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