-->
@Unpopular
Because you are responding to the claim without clarification - it doesn't matter if 3RU7AL doesn't clarify - I've already made two entire posts criticizing 3RU7AL, don't make a tu quoque.
half of GOP men won't get vaccinated- why the stupidity?
Posts
Total:
212
-->
@Greyparrot
I did not argue in favor of lockdowns. I said society seems to brush off 550,000 covid deaths, or 11,000 deaths of people under age 40, while in other instances agreeing to massive social changes with far less casualties. Cuomo shut down New York in March-April, back when very little was known about the virus, and Florida, the crown jewel of the radical right, did the same thing. On March 17, Desantis ordered all bars and nightclubs to be closed for 30 days, and extended school closures to April 15.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are going out of your way to criticize what I'm saying without making any good points at all. I said lockdowns slow the spread of covid. Your retort is that I have not specified what lockdown means. Nitpicky semantics. When I say lockdowns slow the spread, I quite obviously mean when people are staying at home or not frequenting non essential businesses.
According to Wikipedia the lockdown is a restriction policy for people or community to stay where they are, usually due to specific risks to themselves or to others if they can move and interact freely. The term "stay-at-home" or "shelter-in-place" is often used for lockdowns that affect an area, rather than specific locations.
So let's go back to what I said-lockdowns slow the spread of covid. When people are not going out to businesses, or staying at home, the rate of covid transmission is lower than if people are out and about.
Now that we all know what lockdown means, let's get back to my point. Maybe you would like to try answering given how much of a critique you have for the questions themselves. If I am home, or if the majority of people are home (so as to not be anecdotal) then how is the virus spreading at the same rate with limited contact to others compared to if we were all in normal proximity to others? If he read the source then he should be able to explain how people can contract a virus at the same rate if they are sitting at home as when they are out and about.
-->
@Unpopular
I said society seems to brush off 550,000 covid deaths.
Society brushes off 2.8 million dead Americans every year from non-Covid. Why you might ask? Because it's a natural bill coming due.
Every Birth in America will eventually become a death statistic in America, regardless of the cause. Until there is a decrease in net population, which Covid nowhere near made a dent in, then it's absolutely brushable off.
I predict due to the culling of the weak and the old in America in 2020 (about 340,000 from CDC stats for 2020) that non-covid deaths will be a lot lower than the predicted 2.8 million deaths for 2021 while births will be over 4 million. The real crisis is that there are not enough deaths to slow the population growth. The planet can't sustain the CO2 footprint of so many humans with this perpetual population growth even if we all had socially approved energy sources. We celebrate 4 million births a year while refusing to accept the reality that eventually there will be 4 million deaths a year down the road no matter what policy you can devise. Whether you try to lockdown to "slow" this reality or not. The end result is the same. This is why old people rage against the dying light and refuse to die huddled in a corner.
Cuomo shut down New York in March-April, back when very little was known about the virus,
For everyone but the 15,000 dead in retirement homes. Some lockdown.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-Dylan Thomas
-->
@Unpopular
You refused to define what you meant by lockdowns until now, you refused to use more than an anecdotal example, you failed to use any data to support your claims - these are all important questions to be raised - the topicality of your argument, the impact of your argument - these are a priori issues - your refusal to accept these is not my fault. I don't care if I agree with your conclusions, I will continue to criticize you if you are wrong.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I said lockdowns slowed the spread of covid. I did not think I had to clarify what lockdowns meant since it is so obvious. The moment you asked me to clarify, I did, so saying that I "refused" to clarify is just you being very dramatic. I never refused so that is a misrepresentation of what I said or rather did not say.
You are also saying I "refuse" to give more than one anecdotal example. Another dramatic lie. Twice now I have clarified if I am home, or if the majority of people are home (so as to not be anecdotal and not rely on one singular example, but use a generality of the entire population instead - the OPPOSITE of an anecdote) then how is the virus spreading at the same rate? I don't think you even know what the word anecdote means if you think I am relying on one here.
Of course I did not cite data to support my claims because I did not make any claim. I asked 3RU7AL a question. "If I am home with nobody in my household infected, can you explain how I am contracting the virus?" That is not a claim. But you decided to chime in to complain that I did not go after 3RU7ALs sources. Why should I be responsible for attacking his sources when I did not even once reference a single point he or his sources even made?
All I did was ask a question and then field these useless replies from you, first saying you don't know what lockdown means, then accusing me of not explaining what lockdowns mean even though I did the moment you asked me, and now saying I did not include data when I have never made a claim to cite and show data for. Show me the claim I made that requires data.
You think you are being objective and philosophically critical when you're really just misrepresenting and imposing burdens of proof on me that I absolutely do not have. That is what my debate is for. There is no burden on my part for asking a question in these forums because questions do not require any "proof."
You said you agree with my conclusions. What conclusion are you even talking about. I asked 3RU7AL how covid spreads equally fast during lockdowns and I asked Athias for data he has that shows vaccines do not slow the spread. So I don't even know what "conclusion" you are referring to and you have not proven me wrong about anything.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep.
Self serving interests.....It's called survival.
And a society is either governed or not.....And I think that not, isn't the more comfortable option.
-->
@Unpopular
Can you show me the data you have where it says vaccines have no impact on contracting or spreading the virus?
Key Points
- COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States are effective against COVID-19, including severe disease.
- Preliminary evidence suggests that the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines may provide some protection against a variety of strains, including B.1.1.7 (originally identified in the United Kingdom). However, reduced antibody neutralization and efficacy have been observed for the B.1.351 strain (originally identified in South Africa).
- A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing.
- Modeling studies suggest that preventive measures such as mask use and social distancing will continue to be important during vaccine implementation. However, there are ways to take a balanced approach by allowing vaccinated people to resume some lower-risk activities.
- Taking steps towards relaxing certain measures for vaccinated persons may help improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake.
- The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Vaccinated people could potentially still get COVID-19 and spread it to others. However, the benefits of relaxing some measures such as quarantine requirements and reducing social isolation may outweigh the residual risk of fully vaccinated people becoming ill with COVID-19 or transmitting the virus to others.
- Guidance for fully vaccinated people is available and will continue to be updated as more information becomes available.
Fully vaccinated people can:
- Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
- Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
- Refrain from quarantine and testing following a known exposure if asymptomatic
For now, fully vaccinated people should continue to:
- Take precautions in public like wearing a well-fitted mask and physical distancing
- Wear masks, practice physical distancing, and adhere to other prevention measures when visiting with unvaccinated people who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease or who have an unvaccinated household member who is at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease
- Wear masks, maintain physical distance, and practice other prevention measures when visiting with unvaccinated people from multiple households
- Avoid medium- and large-sized in-person gatherings
- Get tested if experiencing COVID-19 symptoms
- Follow guidance issued by individual employers
- Follow CDC and health department travel requirements and recommendations
Pretty sure Mitch McConnell said to get the vaccine
-->
@Athias
Why didn't you highlight the part of your source that says "A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others." Is it because it goes against your claim that vaccines have NO IMPACT on transmission? Very dishonest.
The same source also says "While some prevention measures will continue to be necessary regardless of vaccination status, fully vaccinated persons may be able to engage in some activities with low or reduced risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19."
Nothing you put in bold from the second source proves in any way that vaccines have no effect on transmission. It says vaccinated people still have to follow social distancing protocols, wear masks, and follow other guidelines which is obviously to slow the spread among UNVACCINATED PEOPLE. But even if you could transmit covid with the vaccine doesn't mean vaccines have NO IMPACT.
-->
@Unpopular
Why didn't you highlight the part of your source that says "A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others." Is it because it goes against your claim that vaccines have NO IMPACT on transmission? Very dishonest.The same source also says "While some prevention measures will continue to be necessary regardless of vaccination status, fully vaccinated persons may be able to engage in some activities with low or reduced risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19."Nothing you put in bold from the second source proves in any way that vaccines have no effect on transmission. It says vaccinated people still have to follow social distancing protocols, wear masks, and follow other guidelines which is obviously to slow the spread among UNVACCINATED PEOPLE. But even if you could transmit covid with the vaccine doesn't mean vaccines have NO IMPACT.
There is no "dishonesty" on my part. If there's any attempt to deceive, it would be present in your argument--particularly the manner in which you attempt to rebut my point by questioning my position on its "IMPACT" rather than the vaccine's capacity to prevent. So let's once again look at my argument:
The vaccine prevents neither the contraction nor the spread of the virus.
Does the vaccine prevent the contraction of the virus? According to the CDC references, NO. Does the vaccine prevent the spread of the virus? According, once again, to the the CDC references, NO.
You're attempting to engage me in an argument about the marginal reductions in risks--which isn't determined by an individual's immune response, but ecological inferences based on trials. I'm not being "dishonest" by emboldening specific lines. I'm just not "wasting time" by highlighting the information relevant to my argument. Welcome to the forums, sir.
-->
@Athias
you should just admit that your position is incoherent. "my immune system might not work properly therefore i'm not getting the vaccine" is one of the self evidently stupidest things i've heard lately.
i mean if someone wanted to argue that they dont want to be a guinea pig and that there may be side effects we dont know of, that's at least plausible. but the arguments being made in this thread are, just, incoherent.
-->
@Athias
A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers.
-->
@n8nrgmi
you should just admit that your position is incoherent.
It isn't incoherent. Your incapacity to understand does not make a position incoherent.
"my immune system might not work properly therefore i'm not getting the vaccine" is one of the self evidently stupidest things i've heard lately.
I did not make that argument. That's just your projection.
-->
@FLRW
A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers.
And how long were these trials? Seven months? Eight?
-->
@Athias
So let's once again look at my argument:The vaccine prevents neither the contraction nor the spread of the virus.Does the vaccine prevent the contraction of the virus? According to the CDC references, NO. Does the vaccine prevent the spread of the virus? According, once again, to the the CDC references, NO.
Your CDC source says the vaccine reduces the risk of viral spread, so explain how that proves your point that the vaccine does not prevent spread given the reduced risk. Why would the risk be reduced if there is no impact on transmission.
The CDC also said one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 80 percent effective at preventing infection, and two doses were 90 percent effective at preventing infection, which disputes your claim that the CDC says the vaccine offers no prevention to contracting the virus.
The coronavirus that causes covid-19 has spikes of protein on each viral particle. These spikes help the viruses attach to cells and cause disease. If they do not attach to the cells then you don't get covid. The vaccines help the body recognize these spike proteins and create antibodies so they don't attach, and you don't contract covid simply by coming into contact with the viral material. So yes the vaccine does prevent contraction of covid, and if less people are contracting covid, then less people are transmitting covid.
Also, if people are fighting off covid because they have antibodies already introduced from the vaccine, that is not something that can be accomplished just by washing your hands. You are free to keep preaching your anti vax fear mongering, but expecting the CDC to support that makes no sense. At this time they are still researching the effectiveness but have not determined there is no impact, so you are just drawing that conclusion that vaccines are useless while simultaneously saying the trials are not substantive or long enough. If they are not long enough then how can you be certain they are useless.
-->
@Unpopular
Your CDC source says the vaccine reduces the risk of viral spread, so explain how that proves your point that the vaccine does not prevent spread given the reduced risk.
Because "risk-reduction" is not the same as "prevention."
Why would the risk be reduced if there is no impact on transmission.
Non sequitur. Once again, you're alluding to "impact" despite my repeating my argument.
The CDC also said one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 80 percent effective at preventing infection,
This figure isn't based on one's immune response. Again, it's an ecological inference--and a fallacious one. It is based on the sample number in their trials. There's a difference between saying that Joe Shmoe has an 80% chance of not contracting the virus, and 80% of the participants in our trials didn't contract the virus during our experiments. The CDC is using the reasoning of the latter to propose the former.
Also, if people are fighting off covid because they have antibodies already introduced from the vaccine
The vaccine doesn't introduce antibodies.
that is not something that can be accomplished just by washing your hands.
Never said that it could.
You are free to keep preaching your anti vax fear mongering,
It is unnecessary to delineate that which I am "free" to do. If I intend to continue "preaching [my] anti vax fear mongering," I will. But just remember, you engaged me.
but expecting the CDC to support that makes no sense
But the CDC does support it--at least, the argument for which you wanted data.
At this time they are still researching the effectiveness but have not determined there is no impact
You're extending your arguments based on the same non sequitur.
so you are just drawing that conclusion that vaccines are useless while simultaneously saying the trials are not substantive or long enough.
Quote me verbatim.
If they are not long enough then how can you be certain they are useless.
Quote me verbatim.
-->
@Athias
Because "risk-reduction" is not the same as "prevention."
Straw man. I never said they were the same.
Non sequitur. Once again, you're alluding to "impact" despite my repeating my argument
Not a non sequitur. Throughout this thread you have been saying that covid vaccines were futile and getting them wouldn't help old people or immunocompromised people because they don't affect spread, so there was no point in most people getting the covid vax. Now you want to make it sound as if the only thing you claimed is "the vaccine prevents neither the contraction or spread of the virus" which is fine because you haven't offered any proof that's true anyway.
It is based on the sample number in their trials. There's a difference between saying that Joe Shmoe has an 80% chance of not contracting the virus, and 80% of the participants in our trials didn't contract the virus during our experiments. The CDC is using the reasoning of the latter to propose the former.
So the CDC is only reporting data on people they've actually studied. Imagine that. Funny that you think the CDC is such a shoddy source that it's the one you chose when I asked you for a source. So what you're saying is their data is so bad and unreliable that it's the one you're relying on to make your point.
The vaccine doesn't introduce antibodies.
I said vaccines help the body recognize spike proteins and create antibodies.
Never said that it could.
You said a more practical response instead of vaccination is "to just simply practice good hygiene (and nutrition.)" And I said washing your hands doesn't help create antibodies. So no you did not say that washing hands creates antibodies, but you're saying washing hands is "a more practical response" which is not true for many people.
It is unnecessary to delineate that which I am "free" to do. If I intend to continue "preaching [my] anti vax fear mongering," I will. But just remember, you engaged me.
It is unnecessary to tell me that it is unnecessary for me to say you are free to do something. If I intend to continue to tagging you in posts and replying to you, I will. And you can do what you want in response. But yes I did engage you, and you did not even answer the first question I asked you when you said most people in "hotbeds" have already had covid. I asked you how you came to that conclusion and you chose to ignore that question.
But the CDC does support it--at least, the argument for which you wanted data.
No, the CDC does not support your argument. I asked if you can show me the data you have where it says vaccines have no impact on contracting or spreading the virus. You responded with a CDC source which explicitly says vaxxed people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to contract and transmit covid, which is the opposite of your claim.
The CDC also said one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 80 percent effective at preventing infection, and two doses were 90 percent effective at preventing infection. Less infections means less opportunity for spread.
They believe vaxxed people may get infected but not develop the symptoms that cause spread through respiratory droplets. The studies are ongoing, but I am still not sure why you are using CDC data after calling it fallacious and unreliable.
You're extending your arguments based on the same non sequitur.
This is not making a point or claim so I won't bother asking which alleged non sequitur you're referring to.
Quote me verbatim.
You did not explicitly use the word "useless." You said, "Injecting the virus especially with some corticosteroid is an exaggerated response to that which can be addressed by simply practicing good hygiene (e.g. the way one avoids contracting the cold or flu viruses.)" This implies the vaccine is useless. I will repeat that washing your hands doesn't help the body create antibodies.
You said "It's the immune system that produces the necessary antibodies that may "stop" the disease. The vaccine helps with this, but so does contracting the infection in the first place should one not succumb to it." Here you are implying that the vaccine is useless because it is just as effective or ineffective as contracting the infection in the first place, which is not true as there are people who get the vaccine and do not die or get sick (for instance, people over age 80) whereas if they contracted covid, their risk of becoming sick or dying would be much higher than just from the vaccine dose. The vaccine does not produce the same response as contracting the virus itself.
You said, "If you're getting vaccinated every five years, what has the vaccine accomplished? If it's to bolster one's immune system, then there are alternatives that don't require intravenous introduction of an infection/disease/syndrome." This implies what you said in another post, that just practicing good hygiene and eating healthy would be enough, which it isn't for many people.
You might say that these inferences are not verbatim quotes. That is like if you said "these potatoes are good" and I said "so you enjoy the potatoes" and you say "no, I never said that verbatim" as if that is not what you meant. If you want to go that route that is fine. But throughout this thread you have implied the vaccination is not useful and poses more risk than potential rewards, because it does not prevent spread, which does not appear to be true. And you said the vaccines don't help people who can't fight off the covid infection anyway, which is also not true, because people who get the vaccine can and often are perfectly fine and not at risk of serious illness or death whereas contracting a full on covid infection without any antibodies already present does pose those risks to them.
-->
@Unpopular
Straw man. I never said they were the same.
You attributed an argument to me which is informed by "risk-reduction." If you are conceding that they are not the same, then why are you scrutinizing the statement: "The vaccine prevents neither the contraction nor the spread of the virus"?
(And that's not a straw-man, by the way.)
Not a non sequitur. Throughout this thread you have been saying that covid vaccines were futile and getting them wouldn't help old people or immunocompromised people because they don't affect spread, so there was no point in most people getting the covid vax.
Quote me verbatim.
Now you want to make it sound as if
"Wanting to make it sound as if" is not the same as what I stated. "What it sounds like" is your impression, not my argument.
the only thing you claimed is "the vaccine prevents neither the contraction or spread of the virus" which is fine because you haven't offered any proof that's true anyway.
That is not the only thing I've "claimed," but then again, you did enter this discussion late. Perhaps you'll read from the very beginning and see all the arguments made by myself and others to understand what is being "claimed."
And proof? Once again, read what is being stated. Don't just react.
So the CDC is only reporting data on people they've actually studied.
I'd presume so.
Funny
Funny is irrelevant.
that you think
You don't know what I "think."
the CDC is such a shoddy source
Quote me verbatim.
that it's the one you chose when I asked you for a source.
All the more reason it'd be counterintuitive that I'd call it a "shoddy source." And guess what? I didn't. Perhaps, it would be more prudent that you look up ecological inference than to project your impressions.
I said vaccines help the body recognize spike proteins and create antibodies.
You stated and I quote:
Also, if people are fighting off covid because they have antibodies already introduced from the vaccine
You said a more practical response instead of vaccination is "to just simply practice good hygiene (and nutrition.)" And I said washing your hands doesn't help create antibodies. So no you did not say that washing hands creates antibodies, but you're saying washing hands is "a more practical response" which is not true for many people.
Practicing good hygiene is the primary way to prevent the contraction and spread of infection. Did you not know that?
But yes I did engage you, and you did not even answer the first question I asked you when you said most people in "hotbeds" have already had covid. I asked you how you came to that conclusion and you chose to ignore that question.
It was an inductive argument. That is, supposing certain conditions were true, the logical extension of the premise would be so, and so. Here look:
If we are to take the epidemicity of this virus seriously, then that would suggest that most who live in the "hotbeds" have been exposed.
I don't take the epidemicity seriously. And "hotbed" by definition is directly related to exposure.
No, the CDC does not support your argument. I asked if you can show me the data you have where it says vaccines have no impact on contracting or spreading the virus.
That's not my argument. My argument is once again:
The vaccine prevents neither the contraction nor the spread of the virus.
And the CDC report does support it. I won't defend an argument I didn't make.
You did not explicitly use the word "useless."
So case closed.
-->
@Athias
@Unpopular
it looks like i'm not the only one who had trouble communicating with athias, here is something he said that makes it look like was saying vaccines are pointless...
"One's injecting oneself with a vaccine provides little more than a placebo effect, except unlike a placebo, vaccines can harm."
but i think if you look at the context, he was saying that, only if the person's immune system didn't work properly. he seemed to make it sound like we might as well assume we are all immuno compromised.
-->
@n8nrgmi
it looks like i'm not the only one who had trouble communicating with athias, here is something he said that makes it look like was saying vaccines are pointless..."One's injecting oneself with a vaccine provides little more than a placebo effect, except unlike a placebo, vaccines can harm."but i think if you look at the context, he was saying that, only if the person's immune system didn't work properly. he seemed to make it sound like we might as well assume we are all immuno compromised.
And what of your complicity in this miscommunication?
I don't feel particularly invulnerable. I just know the risks of the pharmacological effects of these vaccines, not to mention that I believe in the resiliency of the immune system. One of the first books I read as a child was my mother's book on Pathology. So as a kid I developed the habit of practicing good hygiene especially with the knowledge of how infections transmit. I'm not stating one shouldn't take the vaccine if that is what one has decided, though personally I would not. But to claim one is a "stupid GOP'er" for neither wanting nor intending to take the vaccine is another thing.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Mr A is probably Trypanophobic.
So as long as they can slip a strawman or non-sequitur into there argument, it will temporarily assuage their fears.
Though, good debating isn't necessarily about being honest..........It's about effectivity.
Covid, blood clot, cancer, heart failure.....You gotta go some time.
Choices, choices.
-->
@n8nrgmi
What about solutions?
I think reverse psychology would work best. Perhaps saying there isn’t enough vaccines for white people.
-->
@zedvictor4
Mr A is probably Trypanophobic.So as long as they can slip a strawman or non-sequitur into there argument, it will temporarily assuage their fears.Though, good debating isn't necessarily about being honest..........It's about effectivity.Covid, blood clot, cancer, heart failure.....You gotta go some time.Choices, choices.
I was going to say that you could do "better," but I haven't seen anything in our numerous exchanges that would inform that suggestion. And like clockwork, you attempt to go after my character rather than the argument. Not to mention, you put forward contrived "meta"-analyses about "the art of debating." If you have a point about what's being argued, then just make it. Oh, you did, and it was promptly shut down by myself, Greyparrot, and 3RU7AL.
-->
@Athias
i'm not sure if you have already stated it somewhere, but do you have any evidence that a coronavirus vaccine would cause serious side effect harms? at least with the johnson and johnson vaccine, you have a hundred percent chance of not dying as a benefit. on the bad side, we have a theoretical chance that a vaccine could cause serious harm and a small chance of minor side effects. is there anything more specific than that as far as potential harm?
-->
@n8nrgmi
you have a hundred percent chance of not dying as a benefit.
Why do you think this? It's such a wild thing to say.
-->
@Greyparrot
While J&J’s vaccine has 66.3% effectiveness overall and 74.4% effectiveness in the United States, it has 100% efficacy against hospitalization and death from the virus.
-->
@FLRW
it has 100% efficacy against hospitalization and death from the virus.
No. Plus that isn't what he said.
-->
@Athias
Just pointing out you debating style......Which is obviously reflective of your intellect....But might or might not be reflective of your character.
Nonetheless, your debating style tends not to vary much, and is therefore predictable.....And probably, nor does, and so is mine.....And nor does, and so is everyone else's, I suppose.
And I find that people shut you down, either, when they run out of logical argument, or if their argument is based upon illogic in the first place.