|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 25, 2023 14:56:47 GMT
Oh dear diddums can't handle fair challenge to his obnoxious posts. You come on hear with your stupid insinuations about vaccines, ideas that all the actual evidence shows if widely accepted would net kill tens of thousands and has already net killed thousands and then you exploit the tragic death of this young lady. There are immediately unexplained deaths every day in the UK and most are explained once post mortems occur, it is woefully dishonest to say they are 'healthy people dropping down dead for no reason'
Priceless! Lack of self awareness breathtaking. He's not worth the bother, he'll goad and goad until you retaliate, then he'll play his 'victim card' and report you ... that's how he gets rid of posters who don't agree with him. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 25, 2023 15:52:30 GMT
Look Fairsociety you were wrong and when it was pointed out you were wrong you got abusive and then tried to move the goal posts
Maybe it makes you happy every time an unvaccinated person dies of Covid
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Aug 25, 2023 16:01:35 GMT
1. It wasn't entirely illogical but the end result was still an assumption. I.E. No proof. 2. No proof that the experts advice was unilaterally ignored. And IIRC party gatherings were specifically advised against. The end result was that one party meeting was found guilty, the other meeting was not. End of. 3. The government in particular had an obligation to follow their own rules regardless. That's the only way to sum it up. 4. There was no 'projection', just your need to insult. 1 It was a logical inference . I’ve walked you through it but you either are incapable of following it or are being deliberately obtuse. 2 and 3 are strawmen posted to hide your obtuseness. 4. Another projection . As I pointed out before.. you routinely use the mantra ‘ option’ and ‘ assumption’ as a rebuttal and it never works. Did you huff and puff about ‘ opinions and assumptions when Covid rules were applied ? They were based on opinion and assumption but according to you opinion and assumption are worthless. I suggest that you go back and read my previous posts again. You might learn something . 1. Yes I get that, but without actual unequivocal evidence that that was the conclusion reached by the government and was the government's reason for allowing a party, it is nothing more than a theory. Why do you insist on making up this theory, its just an attempt to excuse the government when you must know that the government had an obligation to set an example on following its own rules, and chose instead to upset many people who missed out on seeing their dying relatives because of they followed the government's rules? 2. 3. 4. ha ha ha, it seems that the truth too difficult for you. 5. That I should take notice of your bullshit is an even greater laugh. 6. I suggest you reread your own posts and recognise just how easy you are able to fool yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 25, 2023 17:00:43 GMT
1 It was a logical inference . I’ve walked you through it but you either are incapable of following it or are being deliberately obtuse. 2 and 3 are strawmen posted to hide your obtuseness. 4. Another projection . As I pointed out before.. you routinely use the mantra ‘ option’ and ‘ assumption’ as a rebuttal and it never works. Did you huff and puff about ‘ opinions and assumptions when Covid rules were applied ? They were based on opinion and assumption but according to you opinion and assumption are worthless. I suggest that you go back and read my previous posts again. You might learn something . 1. Yes I get that, but without actual unequivocal evidence that that was the conclusion reached by the government and was the government's reason for allowing a party, it is nothing more than a theory. Why do you insist on making up this theory, its just an attempt to excuse the government when you must know that the government had an obligation to set an example on following its own rules, and chose instead to upset many people who missed out on seeing their dying relatives because of they followed the government's rules? 2. 3. 4. ha ha ha, it seems that the truth too difficult for you. 5. That I should take notice of your bullshit is an even greater laugh. 6. I suggest you reread your own posts and recognise just how easy you are able to fool yourself. 1It wasn’t a government decision . I never said that it was a government decision. Are you incapable of knowing the difference between a government decision and a decision by a few members of the government ? 2 , 3,4 ha, ha ,ha. It seems you don’t know what a strawman fallacy is ( you post enough of them ). You obviously didn’t even understand the point I made . You convinced yourself that I claimed it was a ‘government’ decision ( I didn’t ) when at the same time you tried to refute my point by accusing ME of assumptions. Oh the irony . |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 25, 2023 17:37:59 GMT
I believe in vaccines had all mine but everybody is entitled to their opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 25, 2023 17:43:57 GMT
I believe in vaccines had all mine but everybody is entitled to their opinion. I have had my COVID vaccines, I would never advise any one not to have a vaccine, it should be left totally to the individual to make their own choice, and they should not be judged on that choice. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Aug 25, 2023 19:28:57 GMT
1. Yes I get that, but without actual unequivocal evidence that that was the conclusion reached by the government and was the government's reason for allowing a party, it is nothing more than a theory. Why do you insist on making up this theory, its just an attempt to excuse the government when you must know that the government had an obligation to set an example on following its own rules, and chose instead to upset many people who missed out on seeing their dying relatives because of they followed the government's rules? 2. 3. 4. ha ha ha, it seems that the truth too difficult for you. 5. That I should take notice of your bullshit is an even greater laugh. 6. I suggest you reread your own posts and recognise just how easy you are able to fool yourself. 1It wasn’t a government decision . I never said that it was a government decision. Are you incapable of knowing the difference between a government decision and a decision by a few members of the government ? 2 , 3,4 ha, ha ,ha. It seems you don’t know what a strawman fallacy is ( you post enough of them ). You obviously didn’t even understand the point I made . You convinced yourself that I claimed it was a ‘government’ decision ( I didn’t ) when at the same time you tried to refute my point by accusing ME of assumptions. Oh the irony . OK government members. The rules were a government decision, and government members decided to ignore them including the PM. You seem determined to defend them. Please come back when you find your grown up debating skills. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2023 19:40:49 GMT
What I don't want is tragic deaths like that of Emily Wilcock being exploited to promote your Icke-isms. I have no idea why Emily Wilcock died, and an attempt to link it with jabs is pointless. It may even have been suicide, we do not know. However this "David Icke" sleight is a favourite of yours to throw at anyone who distrusts mRNA jabs. You seem obsessed with Mr Icke, are you a fan of his? You see, I haven't read a thing that man has said or written since he apparently said he was the "Son of God" around 30 years ago. I have no idea where he stands on any of this stuff. You'll be using Bridgen's name next, perhaps? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2023 19:43:18 GMT
Look Fairsociety you were wrong and when it was pointed out you were wrong you got abusive and then tried to move the goal posts Maybe it makes you happy every time an unvaccinated person dies of CovidSays the man who accused FS of "sick posting". |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 25, 2023 20:09:57 GMT
1It wasn’t a government decision . I never said that it was a government decision. Are you incapable of knowing the difference between a government decision and a decision by a few members of the government ? 2 , 3,4 ha, ha ,ha. It seems you don’t know what a strawman fallacy is ( you post enough of them ). You obviously didn’t even understand the point I made . You convinced yourself that I claimed it was a ‘government’ decision ( I didn’t ) when at the same time you tried to refute my point by accusing ME of assumptions. Oh the irony . OK government members. The rules were a government decision, and government members decided to ignore them including the PM. You seem determined to defend them. Please come back when you find your grown up debating skills. God almighty. After all that you still argue against a point I never made . |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 25, 2023 22:16:18 GMT
What I don't want is tragic deaths like that of Emily Wilcock being exploited to promote your Icke-isms. I have no idea why Emily Wilcock died, and an attempt to link it with jabs is pointless. It may even have been suicide, we do not know. However this "David Icke" sleight is a favourite of yours to throw at anyone who distrusts mRNA jabs. You seem obsessed with Mr Icke, are you a fan of his? You see, I haven't read a thing that man has said or written since he apparently said he was the "Son of God" around 30 years ago. I have no idea where he stands on any of this stuff. You'll be using Bridgen's name next, perhaps? Bridgen is another nutjob too but Icke was one of the early prominent anti vaxxers. Here have some of his dafter claims addressed by FullFact fullfact.org/online/david-icke-makes-false-claim-that-vaccines-are-gene-therapy/ |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 25, 2023 22:29:09 GMT
Look Fairsociety you were wrong and when it was pointed out you were wrong you got abusive and then tried to move the goal posts Maybe it makes you happy every time an unvaccinated person dies of CovidSays the man who accused FS of "sick posting". It was a sick post by him correctly called out by me. People that propagate or insinuate false false perceptions of the vaccines are net killing people and have likely net killed thousands. When they get abusive to having their opinions challenged then yes it's time to play tough. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 25, 2023 22:41:46 GMT
Says the man who accused FS of "sick posting". It was a sick post by him correctly called out by me. People that propagate or insinuate false false perceptions of the vaccines are net killing people and have likely net killed thousands. When they get abusive to having their opinions challenged then yes it's time to play tough. Very convincing I am sure. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Aug 26, 2023 7:12:53 GMT
@abridgen
·
Last weekend I was informed by senior clinicians working in the NHS that the overwhelming majority of doctors and nurses now have serious concerns about the ‘safety and efficacy’ of the experimental Covid 19 vaccines. But when will they speak out?
That is why they are EXPERIMENTAL, idiot.
God help the UK if that is the average mentality of an MP.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 26, 2023 7:38:27 GMT
@abridgen · Last weekend I was informed by senior clinicians working in the NHS that the overwhelming majority of doctors and nurses now have serious concerns about the ‘safety and efficacy’ of the experimental Covid 19 vaccines. But when will they speak out? That is why they are EXPERIMENTAL, idiot. God help the UK if that is the average mentality of an MP. Have you just written that with a straight face? |
|
