3RU7AL

And every time I am reminded that I am not following morality, as I was taught in Christianity.

I would certainly not say it’s immoral to give them money,

Without money,

An individual often suffers,

Why do we make up all this stuff?

Myself I would say no,

Though that there are exceptions.

To my mind the 'moral action, would be to attempt to get them out of that lifestyle,

But the average person is not willing to risk themselves, or their funds, in what they expect often a hopeless endeavor.

For which they are not qualified.

They expect many individuals to prefer said lifestyle, possess an addiction, or mental handicap that 'keeps them to it.

If one is not going to help them, you say, perhaps the 'next most moral act 'would be to give them the money,

But I'd argue giving them directions to a public service that will 'actually help them, or feed them, to be better.

Better than a prolongation of their current lifestyle.

Better to give the money to a charity, or 'work in such a charity oneself.

That said I’m totally against the mandates,

Do you believe all the researchers at the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins are lying? 

a genuine use case

Would you consider organizing on Twitter as well? DART needs a Twitter account for maximizing recruitment.

Who tf even is airmax? I can't find his profile on here.

You don't really see Jews flying planes into buildings, or Christians actually beheading muslim reporters and soldiers on camera for fun. There is just one religion that creates these sorts of extremists, who feel they have a duty to kill as many non muslims as humanly possible.

batshit crazy friends who all hate the government and want to overthrow it?

The fact you can't defeat that argument, surprises me just about as much as it surprises me that you don't know how capitalization works.

I predicted that Covid would never be eradicated - it has animal reservoirs and mutates way too fast - I was right.

At the mods are going to go ahead and deem someone bad enough for a banned list they might as well ban the person from the site.

If you are being specific to Lunatic and myself I am not going to get baited into instigating against him.

You just can't help but get personal when you run out of any real arguments.

If you can still be banned, then your proposal is even less sensible than I originally thought. You have essentially resolved nothing then.

You did that only afterwards.

Why? Why should somebody who violates site rules be able to remain and be visible to others who opt-in while continuing to break site rules?

Yes, an amendment you made post-suggestion but even with that how the hell can this user contact others to get them to opt-in to reading their posts?

Even worse, new users to the site won't even know that user exists.

Okay and why would the mods want this user remaining but banned in some deceptive mindgame? Are they welcome in the community or not? Are they behaving in acceptable way or not? Which is it?

Be precise, which part of it disqualifies it as shadow-banning?

everybody's defaulted in including people who aren't signed up to the website and can't opt-in.

The term shadow banning has always been from the site owner making a person think their post is seen,

Of course. That thread doesn't state we are. Your platform is the first thing mentioned in the thread and an explanation at why you would not be able to fulfill your platform as easily as airmax is also listed. Go to the thread and respond, unless you agree with it, I. Which case just do the ethical thing and drop out.

My vote would go to entirely subjective at adherent to white flame as head mod 

On his personal website, Twitter, and LinkedIn, Dr. Robert Malone has been promoting himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. This is misleading. In 1989, Malone published a paper titled "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection." While this paper is an example of his important contribution to the then-emerging field, it does not make him the inventor of mRNA vaccines.

If the science is fake, it's fake. We'll know. We'll be told by the people that have a clue. 

I am probably not going to watch that, but if you want to give me some key takeaways I'll hear them. 

Some of these cases are so unique you have to almost treat them differently. 

You guys need to really get off the letter of the law and look more toward the spirit. 

It's considered mutual engagement.

after their recovery are more than 2 times as likely to get COV

Now I don't know much about this, but every fucking person should have gotten vaccinated. There was a whole world of scientists and regulatory bodies behind this thing. There might have been a billion years of education between them. But we're here dealing with clowns waving about random shit they found on Facebook, never read a book in their lives. Give me a break. 

I'm not so sure you have a point. You made some little mention of ideological agenda and maybe the person isn't using the science properly. But what's your point? If scientists overwhelmingly agree that we should all get vaccinated, and of course neither you nor I is a virologist or chemist or whoever the fuck cooks this shit up, why shouldn't I say listen to the science? Scientists are effective leadership in things scientific. It's next to obey me, so what? They've got PhD's, they can speak authoritatively. 

Strange amendment.

How is this user meant to tell others to unmute them if they're completely muted?

Would it apply to PMs?