Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Greyparrot
When it becomes near impossible to protect a Federal courthouse, the government is too big.
those 2 things are not related at all. The building was under threat because the government isn't doing enough to help black people. If anything the response to this is that we need more government assistance, not less.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It annoys me to hear these Marxist anarchists referred to a "protestors."
so anyone who protests for the rights of black people are Marxists or anarchists? that doesn't even make any sense.
They should charged with domestic terrorism. Every single one they dragged out of there needs the book thrown at them. Keep them off the streets.
that is authoritarianism in a nutshell. You did something I don't like? I am going to use force to stop you even though you have the right to do it.
This is why they cannot dissolve or defund law enforcement. Who knew that Donald Trump would be right about people wanting Law and Order.
Trump and his shock troops are escalating the violence for the exact reason you are describing. He wants to cause violence. He wants the news full of clips of angry protesters so that his cultists will feel afraid. He wants to look like the "Law and Order" candidate, when the fact is that he is causing violence. He is spreading chaos and destruction. But it isn't working. His cultist base believes whatever he says. Most people see federal thugs beating innocent people and don't agree with it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
HB thinks the Gestapo is just fine if it is an ultra left-wing mayor cracking down on the chaos of chop though.
and yet more false "all or nothing" responses. Either police should shoot innocent people, or there needs to be chaos in the streets. The obvious middle ground is we should have police who don't shoot innocent people. Why is this such a difficult thing for you to understand?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
from apprehending Antifa. .
why do you keep bringing up antifa? I have seen no evidence they are involved? Is that just the catch all you use for people you don't like?
If you choose to ignore criminals around you, that's your fault when the police shoves you to the ground to get at them.
again, you believe that the police have the right to shoot innocent people in their pursuit of people they don't like. That is authoritarianism.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s also funny how HB still hasn’t answered how the violent rioters should be arrested if the rioters are assaulting them nonstop.
those attacks started after the feds started using gestapo tactics on them. Again, you are using violence that happens now, to justify what accelerated that violence.
it’s literally the Gestapo.
I agree. Trump's feds attacking peaceful protesters in the street is like the gestapo.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
well that's interesting because many who claim that believe it, no malicious intent, but you'd punish and or silence them for potentially being wrong?
no, i would punish them for spreading misinformation. we could easily put in place a system that gives a warning. We could even put in place a system where that warning includes proof that what they are saying is incorrect. If they want to continue to spread the misinformation even after being told it is misinformation, then yes they should be banned.
right the old slippery slope, that which is legal is specific. What you would expand what is obscene and false is arbitrary.
you keep saying it is arbitrary, but by definition it isn't. I would ban people from spreading info that is demonstrably false. That isn't arbitrary at all.
so like the narrative that cops murder blacks at some false rate which statistics show that's not true?
white privilege is proven demonstrably false
if you think that is true, then you clearly haven't been paying attention.
the poorest people live in Kentucky and are white.
what is your point? There are poor people from other ethnicities, so black people must not be targetted and harassed by the police? Do you think you are making sense?
a medication that cures a disease will prove itself true or false, the vaccine claim I don't believe can be proven false for the reasons above.
it has been proven false. there have been TONS of studies showing it to be false. There was 1 study showing it was true. that study was proven to be false.
you also (generally speaking) have to prove harm, libel and defamation are prime examples of that. If I say or write something about you that's false you have no case if you can't prove you were damaged/harmed, right?
I'm not advocating for individuals to be sued. Although that could be something worth looking into. In this case I was saying platforms should ban people for doing these things. If they don't, then they could be fined.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why the fuck are they there in the first place. It’s stupidity to peacefully protest next to a person who’s throwing Molotov cocktails lol. At that point you’re asking for it.
so being the general vicinity of a criminal makes you a criminal? It should give federal thugs the right to shoot you because you happen to be somewhere near them? That is authoritarianism.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
So they should stand there and do nothing while Molotov cocktails shoot over their heads, lasers blind police officers, caustic liquid gets thrown at them, federal property gets broken into? What type of fantasy do you live in lol. How the hell do “protect” property lmao.
ok, but most of what you described only happened after the feds started attacking protesters. You are using the violence happening now to justify the events that caused the violence to happen. It's like using a suicide bombing in Iraq today to justify the invasion years ago.
In what context should it be used? I’m really curious. If you attack federal agents they are going to reciprocate and they have the right to whether you like it or not.
why? you keep saying they should attack, but why? what is the goal of unleashed violence from the feds? Is it to stop the violence? it isn't doing that. Is it to arrest the criminals? Since it is fueling more violence, it is only creating more criminals. By pretty much any metric, the violence unleashed by the feds has failed. so why would you advocate it as a strategy?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no constitutional right to sheild Antifa from a lawful arrest. If you obstuct the police, you are a criminal.
as far as trump's thugs are concerned, if you are protesting you are somehow antifa and they have the right to beat you or shoot you.
Created:
-->
@Vader
You're delusional for not wanting to arrest rioters. These people are committing crimes and you are allowing them to riot. You wanna judge the police off their violent ones, I will do the same for yours. Arrest the rioters, keep the peaceful protesters, it's not hard to catch rioters
the main problem is that the tactics used by the federal thugs is causing alot of the violence. If you need to shoot innocent people to catch a few guilty ones, those innocent people are much more likely to respond with resistance of violence in the future. So every time the police abuse protesters to go after "rioters" they are creating more people they would label as "rioters". It is a self defeating strategy.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
More detailed please. Do you want federal agents coming in front of the violent protestors and arresting them? They tried that.
it isn't always going to be possible to arrest every rioters. It never is. But police can protect property without shooting and clubbing peaceful protesters. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of videos of police attacking people who are not attacking police.
Lemme phrase it’s this way: should violent rioters be tear gassed?
depends on context. The point of these tactics is to protect property and reduce violence. If firing tear gas at protesters is increasing violence, obviously doing so is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
if it's touch based then what good are masks?
the point of the are to keep the virus in, primarily from people not showing symptoms.
people are constantly touching the outside of their masks which harbor a bunch of the virus. If that's the mode of transmission masks are actually making it worse like suggested in the video.
that would only be true if people weren't touching their faces regularly without the masks. But they do. So no, I don't see how they could possibly make it worse.
I'd say my risk is lower than a Walmart cashier.
hard for me to say. If you are a doctor, nurse, orderly etc, then no. Your risk would be much higher. But i'm sure there are lots of people in the medical field who don't regularly come into contact with sick people.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
So how do you propose the violent protestors get arrested? I’m genuinely curious.
the same way anyone gets arrested. Police work. Not by mass assault on people engaging in their constitutionally protected rights.
If stopping violence is the goal, then the gestapo tactics obviously failed. It didn't stop or even reduce the violence. It massively fueled it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
We already tried that with Chop. After a few dead people, the most liberal mayor in the history of the USA said enough with the lies.This isn't a summer of love. Without the police, you have a summer of violence, death, and hate. Chop is a history lesson for you.
and we are right back to the extremes again. To you everything is an all or nothing. Either police need to shoot innocent people on the street, or we need to have no police. No one is advocating for that. We want police that don't shoot innocent protesters. why is that so hard to understand?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Nice dodge.
it's not a dodge. there were a few violent rioters. Then trump sent in shock troops to attack everyone. Once you get attacked by police, you are much more likely to be ok with people attacking the police. You are much more likely to do so yourself.
So sending in the shock troops to abuse peaceful protests has massively amplified the problem.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
or what? their site be taken down if they don't enforce that?
i have no advocated for an enforcement mechanism. that's a separate discussion we could have. I would say fines for companies that allow misinformation to spread would probably work.
you mean like fake news? This type of censorship is beyond dangerous, rather reminiscent of George Orwell
no it isn't. We aren't talking about news we disagree with. We are talking about people pushing demonstrably false information. Like saying that vaccines cause autism, which they obviously don't.
Businesses would only do this for their own interested anyway just like creating fake news, this is why censorship is dangerous and anyone who supports it isn't pro free speech.
lol you have already confirmed there is no such thing as free speech. You are fine with censoring things already. All we are talking about is changing which things we censor. So saying you can't be in favor of censoring things and also be pro-free speech makes no sense. Because by that logic almost no one is pro free speech, including you.
there are no more laws or censorship that is needed beyond what is already illegal because I care about free speech.
you keep contradicting yourself. You are fine with some censorship laws, but insist you are pro free speech. I want slightly different censorship laws but for some reason that means I am not pro free speech. Do you not see the hypocrisy of what you are saying?
my understanding is that you would expand the laws, if that's not true please clarify because if that is true I can't see how you could say you care about free speech.
im saying that people spreading information that is demonstrably false should not be protected. We already do this for businesses. If they tell you their medication cures a disease and it doesn't, you can sue that business. But if an individual tells you that vaccines cause autism (which they don't), they are allowed to keep spreading that misinformation and get people killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I've looked and haven't found any evidence or study that backs that up, maybe you could provide some for us..
i'm sorry, I don't understand. This is the main way the virus spreads. How do you think the virus is spreading then?
you should petition your government officials to stop obesity, much bigger death threat than covid
this response is a silly attempt to distract. Obesity is caused by decisions made by that person. They have the ability to prevent it. No one dies from obesity who didn't make choices that lead to that death. Covid doesn't care what choices you make. You can do everything right and still die of Covid. They are in no way comparable.
Personally the touching and adjusting of masks I've witnessed a lot, I find myself doing it as well, my hands are around my face far more now than when I didn't have to wear a mask.
probably not true. The average person touches their face constantly. But it is the kind of thing we don't think about. You are just much more conscious of how much you are touching your face now.
I work in healthcare.
I see. Well then you are likely coming into contact with people who have covid much more frequently than average. So the odds of someone coughing or sneezing at you is much higher. I could see how face shields would be necessary for people in healthcare.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
What type of peaceful protestors willingly stands next to a person who’s throwing Molotov cocktails at a federal courthouse lol
what kind of police officer stands next to someone shooting innocent protesters in the head? Sadly, most of them are willing to do so.
And being on the receiving end of violence from the police tends to make people very forgiving of violence against the police. You want protesters to condemn violence against the police? Then stop allowing the police to commit violence against protesters.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
ok go a head and define obscene, or better yet how and who gets to define it?
in this context? The company making the software would decide what they consider obscene. If you disagree and what to post things they consider obscene, you are free to post somewhere else.
you do understand cops can lie, mislead etc to make arrests and solve crimes right?
im not advocating lies being punishable in public. I'm advocating lies as an attempt to mislead on the internet should be punished (ie banned). If you want to lie to your friends and family, go nuts. If you want to tell people vaccines cause autism online, you should be banned.
religion by some is considered a lie as are many other things people just have to believed.
in order for it to be a lie, it has to be demonstrably false. Religion is designed to based on faith. Therefore you can't really disprove it. So it isn't a lie.
businesses often mislead to some degree or another, history, literature, advertising.
this is already illegal. You can be sued for false advertising etc.
funny part is, what you are advocating for would make President Trump correct, you actually agree with the title of this thread, how ironic, do you feel dirty now that you are a Trump supporter LOL
your comment makes no sense. I want companies to ban people for spreading misinformation. That would include misinformation about trump. Trump wants saying anything bad about him to be illegal. most of it happens to be true unfortunately. So what I want and what trump want are nothing alike.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
An accessory after the fact is a person who knowingly assists another person who committed a crime to avoid arrest or punishment. Accessories after the fact are not accomplices in the crime itself. Their assistance to the criminal is grounds for punishment in and of itself.
in order for this to be true, the accessory has to know about the crime. If you help someone and it turns out they committed a crime (which you didn't know about) then you are not an accessory. So the crowd of innocent people being attacked by federal troops is just a crowd of innocent people being attacked by federal troops. They are not accomplices, they are not terrorists. They are using the constitutionally protected right to protest and trump wants to have them shot in a vain attempt to boost his poll numbers.
Trump is literally having US citizens shot in the street to boost his poll numbers and right wing lunatics are cheering him on. It doesn't take much to go from shooting protesters to shooting other people. Given how much the right loves to cry about a "slippery slope", the fact that you are ok with government violence against innocent people is disturbing and very much highlights your hypocrisy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You appear to be arguing Antifa can shoot, beat or pepper spray, or blind with lasers anyone, no matter if they are innocent or not. If you believe that, then you don't really believe in a free society.
I don't believe I ever said that. You are just making shit up. What I said is that there were a handful of rioters causing damage. Then Trump send in shock troops to attack protesters at random. This caused the protesters to arm themselves in response to the attacks by trump's thugs. Sending in the troops only escalated the violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
actually there is no actual instance of someone contracting covid from an object, much like what you read about the small droplets I think you'll find the surface risk is the same just a possible theory.
what? no. This is one of the common ways of spreading the virus. Someone with the virus puts it on an object like a doorknob. Someone else touches the door knob and then touches their face and then contracts the virus.
people don't have to justify not wearing a mask, that should be their choice, just like it's you choice to avoid them or stay home.
this is not even remotely true. The government has the power to mandate safety equipment. You want to ride in a car? you will wear a seatbelt or you will be fined. You want to walk in public? you will wear a minimum amount of clothing or you can be arrested. There is nothing new about the government creating rules requiring specific things to be warn.
if you can, listen to this guy with an open mind, you don't have to agree, but follow the logic if you can, it may help you understand other's point of view.
i sort of skimmed through it to get some of the bullet points. He does have some valid points. The lockdowns do hurt people. I do not dispute that. But alot more people would be hurt by letting the virus run rampant.
we've had to wear eye shields at work and apparently Faucci is advocating them now.
do you mind me asking what kind of work it is you do? Maybe there is a specific reason in your industry they are needed.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree, the few radical left fucktards in Antifa should be allowed to peacefully assault federal buildings without getting the Tim McVeigh treatment from Trump's goons.The FBI should respect the shield of innocent peaceful protestors just like they respect the Mosques and children Islamic terrorists hide behind.
wow, that is incredibly authoritarian. You appear to be arguing the govnerment can shoot, beat or pepper spray anyone, no matter if they are innocent or not. If you believe that, then you don't really believe in a free society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Black Lives Matter is an inaccurate slogan that promotes racism simply by differentiating Black Lives.
this is an incorrect statement. The common example to try to explain this goes like this: Your house is on fire and you are trying to get people/the fire department to come and put it out. They respond "with well all houses matter, not just yours". Your house is the one on fire. pointing out the problem and trying to draw attention to it is not an attempt to tell people that their houses don't matter. But you are the one with the biggest, immediate problem.
You are attempting to argue that drawing attention to the acute issues black people face is somehow racist. They aren't saying white lives don't matter. They are saying that black people's lives matter, because to politicians and society in general, they often don't.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Be disturbed. That is your right, too. Be offended. But censure is not your proper response.
why? people are dying because of this shit? Why should there not be consequences for that? Like the people who constantly claim that vaccines cause autism when it has been proven over and over that they don't. People die because they didn't take a vaccine. The people spreading that misinformation are killing them.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the glaring difference is you would further limit free speech arbitrarily and I would not, so for you to claim you care about free speech is rather laughable really.
no, arbitrary is making rules up at random or on a whim. Mine are very clear and logical. No demonstrable lies. It is very clear. It very easy to follow. There is nothing arbitrary about it. And why would we want misinformation which causes all kinds of pain, suffering and death to be protected? It doesn't make any sense.
lies and false speech is protected speech to your dismay, it if wasn't there wouldn't be any free speech unfortunately for you.
lol if not being able to lie means you wouldn't be able to speak, then you may want to reevaluate how much you are lying.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly...why did Trump's Goons have to assault McVeigh and Antifa for peacefully attacking a Federal Building?
lol there you go again blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a small minority. Someone committed acts of vandalism, so the police attacked protesters. Once the protesters got attacked, they armed themselves more to defend themselves against the thugs attacking them. Then the police started shooting them and kidnapping them off the streets, so they armed themselves further.
The police are escalating a cycle of violence. They are not improving the situation, they are only making it worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
In fact they only travel about 3 feet (arms length). Because of that information I still maintain a mask isn't needed unless a person is sneezing or coughing.
I haven't seen those graphs. But that could be accurate. But that still wouldn't justify not wearing a mask in public. Lots of people still aren't adhereing to social distancing and will regularly end up inside of that distance. Also, your spit will still end up on objects around you that other people will touch. You are therefore still very much capable of spreading the virus to other people.
It might be possible to put rules in place like you describe, but sadly people simply aren't following social distancing rules nearly enough for that to work. Complicating the rules further won't help. I think it is a much better plan to keep it simple. You want to go into a public place then wear a mask. Simple, easy to follow, easy to spot people breaking the rules.
Also based on this eye shields aren't needed either unless there is potential exposure from coughing or sneezing.
I haven't seen any rules that require eye shields? Is that a rule somewhere that I haven't seen?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
they are consistent, but not consistent from someone who claims to care about free speech, that is what I'm pointing out. Thought it was very obvious.
it was not. you are pretty unclear. But as we have both confirmed, there is no such thing as completely free speech. So saying you support free speech and also being clear on what limits you would put on free speech are in no way contrary positions. We both agree there need to be limits on free speech. You just want that limit to allow people to spread lies and misinformation that will get people killed and I believe we should not allow people to spread misinformation that will get people killed.
so circling back, you don't care about free speech or don't understand it, you only care about speech you agree with, obviously, and what you don't like (find obscene,misleading, whatever) should be censored/banned whatever, thus
You seriously do not make sense. We both agree there are limits to free speech. But when I say what that limit should be, I must hate free speech. When you say what that limit should be then somehow that is different. So are you a hypocrite that believes that only you have the right to decide where that limit is, or are you so ideologically blinded that you can't see the hypocrisy of the argument you are making?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Right, if only the Feds would just take their courthouses and buildings and move them to D.C. maybe Antifa and McVeigh wouldn't have had to attack those buildings.
because shooting the protesters in the head is doing so much good? Only someone blinded by ideology could see a policy (shooting and attacking protesters) that is failing miserably and think that the problem is that you just aren't escalating the violence badly enough.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
peaceful protestors put some police in the hospital.
the level of ignorance on the right is astounding. Police attack these people day after day escalating the violence. Then people on the right wing point to the violence as evidence the police were right to attack them in the 1st place.
That's like arguing we needed to invade iraq because troops get attacked there today. If you didn't start/escalate the violence, you wouldn't be having these problems.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
never said there was, nor did I ever say there weren't limits because lying is only illegal if it conflicts with someone else rights by falsely taking advantage of them. All call to action/threat is not considered free speech. This has been gone over many times at great length.
ok, so we both agree that there are limits to free speech and that is totally normal. so far so good.
those are not consistent with the statement
what? Those statements were "we try to control obscene or misleading content." and "I have never said i am fine with obscene content." those are entirely consistent. In one I say we should control it. In the other I say i am not fine with obscene content. Those are the same thing.
Are you even reading what I am saying? Because the things you respond with suggest you are not.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's the editors and publishers that get ultimately sued, not the content creators.
uh huh. And since twitter isn't editing them, obviously this does not apply to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so why couldn't an air conditioning or other air circulating systems circulate those droplets?
the issue is droplet size. Droplets that are sprayed out of people's mouths are obviously not all the same size. In order for the droplets to remain airborne and be spread by an AC they need to be very small. The evidence so far has not shown that droplets that small can infect someone. So it is possible that in some cases this does happen, but so far there isn't any evidence that this is a common way to spread the virus.
So while we certainly need further investigation to be certain, so far the much more important things to be focusing on are getting people to socially distance and wear masks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nope, it is because of AC and that is a fact
lol so you provide a source which pretty clearly disproves what you are saying, I explain how it is disproving what you are saying, and then you respond with basically sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same bullshit.
How intellectually honest can you be to see articles proving you are wrong, but keep clinging to the same lies?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
there is NO qualified free speech.
of course there is. You yourself confirmed obscene speech is not protected. There is lots of speech that isn't protected. You can be sued for slander. You can arrested be if you lie about services you will provide. You can be arrested if you say that you are going to harm someone. So speech is free, except when we, as a society, decide it isn't. It has always been that way. Pretending otherwise is childish. There is no such thing as completely free speech.
now if you are doing a 180 and saying private entities can make their own rules, that is generally true, but then they should fall under the same rules and regulations are news media.
why? News media creates content. They are therefore liable for the things said in the content they created. Twitter and facebook do not make content. So there is no reason why we would treat them as the same, because they aren't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
its hotter temperatues and AC indoors
you completely ignored the point. Yes AC drives people indoors and makes people turn on AC. However there is no solid evidence that anyone has ever caught covid because of AC or via airborne transmission. And even if there are a few cases, the vast majority of cases do not spread that way. So even if it is a factor, it is a very minor one.
So no, hot weather is not causing corona virus to spread. Idiots not obeying social distancing and not wearing their masks are spreading corona virus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
And it should be obvious why people are skeptical of mask mandates since talking and breathing do not expel large droplets or distance like coughing and sneezing do, right?
that is false. Talking and breathing can and do expel large droplets.
Created:
-->
@Vader
And they couldn't have made changes in that time period.
without proper funding, training and the government making decisions about what changes to make? no they couldn't.
Trump cares about the education system, not what a school in Illinois does.
lol that's like saying I like kids, but I don't care if some specific kids die. Either you want schools to be safe, or you don't.
If I get payed $1 for every box I pack, and my boss told me to pack 100, and I only pack 50, I'd make $50 versus $100. If you do 1/2 the work, you get 1/2 the pay.
this makes no sense for a couple reasons.
1) who pays that way? virtually everyone gets paid an hourly rate or a salary. So right off the top your example is useless.
2) even using that case, it still makes no sense. they are still teaching the same number of kids. They are still teaching the same classes. that hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the method they are using to teach them.
3) even if I accepted that they were somehow doing less work (which I don't) your suggestion is incredibly cruel. Changes are needed to keep students and teachers safe. You want to punish those teachers because safety measures are needed. That is stupid. That is how you drive teachers into another line of work and create a massive shortage of trained teachers.
With proper social distancing guidelines, sanitation stations, mandatory entrance tests, etc, there will be no need to fear. A school can be made much safer if PROPER planning went into place for the time they had to discuss
I agree. But there are no requirements to do any of those things. There isn't proper funding and training to help schools do those things. Therefore, since those things are not going to be able to be implemented properly, it is incredibly unsafe to reopen the schools.
So you'd rather have the future generations of children grow up to be lazy screen dwellers, who do easy assignments with no teacher support, have their lives destroyed, cripple the mental health of seniors to the point where seniors are depressed.
lol i would like future generations to be alive. And to have families that are alive. And live in a country where the economy hasn't imploded because we never got a pandemic under control.
Good to note you don't care about the students.
you advocate forcing students and teachers into an unsafe environment putting them and their families at risk. But somehow I am the one who doesn't care about them? That is just delusional.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who gives a fuck? We agree on Cronyism. The world is a safer place now.
I'm not getting into this with you. It is really sad and pathetic that you are still trying.
It is also sad and pathetic that you continue to dodge the disgusting way you are attempting to paint millions of people by the actions of a tiny number.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is nothing to discuss. We both agree that Cronyism is a good thing.You have convinced me.
so you're just going to completely dodge what we were talking about in a sad attempt to distract? Sounds about right for your debating abilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
that wuote proves what i have benn saying
you've been saying that the heat doesn't have any proven affect on spreading covid? Because that is what the article is saying.
The article says there there is SOME evidence that SOME cases MIGHT be caused by airborne transmission. IE very, very few cases (if any) are transmitted that way. So air conditioning would not be a significant factor in spreading covid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
there was no direct quotes
there was. I will repeat it again. This is the quote from the article:
"Though transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been understood to transmit mainly through large droplets expelled during coughing, sneezing, or talking, Nardell said that evidence has risen that at least some cases of COVID-19 occur via airborne transmission"
They are saying that the primary way the virus is transmitted is through large droplets, but that there is some evidence that some cases might be caused by airborne transmission. But there are no confirmed cases of that happening. so it is at most a minor factor, and it is entirely possible it is doesn't factor in at all.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree Cronyism is a great idea, and should be defended at all costs.
again, i'm not getting sucked into discussing charter schools with you.
But I see you continue to dodge the disgusting way you are attempting to paint millions of people by the actions of a tiny number.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Let's correct that quote shall we, I do care about free speech so long as I agree/approve of it. otherwise I consider it obscene and misleading and should be censored.
you are confusing 2 very different things. Freedom of speech in a public venue, vs the speech in a privately owned application. You have the right to say (mostly) whatever you want in public. You want to scream lies on the street corner, you have at it. However you do not have the right to say whatever you want in a private setting. Twitter is a company that created an app. They have a right to set the rules for usage of that app. If you violate their rules for usage, they have the right to ban you from their app.
I believe people have freedom of speech. However I also believe that people who make their own software have a right to control who can and cannot access and use it.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If the rules are arbitrary enforced and are biased then yes I should have the right to sue.
Why? no one is forcing you to use their software. You can use any software you like.
And no, lying is protected speech. I can lie about whatever I want.
in public? absolutely. In a private software, absolutely not. You have to obey the rules they set. If you can't do that, use another software.
If my doctor tells me to take it, I will
lol why do all right wing people suck at reading their own sources. This is from the article you just linked. They say people who are not hospitalized and part of a study should not take it.
“Currently, the drug should be used only in hospitalized patients with appropriate monitoring, and as part of study protocols, in accordance with all relevant federal regulations,” Dr. Zervos said.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't you mean to say competition is a terrible idea? I mean we are defending cronyism here are we not?
This conversation isn't about charter schools. I'm not segueing off onto that topic. I'm going to leave it at them being a bad idea.
The point is that you are trying to take the opinion of one union of teachers and pretend like this is all teachers. The same way you point to a handful of rioters and try to paint all protesters as terrorists. It is despicable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
you didnt read the article
lol I quoted directly from the article showing you that you are wrong. And your response is that you think i didn't read it? How did I quote the article to you without reading it?
Created:
again, make an argument. I'm not going to read your links if you don;t.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I get it, Let's defend cronyism no matter where we find it. Orangemanbad, duh.
Charter schools are a terrible idea. But they are besides the point here. One union said something and you want to pretend like this somehow is relevant to all teachers in america. You point to a small number of rioters and pretend like it applies to all protesters. It is pathetic.
Created: