• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $550. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Is a vaccine mandate a racist policy?

Metaphor

Contributor
You would see that patient, as they are the highest priority.

EDIT: Also, what's the point of this point scoring? If Toni believes that ERs don't routinely have more than one patient, I don't know what to tell her. She has lived in a cossetted and privileged world if she thinks that.
how many patients does an ER normally have??
In my jurisdiction, more than half of ER patients are not seen within four hours. Admittedly, it's the worst jurisdiction in Australia for ER wait times.

if one anecdote supports your narrative....
Data is not an anecdote.
yeah so aggregate the data available about getting vaccines versus no getting vaccines and let US know how you are doing, please. and "US" is every interested party before we all die.
Today, over 90% of the people in my jurisdiction have been double vaxxed, and we didn't have any vaccine mandates to get there.

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.
It's a shame that you seem to have such a total and complete misunderstanding of US politics that you blame the present vaccine resistence on the left.

I said the left's rhetoric and actions are not helping achieve their desired ends.
We tried being nice. They told us to "Fuck your feelings."
I have not seen the left be 'nice' to the unvaxxed. Of all the adjectives I would use, that would not figure in my top 100, unless it was part of a sentence that qualified the niceness as a veneer or a patina.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
You would see that patient, as they are the highest priority.

EDIT: Also, what's the point of this point scoring? If Toni believes that ERs don't routinely have more than one patient, I don't know what to tell her. She has lived in a cossetted and privileged world if she thinks that.
how many patients does an ER normally have??
In my jurisdiction, more than half of ER patients are not seen within four hours. Admittedly, it's the worst jurisdiction in Australia for ER wait times.

if one anecdote supports your narrative....
Data is not an anecdote.
yeah so aggregate the data available about getting vaccines versus no getting vaccines and let US know how you are doing, please. and "US" is every interested party before we all die.
Today, over 90% of the people in my jurisdiction have been double vaxxed, and we didn't have any vaccine mandates to get there.

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.
It's a shame that you seem to have such a total and complete misunderstanding of US politics that you blame the present vaccine resistence on the left.

I said the left's rhetoric and actions are not helping achieve their desired ends.
We tried being nice. They told us to "Fuck your feelings."
I have not seen the left be 'nice' to the unvaxxed. Of all the adjectives I would use, that would not figure in my top 100, unless it was part of a sentence that qualified the niceness as a veneer or a patina.
Did you look?
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
You might be surprised. The more that the stupid die or bury their loved ones, the less the remaining 'American people' are going to tolerate rotbloods.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
You might be surprised. The more that the stupid die or bury their loved ones, the less the remaining 'American people' are going to tolerate rotbloods.
I don't know what you think a 'rotblood' is, but you appear to attribute genuine malice to people who do not want to be vaccinated.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
You might be surprised. The more that the stupid die or bury their loved ones, the less the remaining 'American people' are going to tolerate rotbloods.
I don't know what you think a 'rotblood' is, but you appear to attribute genuine malice to people who do not want to be vaccinated.
You don't understand what i am saying, and then tell me what i am saying....
 

Metaphor

Contributor
You would see that patient, as they are the highest priority.

EDIT: Also, what's the point of this point scoring? If Toni believes that ERs don't routinely have more than one patient, I don't know what to tell her. She has lived in a cossetted and privileged world if she thinks that.
how many patients does an ER normally have??
In my jurisdiction, more than half of ER patients are not seen within four hours. Admittedly, it's the worst jurisdiction in Australia for ER wait times.

if one anecdote supports your narrative....
Data is not an anecdote.
yeah so aggregate the data available about getting vaccines versus no getting vaccines and let US know how you are doing, please. and "US" is every interested party before we all die.
Today, over 90% of the people in my jurisdiction have been double vaxxed, and we didn't have any vaccine mandates to get there.

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.
It's a shame that you seem to have such a total and complete misunderstanding of US politics that you blame the present vaccine resistence on the left.

I said the left's rhetoric and actions are not helping achieve their desired ends.
We tried being nice. They told us to "Fuck your feelings."
I have not seen the left be 'nice' to the unvaxxed. Of all the adjectives I would use, that would not figure in my top 100, unless it was part of a sentence that qualified the niceness as a veneer or a patina.
Did you look?
Did I look? Do you mean, did I read dozens of articles from left-wing media, and from left-wing pundits on Twitter, demonising and infantilising and wishing pain and harm on the unvaxxed? Yes, I looked and I saw.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
You might be surprised. The more that the stupid die or bury their loved ones, the less the remaining 'American people' are going to tolerate rotbloods.
I don't know what you think a 'rotblood' is, but you appear to attribute genuine malice to people who do not want to be vaccinated.
You don't understand what i am saying, and then tell me what i am saying....
No. I don't understand what a 'rotblood' is. It is a term I've never heard before you used it. What is it?
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
No. I don't understand what a 'rotblood' is. It is a term I've never heard before you used it. What is it?
Yeah, no. .
As to the other, i really do perceive malice from people who ram vaccination clinics with their cars. Or make death threats at school board meetings. Or dox school board members who support mask mandates. Or write how armed assault is the only option to prevent Fauci's New World Order.

Subtle, i know, but if you read between the lines, there's a teensy bit of malice.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
No. I don't understand what a 'rotblood' is. It is a term I've never heard before you used it. What is it?
Yeah, no. .

Yeah, no, what?
As to the other, i really do perceive malice from people who ram vaccination clinics with their cars.
Do you believe that the 40% unvaxxed in the US ram vaccination clinics with their cars?

Or make death threats at school board meetings. Or dox school board members who support mask mandates. Or write how armed assault is the only option to prevent Fauci's New World Order.
Do you believe that the 40% unvaxxed in the US do these things? What percentage do these things?
Subtle, i know, but if you read between the lines, there's a teensy bit of malice.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.


We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
I take it you're obsessively fixating on Toni's (alleged) position because you've realized how stupid and melodramatic your argument sounds when applied to any real mandate policies that have been enacted?
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.


We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
I take it you're obsessively fixating on Toni's (alleged) position because you've realized how stupid and melodramatic your argument sounds when applied to any real mandate policies that have been enacted?
It is not her alleged position; she detailed her policy (excepting the stop condition) earlier.

Whilst I find her policy beyond the pale and beyond what a majority would currently support, at least in America, it was only December last year that Biden said he did not see himself supporting a vaccine mandate.

And, no. I do not believe that indefinite house arrest policies are outside the Overton window. Indeed, Toni's idea seems quite popular on this board.
 

Toni

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.


We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
I take it you're obsessively fixating on Toni's (alleged) position because you've realized how stupid and melodramatic your argument sounds when applied to any real mandate policies that have been enacted?
I think he just makes up stuff about me in order to draw me into a ‘discussion.’ I’m actually busy this week and I see no reason to play games with him.
 

Toni

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.


We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
I take it you're obsessively fixating on Toni's (alleged) position because you've realized how stupid and melodramatic your argument sounds when applied to any real mandate policies that have been enacted?
I think he just makes up stuff about me in order to draw me into a ‘discussion.’ I’m actually busy this week and I see no reason to play games with him.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.


We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
I take it you're obsessively fixating on Toni's (alleged) position because you've realized how stupid and melodramatic your argument sounds when applied to any real mandate policies that have been enacted?
I think he just makes up stuff about me in order to draw me into a ‘discussion.’ I’m actually busy this week and I see no reason to play games with him.
I made up nothing. You described your vaccine mandate policy, not me.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
I do realize there are those who cannot be vaccinated.
They stay in their homes, practice social distancing, use no-contact
delivery, work remote, because they are at risk if they do not, at least until we lower the chance they'll contact an infectious person.
there are some who choose not to vax, and sldo practice social distancing, stay home, etc, accepting that there are risks and not wishing to be a plague rat.
and there are those who do not vax, do not mask, do not social distance, willfully being highways for the plague, because Fuck Biden, or Fuck the libs, or Fuck Fauci, or due to any of dozens of vonspiracy theories.
i do not know the split, but if a policy such as a mandate inconveniences the unvaxxed, two of these three groups do not face any additional inconvenienes beyond what they already face.
the third group may face inconveniences, and whine about being victimized, but they are actually the aggressors.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.


We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
I take it you're obsessively fixating on Toni's (alleged) position because you've realized how stupid and melodramatic your argument sounds when applied to any real mandate policies that have been enacted?


it was only December last year that Biden said he did not see himself supporting a vaccine mandate.

The first vaccines were not even given in the US until Dec 14th, and at that time only the most vulnerable could get them. So, Biden's comments came either before the first person received the vaccine, or while we had just started the first round of vaccines. That would be at a point when we would not have known the extent of vaccine hesitancy in the US.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
You might be surprised. The more that the stupid die or bury their loved ones, the less the remaining 'American people' are going to tolerate rotbloods.
I don't know what you think a 'rotblood' is, but you appear to attribute genuine malice to people who do not want to be vaccinated.
When the rotbloods try to run over people at vaccine sites and disrupt testing centers, overturning tables, do they not deserve malics?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
You would see that patient, as they are the highest priority.

EDIT: Also, what's the point of this point scoring? If Toni believes that ERs don't routinely have more than one patient, I don't know what to tell her. She has lived in a cossetted and privileged world if she thinks that.
how many patients does an ER normally have??
In my jurisdiction, more than half of ER patients are not seen within four hours. Admittedly, it's the worst jurisdiction in Australia for ER wait times.

if one anecdote supports your narrative....
Data is not an anecdote.
yeah so aggregate the data available about getting vaccines versus no getting vaccines and let US know how you are doing, please. and "US" is every interested party before we all die.
Today, over 90% of the people in my jurisdiction have been double vaxxed, and we didn't have any vaccine mandates to get there.

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.
It's a shame that you seem to have such a total and complete misunderstanding of US politics that you blame the present vaccine resistence on the left.

I said the left's rhetoric and actions are not helping achieve their desired ends.
We tried being nice. They told us to "Fuck your feelings."
I have not seen the left be 'nice' to the unvaxxed. Of all the adjectives I would use, that would not figure in my top 100, unless it was part of a sentence that qualified the niceness as a veneer or a patina.
Did you look?
Did I look? Do you mean, did I read dozens of articles from left-wing media, and from left-wing pundits on Twitter, demonising and infantilising and wishing pain and harm on the unvaxxed? Yes, I looked and I saw.
Really? What were the dates of those articles that make you think the malice came from the pro-vax side first?
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
You would see that patient, as they are the highest priority.

EDIT: Also, what's the point of this point scoring? If Toni believes that ERs don't routinely have more than one patient, I don't know what to tell her. She has lived in a cossetted and privileged world if she thinks that.
how many patients does an ER normally have??
In my jurisdiction, more than half of ER patients are not seen within four hours. Admittedly, it's the worst jurisdiction in Australia for ER wait times.

if one anecdote supports your narrative....
Data is not an anecdote.
yeah so aggregate the data available about getting vaccines versus no getting vaccines and let US know how you are doing, please. and "US" is every interested party before we all die.
Today, over 90% of the people in my jurisdiction have been double vaxxed, and we didn't have any vaccine mandates to get there.

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.
It's a shame that you seem to have such a total and complete misunderstanding of US politics that you blame the present vaccine resistence on the left.

I said the left's rhetoric and actions are not helping achieve their desired ends.
We tried being nice. They told us to "Fuck your feelings."
I have not seen the left be 'nice' to the unvaxxed. Of all the adjectives I would use, that would not figure in my top 100, unless it was part of a sentence that qualified the niceness as a veneer or a patina.
Did you look?
Did I look? Do you mean, did I read dozens of articles from left-wing media, and from left-wing pundits on Twitter, demonising and infantilising and wishing pain and harm on the unvaxxed? Yes, I looked and I saw.
Really? What were the dates of those articles that make you think the malice came from the pro-vax side first?
Shift those goalposts. I did not say 'the left started it', though in some cases I imagine they did.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.

We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
You might be surprised. The more that the stupid die or bury their loved ones, the less the remaining 'American people' are going to tolerate rotbloods.
I don't know what you think a 'rotblood' is, but you appear to attribute genuine malice to people who do not want to be vaccinated.
When the rotbloods try to run over people at vaccine sites and disrupt testing centers, overturning tables, do they not deserve malics?
I don't know what a rotblood is. The people who run over people and disrupt vaccine sites on purpose deserve to have criminal charges laid on them.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
As to the other, i really do perceive malice from people who ram vaccination clinics with their cars.
Do you believe that the 40% unvaxxed in the US ram vaccination clinics with their cars?

What percentage of the pro-vax do anything like that?
I don't know. I'm not proposing indefinite house arrest and group culpability for the vaccinated.
That has nothing to do with the question.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
You would see that patient, as they are the highest priority.

EDIT: Also, what's the point of this point scoring? If Toni believes that ERs don't routinely have more than one patient, I don't know what to tell her. She has lived in a cossetted and privileged world if she thinks that.
how many patients does an ER normally have??
In my jurisdiction, more than half of ER patients are not seen within four hours. Admittedly, it's the worst jurisdiction in Australia for ER wait times.

if one anecdote supports your narrative....
Data is not an anecdote.
yeah so aggregate the data available about getting vaccines versus no getting vaccines and let US know how you are doing, please. and "US" is every interested party before we all die.
Today, over 90% of the people in my jurisdiction have been double vaxxed, and we didn't have any vaccine mandates to get there.

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.
It's a shame that you seem to have such a total and complete misunderstanding of US politics that you blame the present vaccine resistence on the left.

I said the left's rhetoric and actions are not helping achieve their desired ends.
We tried being nice. They told us to "Fuck your feelings."
I have not seen the left be 'nice' to the unvaxxed. Of all the adjectives I would use, that would not figure in my top 100, unless it was part of a sentence that qualified the niceness as a veneer or a patina.
Did you look?
Did I look? Do you mean, did I read dozens of articles from left-wing media, and from left-wing pundits on Twitter, demonising and infantilising and wishing pain and harm on the unvaxxed? Yes, I looked and I saw.
Really? What were the dates of those articles that make you think the malice came from the pro-vax side first?
Shift those goalposts. I did not say 'the left started it', though in some cases I imagine they did.
No? So when you said this:

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.

it sure sounded like you did.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
You would see that patient, as they are the highest priority.

EDIT: Also, what's the point of this point scoring? If Toni believes that ERs don't routinely have more than one patient, I don't know what to tell her. She has lived in a cossetted and privileged world if she thinks that.
how many patients does an ER normally have??
In my jurisdiction, more than half of ER patients are not seen within four hours. Admittedly, it's the worst jurisdiction in Australia for ER wait times.

if one anecdote supports your narrative....
Data is not an anecdote.
yeah so aggregate the data available about getting vaccines versus no getting vaccines and let US know how you are doing, please. and "US" is every interested party before we all die.
Today, over 90% of the people in my jurisdiction have been double vaxxed, and we didn't have any vaccine mandates to get there.

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.
It's a shame that you seem to have such a total and complete misunderstanding of US politics that you blame the present vaccine resistence on the left.

I said the left's rhetoric and actions are not helping achieve their desired ends.
We tried being nice. They told us to "Fuck your feelings."
I have not seen the left be 'nice' to the unvaxxed. Of all the adjectives I would use, that would not figure in my top 100, unless it was part of a sentence that qualified the niceness as a veneer or a patina.
Did you look?
Did I look? Do you mean, did I read dozens of articles from left-wing media, and from left-wing pundits on Twitter, demonising and infantilising and wishing pain and harm on the unvaxxed? Yes, I looked and I saw.
Really? What were the dates of those articles that make you think the malice came from the pro-vax side first?
Shift those goalposts. I did not say 'the left started it', though in some cases I imagine they did.
No? So when you said this:

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.

it sure sounded like you did.
I'm sorry ZiprHead, but your reading comprehension difficulties do not change reality. Saying that the left has been vindictive and hateful and condescending says nothing about whether they 'started it'.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
You would see that patient, as they are the highest priority.

EDIT: Also, what's the point of this point scoring? If Toni believes that ERs don't routinely have more than one patient, I don't know what to tell her. She has lived in a cossetted and privileged world if she thinks that.
how many patients does an ER normally have??
In my jurisdiction, more than half of ER patients are not seen within four hours. Admittedly, it's the worst jurisdiction in Australia for ER wait times.

if one anecdote supports your narrative....
Data is not an anecdote.
yeah so aggregate the data available about getting vaccines versus no getting vaccines and let US know how you are doing, please. and "US" is every interested party before we all die.
Today, over 90% of the people in my jurisdiction have been double vaxxed, and we didn't have any vaccine mandates to get there.

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.
It's a shame that you seem to have such a total and complete misunderstanding of US politics that you blame the present vaccine resistence on the left.

I said the left's rhetoric and actions are not helping achieve their desired ends.
We tried being nice. They told us to "Fuck your feelings."
I have not seen the left be 'nice' to the unvaxxed. Of all the adjectives I would use, that would not figure in my top 100, unless it was part of a sentence that qualified the niceness as a veneer or a patina.
Did you look?
Did I look? Do you mean, did I read dozens of articles from left-wing media, and from left-wing pundits on Twitter, demonising and infantilising and wishing pain and harm on the unvaxxed? Yes, I looked and I saw.
Really? What were the dates of those articles that make you think the malice came from the pro-vax side first?
Shift those goalposts. I did not say 'the left started it', though in some cases I imagine they did.
No? So when you said this:

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.

it sure sounded like you did.
I'm sorry ZiprHead, but your reading comprehension difficulties do not change reality. Saying that the left has been vindictive and hateful and condescending says nothing about whether they 'started it'.
You're big on choosing your own interpretations so I will too.

Or are you admitting the left didn't start it?
 

Metaphor

Contributor
You would see that patient, as they are the highest priority.

EDIT: Also, what's the point of this point scoring? If Toni believes that ERs don't routinely have more than one patient, I don't know what to tell her. She has lived in a cossetted and privileged world if she thinks that.
how many patients does an ER normally have??
In my jurisdiction, more than half of ER patients are not seen within four hours. Admittedly, it's the worst jurisdiction in Australia for ER wait times.

if one anecdote supports your narrative....
Data is not an anecdote.
yeah so aggregate the data available about getting vaccines versus no getting vaccines and let US know how you are doing, please. and "US" is every interested party before we all die.
Today, over 90% of the people in my jurisdiction have been double vaxxed, and we didn't have any vaccine mandates to get there.

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.
It's a shame that you seem to have such a total and complete misunderstanding of US politics that you blame the present vaccine resistence on the left.

I said the left's rhetoric and actions are not helping achieve their desired ends.
We tried being nice. They told us to "Fuck your feelings."
I have not seen the left be 'nice' to the unvaxxed. Of all the adjectives I would use, that would not figure in my top 100, unless it was part of a sentence that qualified the niceness as a veneer or a patina.
Did you look?
Did I look? Do you mean, did I read dozens of articles from left-wing media, and from left-wing pundits on Twitter, demonising and infantilising and wishing pain and harm on the unvaxxed? Yes, I looked and I saw.
Really? What were the dates of those articles that make you think the malice came from the pro-vax side first?
Shift those goalposts. I did not say 'the left started it', though in some cases I imagine they did.
No? So when you said this:

It's a shame the left has been so vindictive and hateful and condescending in America that they've hardened the hearts of so many Americans against vaccination. But I'm sure indefinite house arrest will soften their hearts and minds. Good luck.

it sure sounded like you did.
I'm sorry ZiprHead, but your reading comprehension difficulties do not change reality. Saying that the left has been vindictive and hateful and condescending says nothing about whether they 'started it'.
You're big on choosing your own interpretations so I will too.

Or are you admitting the left didn't start it?
I am "admitting" that I never said or implied that "the left started it", I am agnostic on the causal chain.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.
If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim. You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.
If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.
No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?
"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.
Do you think laughing dog was right to point out a second definition of 'indefinite' which he claimed did not characterise Toni's policy, in order to
i) claim it contradicted my claim of Toni's policy being indefinite
ii) call me dishonest for leaving it out?, and
iii) not apologise for doing either thing?

ZiprHead also made up false things in this thread about me (that I said 'the left started it). He didn't apologise either.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.
Do you think laughing dog was right to point out a second definition of 'indefinite' which he claimed did not characterise Toni's policy, in order to
i) claim it contradicted my claim of Toni's policy being indefinite
ii) call me dishonest for leaving it out?, and
iii) not apologise for doing either thing?

ZiprHead also made up false things in this thread about me (that I said 'the left started it). He didn't apologise either.
Boo hoo.

You've said false things about me, not reading a link for example, after I said I did read the link (iirc). You said I didn't provide a reason a link was wrong when I did several times. You just didn't like the answer.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.
If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.
No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?
"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?
Another intellectually dishonest smoke-blowing “no u r” to justify your straw men.

I will apologize for wasting any other reader’s time or patience in responding to your libelous crapola.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.
If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.
No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?
"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?
Another intellectually dishonest smoke-blowing “no u r” to justify your straw men.

I will apologize for wasting any other reader’s time or patience in responding to your libelous crapola.
I shudder to think that you grade papers, given your grasp on logic, your vindictive streak, and your absolute inability to recognise any errors in your arguments.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.
Do you think laughing dog was right to point out a second definition of 'indefinite' which he claimed did not characterise Toni's policy, in order to
i) claim it contradicted my claim of Toni's policy being indefinite
ii) call me dishonest for leaving it out?, and
iii) not apologise for doing either thing?

ZiprHead also made up false things in this thread about me (that I said 'the left started it). He didn't apologise either.
Boo hoo.

You've said false things about me, not reading a link for example, after I said I did read the link (iirc). You said I didn't provide a reason a link was wrong when I did several times. You just didn't like the answer.

You don't remember correctly. No, I did not repeat the claim that you hadn't read the link after you claimed you did.

And no, you did not provide a good reason why we should distrust the Quillette article. You did not say what was wrong with it, I imagine because there was nothing wrong with it.

You also have not told me why you trust your "media bias" site but you don't trust Quillette. Which website told you you could trust the media bias site? And why do you have faith in your ability to discern good 'media bias' sites from bad ones, but you don't have faith in your ability to tell good arguments from bad ones in a particular Quillette article?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.
If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.
No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?
"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?
Another intellectually dishonest smoke-blowing “no u r” to justify your straw men.

I will apologize for wasting any other reader’s time or patience in responding to your libelous crapola.
I shudder to think that you grade papers, given your grasp on logic, your vindictive streak, and your absolute inability to recognise any errors in your arguments.
We don’t more evidence that you are severely irony impaired.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.
If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.
No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?
"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?
Another intellectually dishonest smoke-blowing “no u r” to justify your straw men.

I will apologize for wasting any other reader’s time or patience in responding to your libelous crapola.
I shudder to think that you grade papers, given your grasp on logic, your vindictive streak, and your absolute inability to recognise any errors in your arguments.
We don’t more evidence that you are severely irony impaired.
Your perception of irony does not change your woeful understanding of how definitions work, nor your odious claim that there is something dishonest in not quoting every denotation of a word when you've already quoted the denotation you meant.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Like “triage”, right?
No, not like that. Nobody produced a second definition of triage and said my characterisation of emergency room triage had to match both definitions.
Right. You just chose the second, less commonly used definition, which though possibly used technically correctly ended up obfuscating the conversation because everyone else was assuming the first, much more commonly used definition.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Like “triage”, right?
No, not like that. Nobody produced a second definition of triage and said my characterisation of emergency room triage had to match both definitions.
Right. You just chose the second, less commonly used definition, which though possibly used technically correctly ended up obfuscating the conversation because everyone else was assuming the first, much more commonly used definition.
No. I chose the first definition, and the denotation I had in mind. I quoted the definition. There was no ambiguity.

Laughing dog chose a second definition, claimed Toni's policy could not be characterised by this second definition, and therefore her policy was not "indefinite".

As painfully nonsensical as this was, laughing dog compounded his error by accusing me of dishonesty.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.
But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.
But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.
Do you think laughing dog was right to point out a second definition of 'indefinite' which he claimed did not characterise Toni's policy, in order to
i) claim it contradicted my claim of Toni's policy being indefinite
ii) call me dishonest for leaving it out?, and
iii) not apologise for doing either thing?

ZiprHead also made up false things in this thread about me (that I said 'the left started it). He didn't apologise either.
Boo hoo.

You've said false things about me, not reading a link for example, after I said I did read the link (iirc). You said I didn't provide a reason a link was wrong when I did several times. You just didn't like the answer.

You don't remember correctly. No, I did not repeat the claim that you hadn't read the link after you claimed you did.

And no, you did not provide a good reason why we should distrust the Quillette article. You did not say what was wrong with it, I imagine because there was nothing wrong with it.

You also have not told me why you trust your "media bias" site but you don't trust Quillette. Which website told you you could trust the media bias site? And why do you have faith in your ability to discern good 'media bias' sites from bad ones, but you don't have faith in your ability to tell good arguments from bad ones in a particular Quillette article?

Yes, you did.

https://iidb.org/index.php?threads/trans-derail-from-ilhan-omar-vs-colorism.25113/#post-948015 October 23rd
You accused me on not reading Trausti's link, I did.

https://iidb.org/index.php?threads/trans-derail-from-ilhan-omar-vs-colorism.25113/#post-948931 October 25th
ZiprHead dismissed a report without reading it
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Like “triage”, right?
No, not like that. Nobody produced a second definition of triage and said my characterisation of emergency room triage had to match both definitions.
Right. You just chose the second, less commonly used definition, which though possibly used technically correctly ended up obfuscating the conversation because everyone else was assuming the first, much more commonly used definition.
No. I chose the first definition, and the denotation I had in mind. I quoted the definition. There was no ambiguity.

Laughing dog chose a second definition, claimed Toni's policy could not be characterised by this second definition, and therefore her policy was not "indefinite".

As painfully nonsensical as this was, laughing dog compounded his error by accusing me of dishonesty.
SM is talking about the word "triage", a word for which you chose the second definition without quoting it, when the first definition, which is the more common understanding, is the one that was presented in this thread.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Like “triage”, right?
No, not like that. Nobody produced a second definition of triage and said my characterisation of emergency room triage had to match both definitions.
Right. You just chose the second, less commonly used definition, which though possibly used technically correctly ended up obfuscating the conversation because everyone else was assuming the first, much more commonly used definition.
No. I chose the first definition, and the denotation I had in mind. I quoted the definition. There was no ambiguity.

Laughing dog chose a second definition, claimed Toni's policy could not be characterised by this second definition, and therefore her policy was not "indefinite".

As painfully nonsensical as this was, laughing dog compounded his error by accusing me of dishonesty.
SM is talking about the word "triage", a word for which you chose the second definition without quoting it, when the first definition, which is the more common understanding, is the one that was presented in this thread.
Yes. I was

Triage:

1. the process of sorting victims, as of a battle or disaster, to determine medical priority in order to increase the number of survivors.
 
Top Bottom