Steerzing in a New Direction...

[MarcusAu]

I am 100% human and have always been. But I've long felt pretty fed up with the genetic hand I was dealt and wanted nothing to do with it in some kind of futurist/transhumanist fashion. Imagine having lifelong health issues, and your immune system enjoyed attacking your body more than infections. Probably you might start to wish you could replace the defective parts with something better engineered. I decided to make light of that and turned it into an Internet persona. Perhaps it was silly and difficult to relate to. Maybe the more fantastical aspects of the narrative were unwarranted. Nonetheless, it was not trolling.

Just after posting - I realised what a loaded question it was.

And then you brought up health issues in your reply.

All, in all you are probably not 100% human (depending on what is being referred to as 'you').

[John D]

Um... yeah... I support the truckers

[ROBOKiTTY]

Just after posting - I realised what a loaded question it was.

And then you brought up health issues in your reply.

All, in all you are probably not 100% human (depending on what is being referred to as 'you').

[Kurzgesacht video]

We all have mitochondria in us, and those still have distinct DNA, and there are those retroviruses that spawned this forum in the first place. And we could also be chimeras. There was also that transplant of a pig heart. On the Internet, nobody knows you have a pig heart. :fpig:

[Service Dog]

The 70 Joe Rogan episodes deleted by Spotify

include appearances by Gad Saad, Theo Von, and our friend Sargon of Akkad.


Sargon's appearance was in 2017, after Anita Sarkeesian called him a 'garbage human' from the stage, and claimed to be threatened by Sargon attending the same youtuber conference as her.


Theo Von is the one that bothers me. While Joe Rogan was groveling & fence-sitting, they shanked his sweetest, kindest friend.

[Service Dog]

don't leave me hanging

► Show Spoiler

Our Story So Far...

John D. said, "Now I am a fan of truck drivers instead of Sam Harris."

Kitty replied:

The vast majority of Canadian truck drivers are vaccinated. Keep that in mind before you idolize them.

John replied-- that he's double-vax'd & boosted. (& Matt explained that he is not an 'anti-vaxxer'/ listing several vaccines as examples.)

I added: "We aren't a cult. We are inclusive of differing choices, made freely. John D got vax'd, Matt didn't.
The line between anti-vax and anti-coercion is only blurred by the Regime."

Kitty replied:

You insist that being anti-coercion is not the same thing as being anti-vax, so why did two of you undermine the vaccines in the same breath?

Kitty also offered specific refutations to some of the Examples I offered— such Orwellian dictionary changes & medical claims I made.


SO… what I wanna know is… what are we arguing-about?

Namely, ROBOKiTTY, do you even DISPUTE the Premise— that

Trudeau & Biden & the Covid Orthodoxy Regime (Big Pharma, Big Tech, ‘mainstream’ newspapers & tv-news, etc.) — have inaccurately-characterized the opponents of coercion… using the generalization label: “anti-vaxxers”?

Or… do you CONCEDE the overall Premise, disputing-only specific Examples I provided (dictionary, medical) ?

Which do you object-to… ONLY the Examples? Or BOTH the Examples & also the Premise?

[ROBOKiTTY]

SO… what I wanna know is… what are we arguing-about?

Namely, ROBOKiTTY, do you even DISPUTE the Premise— that

Trudeau & Biden & the Covid Orthodoxy Regime (Big Pharma, Big Tech, ‘mainstream’ newspapers & tv-news, etc.) — have inaccurately-characterized the opponents of coercion… using the generalization label: “anti-vaxxers”?

Or… do you CONCEDE the overall Premise, disputing-only specific Examples I provided (dictionary, medical) ?

Which do you object-to… ONLY the Examples? Or BOTH the Examples & also the Premise?

I do dispute the premise. There is no clear separation between opposition to coercion and opposition to vaccination. You present a united front and weave between them in a way quite reminiscent of the motte-and-bailey strategy. Of the two positions, opposition to coercion is the more palatable and defensible position; however, opposition to vaccination is clearly present as well. Otherwise, why would you keep posting all these things undermining vaccines and suggesting that vaccines do more harm than good? If the two just blend into each other, there's not much point to maintaining a distinction.

There are people for whom a distinction exists. These are people who accept the consensus on vaccines and may indeed encourage everyone to get vaccinated but balk at mandates. Those people are not called antivaxxers unless they side with and fail to call out those for whom there is no clear distinction between opposition to coercion and opposition to vaccines.

You offer up a plethora of what I contend is misinformation to emphasize the unreliability of vaccines in order to make the point that they don't offer enough of a benefit to the public good for the state to mandate vaccination for various public functions for which vaccination requirements have historically existed. At the same time, I submit that you also overstate the extent of the coercion, as I pointed out before that you are free to stay unvaccinated if you give up access to said public functions or find alternatives. Indeed, the case for vaccine mandates would be much weaker if the freedom crowd didn't fight earlier recommendations to mask and social distance tooth and nail.

And here's a point I hope to make: this was never really about vaccines or freedom but about the culture war and taking sides. As I said before, vaccines were off most people's radar prior to COVID. Very few people spoke up against routine vaccinations. Most people didn't take the flu shot, but there was also very little activity opposing them or mandates in certain settings, e.g. healthcare. Indeed, people who opposed mandatory vaccines before COVID were rarely politically united.

But then COVID arrived, and Democratic strongholds like New York and California were the first to be hard hit, and so Democrats started focusing on public health measures, like masking and social distancing. But even when these were nonmandatory advisories, people on the right fought them, almost as if any idea that was seen to have come from that side of the political aisle must be resisted. Trump's personal beliefs about vaccines came to dominate the right, even though they used to be largely apathetic about vaccines.

The antivaxxer demographic that existed before COVID was often stereotyped as being on the left -- alt-health types that are into crystals and reiki and yoga. Today, these people have notably flipped to the right -- the shaman at the capitol was one of these alt-health people.

[Keating]

Eh, for this vaccine I'd say it makes sense for everyone over 50 to get it unless they have exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, no one under 25 should get it unless they have exceptional circumstances. For everyone in the middle it should depend on their personal circumstances. That's what the age breakdown risk suggests to me.

[Keating]

That said, as this was obviously always going to be more like influenza, I see this being adapted to the current variant and being part of the annual flu shot. But, like the flu shoot, I see no reason to make it mandatory.

I opposed and continue to oppose most of the non-pharmaceutical interventions because they violate negative rights, which are axiomatically innate and inalienable.

The QR code tracking on privacy grounds, but there's just been an NSW report saying that they didn't provide much benefit and most contact tracers thought it made their job more difficult.

Stay at home orders on freedom of association and movement grounds, but there's just been that John Hopkins report on lockdowns going around, and, of course, even the World Health Organisation was saying that lockdowns weren't recommended as late as 2019. In my more conspiratorial moments, I think this only happened because of China. China definitely worked hard in early 2020 to spread fear. They were definitely behind all the social media posts of videos of people collapsing dead which never happened outside of China. That can't have been anything other than a CCP psyop, but it certainly worked in China showing that there was nothing left in the moral grandstanding of the West on human rights.

Masks on bodily autonomy grounds - I don't see how you could argue against mandatory Burkas if you support mandatory masking, and other than the 2020 Danish study and the 2021 Bangladesh studies, there really hasn't been any good randomised control studies into their effectiveness. If there's a signal there, it's very weak. Not to mention I object to the hypocrisy of a government that won't let me use a plastic straw, but is totally fine with over 1 billion disposable masks ending up in the ocean.

I have no problems with the government making recommendations, and if you didn't alter your behaviour to be more careful, you're a fuckhead, but I am not a ward of the state and must be able to make my own risk assessments. For example, my father had a brain aneurism diagnosed early in 2020, but couldn't get it treated for over 6 months due to government actions. While he was lucky and it didn't come to it, if he'd been hospitalised, no force on earth would have prevented me being at his side.

I shouldn't have to say what I think of quarantine camps. Jesus Christ.

What I think what we mostly got was a class war. The fears of the well off laptop class were amplified and pandered to and they were subsidised, while "essential" workers had no change in their job description for no additional pay. Rather than the complete fuck up of hotel quarantine, and that lockdowns meant that most transmission then occurred in the home, it would have been better to do something like hotel vouchers so that if you were exposed and didn't have a large house, you could stay in a hotel to avoid possibly infecting the rest of your family. Given that we knew early on obesity was, after age, the largest risk factor, subsidising outdoor group exercise, which would always be low risk, or doing outreach on improving diets (something like meal prep courses) would have been a far better way to spend the year shutting the borders bought Australia rather than pissing it away. I know a guy who works in aged care facilities. The pay is so shit, he works three jobs to make ends meet. Given how aged care facilities were always going to be the biggest problem, the government could have subsidised aged care workers with the string that they only worked one job and didn't socialise as much.

[Keating]

Dr Robert Malone is clearly a quack, and I don't think there is much signal in ivermectin, although the campaign against it is troubling in and of itself. Vitamin D seems far more important, and, of course, my local government arrested people for exercising outdoors away from other people because they would have spent longer than 1 hour outside.

[ROBOKiTTY]

Eh, for this vaccine I'd say it makes sense for everyone over 50 to get it unless they have exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, no one under 25 should get it unless they have exceptional circumstances. For everyone in the middle it should depend on their personal circumstances. That's what the age breakdown risk suggests to me.

This treats vaccines as a phylactic alone, but the flip side is that vaccines in general are also meant to reduce infectivity. There isn't enough data to say on omicron, but we have no reason to dismiss the role the vaccines likely play in controlling spread.

I opposed and continue to oppose most of the non-pharmaceutical interventions because they violate negative rights, which are axiomatically innate and inalienable.

Is the right to not be infected not also a negative right? This corresponds to a negative obligation to minimize one's infectivity. That obligation places ethical restraints on how far your freedoms of association and movement go. I'm not arguing for taking away bodily autonomy; I'm saying that if one decides not to vaccinate, one has an ethical obligation to make a reasonable effort to reduce infectivity in other ways, e.g. by limiting one's chance of getting infected in the first place.

Infectivity is like an externality. It's traditionally assumed that the environment or society can just endlessly absorb externalities, but that's not the case. Even though the cost is dilute and small on an individual scale, it is still a cost that adds up and must ethically be borne by the responsible party.

Masks on bodily autonomy grounds - I don't see how you could argue against mandatory Burkas if you support mandatory masking, and other than the 2020 Danish study and the 2021 Bangladesh studies, there really hasn't been any good randomised control studies into their effectiveness. If there's a signal there, it's very weak.

Mandatory masking is typically only for public indoor spaces with multiple people from different households. The scope of mandatory masking is limited. When the pandemic ends, the case for mandatory masking evaporates. The state has no business policing people's modesty, but the state is expected to act for the benefit of public health. There is no reason other than public health for the state to force people to wear masks. Masks also don't single out a demographic like burqas.

Ethical reasons are why we cannot have randomized control studies on the efficacy of masks on reducing infectivity. We do have indirect evidence and understand mechanisms through which they can curb spread, e.g. by reducing the range of aerosols and filtering droplets of relevant sizes -- for which we have observational evidence.

I have no problems with the government making recommendations, and if you didn't alter your behaviour to be more careful, you're a fuckhead, but I am not a ward of the state and must be able to make my own risk assessments. For example, my father had a brain aneurism diagnosed early in 2020, but couldn't get it treated for over 6 months due to government actions. While he was lucky and it didn't come to it, if he'd been hospitalised, no force on earth would have prevented me being at his side.

But you can't make risk assessments for other people you run into as part of accessing public functions. They count on you to have made a reasonable attempt at fulfilling your obligation of minimizing your infectivity.

For that matter, how much does the risk apply to yourself alone? If you're unlucky and get very sick, are you going to bear the consequence alone, or are you going to go to the hospital and take up a bed? Judging by the proportion of unvaccinated people overwhelming healthcare systems in North America, it seems that risk didn't end with the risk takers alone. And that hurts people who can't get non-COVID-related conditions treated.

We live in a society. No man is an island. I sure wish people would just voluntarily do what is best for society, but since they won't, they're making the case for state actors to intervene.

What I think what we mostly got was a class war. The fears of the well off laptop class were amplified and pandered to and they were subsidised, while "essential" workers had no change in their job description for no additional pay.

But it's not a class war. It's not like vaccine mandates etc are supported by a majority of the upper class and opposed by a majority of the working class. The working class keeps fighting each other. Governments are still in bed with the corpos making record profits.

[John D]

Yeah Keating. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.

[Service Dog]

Dr Robert Malone is clearly a quack, and I don't think there is much signal in ivermectin, although the campaign against it is troubling in and of itself.

Yeah Keating. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.

In particular, regarding Ivermectin, you've expressed a healthy skepticism ever-since the 1st time you mentioned it here:
https://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 99#p504899

Likewise, my opinion of Dr. Malone.
https://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 16#p505516

https://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 71#p507471

[Service Dog]

There is no clear separation between opposition to coercion and opposition to vaccination.

alt-health types that are into crystals and reiki and yoga. Today, these people have notably flipped to the right -- the shaman at the capitol was one of these alt-health people.

You are poisonous.

You are literally arguing that-- because the QAnon Shaman is a Trump-supporter... Every Trump Supporter Is Effectively The QAnon Shaman.

*The same poison-by-conflation is being-used to justify the FBI targeting half of US voters as-- the #1 "domestic terror threat".
*The poison was used to censor peer-to-peer communication among friends & family-members, pre-election-- such as the block on texting the link to the Hunter Biden laptop news-article.
*The poison is used to portray Trump as an "insurrectionist" because the US Constitution says "insurrection" makes one ineligible to run for President. (which would eliminate the #1 frontrunner candidate in 2024... ahead of the incumbent, according to current polling.)
*The poison justified a new state-police agency being-created-- answerable-only to Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi-- as the Capitol Police were expanded to have branch-offices in all 50 states. To fight-off all the Shamans!
*The poison was used to suspend equal-justice, so the Capitol Police cop who shot Ashli Babbitt-- was never investigated or charged, except by his own accomplices.
I could go on&on.

*In Canada, I saw politician call-for all the name of every Freedom Convoy gofundme donor to-be revealed-- because 'we need to know who the Nazis are'.

You present a united front and weave between them in a way quite reminiscent of the motte-and-bailey strategy.
....
Otherwise, why would you keep posting all these things undermining vaccines and suggesting that vaccines do more harm than good? If the two just blend into each other, there's not much point to maintaining a distinction.

Why would I post these things undermining vaccines? I was DIRECTLY responding to YOU. You raised these issues/ then fault me for replying.

YOU said that "4 years ago" all these restrictions & coercions were "uncontroversial" :doh: but "now suddenly it's tyranny" "in the midst of a pandemic".

I replied by showing Orwellian changes in definitions of medical terms, within the last 4 years. Your poisonous newspeak neologism Everybody-I-don't-Like-Is-An-Anti-Vaxxer proves I was correct.

I also replied... by explaining-why it's a bad idea to mass-vax 'in the midst of a pandemic'.
(On most Big Tech platforms-- my response would be censored & I would be banned. A crucial discussion would be torpedoed.)

"Motte-and-bailey" ?? John D. said he supports the truckers. It Suited You At-The-Time to draw a distinction between the mostly-vax'd truckers vs. John (because you guessed-wrong that he was un-vax'd).

When that gambit fell-apart-- that you tried to retreat from your kitty-on-a-tree-limb motte-- to your Regime-Approved Conspiracy Theory bailey...

that we're ALL a bunch of hyp-mo-tized "radicalized" cultists, enthralled-by Trump, ever-since "Trump's personal beliefs about vaccines came to dominate the right" :clap:

HAW! Trump was Captain Kirk on Operation Warp Speed. Trump was VAX->YES/ LOCKDOWNS&MANDATES->NO. And he remains adamantly pro-vax... despite the WIDESPREAD skepticism among his supporters. What color is your fur, kitty? Red? https://twitter.com/ElAmerican_/status/ ... 9499507713

[Service Dog]

.

2022:

School Superintendent describes the policy of masking 2-years at the same-time they're being potty-trained,
so masks will be normalized for them, forever after:


2022:
Masked Kindergarten students trained to chant "Black Lives Matter" & march with signs:

[Steersman]

Imagine having lifelong health issues, and your immune system enjoyed attacking your body more than infections.

Now imagine the government injects that into kids.

Their fresh little immune systems, ready to fight future disease challenges/ instead are trained-by-injection to devote bandwidth, forever-after, to fighting a specific strain of a specific disease, which ran its course 2 years ago, and never-even threatened children.

:roll: No doubt there's reason to question apparently overly draconian mask and lock-down policies but your "band width" and "never-even threatened" is so much errant nonsense - don't give up your day job to hang out a shingle as a biologist or epidemiologist, or even as a knowledgeable amateur. Consider:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/119 ... by-age-us/

And those are just the deaths - probably much higher for hospitalizations and long term effects.

One might wonder whether Lusoma (? sp) would be justified in restricting your ability to post given the massive amounts of false information that you're peddling.

[Steersman]

Dr Robert Malone is clearly a quack, and I don't think there is much signal in ivermectin, although the campaign against it is troubling in and of itself. Vitamin D seems far more important, and, of course, my local government arrested people for exercising outdoors away from other people because they would have spent longer than 1 hour outside.

As I've posted before, ivermectin does seem to have some anti-viral effects through two apparently quite different mechanisms.

The problem is that those effects aren't all that significant at any blood concentration levels much below the level of toxicity.

May have some slight benefits at normal levels used for deworming but moot whether there's much justification for its use.

Part of the problem is that too many are saying that it's a panacea or that it's entirely useless. As with so many issues, the "truth" is more often found somewhere in the middle.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

There is no clear separation between opposition to coercion and opposition to vaccination. You present a united front and weave between them in a way quite reminiscent of the motte-and-bailey strategy. Of the two positions, opposition to coercion is the more palatable and defensible position; however, opposition to vaccination is clearly present as well. Otherwise, why would you keep posting all these things undermining vaccines and suggesting that vaccines do more harm than good? If the two just blend into each other, there's not much point to maintaining a distinction.

Nonsense. I fully support a parent getting their child vaxxed vs. common contagions with serious risk of affecting children. And I think it's ignorant not to out of fear of causing autism or mercury poisoning or inchoate 'toxins.' But I also don't believe vaxxes should be mandatory for public school attendance. The arguments for its necessity are specious.

The rona jab is not a vaccine, but rather an experimental gene therapy. And there's a reason they've been experimenting with mRNA therapies for 30 years and never got it to work. So stop clumping this pseudo-vaccine with all other proven vaccines.

The evidence is steadily mounting that the jab isn't very effective, doesn't last very long, and comes with 100x the number of serious side effects, including sudden death, than any previous vax. As Dog notes, it also permanently compromises your immune system's future capability. I still believed the jab was indicated for at-risk individuals -- the elderly, the immune-compromised, the morbidly obese -- and urged such friends and family to get it. (Although with omicron, that no longer obtains in most instances.)

The rona jab is contraindicated for any young, healthy individual, most especially children, due to the near-nonexistent risk of the virus vs. the huge risk of adverse side effects from the jab. For me personally, the low risk, the fact that I most likely was exposed and so have natural immunity, coupled with my susceptibility to anaphylaxis -- one of the most common side effects -- strongly contraindicates the jab for me. Which is why if anyone tries to forcibly jab me, I will shoot them.

All now admit that the jab does not prevent one from spreading the virus. A growing body of evidence suggests the jab actually increases spread. Therefore, the argument, that everyone, including those with natural immunity, must be subjected to compulsory jabbing or, as Joe Biden so eloquently put it, "to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated", is a non-starter.

[T]he case for vaccine mandates would be much weaker if the freedom crowd didn't fight earlier recommendations to mask and social distance tooth and nail.

Neither of those worked, either, and made no medical sense in the first place. Insisting upon them now, after two years of their abject failure, is pure theatrics/cultish behavior.

this was never really about vaccines or freedom but about the culture war and taking sides.

You're partly right about that, but not in the way you think.

[John D]

Youall can chat with Steers and Kitty if you want. I prefer to masturbate to videos of naked women.

[Service Dog]

[Service Dog]

[Keating]

This treats vaccines as a phylactic alone, but the flip side is that vaccines in general are also meant to reduce infectivity. There isn't enough data to say on omicron, but we have no reason to dismiss the role the vaccines likely play in controlling spread.

Our priors for a vaccine for a respiratory transmitted virus is that it would be non-sterilising because there has never been a vaccine for the common cold, and the flu vaccine is so shit. And wow, that's just what we saw. Maybe if the trials hadn't been shut down early because it was an emergency, that'd have been obvious earlier, but then there'd be less money to be made with the current edition of Tamiflu.

Is the right to not be infected not also a negative right?

No. Mosquitos transmit disease and children are born with cancer. There is no right to not get sick. There is also no moral weight to catching a respiratory virus. We are social apes that require close contact with each other to remain sane. This is why reparatory viruses are so successful in humans. Do I think we are too cavalier about respiratory viruses before? Sure. My boss would come into work, heavily sick with a cold or flu, and go around hugging people to keep connected with staff. I don't, and didn't, think that was a good idea. My work contract also requires a doctor's note for taking more than 1 day off work sick. For something like a cold or flu, that doesn't make sense either, when there's literally nothing a doctor can do other than tell you to rest and drink plenty of fluids, so what is the point in potentially exposing the doctor?

Mandatory masking is typically only for public indoor spaces with multiple people from different households.

That's not the point. My position is freedom trumps this, but even granting that this is something in the government's remit, if the government is going to require clothing of a particular kind, they better have damn good evidence that it works. They don't. A literature review of mask efficacy from pre-2020 showed little effect outside specific circumstances, which is why they weren't recommended early on. What they do do, however, is satisfy the Yes, Minister joke: "[P]oliticians logic: Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it." Governments have a terrible need to be seen to be doing something, even if that action is useless or counter-productive.

Ethical reasons are why we cannot have randomized control studies on the efficacy of masks on reducing infectivity.

That's bullshit. This isn't a zero-cost exercise, which means you have to be able to prove its effect. Science is also shit at finding weak signals. That's why there is a replication crisis, where in some fields the majority of published studies can't be replicated. As it's become politicised, that also drives the science. I've been through this shit before when I did work on adding an adult content video game category and the dismal science around the media effects model. Not to mention, the Danish study I referred to was powered to find a 50% reduction in infection for mask use and couldn't prove that. The Bangladesh study found that red masks were more effective than purple masks. The effect sizes we're talking about are clearly tiny. There is good evidence for masking in very specific circumstances: when you are going to be in a confined space for a short period of time when either you or someone in the space is likely infectious, and you will be disposing of the mask and washing thoroughly after leaving the space. That isn't the conditions in a supermarket.

We live in a society. No man is an island. I sure wish people would just voluntarily do what is best for society, but since they won't, they're making the case for state actors to intervene.

No, that's exactly the point. This virus isn't the only aspect to life. For the vast majority of people, it won't even break the top 10 of the riskiest things they'll encounter on any a given day. How much life are you willing to steal from a 20 year old so that a bed ridden 90 year old can have another few months? Shouldn't a 70 year old be able to choose if they want to risk their life to spend time with their first grandchild? That time is never going to come again, and I know plenty who would gladly take that risk. Focusing on this virus to the exclusion of all other factors is destroying society to "save it".

But it's not a class war.

But I'm not, and never was, just talking about the vaccine. The entirety of government response primarily benefit the middle and upper classes, while further taking from the less well off. That was my claim.

[ROBOKiTTY]

You are literally arguing that-- because the QAnon Shaman is a Trump-supporter... Every Trump Supporter Is Effectively The QAnon Shaman.

I made no such argument. Don't put words in my mouth. The point of bringing him up was to show that his demographic -- once associated with the left -- has now flipped to the right as part of the culture war. Why would I argue that all Trump supporters are organic food enthusiasts and alt health gurus?

Why would I post these things undermining vaccines? I was DIRECTLY responding to YOU. You raised these issues/ then fault me for replying.

The case remains that you claim a meaningful distinction exists between oppositon to coercion and opposition to vaccines, and yet make posts critical of vaccines per se nonstop. You've been doing that without me well enough.

"Motte-and-bailey" ?? John D. said he supports the truckers. It Suited You At-The-Time to draw a distinction between the mostly-vax'd truckers vs. John (because you guessed-wrong that he was un-vax'd).

I did not guess he was unvaxxed. Show me where I made that guess.

I pointed out that people present at the convoy are not all truckers, nor are they broadly representative of truckers in general. There is 28% support amongst Canadian truckers for the cause. More of them disagree with you than agree, so cheering them on as a demographic makes little sense.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

This treats vaccines as a phylactic alone, but the flip side is that vaccines in general are also meant to reduce infectivity. There isn't enough data to say on omicron, but we have no reason to dismiss the role the vaccines likely play in controlling spread.

The jab doesn't reduce spread.

if one decides not to vaccinate, one has an ethical obligation to make a reasonable effort to reduce infectivity in other ways, e.g. by limiting one's chance of getting infected in the first place.

Getting infected, thus developing natural immunity, prevents you from spreading it in future.

the state is expected to act for the benefit of public health. There is no reason other than public health for the state to force people to wear masks.\

Masks don't work. They never did, as was well-documented before the rona. That our oligarchs keep getting caught not wearing masks, proves its about subjugation, not health.

Ethical reasons are why we cannot have randomized control studies on the efficacy of masks on reducing infectivity.

15 RCTs prior to the rona, you ignorant slut.

We do have indirect evidence and understand mechanisms through which they can curb spread, e.g. by reducing the range of aerosols and filtering droplets of relevant sizes -- for which we have observational evidence.

Show us where mask mandates worked in practice:
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com

We live in a society. No man is an island. I sure wish people would just voluntarily do what is best for society, but since they won't, they're making the case for state actors to intervene.

sic semper tyrannis.

But it's not a class war. It's not like vaccine mandates etc are supported by a majority of the upper class and opposed by a majority of the working class.

They most definitely are. Democrats, who are increasingly comprised of metropolitan elite, were surveyed:

-55% support fines against unvaxxed
-59% support house arrest
-48% support prison for questioning vax efficacy on social media
-45% support internment camps
-47% support surveillance
-29% support the state taking their kids

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The case remains that you claim a meaningful distinction exists between oppositon to coercion and opposition to vaccines, and yet make posts critical of vaccines per se nonstop.

Show where Service Dog has been critical of vaccines, plural, as opposed to the mRNA therapeutic in particular. Else retract the accusation.

[ROBOKiTTY]

The case remains that you claim a meaningful distinction exists between oppositon to coercion and opposition to vaccines, and yet make posts critical of vaccines per se nonstop.

Show where Service Dog has been critical of vaccines, plural, as opposed to the mRNA therapeutic in particular. Else retract the accusation.

This conversation has been about COVID from the start. There are many COVID vaccines. Of mRNA vaccines, there are two. You treat the mRNA vaccines as a singular thing and contend they are not vaccines. That view is not reflected in the scientific literature, so they remain vaccines, plural.

But I will disavow any implication that he was critical of vaccines in general as opposed to COVID vaccines specifically during this conversation thus far.

[ROBOKiTTY]

The entirety of government response primarily benefit the middle and upper classes, while further taking from the less well off. That was my claim.

This we can agree on.

[Service Dog]

Service Dog wrote:
"You are literally arguing that-- because the QAnon Shaman is a Trump-supporter... Every Trump Supporter Is Effectively The QAnon Shaman."

ROBOKiTTY wrote:
I made no such argument. Don't put words in my mouth.

ROBOKiTTY wrote:
I'm just extrapolating

ROBOKiTTY wrote:
If the two just blend into each other, there's not much point to maintaining a distinction.

ROBOKiTTY wrote:
There are people for whom a distinction exists. ...unless they side with and fail to call out those for whom there is no clear distinction

ROBOKiTTY wrote:
this was ... about the culture war and taking sides.

As I was reading your MANICHEAN aplogia-- for blurring the line between anti-coercive-mandates vs. anti-vaxxers --

I was reminded of those who sought-to smear all Trump voters as 'racist' and (later) as 'QAnon supporters'. Guilt by association.

(I never voted for Trump, and I posted-here denunciations of QAnon, by Robert Barnes. But the trump-haters on the pit used the QAnon smear against me.)

To me, the association was merely figurative. But you blurred-the-line even-further.

By the end of the post, you explicitly invoked the 'QAnon' shaman... you associated whatever woo-beliefs he might hold... with ALL who oppose coercive vax mandates. You even dressed-it-up in the guise of science.

and

then

When I replied to you

SUDDENLY

You re-discover the importance of Fine Distinctions. You object-to me Conflating... Your Words in one instance/ with Your Words... further-down in the same post. Boo hoo hoo fuckin' hoo. Poor poor you.

I see why John & Matt call you 'troll'. You're not shattering that label, today.

John's correct to judge... that the effort of engaging with-you doesn't meet his threshold of reward. By that standard, it doesn't-matter if your fighting-dirty style of argumentation is intentional-trolling/ or an unintentional side-effect of your personality (in other words, you genuinely don't see the obvious self-contradictions in your thinking.)

But that's John's standard & not-mine. Observing your undisciplined, internally-contradictory arguments... 'keeps me honest' against letting-myself weave tangled-webs, like yours.

That may not sound like I'm sympathizing, but I am. I buy that you aren't -intentionally- disingenuous, in your posts. But, to me, your faults sound like those of a real person. These are the tentative conclusions you've reached. I think you took-a-wrong turn quite-a-ways back, tho.

And you thought-your-way into believing Mein Kampf shit like this:

"Infectivity is like an externality. It's traditionally assumed that the environment or society can just endlessly absorb externalities, but that's not the case. Even though the cost is dilute and small on an individual scale, it is still a cost that adds up and must ethically be borne by the responsible party."

You're far from alone in this. US Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor: "Why is a human not like a machine when it is spewing bloodborne [sic] viruses?"

also-- Poland, 1941:

Jews Lice / Typhus Speckles

[Service Dog]

We do have indirect evidence and understand mechanisms through which they can curb spread, e.g. by reducing the range of aerosols and filtering droplets of relevant sizes -- for which we have observational evidence.

Seven sentences later...

We live in a society. No man is an island.

Well, fuck. Then I guess the effectiveness of masks & mandatory business closures & 'remote learning' & travel restrictions & intrusive vax passports & denying transplants to the unvax'd... should be balanced against the overall effect on society. We can't just throw a mask on any man, trying to isolate them like an island. That would be folly!

[another lurker]

Or should I call you Lurkio?

Thanks Lsuma you are a sweetie ;)

[Service Dog]

Show where Service Dog has been critical of vaccines, plural, as opposed to the mRNA therapeutic in particular. Else retract the accusation.

Some of my arguments apply to both. Such as the traditional-vaccine for Marek's disease in chickens backfiring. And the counterproductivity of attempting to vaccinate a population -during- a pandemic.

But (and-- I know you already know this, Matt).. those are mainstream epidemiologists' concerns, not fringe 'anti-vaxxer' talking points.

Another example, 30 days ago, I posted this, published in August 2020:

Title: "Children’s Immune Systems Differ From Adults. Here’s What That Could Mean for COVID-19
Children’s innate immune responses might be behind their milder COVID-19 infections."

Citing Sallie Permar, a viral immunologist at Duke University:

"...once a baby is born, its immune system must rapidly respond to a world teeming with viruses and bacteria ready to infect their newest host. So how do babies’ and children’s developing immune systems differ from adults’? And can these biological differences explain why they seem to fare better against COVID-19 than adults, or how much they spread it to others?

....

Our immune systems are made up of innate responses, which we’re born with, and adaptive responses, which come from built-up exposure to past pathogens. As part of that innate response, babies are equipped with millions of newly-generated immune warriors called T cells. The cells each recognize a different pathogen and help build up our burgeoning immune system. But these numbers start to wane tremendously during childhood.
“By the time you’re a teenager or young adult, you really aren't pumping out that many new T cells anymore, and by the time you’re forty, you have hardly any,” says Donna Farber, an immunologist at Columbia University. “So, what [adults] are relying on is all of these memory responses that you generated during your childhood.”
Farber explains that the goal of the developing immune system is twofold. First, generate a robust innate response to all new infections. (This is especially crucial during our most vulnerable early years.) Second, create memories — in the form of memory cells — for all of the pathogens in your environment so you can be protected against them in the future. If your environment doesn’t change much throughout your life, Farber says, by adulthood, you should be perfectly adapted to remain healthy against most toxins.
But Farber also notes this trade-off between our innate and adaptive responses might be putting adults at a disadvantage with the novel coronavirus. Neither children nor adults had memory T cells for COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic, since no one had been exposed to the virus yet. But because adults also have fewer amounts of naive T cells, Farber says it takes a longer time for their innate immune system to respond. This gets even worse for older adults, as they aren’t able to efficiently clear the infection and continue to accrue damage, she adds.
For kids, Farber says COVID-19 may not be as big of a deal because humans are already exposed to the most infectious diseases during childhood, so it’s not that abnormal to face another one. Thus, their innate immune response is likely better prepared to mount a quick response."

https://archive.fo/v5ok7#selection-399.0-423.278

[another lurker]

I lost the love of my life
My soulmate
This is one big reason that I oppose forced vaccine mandates
People are losing their loved ones - their husbands, their chidren, all so some pussy ass PMC can feel safe
All so Klaus Schwab and his WEF fucktards can get their digital id's implemented

FUCK THAT

[another lurker]

The case remains that you claim a meaningful distinction exists between oppositon to coercion and opposition to vaccines, and yet make posts critical of vaccines per se nonstop.

they are not vaccines they are therapeutics
Show where Service Dog has been critical of vaccines, plural, as opposed to the mRNA therapeutic in particular. Else retract the accusation.

This conversation has been about COVID from the start. There are many COVID vaccines. Of mRNA vaccines, there are two. You treat the mRNA vaccines as a singular thing and contend they are not vaccines. That view is not reflected in the scientific literature, so they remain vaccines, plural.

But I will disavow any implication that he was critical of vaccines in general as opposed to COVID vaccines specifically during this conversation thus far.

[Service Dog]

sic semper tyrannis.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... -nigga.jpg

[another lurker]

btw guys
I pick on Steers a lot
but he is one of my fave peeps
i guess you could say he 'steelmans' everything
bc he is a born troll
Steers is actually pretty based
he just fucks with everyone on such a level that he's untouchable
Steers is a King!

(matt will always be my first love tho)

oh yeah Steeers, your fave lady, Maggie McnNeil, the hoest courtesan, she kinda loses credibilibty bc she is far too vulgaar. A bit of vulgarity is ok but she takes it way too far. I had to stop following her on twitter bc of that@

[Service Dog]

You can do better, hon.


5 pages ago, John D. described his quaint former notion-- that atheist groups existed to show the world that their members are 'normal' 'just like everyone else', maybe get an atheist elected to public office, to show they're not alien freaks. But then John discovered the atheist groups were replete with abnormal alien freaks. "Arrogant communist perverts" was the term he used. Horse's reply was colorful-enough to quote: "'atheists are just ordinary folks, too' ... 'except we're swingers. And we're not trying to convert, but we're better than you, because we've evolved past that primitive emotion, jealousy, to a state where we're happy when other guys fuck our women.'"
Alrighty then. I'll be sure to vote for you as PTA chair, neighbor."

That cracked me up. Because of January's marathon fafnir vs. the-one-handed-steerzman debate... over whether ex-pornstars are suitable as schoolmarms.

And... 7 pages back... we were talking about whether Biden would nominate Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court. And I mentioned that Kamala's first 2 political-patronage appointments came courtesy of San Fran Mayor Willie Brown-- the married man dick whose she was sucking, at the time.

But I made the mistake of using the Summoning-word: "whore"

and

Oh Yeaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!! :character-koolaid: Drink-the-Kool-Aid,Maaaan-Man came bursting thru the wall on-cue. To defend the honor of whores everywhere. His same-old-same-old broken record spinning... about What's So Wrong With Being A Whore, anyway?!!!

Nevermind that-- in this specific instance-- the whore in question accepted public positions of political power as payment. Details like that can't stop HIs Royal Obliviousness. And what's wrong with sucking-dick to corrupt public office, anyway? Since dick-sucking something decent wives & husbands engage-in? IPSO FACTO DOODILY DO!

https://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... re#p508043

By my count, the other-3 whore'smen of the ponyplay Atheipockylips are... PZ, Dillahunty, Carrier... but our thirsty-boatsman is just-as unpalatable and retarded as the rest of the stable.... certainly unsuitable as a public mascot, to bear any flag.


(The world isn't perfect. The perfect world is in another multiverse, where Steershroid transacts business with Elyce the Buttblast.)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Since dick-sucking something decent wives & husbands engage-in?

Wives, if your husband is sucking dick, you all should probably see a marriage counselor.

[John D]

Yeah. wow. Stranger in a strange land.

Sorry for your loss lurker. Really. I am. I didn't comment when you first told your story. I guess I don't think I have anything to write except the usual. So... I hope you do the best you can. I have not had such a dramatic and sudden loss as you describe. I can just sympathize that you must be suffering.

Went to Meijer today and found strip steak for $7.50.. Not bad! My wife and I had strip steak for dinner. Very nice. 3/4 of the people shopping had masks on... most of them just paper. I wanted to yell... "Hey... you fucking idiots... paper masks don't do anything!" But, well... fuck em. I guess I don't really care and they don't want to hear from me anyway. I went mask free in the store and I whistled to the songs playing on the store speakers.... "Those were such happy days, and not so long ago, all the songs I knew so well.... every la la la la.... every woh o who o..."

Rocky the squirrel is still getting at my black sunflower seed... but he/she deserves it. This is still the only squirrel that has figured out how to get to my seed. Well done rodent! Well done!

Been painting more Chinese from the 1880s for the new game I am playing. Dracula's America. Master Po, Little Pete, Cookie, The Cloud, Black Snake. This has prompted me to watch lots of old western movies. They are terrible movies... just like the movies they make now.

I don't find that my interaction with Steers and Kitty add any value to my life. I learn nothing from them since they engage in dialog in an insincere way. They do not search for truth... they just search for shit to fight about. No value to me. I also don't think I can add any value to their lives. They do not listen to me with genuine interest. So... yeah. whatever.

Have fun!

[Service Dog]

Since dick-sucking something decent wives & husbands engage-in?

Wives, if your husband is sucking dick, you all should probably see a marriage counselor.

In fairness, Steers didn't say 'husbands'. He did say: “dick-sucking”? The latter being somewhat “problematic”, given that that seems to be part and parcel of most relationships between many guys ... "

[Service Dog]

electric bill doubled from December to January

the juice tripled from 6cents/kWh to 17cents/kWh

no warning or explanation on the bill. you gotta compare-to last month's paper bill & look-for the tiny kWh rate.

Natural gas is up, too. Con Edison utility blames 'supply issues'.

ConEd is lobbying to raise electricity another 11% next year... and gas 18% !!! "to fund investments in clean energy and infrastructure"

[ROBOKiTTY]

I see why John & Matt call you 'troll'. You're not shattering that label, today.

John's correct to judge... that the effort of engaging with-you doesn't meet his threshold of reward. By that standard, it doesn't-matter if your fighting-dirty style of argumentation is intentional-trolling/ or an unintentional side-effect of your personality (in other words, you genuinely don't see the obvious self-contradictions in your thinking.)

But that's John's standard & not-mine. Observing your undisciplined, internally-contradictory arguments... 'keeps me honest' against letting-myself weave tangled-webs, like yours.

That may not sound like I'm sympathizing, but I am. I buy that you aren't -intentionally- disingenuous, in your posts. But, to me, your faults sound like those of a real person. These are the tentative conclusions you've reached. I think you took-a-wrong turn quite-a-ways back, tho.

I appreciate the charitable interpretation, at least.

[Bhurzum]

I don't find that my interaction with Steers and Kitty add any value to my life. I learn nothing from them since they engage in dialog in an insincere way. They do not search for truth... they just search for shit to fight about. No value to me. I also don't think I can add any value to their lives. They do not listen to me with genuine interest. So... yeah. whatever.

Heh...sounds chillingly similar to Bateman's closing monologue:



(I'd love to see your business card!)

[Steersman]

btw guys
I pick on Steers a lot
but he is one of my fave peeps
i guess you could say he 'steelmans' everything
bc he is a born troll
Steers is actually pretty based
he just fucks with everyone on such a level that he's untouchable
Steers is a King!

Thanks - I think .. ;)

(matt will always be my first love tho)

Dang! ;)

oh yeah Steeers, your fave lady, Maggie McnNeil, the hoest courtesan, she kinda loses credibilibty bc she is far too vulgaar. A bit of vulgarity is ok but she takes it way too far. I had to stop following her on twitter bc of that@

Having been suspended from Twitter - twice, it's been awhile since I followed much of what she's been saying. Though don't recollect it being all that salty.

But you might be interested in another similar source:

https://mobile.twitter.com/whoresofyore

[Steersman]

Yeah. wow. Stranger in a strange land.

<snip>

I don't find that my interaction with Steers and Kitty add any value to my life. I learn nothing from them since they engage in dialog in an insincere way. They do not search for truth... they just search for shit to fight about. No value to me. I also don't think I can add any value to their lives. They do not listen to me with genuine interest. So... yeah. whatever.

Have fun!

And your evidence for that "insincere way" is what? 🤔🙄

Methinks the problem is in the eye of the beholder, that you really don't like to have your biases and "unexamined assumptions" challenged.

Though to be fair, there's a lot of that going round these days ...

[Steersman]

Since dick-sucking something decent wives & husbands engage-in?

Wives, if your husband is sucking dick, you all should probably see a marriage counselor.

In fairness, Steers didn't say 'husbands'. He did say: “dick-sucking”? The latter being somewhat “problematic”, given that that seems to be part and parcel of most relationships between many guys ... "

Glad to see that you at least know of the concept of fairness, even if your application of it is spotty at best. Any plans afoot to acknowledge that AP didn't say what you had said they did? ... 🤔🙄

More importantly, even the post of mine you had linked to was hardly condoning Harris' supposed dick sucking. I had said that your comparison of her to whores was unfair to the latter as they tended to be more honest about many things, their stocks in trade in particular:

https://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p508043

A distinction, of many, that seems to escape your grasp. Probably because you so often have your thumbs to the elbows on the scales.

[Steersman]

This treats vaccines as a phylactic alone, but the flip side is that vaccines in general are also meant to reduce infectivity. There isn't enough data to say on omicron, but we have no reason to dismiss the role the vaccines likely play in controlling spread.

The jab doesn't reduce spread.

Your evidence for that is what?

Ethical reasons are why we cannot have randomized control studies on the efficacy of masks on reducing infectivity.

15 RCTs prior to the rona, you ignorant slut.

Ad Homs R Us?

We live in a society. No man is an island. I sure wish people would just voluntarily do what is best for society, but since they won't, they're making the case for state actors to intervene.

sic semper tyrannis

In other news, mad-dog killer Machine-Gun Kelly objects to anti-bank-robbing laws being so coercive as to curtail and abrogate his gawd-given rights to rape, pillage, and murder to his heart's content ...

[John D]

I don't find that my interaction with Steers and Kitty add any value to my life. I learn nothing from them since they engage in dialog in an insincere way. They do not search for truth... they just search for shit to fight about. No value to me. I also don't think I can add any value to their lives. They do not listen to me with genuine interest. So... yeah. whatever.

Heh...sounds chillingly similar to Bateman's closing monologue:

(I'd love to see your business card!)

I guess I don't understand how it is psychotic to ignore people I don't like. I think this is pretty normal. I am pretty open to opinions from people I disagree with, but at a certain point I ignore people whose opinions are uniformed. I don't find it entertaining to argue with a brick wall... or people who strawman everything... and make a wall of text arguing against something I never wrote. Engaging in this behavior is boring to me.

[John D]

[Service Dog]

[John D]

Fucking Chuck Todd on fucking "Meet the Press" Sunday.

He tells me there is a big controversy in the National Football League. He tells me the NFL is racist. He tells me there are not enough blacks in coaching and management. The NFL is clearly super racist.

So, 70% of NFL players are black and 15% of coaches/management are black.

The "controversy" is that, if there are tons of black players... well, there should be tons of black coaches/managers.

(background... 13% of Americans are black)

Chuck asked me to assume the NFL is racist because they should have 70% black coaches/management. I guess he thinks that Ndamukong Suh is management material.

He did not explain to me what the NFL is doing to increase the number of white players. There really should only be 13% of NFL players that are black. I want to know what the NFL is doing to increase the number of white players to a representative percentage. There are way too many black players.... right? Am I missing something?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Chuck Todd is a manlet.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Stacy M1 Abrams, who's running for "reelection" (her phrasing), posted then deleted this photo opp:

When_Stacy_sits_around the_house.jpg

(90.3 KiB) Downloaded 76 times

When criticized for not masking while the chillin were, she first accused her critics of racism (duh), then explained she expressly demanded the chillin mask up for her safety so she could take hers off.

Hell, those kids sitting right behind her need gas masks.

[John D]

Haha. Abrams actually thought this was a good photo. Cosmically out of touch.

[Service Dog]

I can't quite parse this official statement from Stacy Abram's campaign.
You're definitely racist, I ascertained that much.
And then I just hear a generic raised-voice of a black woman bitching in public, with no pauses between sentences.
And then it says her opponents are both beneath her in the picture? I can't breathe.

[Service Dog]

So, 70% of NFL players are black and 15% of coaches/management are black.
(background... 13% of Americans are black)

13% of the public score 70% of the touchdowns.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Haha. Abrams actually thought this was a good photo. Cosmically out of touch.

She looks a bit like the Buddha there. Maybe she was expounding on
The Four Noble Truths:

1. Everything in life is about me, Stacy Abrams.
2. The origin of life's misery is the 2018 election stolen from me.
3. The ending of misery is the stealing of the 2022 election for me.
4. The Eightfold Path leading out of misery can be found in the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.

[Steersman]

<snip>

Heh...sounds chillingly similar to Bateman's closing monologue:

(I'd love to see your business card!)

I guess I don't understand how it is psychotic to ignore people I don't like. I think this is pretty normal. I am pretty open to opinions from people I disagree with, but at a certain point I ignore people whose opinions are uniformed. I don't find it entertaining to argue with a brick wall... or people who strawman everything... and make a wall of text arguing against something I never wrote. Engaging in this behavior is boring to me.

What self-serving twaddle. I've agreed several times with you, at least on the topic of normal distributions:

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... hn#p506423

But you seem to think that because some people misuse normal distributions in IQ measurements that means that all uses or applications on that issue and other "psychometric" ones are invalid.

[Service Dog]

.

9 Steersman posts in 4 days. This is not dialogue. This is spam:

1by Steersman
Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:30 pm
"Pray tell, exactly where in the original of that EMA video (below) does its head, Marco Cavaleri, say that "VAXXXINES and BOOSTERS will and do cause VACCINE VAIDS" (!!11!!)?"

by Service Dog » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:55 pm
"AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to "AIDS"-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS. Then AP jousts their own strawman. AP also quotes a definition which is not dependent on HIV/AIDS in any way: "gradual destruction of the human immune system by vaccines.” Do you dispute anything Dr. Cavaleri said? I don't care whether the term "VAIDS" is applied or not. All that is just you & the AP fact-checkers dancing around the edges. If you disagree with Dr. Cavaleri, say so. Otherwise-- you're just bloviating.

2 by Steersman
Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:10 am
"They most certainly did not "insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS".

3 by Steersman
Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:41 pm
"Did you or did you not say, "AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to "AIDS"-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS"?
Did they or did they not so insist?
Think you're up to answering a simple question or two there sport?"

4 by Steersman
Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:32 pm
"BTW, any plans afoot to answer my questions about your claims about AP & VAIDS?"

by Service Dog » Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:42 pm
I've answered this. ....
Rather than engage with my actual claim, you want to dwell on the AP's inane 'fact-check'.

5 by Steersman
Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:18 pm
Did you or did you not say, "AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to "AIDS"-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS"?
Did they or did they not so insist?

6 by Steersman
Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:10 am
"Did you or did you not say, "AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to 'AIDS'-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS"?
Did they or did they not so insist?

7 by Steersman
Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:24 pm
Any plans afoot to acknowledge that you were peddling fake news and egregious misinformation with your cretinous claim that "AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to 'AIDS'-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS"?

8 by Steersman
Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:32 pm
“admit that you were blowing smoke out of your arse with your bullshit and cretinous claim that "AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to 'AIDS'-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS"?

by Service Dog » Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:31 pm
I answered this question several days ago. Your response was to <snip> my reply & keep asking the same question....
I looked back-at the AP fact-check. https://i.imgur.com/8E2dvR2.png It matched my prior recollection. So my opinion remains the same.
No need for me to cut & paste my prior reply... so that you can spam the exact-same response.


9 by Steersman
Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:17 am
“Did you say that "AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to 'AIDS'-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS" or not?”

[The above list was posted by me, Service Dog » Tue Jan 18, 2022. On that day I once-again addressed the AP's deliberately deceptive fact-check, & Steersman's insistence on misinterpreting the word 'insist' to derail my original point. https://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 24#p507840] I also stopped replying to Steersman's broken-record question. My original assertion remains sufficient: The AP relied on the similarity of the acronym "VAIDS"-- to the acronym"AIDS"-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS. Similar acronyms don't necessarily mean VAIDS is a form AIDS. Yet AP insisted-on pretending that-and-only-that was alleged. AP only 'nutpicked' internet-nobodies who jumped to that specific conclusion, ignoring the broader claim. In contrast, I presented the EU's top Pharmacology official confirming the broader claim. Steersman has done nothing but obfuscate.
That was a month and a half ago. Since then...

10 by Steersman
Tue Jan 18 2022 6:02 am
"did AP actually "insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS"? "

11 by Steersman.
Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:34 am
"you claimed, falsely if not with malice aforethought, that "AP relies on the similarity of the acronym to 'AIDS'-- to insist that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS" while being able or unwilling to show exactly where they made that claim

12 by Steersman
Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:21 pm
"any plans afoot to admit that you were blowing smoke out of your arse when you claimed that AP had insisted that "VAIDS must be some sort of AIDS"? "

13 by Steersman
Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:25 am
"Any plans afoot to acknowledge that AP didn't say what you had said they did?"

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I make more posts than steerz.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

But they're usually very short.

[Keating]

The only problem I have with Steersman is the clichés.