Coronavirus


Peter

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Mark said:
THE PROFESSIONAL REBELLION AGAINST VACCINE MANDATES

by Joel Skousen


This article is linked to by Skousen:

by Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

September 26, 2021

Quote

Dr. Jessica Rose, a PhD computational biologist, molecular biologist and immunologist, conservatively calculates that over 150,000 people have died from the Covid vaccine in America as of August 28, 2021. (Click here for her website and numerous articles & presentations.)

Using the VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] database and independent rates of anaphylaxis events from a Mass. General [Hospital] study, we computed a 41x under-reporting factor for serious adverse events in VAERS, leading to an estimate of over 150,000 excess deaths caused by the vaccine. The estimates were validated multiple independent ways.[1]  

Here's Skousen's description:

Quote

Why are people dying after getting the Covid vaccine? Pathologists now have answers.

posted by Andrew Skousen - Friday, October 15 2021
On September 20, 2021, a group of several dozen physicians and pathologists held a day-long symposium at the Institute of Pathology in Reutlingen, Germany, to try and figure out why hundreds of thousands of people have died in Europe, alone, not to mention other parts of the world, soon after getting a Covid-19 vaccine shot. I present their data and conclusions, below. If you are considering getting a Covid vaccine, you should familiarize yourself with their findings before you roll up your sleeve. If you have already had the jab, I recommend you examine their findings in order to assess what may be in store for you.  River City Malone

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron-DeSantis-1.jpg
WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) promised to stand up to Biden’s vaccine mandate if it ends up actually existing. DeSantis said he was “offended that a police officer could potentially lose their job” due to...

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt(R) has also said he is “ready to take Biden to court” over his vaccine mandate.

Meanwhile, unfortunately,

"Biden’s vaccine mandate has finally been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget but the rule still does not exist until it is published in the Federal Register.

Quote

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10088029/OSHA-submits-100-employee-vaccine-mandate-OMB-review.html

"The Department of Labor on Tuesday submitted to the White House the initial text of President Joe Biden’s plan to require private-sector workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or get tested regularly.

"The department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration submitted the proposed rule for review to the Office of Management and Budget.

"The mandate would apply to businesses with 100 or more employees and will be implemented under a federal rule-making mechanism known as an emergency temporary standard.

"The rule will be implemented once OMB’s review is complete and it’s published in the Federal Register."

 

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt(R) has also said he is “ready to take Biden to court” over his vaccine mandate.

Meanwhile, unfortunately,

"Biden’s vaccine mandate has finally been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget but the rule still does not exist until it is published in the Federal Register.

Mandates as we have for polio, TB, etc., are accepted by most Americans. But it is too soon for Coronavirus vaccination mandates . . . except . . . perhaps . . . in the medical field or when individuals are around a lot of people in a closed setting. From way back in 1968, in "Science Magazine": “The Tragedy of the Commons: The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.”

Dg wrote, “When do you decide to trust someone else over your own judgment?”

Never, but let a trusted advisor convince you if you wish to take the time and listen. Use your own reason. As data becomes more readily available, you can and should change your own judgment as the truth emerges.

For example I saw a tiny shift on the medical Richter Scale that rattled windows yesterday. Your chance of getting sicker or dying from the Coronavirus goes down by 12 percent if you are taking the anti-statin drug Atorvastatin. It’s brand name is Lipitor. I take the generic drug as prescribed by my Doc. Nobody knew that until someone crunched the numbers

But on the other hand . . . “At some point or another, many of us have heard the quote popularized by Mark Twain, that "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Twain must have been talking about something stupid way back then. Statistics do not supply “the truth” but they are a great indicator. As evidence mounts do you trust “the science, the docs and the AMA” or internet conspiracy theories? Which will make you live longer and be less threatened by the Coronavirus? You decide. Peter    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should there be mask and vaccine mandates for certain professions and situations like riding on a plane or a subway where people are crammed together and breathing the same air?  

My thinking on rules for flying on planes is that you go by what the company flying you “demands.” Another option is available: stay off the plane. I get tired of seeing videos of possibly drunk or just belligerent individuals fighting on planes to keep themselves from being masked. On the other hand those hand held phone cameras are a boon to civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 6:18 PM, Peter said:

Mandates as we have for polio, TB, etc., are accepted by most Americans. But it is too soon for Coronavirus vaccination mandates . . .    

Jesus! I wish parents and all concerned would drill it into their heads.

There's no comparison:

Measles, smallpox, polio etc. are extremely harmful for THE KIDS. They have had to be vaccinated for those by necessity. Any who can't see this, could be and are doing irreparable harm to the next generation with this specious comparison about "vaccination"- in general, as if all vaccinations are equal.

Who benefits?

Covid-19 infection puts children at little-to-zero risk. As contrasted with the vaccines' possible 'side -effects' (I'd rather call potential after-effects): being unvaccinated is SAFER than inoculations.

That's how proper medical science works -  the individual's/group's risk-benefit ratio (nothing is 100% safe).

CHILDREN GAIN NOTHING OUT OF IT.

The drive to mandate-vaccinate adolescents is irrational and immoral, they are used as sacrificial pawns to limit the transmission in the general populations and so usher in supposed herd immunity . Which a year ago everyone emotionally resisted (effected naturally).

social
WWW.WSJ.COM

The results provide some of the most detailed analysis yet of severe illness and death from the virus in children, a closely watched subject...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anthony said:

Jesus! I wish parents would drill it into their heads. There's no comparison:

Measles, smallpox, polio etc. are extremely harrmful for the the KIDS. All those who can't see this, could be and are doing irreparable harm with this specious comparison.

Covid-19 infection puts children at little-to-zero risk. Compared with the possible 'side -effects' (I rather call potential after-effects): being unvaccinated is SAFER than innoculations.

That's how proper science health works -  the individual's risk-benefit ratio - (nothing is 100% safe).

CHILDREN GAIN NOTHING OUT OF IT.

The drive to vaccinate children is irrational and immoral, they are used as sacrificial pawns to help prevent transmission in general society. . 

social
WWW.WSJ.COM

The results provide some of the most detailed analysis yet of severe illness and death from the virus in children, a closely watched subject...

 

Very well stated my man!!!!!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peter said:

Should there be mask and vaccine mandates for certain professions and situations like riding on a plane or a subway where people are crammed together and breathing the same air?  

My thinking on rules for flying on planes is that you go by what the company flying you “demands.” Another option is available: stay off the plane. I get tired of seeing videos of possibly drunk or just belligerent individuals fighting on planes to keep themselves from being masked. On the other hand those hand held phone cameras are a boon to civilization.

This kind of argument is half-right, as far as it goes; "half-right" because it omits the intrusion of government into free enterprise. The government over-reach of mandates, even if only implied, and the threats against businesses that don't comply, threaten to take out the element of choice for both the business and consumer. (Such as when cities or even entire states require ALL businesses and schools to requires masks or vaccinations, eliminating the choice altogether while imposing penalties for non-compliance, which is the key word, here). In such cases (and excluding the examples of drunken passengers and the like, which was a shameful attempt of the original post at package-dealing), there may be legitimate cases for rational civil disobedience, dependent upon context.

On this, Rand has a good discussion of rational civil disobedience vs. the kind practiced by the "student rebellion" of the 60's (which are comparable to the Antifa/BLM riots of today). Her analysis, couple with her comments on the validity of quarantine of the contagious vs. the evil of forced vaccinations of the healthy, are appropriate, here; it's a safe bet that she would have argued for civil disobedience regarding the latter (again, in context of not violating rights, but as challenging the abrogation of rights by overbearing government, and when they take away free competition and choice).


 

Quote

 

Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.

But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.

The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.

The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physical intimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.

Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions.

“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 256

 

 

And her concluding line is both prescient and unfortunate, but all-too-applicable, today:

"Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions."

On that, one more quote from Rand on "Defiance" and civil war:

Quote

A dictatorship cannot take hold in America today. This country, as yet, cannot be ruled—but it can explode. It can blow up into the helpless rage and blind violence of a civil war. It cannot be cowed into submission, passivity, malevolence, resignation. It cannot be “pushed around.” Defiance, not obedience, is the American’s answer to overbearing authority. The nation that ran an underground railroad to help human beings escape from slavery, or began drinking on principle in the face of Prohibition, will not say “Yes, sir,” to the enforcers of ration coupons and cereal prices. Not yet.

“Don’t Let It Go,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 213


"A dictatorship cannot take hold in America...Not yet."

Now, Rand said that in 1971, in the context of that time. Fast forward to 2021, in the context of our time, and those words are sadly outdated, now...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ThatGuy said:
f5e4f04d824a7372.jpg
GAB.COM

Catturd on Gab: 'BREAKING: Judge orders Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara to stop making public comments...

BREAKING: Judge orders Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara to stop making public comments encouraging his members to defy the city’s COVID vaccine mandates - WMAQ

What can I say? I love this headline.

"Lightfoot in a Game of 'COVID Chicken' With Cops: It's Not Going to End Well For Her"
 

363842f6-025b-415b-acf4-7816fe573d08-120
PJMEDIA.COM

Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara is a Chicagoan through and through. He looks like a Chicago union boss. He talks like...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Should there be mask and vaccine mandates for certain professions and situations like riding on a plane or a subway where people are crammed together and breathing the same air?  

My thinking on rules for flying on planes is that you go by what the company flying you “demands.” Another option is available: stay off the plane. I get tired of seeing videos of possibly drunk or just belligerent individuals fighting on planes to keep themselves from being masked. On the other hand those hand held phone cameras are a boon to civilization.

Just curious but respectfully asking you of your stance will be the same if evidence comes out that spike proteins are released into that same air that non vaxed folks are breathing.

I have read tons of research and seen videos where folks think the risk is the vacinated people.

Devils advocate here, but if this is true wil you be asking the same question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

[Quoting Rand, "]The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent.["]

Which leads to puzzling hypotheses about Trumpism and the riot in Congress on January 6 2021.

Who and what fed, encouraged and manipulated the mob action?

A variety of concerned citizens demonstrated against (among other things) a general provincial COVID-19 vaccine "tyranny" early last month. The biggest demonstration was at Vancouver City Hall (not really responsible for provincial tyranny, but hey), with lesser crowds at hospitals and, yes, schools. 

Perhaps inadvertently, the organizers of the demonstrations at hospitals and schools were not able to enforce any discipline. So, a fair number of roads and driveways blocked, ambulance delays, staff issues, confrontations between hospital/school employees and demonstrators, general frustration, anger, fright and disruption. You only had to see one clip of a poor senior prevented from getting in for her appointment to see them all. 

Whether it was the highly biased mainstream media coverage (which, wouldn't you know stressed order, peace and good government while focusing only on the most witlesss moments) or local knowledge, you could almost feel a wave of revulsion building in the province over the confrontations. The organizers were not baffled by this response. They kind of understood heightened emotions. They tried again the following week, but allowed the same mistakes to occur, and then they basically shut it down. Local letters to the editor were Disgust Disgust Dismay Disapproval yadda yadda.

***

The last big-ass riot in British Columbia was a hockey-loss riot. It took three years, but the criminals who committed or led the mobs in the worst destruction were in the end  led away into custody. To repent, to rehabilitate, to think about it ... ("Why did I presume I would not be able to be identified? Why did I burn that cop car? Why did I smash all those windows?")

Dialing back to tyranny and the mob, it's easy to think in black and white terms.

Edited by william.scherk
Spelling, grammar, more black, less white
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Peter said:

Never, but let a trusted advisor convince you if you wish to take the time and listen. Use your own reason. As data becomes more readily available, you can and should change your own judgment as the truth emerges.

You are so far behind on truths which have emerged, you're a wonderment in your ability to keep your head resolutely glued in the sand.

"Just don’t look."

Ellen

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anthony said:

CHILDREN GAIN NOTHING OUT OF IT.

But those who want earth's human population radically reduced stand to have their desire fulfilled via long-term harm to inoculated children.

Ellen

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Marc said:

Devils advocate here, but if this is true wil you be asking the same question?

Not a clue. Follow your doctor's advise and stay away from the online tabloids. And think about this: how far away from Rand has your mind shifted?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Who and what fed, encouraged and manipulated the mob action?

The truth is out there. Listen to Don Jr.'s speech, Cynthia's speech, and President Trump's speech, before the riot / break-in / deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

You are so far behind on truths which have emerged, you're a wonderment in your ability to keep your head resolutely glued in the sand.

Nope. Sorry Ellen. Your brain is on another wave link and it is not tied to reason and rationality.  You are on "the fringe." What happened you guys? I can't even judge what happened Epistemologically. And stop surfing the net for insights. Listen to doctors, the AMA, YOUR doctor for . . . Pete's sake. Angry joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's noticeable, the upstanding scientists and doctors have very often voiced an identical criticism of "One size fits all".

They all pleaded for a targeted - individualized - method. They see and predicted what's obvious: it has been the uniform, collective ¬blanketed¬ approach across whole societies equally, to the pandemic, which has done and goes on doing the destruction.

Review the data (which was streaming in early on). Look at the mortality graphs. Identify the vulnerable. Review ALL the science, the "secondary" medical and psychological effects - and socio-economical. Proceed from there with a consistent strategy.

E.g. group xyz is known to be highly susceptible--so they should be informed/priority- protected, etc., while the greater and healthier numbers went on with their lives with minor upheaval. With that, as the virus spread mostly harmlessly through populations, an amount of natural herd immunity (old proven science) certainly would have been established last year, to have a base for artificial, inoculated immunity.

When vaccines do and did arrive, likewise, that group xyz is in most need of vaccinating. Any else who have concerns also. Although imperfect - 'leaky', still catching and transmitting, and of lowered immuno-resistance against new mutations - much better than nothing to definitely reduce Covid's severity for the aged (etc.). Additional, the (suspiciously) ignored and restricted, repurposed drug prevention/treatments available. Again maximize individual assessment and choice. Individual freedom and liberty are non-negotiable, especially in hard times.

Lives would have been saved by dedicated, focused individual care and self-care. Rather than dispersing the responsibility onto all others creating a false sense of 'public security'. Forced vaccinations would likely have been superfluous by this stage.

You need (or simply want) a jab - you get it, up to each person. A body is never owed to 'society'.

The "science" began wrongly and/or corruptly and is ending horribly, in Fascist measures making everyone comply. Freedom which won't easliy be regained. Seeped in, O'ists would know, have been the unquestioned default doctrines: sacrifice, collectivist, utilitarian.

Whenever I think you hear more doctors/scientists press for the individualized response, you know they are - objectively and ethically - as well as scientifically, on the right track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Peter said:

Nope. Sorry Ellen. Your brain is on another wave link and it is not tied to reason and rationality.  You are on "the fringe." What happened you guys? I can't even judge what happened Epistemologically. And stop surfing the net for insights. Listen to doctors, the AMA, YOUR doctor for . . . Pete's sake. Angry joke. 

"Stop being a moron, you morons! Reeeeeeee!!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AMA is a woke joke. Go to their website most of their efforts are focused on equity(medicine via marxist/racism).

They promote vaccine mandates , and mandates of experimental substances , they promote the use of non approved vaccines with the misleading proviso that Pfizer vaxxes are fully approved, the truth is one Pfizer product is fully approved, meaning that a recipient of said product which have legal recourse in the case of harm or negligence, but that recourse is not afforded to recipients of the EUA/ experimental products which are the only ones currently available. They are an organization of marxist obfuscators. Do not believe me, go to their publications and statements and judge for yourself.

If your doctor belongs to a hospital group or needs admission privileges to practice, they are beholden to the strictures of 'standard of a care' any deviation from those strictures have serious professional and financial repercussions.

If you are familiar with the standards and agree with them and realize your doctor is following them irrespective of their personal medical opinions then you are acting rationally. But if you  are acting on your doctor's 'advice' without regard to how they are formulating their 'advice' , you are acting on the principle of argument from authority and have removed yourself from the rational realm.

People lie all the time , a lot, for loads of reasons , all the time, that's reality.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Marc said:

Devils advocate here, but if this is true will you be asking the same question?

16 hours ago, Peter said:

Not a clue. Follow your doctor's advise and stay away from the online tabloids. And think about this: how far away from Rand has your mind shifted?  


"Not a clue." An honest answer, at least, since this person has previously admitted to ignoring counter-claims and evidence presented to him. And yet, he proceeds to answer as if he did:

"And think about this: how far away from Rand has your mind shifted? " This is an argument from intimidation, presented with no justification.

"...stay away from the online tabloids."

Another shameful attempt at package-dealing; this argument treats all dissent from the official narrative as "tabloid", when, in fact, there have been many arguments presented here against the official narrative from what would be considered respectable scientists and doctors who were a part of that narrative, including Dr. Robert Malone,  the inventor of the mRNA technology used with the Covid shots:

Quote

 

'Single most qualified' mRNA expert speaks about vaccine risks after he says YouTube banned his video

"The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines says he was censored by YouTube for sharing his concerns on the vaccines in a podcast."

Lawrence Richard

June 24, 2021·3 min read

The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines says he was censored by YouTube for sharing his concerns on the vaccines in a podcast.

"[O]ne of my concerns are that the government is not being transparent with us about what those risks are. And so, I'm of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept a vaccine or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines," said Dr. Robert Malone during a Wednesday segment on Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tonight, saying YouTube deleted a video of him speaking about the associated risks.

 

 

70f2b50f389cbc98e7ce320445fac579
NEWS.YAHOO.COM

The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines says he was censored by YouTube for sharing his concerns...


Now, Dr. Malone is not some "holistic healer" with a degree in feng shue from the University of Tijuana: He's the INVENTOR of the mRNA tech used in the vaccines. He's not even saying don't take the shot:

Quote

 

"Malone clarified that he was not discouraging the use of the vaccine but was providing people with as much fair information as he could about their risks.

"'This is a fundamental right having to do with clinical research ethics,' he said. 'And so, my concern is that I know that there are risks. But we don't have access to the data, and the data haven't been captured rigorously enough so that we can accurately assess those risks — and therefore … we don't really have the information that we need to make a reasonable decision.'"

 



So, then, why ignore him and attempt to shut down debate?

Well...


This is not posted for the benefit of those saying "stay away from tabloids", mind you, since they have admitted that they don't even read the information presented ("lalala, I cant hear you!, morons, lalala!" he said, with fingers in his ears) , so they are in no position to judge whether or not others have done their due diligence, let alone actually address any of the arguments and information themselves. They also ignore the evidence of people recovering from Covid due to the use of alternatives to the shots, like HCQ and Ivermectin, which have a long history of use already and are demonstrated to be safer. To top it off, they ignore the lack of transparency on behalf of the establishment (not to mention even the proven collusion of Fauci with China, re the "gain of function research",and that  the same establishment is telling your trusted doctor what to tell you) and that, rather than address the arguments and counter-evidence, they opt for censorship and de-platforming and intimidation to silence dissent.  Because of these evasions, such people are easily dismissed from the argument. But it is helpful to look at what's happening here as a microcosm of the situation at large.

Dismissing counter-evidence and dissent, not based on the facts of the argument, but because it strays from the official narrative reminds me of an excerpt from The Ideas of Ayn Rand by Ronald Merrill: "...this is inadequate; it refutes the arguer, perhaps, but no the argument." And I anticipate the response that one is permitted to dismiss the counter-arguments based on some "Peikovian doctrine of the arbitrary assertion." But, as Robert Campbell has pointed out, in his essay on the subject, the problem with that is, in order to determine whether or not an argument is arbitrary, one has to actually look at the evidence first. Now, if it were proven that the arguments in this case were arbitrary, then there would be more justification, but that's  something  that the naysayers have not done, and have self-admittedly refused to do, to refuse to even look at the evidence, let alone assess it rationally and objectively.

But because they have not only refused to look at counter-arguments and evidence, as some so eagerly admit, with a sense of pride, but have also engaged in arguments from intimidation, I don't think they're even attempting to pull an "arbitrary assertion" line of defense. No, what has been demonstrated is more of what Rand wrote about in  "Extremism, or the Art of Smearing". Just as the "moderates" attempted to lump together the John Birch Society with the Communist Party and the Klu Klux Klan, so does the equation of all current critics of the official medical narrative with "tabloids" and such.

Such package-dealing is an attempt to by bypass addressing the arguments and counter-evidence by false association, and it is shameful, as shameful as the attempt to justify one's  shortcomings in this debate by using the "argument of intimidation" of "you guys aren't being Objectivists" (while ignoring Rand's own opposition to forced vaccinations, oddly enough), when it's clear that the one abandoning reason and objectivity is the one who boasts of evading the facts and evidence presented by counter-arguments to the mainstream, while engaging in "arguments from intimidation", "package-dealing", and "the art of smearing." (And, most tellingly, when on the ropes, defends his inability to defend his argument with kindergarten-level ad-hominem of the following:
 

On 10/15/2021 at 2:04 AM, Peter said:

...stop acting like a moron. I know. You can out “argue me.“ But you are a . . . Epistemological duh, duh. Ask anybody who is not an ass kisser on OL. So. Me rethink, kemo sabi. As should you.


("you're a moron" and "epistemological duh-duh"... a step above "you're a doody-head", I suppose, but not by much...)

And who else does that? The sham trials of the "kangaroo courts" employed by dictatorships.

Anyway...let this be a teachable moment. The moral of the story: "Friends don't let friends be an enabler of sham trials and kangaroo courts and dictatorships."

#themoreyouknow
giphy.gif


 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, tmj said:

If you are familiar with the standards and agree with them and realize your doctor is following them irrespective of their personal medical opinions then you are acting rationally. But if you  are acting on your doctor's 'advice' without regard to how they are formulating their 'advice' , you are acting on the principle of argument from authority and have removed yourself from the rational realm.

People lie all the time , a lot, for loads of reasons , all the time, that's reality.

#themoreyouknow
giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now