oromagi

• Secret, unwanted thoughts that lie hidden in a vaccine for 15 years and then emerge?  I don't think such a wild scenario would pass even in fantasy fiction.
  

• It is also impossible to prove that Donald Trump did not invisibly sneak into your bedroom last night and laid secret nano-eggs in your nose designed by the Russians to remain undetectable for fifteen years.  At some point, we have to stop worry about the least likely scenarios and focus on liklihoods.
  

• Most FDA approvals take 10-15 years precisely becuase scientists are studying long-term effects.
  

• If this was a reasonable concern, you should be able to name at least five vaccines that had significantly harmful side effects that did not show up in the first fifteen years of testing.  I don't think you can name any.
  

• You are intelligent enough to understand that the pills aren't actually causing thoughts, right?  It's just that some depressives are so demotivated that they can't plan and execute even a simple suicide.  As serotonin increases, those depressive are better able to plan and execute plans and unfortunately many depressives are already in a place where suicide seems like a worthy plan.
  

• I strongly recommend that you discuss these thoughts with a medical professional.
  
• MInd control, as Donald Trump has ably proved, is very easy and doesn't require any chemical intervention.  Just have a digital data company collect a list of the most gullible 20% of the population- some religious folk but mostly people who believe in wild conspiracy theories, bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, etc and then validate all of  those fantastic concerns and add your own list of conspiracies in exchange.  Every study shows those people will believe your conspiracy theories (2020 Election Fraud, FBI persecution, Biden's laptop, QAnon, etc) in exchange.  A very considerable chunk of Republican support comes from exactly this kind of mind control.  Notice how the most vociferous Republicans on this site are virtually incapable of formulating their own theses.  They rely heavily on a very small set of information providers and mistake repeating that informatioin over and over again for argument.   The repetitition, the getting everybody to worry about the same issue at the same time, the consistent re-use of the same successful allegories and arguments- that is classic mind control.  If you are worried about mind control, you might start by wondering WHY you feel compelled to promoted the policies of Kim Jong Un and Conservative Christian politics both while ignoring the fact that the two ideologies are 100% contradictory.
  
• I strongly believe that your mind is already well controlled and it had nothing to do with vaccines.

• There's no such thing as a mind control vaccine.  Document the existence of such a thing or adhere more closely to reality.
  
• Governments who wish to harm their populations have far more efficient weapons than vaccines.
  

• Here in Amercia, we keep our government in check by regular, free, and fair elections between rival parties.  You are a very vocal supporter of murderous dictatorships so your concern is natural but also more of a concern than people who live under rational government.
  

• In America, anybody who wants to know about any modification to any publicly approve  vaccinne can review white papers, peer reviewed publications, FDA investigations and approvals.
  

• Well, we're not testing for everything- just negative impacts on health.
  

• Most FDA approvals take 10-15 years precisely becuase scientists are studying long-term effects.
  

• I don't think it is impossible for some unforseen side effect to appear years down the road but its very rare.  Thalidomide appeared to be safe and effective when Germany first approved it in 1958 but by 1961, the evidence for birth defects, cancer caused it to be ganer
  

• That is not a fact.  No such capacity has ever been established.
  

• Not a fact.  The possible defense against an unjust govt.  is a free and fair democracy.

• This is true.  It comes down to a cost benefit analysis.
  
• For example, the smallpox vaccinne kills 1 in 1,000,000 vaccinated.
  
• By comparison, smallpox infections killed 1 in 3.
  
• There is no such thing as a medicine without risk.
  

• Most vaccines don't contain actual virus but inactivated, partial, or recombinant elements of virus.  Almost all vaccines represent some kind of genetic manipulation just as all human civilization is built upon our capacity to manipulate genes.
  

• Here in America, vaccines are rigorously tested and the government demands that doctors have a very good understanding of what any treatment does to the body and brain before approval.  This is never 100% but America's capacity for producing safe and effective vaccines is unparalelled.
  

• All modern vaccines are different from the virus they improve immunity to, by definition.
  

• Virology is not black magic.  Corn is genetically modified grass.  Dogs are genetically modifed.  We find out what any medicine does to the brain or any part of the body by extensive, public testing.  Fear of medicine on the basis that it might make you more obedient suggests an irrational paranoia regarding science and medicine.  If you are believing YouTube personalities with no checks and balances over scientists, doctors, and govt. officials who submit their work to literally hundreds of checks and balances, then I would suggest you are already plenty obedient.
  

• How many DARTers think a comment like this is actionable based on present CoC or should be actionable based on an improved Code of Conduct?
  
• If actionable, what course of action would you recommend?  Warning?  Ban?  Police notification?  etc.
  

• The fact that you don't know that Supreme Court Rulings are not applied according to nationality is all we need to establish here.
  

• "Critics" is quite the reduction of multiple Congresses and Supreme Courts, a century and a half of US Federal law as well as six centuries of English Common Law.  It would be far more accurate to say "The mainstream of American jurisprudence has long claimed..."  rather than dismissing  a core American value and tradition as merely"critics."
  

• One of the revolutionary aspects of the American Revolution was the assertion that governments are empowered by poltical allegience rather than the other way around- that people claim thier nation and no sovereign can claim an unwilling citizen as subject.
  

• The current law regarding birthrights citizenship was implemented by the 14th Ammendment and affirmed more or less continuously ever since but most especially by United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was decided 6-2 by Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals (although the two most conservative members of that court dissented, both Democrats) and upheld and affirmed by generations of Supreme Courts, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal.  Yes, there is also a long-standing minority tradition of dissent to this tradition that has failed to appeal to the center of American politics for generations.
  
• Spakovsky's dismissal of goverment's obedience to the Consistitution and SCOTUS interpretations as "executive fiat" is absurd and clearly looking to falsely, dangerously empower the least lawful executive in American history (Trump).  Let's be sure to note that for legal backing Spakovsky is relying heavily on John C Eastman's reading, the same Eastman who has now lost all jurisprudential credibilty by writing the false, dangerous legal framework for the Republican's attempt to overthrow American Democracy in 2020. (Spakovsky first published this essay in 2011).
• Spakovsky (and also you by emphatic extension) misrepresents Trumball's authorial, originalist intent.  When asked by fellow Senator Cowan whether his Amendment would not also have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, Trumball answered "Undoubtedly."  The context being that both Chinese and Roma immigrants were were thought to be especially inseperable from the sovereign will of their overseas masters.  
  
• This is not a Conservative v. Liberal debate.  This is a Conservative, Liberal, Republican, and Democrat v. MAGA and other racist extremists debate.

• I, too, would not go so far as to call Biggar's re-appraisal as a defense of slavery, per se.  Rather, I think he is quick to forgive the Empire of the sin and overlong on the mitigations of that sin.  For example, he paints the Empire itself as the reformers in 1807 reacting to Methodism when the fact is that the Empire was reacting to the global uprising of democratic revolution.  The King of France was dead.  Italy, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian empire, Spain, Portugal were all in various states of civil war and Napoleanic defeat.  For the first time in history, it was beginning to look like Kings and Nobles and slaves and subjects were the past and democratic citizenship was the future.  The 1804 Genocide of the white and mulattos of Haiti loomed massively in the imagination of every slave owner in the world just as European monarchies needed to pull troops from overseas security into the European conflagaration.  Biggar seems to be suggesting that the English Empire was leading in the abolition of slavery when in fact they were the panicked late-comers looking to save their asses.  I suppose every monarchy needs its apologists to justify it present relevance but giving the job to an Oxford theologian seems rather perverse.
  
• All of which is quite non-sequitur to the OP:   "there must be a higher form of hierarchy to our lives."  I have offered the psychological response, pointed out that moral example provided was not particularly impressive as morality, and noted the pecuniary motivation for provocation evident in the OP's single source.  Pointing to podcasts and publications elsewhere do nothing to support any argument and let's assume that I remain unpersuaded by more fervent advertisment.   Do we have any kind of on-point reply relevant to this forum's topic or have we all come to an agreement that the scant evidence  offered  for a higher form of intelligence inserting morality into our brains can be set aside as unpersuasive?
  

• Dr. Sigmund Freud described this dynamic with his psychological model of id, ego, and superego, which might have been better translated as "it," "me," and "ideal me."
  
• Wikipedia: In the ego psychology model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual desires; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic agent that mediates between the instinctual desires of the id and the critical super-ego; Freud compared the ego (in its relation to the id) to a man on horseback: the rider must harness and direct the superior energy of his mount, and at times allow for a practicable satisfaction of its urges. The ego is thus "in the habit of transforming the id's will into action, as if it were its own.
  
• Freud said we all have that nagging little voice in our heads but we are not born with it:  The super-ego reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly as absorbed from parents, but also other authority figures, and the general cultural ethos.
  
• The notion that any British boy in 1960's England had not been told "thou shalt not steal"  thousands of times by the time he is old enough to go to other boy's houses to play unsupervised defies credibility.  Biggar says a little nagging voice told him right from wrong and because he is an Anglican Priest and wants to credit Jesus but the truth is that voice was constructed for him, first by regular repetition in his family, then church, then school, then an ever-widening circle of social acquaintance, almost entirely in agreement that stealing is bad.
  
• We can tell that Biggar's internal voice did not come from a more sophisticated morality because that voice made no mention of the immorality of warfare or the inherent wrong of teaching children that murder on the State's behalf is a fun game in which all the soldier get to come back tomorrow and play again.  A more sophisticated morality would have decried the iconiziation and idealization and commercialization of murder fanstasies for children.  Biggar grew up to write A Defense of War in 2013, Jesus famously said "Blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the merciful, turn the other cheek, forgive others as I have forgiven you, etc."  We can be confident that wasn't Jesus speaking in Biggar's head.
  
• Interestingly, Biggar is an Anglican Priest currently on book tour promoting  his new book Colonialism  which re-appraises and asserts the value and moral worth of British invasions, colonializations, and slavery.  Biggar was knighted by the Queen in 2021 for his service to her Empire.  A prominent Christian making money off the promotion of murder for power.  I wonder what the little voice inside his head is telling him now.
  
• Here is an open letter from a bunch of Oxford scholars publicly questioning Biggar's ethics in relation to Imperialism. 
  
• https://theconversation.com/ethics-and-empire-an-open-letter-from-oxford-scholars-89333
  

• This is a terrible fucking lie.  Kim was a greedy dictator trying to rule all of Korea and murder any Korean who opposed him when he invaded in 1950.

• After it promised to never do so in exchange for billions of dollars worth of food from the US.  North Korea should have kept its promises.

• The UN lawfully and democratically ordered the destruction of Kim's invasion and rape of the post-war peace.
  
• The US did massive bombing vs North Korea, with an estimated 316,000 civilian deaths.
  
• By comparison, the same sources credit the Kim dynasty with murdering ten times that number of civilians.

• The US has never been found guilty of any criminal conduct in Korea.  South Korea did a massive truth and reconciliation process ending in 2010 that found little American fault in the events of the 20th century, certainly compared to the interventions of Japan, Russia, and China in Korean affairs.
  
• By comparison, the Internation community has found the Kim dynasty guilty of 7 separate war crimes.

• Laughably evil.  South Korea is 50 million people enjoying freedom, equality, increadible education, prosperity, and culture.  North Korea by comparison is 25 million living barns and barely able to feed themselves.  North Korea is essentially one masive concentration camp that would self-evacuate  the entire country tomorrow if the well armed dictator wouldn't murder them for trying.

• Americans are the natural enemy of all evil dictators.

• China is increasing scared of North Korea insanity, recklessness.

• China is far more likely to invade North Korea than US.  North Korea has nothing that the US wants or cares about.  US supports and protects South Korea but most Americans don't give one shit about what happens to North Korea.

• Mentally ill fake news propoganda straight from the puffy lips of the dictator.

• Many Koreans viewed Syngman's election as the end of a unified Korea and the last chance to socialize their economy.  Syngman was unquestionably corrupt and the US's occupation had been ill-managed (No decision-makers spoke Korean, for example).

• This is a stupid lie.  When Kim invaded in June 1950, US forces had withdrawn from Korea at UN request.  If So. Korea had been occupied by the US Army at the time of the invasion, the  invasion would certainly have failed within days.

• Syngman was undoubtedly corrupt.  Roosevelt's govt. opposed Syngman's rise to power and tried to keep him under watch in the US.  MacArthur found Syngman useful and defied the State department by elevating him.
  
• It is true that Syngman had to violently surpress several uprisings during his term.  The difference being that Syngman was pro-democracy, pro-civil rights whereas Hitler, Stalin, Kim, Mao were all dictators who used even greater amounts of violence than Syngman to supress freedom and civil rights.

• 100% False. Even a very easy to read history of WWII would explain to you that you are lying here.

• The US managed the Southern Occupation zone, re-patriating half a million Japanese and overseeing the handover of commerce and infrastructure to Koreans.  When the US could not reach an agreement with Russia about unification, the US turned mgmt of South Korea over to the UN.  Both the US and the UN explicitly worked for a unified Korea, contrary to Stalin's wish to annex Korea.
  
• In 1948, the UN created the Republic of Korea, explicitly stating that Seoul was Korea's capital, both North and South and making Synman the first President of the Republic both North and South.
  
• Both Russia and the US got out of Korea in 1948 at the request of the UN.
  

• Syngman had caused so much trouble in Japanese occupied Korea during the 1910's and 20's that Japan was trying hard to kill him.  Syngman stayed in the US for most of the 30's until the Japanese surrender,  serving as Korea's ambassador and government in exile to the US.  Syngman is the reason that Korea was prioritized to General Order No. 1 governing Japan's surrender.
  
• You failed to noe that Kim also fled Korea during WWII.  In 1940, he fled to Vyatskoye and received Russian military training there.  By 1942, Kim was a Major in the Russian Red Army
  
• Kim arrived in the Korean port of Wonsan on 19 September 1945 after 26 years in exile.   According to Leonid Vassin, an officer with the Soviet MVD, Kim was essentially "created from zero". For one, his Korean was marginal at best; he only had eight years of formal education, all of it in Chinese. He needed considerable coaching to read a speech (which the MVD prepared for him) at a Communist Party congress three days after he arrived.
  
• That is, when Stalin's Russia appointed their Red Army Major Kim to rule Korea, Kim could not speak the  Korean language and had not lived in Korea for 26 years.
  

1. Belonging to the sex which typically produces eggs (ova), or to the gender which is typically associated with it. [from 14th c.] quotations ▼female authors, the leading male and female artists, a female bird cooing at a male, intersex female patients, a trans female vlogger
   
2. Characteristic of this sex/gender. (Compare feminine, womanly.) quotations ▼stereotypically female pastimes, an insect with typically female coloration
   
3. Tending to lead to or regulate the development of sexual characteristics typical of this sex.the female chromosome;   estrogen, the primary female sex hormone, is produced by both females and males
   
4. (grammar, less common than 'feminine') Feminine; of the feminine grammatical gender. quotations ▼
   
5. (of bacteria) Lacking the F factor, and able to receive DNA from another bacterium which does have this factor (a male). quotations ▼
   
6. (figuratively) Having an internal socket, as in a connector or pipe fitting. [from 16th c.] 
   

• Not to Feminists, it ain't and not to liberated gay people like me, it ain't.  We understand completely how acknowledging a fellow citizen's right  to be authentic and radical in one's gender identity in spite of the long traditions patriarchs enforced with extreme violence strengthens our validity within the American franchise.  Marriage is a social construct and you can make all kinds of arguments about irrelevancy to the babymaking function of human families but you can't deny the increase in franchise and safety and visibilities LGBTQ people enjoyed as soon a that social construct absorbed our participation.  Likewise, we owe the trans citizen the same full franchise and absorbtion and expect to enjoy only increase freedom and increased participation as the result of that new definition.

1. Kim Il Sung leading a resistance movement against Japan: It is true that Kim Il Sung was involved in resistance activities against Japanese colonial rule in Korea during World War II. However, it is incorrect to suggest that he commanded Korea or led the entire resistance movement. There were various resistance groups and leaders operating in Korea during that time.
   
2. Kim Il Sung helping the US fight against Japan: There is no evidence to support the claim that Kim Il Sung directly assisted the United States in fighting against Japan during World War II. Kim Il Sung primarily fought against Japanese forces as part of Korean guerrilla groups.
   
3. Syngman Rhee's role in World War II: Syngman Rhee was a prominent political figure and nationalist leader in Korea. While he was not in Korea during the war years, he did not fight in World War II. However, it is important to note that his absence from Korea during that time does not imply that he had no role or influence in the political landscape.
   
4. US invasion and establishment of government in South Korea: The statement misrepresents the historical context. The United States did not invade Korea during World War II. After Japan's surrender in 1945, the Korean peninsula was divided into two zones, with the Soviet Union occupying the north and the United States occupying the south. This division eventually led to the establishment of separate governments in the north and south.
   
5. Allegations against Syngman Rhee: While there were criticisms and allegations against Syngman Rhee during his presidency, the claims of mass murders committed by him and the direct involvement of the US military in such acts are not substantiated by historical evidence. It is important to critically assess such claims and rely on reliable historical sources.
   
6. North Korea's invasion of South Korea: The statement's assertion that North Korea was merely liberating Korean territory occupied by the United States is a highly distorted interpretation. The Korean War began in 1950 when North Korea, under Kim Il Sung's leadership, launched a surprise attack on South Korea. The conflict involved multiple actors and cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of liberation.
   
7. US bombings and crimes during the Korean War: While it is true that there were civilian casualties and extensive bombings during the Korean War, describing them as equivalent to terrorism is an oversimplification. The conflict was complex, and atrocities were committed by multiple parties involved.
   
8. Generalizations about the United States: The statement makes sweeping generalizations about the United States, portraying it as a criminal nation responsible for numerous crimes and invasions. While the United States has been involved in military interventions and faced criticism, it is essential to recognize that historical events and international relations are multifaceted and require nuanced analysis.
   

1. (psychology) A person's internal sense of self as belonging to a particular gender or genders, or to no gender.
   

1. (obsolete) Class; kind. [14th–19th c.] quotations ▼
   
2. (grammar) A division of nouns and pronouns (and sometimes of other parts of speech) into masculine or feminine, and sometimes other categories like neuter or common, and animate or inanimate. [from 14th c.] quotations ▼
   
3. (now sometimes proscribed) Sex (a category, either male or female, into which sexually-reproducing organisms are divided on the basis of their reproductive roles in their species). [from 15th c.] quotations ▼the gene is activated in both genders
   The effect of the medication is dependent upon age, gender, and other factors.
   
4. (sometimes proscribed) Identification as a man, a woman, or something else, and association with a (social) role or set of behavioral and cultural traits, clothing, etc; a category to which a person belongs on this basis. (Compare gender role, gender identity.) [from 20th c.] quotations ▼
   
5. (grammar) Synonym of voice (“particular way of inflecting or conjugating verbs”) quotations ▼
   
6. (hardware) The quality which distinguishes connectors, which may be male (fitting into another connector) and female (having another connector fit into it), or genderless/androgynous (capable of fitting together with another connector of the same type). [from 20th c.] 
   

• According to WIktionary GENDER is sometimes a male or female category and that usage is sometimes proscribed.
  

• Seems even more sexist of you to reduce women to their tits.  Reduction or no, the principle is Feminist in origin and long fought for as a necessary right for women.

1. Of or pertaining to the female gender; womanly.
   
2. Of or pertaining to the female sex; biologically female, not male.
   
3. Belonging to females; typically used by females.
   
   Mary, Elizabeth, and Edith are feminine names.
   
4. Having the qualities stereotypically associated with women: nurturing, not aggressive. quotations ▼
   
5. (grammar) Of, pertaining or belonging to the female grammatical gender, in languages that have gender distinctions. synonym ▲coordinate terms ▼Synonym: female
   
   
   
   1. (of a noun) Being of the feminine class or grammatical gender, and inflected in that manner.
      
   2. (of another part of speech) Being inflected in agreement with a feminine noun.
      
6. (grammar, Mongolic languages, of any word) Having the vowel harmony of a front vowel. coordinate term ▼
   

1. (uncountable) A beverage made by infusing the beans of the coffee plant in hot water. quotations ▼
   
2. (countable) A serving of this beverage. quotations ▼
   
3. The seeds of the plant used to make coffee, called ‘beans’ due to their shape.
   
4. The powder made by roasting and grinding the seeds.
   
5. A tropical plant of the genus Coffea.
   
6. A pale brown colour, like that of milk coffee.
   
   coffee:  
   
7. The end of a meal, when coffee is served.
   
   He did not stay for coffee.
   

• Depending on the context, coffee  can be an influsion, a seed, a powder, a plant, a color, a part of the meal.  In some contexts, tea is coffee.  Yes, there are snobs and haters who will ignoe common usage and demand the eradication of anybody who has tea for their coffee but such ragebots aren't really worth society's time or attention.
  

• Again, you just don't seem to be familiar with English language dictionaries.  Many words may have entirely contradictory definitions, depending on context.
  
• To SCREEN something can mean to conceal or to show off depending on the context.
  
• To SANCTION can mean to approve or punish depending on the context.
  
• To RENT can mean to buy or to sell, depending on the context.
  
• A BILL can mean either payment or invoice, depnding on the context.
  
• An APOLOGY can mean contrition or defense, depending on the context.
  
• A WOMAN can mean "pussies only"  or "pussy irrelevant," depending on the context.
  

1. An adult female human. quotations ▼
   
2. (collective) All female humans collectively; womankind. quotations ▼
   
3. A female person, usually an adult; a (generally adult) female sentient being, whether human, supernatural, elf, alien, etc. quotations ▼
   
4. A wife (or sometimes a fiancée or girlfriend). quotations ▼
   
5. A female person who is extremely fond of or devoted to a specified type of thing. (Used as the last element of a compound.) quotations ▼
   
6. A female attendant or servant.
   

• False.  I just explained you many way in which a tran man is no female which direct answer you falsely ignored as irrelevant.  If you are going to dodge, dodge honestly.
  

1. re-read the dictionary definition I provided in POST
   
2. notice how very different it is from your aggressively over-narrow, pig-headed definition and
   
3. comprehend that difference