out so pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about is beyond childish.

Your initial reaction and your reaction throughout has been extremely emotional and unbalanced.

None of that is loaded it's simply true.

No answer the question . I'll give you some time to go change your diapers. 

 

[User]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Quit running away and answering the question. You're sounding like a complete loser wimp

You have life repetitively throughout this. And I've pointed it out so pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about is beyond childish.

Your initial reaction and your reaction throughout has been extremely emotional and unbalanced.

None of that is loaded it's simply true.

No answer the question . I'll give you some time to go change your diapers. 

 

Once again, you are either so incredibly ignorant that you do not grasp that you are loading up your question with baseless assertions and personal attacks, or you do know what you are doing and are just dishonestly demanding I answer it. 

Let me know. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

Once again, you are either so incredibly ignorant that you do not grasp that you are loading up your question with baseless assertions and personal attacks, or you do know what you are doing and are just dishonestly demanding I answer it. 

Let me know. 

Bullshit.  Answer the question. You freaked out for a reason, what is it.

[User]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Bullshit.  Answer the question. You freaked out for a reason, what is it.

Holy shit, you really are this stupid?!

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

Holy shit, you really are this stupid?!

Still dodging huh. 

I guess all you can do at this point is either face whatever made you go nuts like that or run away. And you've chosen to run away. 

The gov't did not substantially inform the public of the risk, the have failed to stand behind people who got sick, these are bad things in my opinion, and there is something SERRIOUSLY wrong with you that those simple and easy to verify facts have you in an emotional tail dive. 

[User]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Still dodging huh. 

I guess all you can do at this point is either face whatever made you go nuts like that or run away. And you've chosen to run away. 

The gov't did not substantially inform the public of the risk, the have failed to stand behind people who got sick, these are bad things in my opinion, and there is something SERRIOUSLY wrong with you that those simple and easy to verify facts have you in an emotional tail dive. 

Nope:

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

Nope:

 

Reposting a lie doesn't make it less of a lie kid   ANd you know that post was a lie, i've already debunked it several times

And like i said, you seem to be taking a page from exflyer's debate tactics  LOL you HAVE to realize how pathetic that makes you look! 

So you're back to running away like a coward and just repeating a lie instead of being a man and facing whatever it is that caused you to have your little emotional collapse in the first place. 

The gov't didn't substantially warn the people, the gov't isn't standing behind the people, you've had an emotional crisis over this which you run and hide from.  Simple truths. 

Edited Monday at 04:33 PM by CdnFox

[User]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Reposting a lie doesn't make it less of a lie kid   ANd you know that post was a lie, i've already debunked it several times

And like i said, you seem to be taking a page from exflyer's debate tactics  LOL you HAVE to realize how pathetic that makes you look! 

So you're back to running away like a coward and just repeating a lie instead of being a man and facing whatever it is that caused you to have your little emotional collapse in the first place. 

The gov't didn't substantially warn the people, the gov't isn't standing behind the people, you've had an emotional crisis over this which you run and hide from.  Simple truths. 

What lie? 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, User said:

What lie? 

I've explained that about a hundred times above. Your own link proves that the government did not properly warn the public about the risks and yet you claim it does

And now your flip-flopping back and forth between X flyers repeating of posts and sea lioning

You're a liar. You're dishonest person. I'm thoroughly disappointed in you. I don't know what somebody did to you that would turn you into this kind of person with regards to this subject but it has been truly pathetic to watch.

The government did not substantially warn the public, the government is not standing behind the public, you're having an emotional breakdown and debating like a three-year-old liberal and can't seem to face the reasons why. Simple facts

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I've explained that about a hundred times above. Your own link proves that the government did not properly warn the public about the risks and yet you claim it does

How does it prove that?

How does that prove I lied?

I provided several links to show the government provided warning of risks as did media and health professionals. 
 

Those were just a handful to show you were wrong. I can easily provide more. 

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, User said:

How does it prove that?

I've explained that at length. The fact that you can't immediately see that is simply more evidence that this issue has become excessively emotional for you and you're not being rational

17 minutes ago, User said:

I provided several links to show the government provided warning of risks as did media and health professionals. 

All of them have been debunked. Every single one of them downplays the risks and does not adequately explain the come even remotely close. They mostly say it's the same as any vaccine.  They do not address that this is a new type of medical treatment that has not undergone the usual testing and may have serious unknown side effects beyond what you'd normally expect in a vaccine. 

This has been explained to you. It's not complex.  

Further in public as i demonstrated with links both tam and justin FURTHER downplayed it and basically said the risk is so small it's non existent when they did not know that to be true (and in fact that has turned out not to be the case).  

In fact justin called those who doubted the vaccine "Mostly bigots and mysoginists who are a waste of space and we'll have to decide if we're going to tolerate them". 

So when you say you've provided links as if I haven't already shown why those links do not demonstrate what you claim they do, you're lying. It's a straight out and out lie. The links clearly don't spell out the risks predicted by the public statements, which means they absolutely did not inform the public of the risks substantially.

Again, this was a brand new medical technology that has never been tested, never been deployed before and was rushed into service without the usual medical testing and screening that happens with any vaccine and the risks of unknown side effects was considerably higher as a result, and that was never ever expressed to the public in any substantial way. If anything the opposite is true they made it sound safer than most vaccines

Further it's been pointed out to you that if you have a statement in one government document but then contradicted in other public appearances then you are not providing clear informed information

That is beyond a doubt. A four-year-old could figure this stuff out.  And that tells me that you're emotionally invested in this and don't want it to be true to the point where you're willing to practice self-delusion rather than face the facts.

I have no idea why that is, but you have lost your ability to be rational with regards to this and are simply relying on sea lioning and lying alternatively. You should be deeply ashamed of your performance in this thread

[User]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I've explained that at length. The fact that you can't immediately see that is simply more evidence that this issue has become excessively emotional for you and you're not being rational

No, you make the assertion, then run away. 

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

All of them have been debunked.

Debunked how? Again, lets back up... you started this with the absurd and obviously false assertion that that the government had not warned about the risks... then I showed you they did. Then I showed the media did after you tried to shift the goal posts...

Again all here:
 

 

[Goddess]

16 hours ago, User said:

obviously false assertion that that the government had not warned about the risks

Are you mentally incapable of understanding other perspectives?  Cannot comprehend nuance?

If the government tells the public the risk is near zero, and it turns out that is not true, the risk was not addressed adequately.  

Ask any covid vaccine injured person if they feel they were told of the honest risk and I guarantee you 100% of them say, No.  Ask Dan Hartman, who lost his 17 year old son.  Ask Kayla Pollack, now a quadriplegic in a wheelchair, unable to work or care for her young son.  Ask Carrie Sakamoto, facially disfigured with Bell's and nerve damage.  Ask every teenager who can no longer play sports, because of myocarditis.

When people are told the risk is similar to the risk of the flu vaccine and it turns out to be much higher, people feel lied to.

Ya, I know you make the excuse that "They didn't know."  I showed you an entire article on the many issues with mRNA tech, well known before they were mass marketed.  Every single one of those issues appeared after rollout.  Blood-clotting issues before - then upon rollout, 2 of the 4 mandated injections pulled for blood-clotting issues.  Did the government warn people about that?  No, they did not.  The public was told the injection stays in the arm.  It was already known they did not.  It was already known the spike settled in certain organs.  Do you understand that that is NOT GOOD?  That a heart or an ovary or a testicle filled with spike is NOT GOOD?

Do you not understand medical ethics?  That forcing a medical intervention on perfectly healthy people, who have near ZERO risk from a disease, is not only highly unethical and was the entire point of the Nuremburg Trials, but that the intervention MUST be 100% safe for healthy people or else the risk outweighs the benefit?

Sheesh.  🙄

You're basically saying you are just fine with the government outright lying and lying by omission.  Some of us are NOT okay with that.  And we are not the ones in the wrong here.  You are.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:56 PM by Goddess

[User]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Are you mentally incapable of understanding other perspectives?  Cannot comprehend nuance?

These are statements of fact being discussed here. What does perspective or nuance have to do with anything?

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If the government tells the public the risk is near zero, and it turns out that is not true, the risk was not addressed adequately.  

IF... 

Also, hindsight is 20/20; if they did not know of a particular risk or concern, they can't address it adequately before they know about it. 

Besides, the argument being made here is about discussing risk at all, generally speaking, which the government, media, and health care professionals and organizations did discuss. 

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Ask any covid vaccine injured person if they feel they were told of the honest risk and I guarantee you 100% of them say, No. 

That is a subjective feeling... 

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Ask every teenager who can no longer play sports, because of myocarditis.

What, like a handful of them? This was already rare, and even more rare that those who did get it had a severe case. And once those risks were known... they were discussed and reported on. 

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

When people are told the risk is similar to the risk of the flu vaccine and it turns out to be much higher, people feel lied to.

Define "much higher"

Yes, COVID proved to be more risky than a flu vaccine, but comparing it only specifically to the Flu Vaccine was hardly the standard disclosed risk. None of the links I shared described the risk like that. 

It was compared in general safety terms with other vaccines, which proved largely true.

27 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I showed you an entire article on the many issues with mRNA tech, well known before they were mass marketed.  Every single one of those issues appeared after rollout.  Blood-clotting issues before - then upon rollout, 2 of the 4 mandated injections pulled for blood-clotting issues. 

The blood clotting issues were with the non-mRNA vaccines... 

There were no well-known issues with the mRNA vaccines that would cause severe problems. 

29 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Did the government warn people about that?  No, they did not. 

How can they warn about blood clotting if they don't know? Once they did, that risk was evaluated... and they responded. 

29 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The public was told the injection stays in the arm.

Huh? Where are you getting this from? Common sense tells you that any vaccine doesn't just  100% stay in the injection site. This appears to be another one of your silly anti-vax talking points.

34 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The public was told the injection stays in the arm.  It was already known they did not.  It was already known the spike settled in certain organs.  Do you understand that that is NOT GOOD?  That a heart or an ovary or a testicle filled with spike is NOT GOOD?

You're skipping the most important step.

Finding a small amount of a substance in an organ does not automatically mean that organ is being damaged.

The question isn't whether vaccine components could be detected outside the arm. The question is whether they caused meaningful harm.

If ovaries were being damaged, where are the fertility effects?

If testicles were being damaged, where are the fertility effects?

If hearts were being broadly damaged, why was the primary confirmed cardiac risk myocarditis at a rate measured in tens per million rather than millions?

You're treating "detected somewhere" as proof of "caused major harm." Those are two completely different claims.

34 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Do you not understand medical ethics?  That forcing a medical intervention on perfectly healthy people, who have near ZERO risk from a disease, is not only highly unethical and was the entire point of the Nuremburg Trials, but that the intervention MUST be 100% safe for healthy people or else the risk outweighs the benefit?

Sheesh.  🙄

Once again, I did not and do not support mandates on being vaccinated with the COVID vaccine....

Also, nothing is ever 100% safe. No medical procedure or routine is 100% safe. Hell, going to your own family doctor for a routine checkup is not 100% safe. 



 

[Goddess]

17 minutes ago, User said:

These are statements of fact being discussed here. What does perspective or nuance have to do with anything?

IF... 

Also, hindsight is 20/20; if they did not know of a particular risk or concern, they can't address it adequately before they know about it. 

Besides, the argument being made here is about discussing risk at all, generally speaking, which the government, media, and health care professionals and organizations did discuss. 

That is a subjective feeling... 

What, like a handful of them? This was already rare, and even more rare that those who did get it had a severe case. And once those risks were known... they were discussed and reported on. 

Define "much higher"

Yes, COVID proved to be more risky than a flu vaccine, but comparing it only specifically to the Flu Vaccine was hardly the standard disclosed risk. None of the links I shared described the risk like that. 

It was compared in general safety terms with other vaccines, which proved largely true.

The blood clotting issues were with the non-mRNA vaccines... 

There were no well-known issues with the mRNA vaccines that would cause severe problems. 

How can they warn about blood clotting if they don't know? Once they did, that risk was evaluated... and they responded. 

Huh? Where are you getting this from? Common sense tells you that any vaccine doesn't just  100% stay in the injection site. This appears to be another one of your silly anti-vax talking points.

You're skipping the most important step.

Finding a small amount of a substance in an organ does not automatically mean that organ is being damaged.

The question isn't whether vaccine components could be detected outside the arm. The question is whether they caused meaningful harm.

If ovaries were being damaged, where are the fertility effects?

If testicles were being damaged, where are the fertility effects?

If hearts were being broadly damaged, why was the primary confirmed cardiac risk myocarditis at a rate measured in tens per million rather than millions?

You're treating "detected somewhere" as proof of "caused major harm." Those are two completely different claims.

Once again, I did not and do not support mandates on being vaccinated with the COVID vaccine....

Also, nothing is ever 100% safe. No medical procedure or routine is 100% safe. Hell, going to your own family doctor for a routine checkup is not 100% safe. 



 

So many lies, deflections and deliberate obfuscation here, I don't even care to address you at this point.

I knew you could not discuss rationally when I showed you the charts on childhood disease rates absolutely plummeting like a stone before vaccines were even introduced and the actual CDC stats that measles deaths had dropped 98% before vaccines and that this was due to advances in hygiene and sanitation..... and you looked at those graphs and charts and stats and said they showed no such thing and that vaccines were 100% responsible for reducing childhood disease deaths.

You're a brainwashed zombie.  Intellectually lazy.  

And the proof of that is you are here arguing vehemently on a topic you know very little about, the only info you have is from CBC headlines and quick google searches for opposite views.

 

 

[User]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

So many lies, deflections and deliberate obfuscation here, I don't even care to address you at this point.

Of course you do not care to address my responses. Its the same thing you do over and over again here. You push the surface-level deep anti-vax nonsense, then when you get called out, you got nothing. Just more baseless assertions. 

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I knew you could not discuss rationally when I showed you the charts on childhood disease rates absolutely plummeting like a stone before vaccines were even introduced and the actual CDC stats that measles deaths had dropped 98% before vaccines and that this was due to advances in hygiene and sanitation..... and you looked at those graphs and charts and stats and said they showed no such thing and that vaccines were 100% responsible for reducing childhood disease deaths.

You are conflating disagreement with irrationality. I clearly responded to your points and just like now, you never responded. 

Here is me, calling you out for not responding to the last comment on this subject... which you ignored:
 

 

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

ou're a brainwashed zombie.  Intellectually lazy.  

More pettiness because you do not have any substance.

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

And the proof of that is you are here arguing vehemently on a topic you know very little about, the only info you have is from CBC headlines and quick google searches for opposite views.

LOL, I know so little and yet you are the one blaming the blood clots on the mRNA vaccines. 

 

[Goddess]

I will post this CDC chart one more time for the benefit of those who don't want to scroll back for the actual exchange.

This is measles death rates in the US, 1900-1960.

To many, this chart shows that as sanitation, better hygiene and nutrition improved in the 1930-1940's, measles deaths went down dramatically.

The first measles vaccine was rolled out in 1963.

Every chart for every childhood disease looks exactly like this one.

To User, this chart shows exactly the opposite.  That it was vaccines that eliminated measles.

I don't believe User is physically blind, but there is mental blindness there that cannot be reasoned with.

12 minutes ago, User said:

you never responded. 

 

13 minutes ago, User said:

which you ignored:

I don't respond and I ignore you because you are a fanatic who cannot be reasoned with and who denies evidence right in front of your nose.

[User]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I will post this CDC chart one more time for the benefit of those who don't want to scroll back for the actual exchange.

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. 
 

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

To many, this chart shows that as sanitation, better hygiene and nutrition improved in the 1930-1940's, measles deaths went down dramatically.

The first measles vaccine was rolled out in 1963.

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:



 

 

16 minutes ago, Goddess said:

To User, this chart shows exactly the opposite.  That it was vaccines that eliminated measles.

I don't believe User is physically blind, but there is mental blindness there that cannot be reasoned with.

Is this where I infer you are blind? That you are an irrational person who can't be reasoned with?

ROFL

 

[CdnFox]

21 hours ago, User said:

No, you make the assertion, then run away. 

Debunked how? Again, lets back up... you started this with the absurd and obviously false assertion that that the government had not warned about the risks... then I showed you they did. Then I showed the media did after you tried to shift the goal posts...

Again all here:
 

 

All right boy. Sit down and pay attention, you're getting scolded.

Now, i'm not going to claim you're the smartest person on this board.  But you are moderately intelligent. 

Around here we leave the lies, the  stupidity and the self delusion to the liberals. You are not a liberal (despite sounding a hell of a lot like one at the moment). 

 

I  made a simple and easy to verify statement, because of a newspaper article that came out that dayd.

DOn't bother with your continued lies that it's not true, i've already proven a dozen times over it is. That's no longer the issue. 

The issue is you immediately freaked out and started making STUPID Statements attempting to attack the idea. 

You made an insanely weak argument that an obscure gov't website post that DOWNPLAYS the risk somehow is proof they properly advised of the risk, then ignored other proofs that they FURTHER downplayed the risk. 

This is NOT rational. This is you losing your logic and reason and desperately trying to defend a position that you have fallen in love with, based on nothing more than "Muh Feels". 

That is NOT what conseratives do. We leave that kind of crap to the libearls and other lefties. 

Consequently you look like a complete retarded twat and we both know that this isn't the case.

It is not possible to credibly claim that the government substantially warned the people of Canada about the risk. That has already been proven and if you claim differently it's because your emotions are getting the better of you

You need to learn to control your emotions better before replying. This is the second time I've seen you make a week an indefensible argument based on your emotional response.

If the facts don't support your position once you look at them then you need to back your way and come at it from a different direction.

It is painfully obvious that you have some reason in your teeny tiny little mind that you don't want anyone speaking against the government policy of enforcing vaccinations on people and you want to pretend that everybody made the decisions fully informed of the risks.

I don't know why you want that, but it is simply not true. And if you need to lie to make your argument you don't have a very good argument. Conservatives pride ourselves on having good arguments.

 

So you should reevaluate what led you to that kind of poor Behavior. Never ever ever fall in love with a position, you should always be reflecting on its accuracy given the latest information available to you rather than allowing your emotions to dictate your stand

I've always thought of you as a good contributor, if somewhat young and still in need of experience, and I expect you to continue to grow and become stronger and stronger

Reflect on this and do better. This was just embarrassing.