Coronavirus Information...who do you trust?

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2020, 04:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Claim - "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof" First definition provided by google and COMPLETELY opposite of what you're "claiming" here.


Here's what you CLAIMED: "Conservatives have taken this as being an "executive order" to "ban Halloween." I am disputing this. Ergo, by your own definition, you made a claim, 


I distorted nothing. You made a claim that multiple conservatives made the same claim as the 1 idiot you posted. I pointed out that 1 does not equal more than 1. Since then, you've done everything but provide the simple evidence it would take to back up your claim even going so far as to re-define a word.

This is sad

(09-23-2020, 11:27 AM)PhilHos Wrote: So 1 guy equals all conservatives?

(09-23-2020, 04:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I distorted nothing. You made a claim that multiple conservatives made the same claim as the 1 idiot you posted. I pointed out that 1 does not equal more than 1.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-23-2020, 06:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is sad

It is, but on your part not mine. 

What makes it even more sad is that you could easily have won this "debate" by just posting a couple responses from conservatives with a similar response to the jackass you first posted. The fact that you still have not actually makes me think there were no other conservatives with a similar response. 

Like when I first started, I was just kinda busting your chops. Made my point (which is correct, btw, 1 person is not automatically reflective of the entire group) but figured there probably were SOME conservatives with a similar response. But, then you kept pushing back going so far as to incorrectly define 'claim' and now I wonder if there actually are NO conservatives with a similar response.

[BmorePat87]

First assertion: 

(09-23-2020, 11:27 AM)PhilHos Wrote: So 1 guy equals all conservatives?

You claiming you didn't say that first thing:

(09-23-2020, 04:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I distorted nothing. You made a claim that multiple conservatives made the same claim as the 1 idiot you posted. I pointed out that 1 does not equal more than 1.

You now claiming you said that first thing:

(09-24-2020, 11:38 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Made my point (which is correct, btw, 1 person is not automatically reflective of the entire group) 

You're really bad at this. This could have ended after I called you out the first time by saying "My bad, you didn't say that". But you continued on and now you can't even keep your lie straight.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-24-2020, 11:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: First assertion: 



You claiming you didn't say that first thing:



You now claiming you said that first thing:




You're really bad at this. This could have ended after I called you out the first time by saying "My bad, you didn't say that". But you continued on and now you can't even keep your lie straight.

 Ummm, "So 1 guy equals all conservatives? is the same thing as "1 person is not automatically reflective of the entire group"

Good try at turning this around on me and trying to ignore that you claimed multiple conservatives believed the same thing as 1 guy, but like your attempt at re-defining the word 'claim', you failed.

[BmorePat87]

(09-24-2020, 12:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  Ummm, "So 1 guy equals all conservatives? is the same thing as "1 person is not automatically reflective of the entire group"

Good try at turning this around on me and trying to ignore that you claimed multiple conservatives believed the same thing as 1 guy, but like your attempt at re-defining the word 'claim', you failed.

Even within this post you're contradicting yourself as you try to double down on your intellectual dishonesty. You cannot decide which to commit to: "Pat claimed one person equates all" or "I never claimed that Pat claimed that". 

This is where our exchange ends. I've indulged you long enough and entertaining your ignorance and dishonesty for this long only helps to perpetuate the toxic culture that we are trying to prevent. 

I'll put you on block so I don't have to worry about reading what woefully misguided and self-defeating response comes next. 

[*PhilHos*]

(09-24-2020, 12:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Even within this post you're contradicting yourself as you try to double down on your intellectual dishonesty. You cannot decide which to commit to: "Pat claimed one person equates all" or "I never claimed that Pat claimed that". 

What? Where did you I EVER say you never made that claim? This whole time I've been saying you've equated 1 guy's response to multiple or all conservatives responses. 

(09-24-2020, 12:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is where our exchange ends. I've indulged you long enough and entertaining your ignorance and dishonesty for this long only helps to perpetuate the toxic culture that we are trying to prevent. 

I'll put you on block so I don't have to worry about reading what woefully misguided and self-defeating response comes next. 

You attack ME personally but I'm the one that's being ignorant and dishonest. And then you block me. That's funny right there.

Well, like many have said, some people are just not cut out for the P&R forum.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

So Trump Blaims China for withholding key information about Covid-19 and calls it an attack on America.

Trump knows in February that it is airborne, doesn't say anything publicly because he's protecting us from ourselves? (and by panic, I honestly think that he was only thinking about the stock market). He is still making fun of people wearing masks.

Conservatives, please explain how this makes sense to you and also how it's justified.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-24-2020, 03:47 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: So Trump Blaims China for withholding key information about Covid-19 and calls it an attack on America.

Trump knows in February that it is airborne, doesn't say anything publicly because he's protecting us from ourselves? (and by panic, I honestly think that he was only thinking about the stock market). He is still making fun of people wearing masks.

Conservatives, please explain how this makes sense to you and also how it's justified.

Obviously, China didn’t want to cause a panic. So they played it down. They still like playing it down.

It isn’t like we saw videos of the Chinese government dragging people off against their will for compulsory quarantine while kicking and screaming to indicate there might be a problem.

[Mickeypoo]

Just wow!  She was outside and social distancing.  And in front of her kids.  This stuff is out of control.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/09/24/mask-less-woman-tased-arrested-ohio-football-game/

Still appears no masks at protests is A OK.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-24-2020, 11:02 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Just wow!  She was outside and social distancing.  And in front of her kids.  This stuff is out of control.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/09/24/mask-less-woman-tased-arrested-ohio-football-game/

Still appears no masks at protests is A OK.  

Just do what the police tell you to do. Right?

[Mickeypoo]

(09-24-2020, 11:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Just do what the police tell you to do. Right?

Absolutely.  Never fight with the cops.  

Just should not have been an issue in the first place.  Arresting citizens for not wearing masks outdoors is insane!  But hey, you go protesters.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-24-2020, 11:52 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Absolutely.  Never fight with the cops.  

Just should not have been an issue in the first place.  Arresting citizens for not wearing masks outdoors is insane!  But hey, you go protesters.

You need to read your source again because that is not why she was arrested.

She was arrested for criminal trespass pass after not following the police officer’s instructions to leave after refusing to follow school policy. Resisting arrest lead to the use of force.

Again, do what the police tell you to do. Right?

[BFritz21]

(09-25-2020, 12:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You need to read your source again because that is not why she was arrested.

She was arrested for criminal trespass pass after not following the police officer’s instructions to leave after refusing to follow school policy. Resisting arrest lead to the use of force.

Again, do what the police tell you to do. Right?

So if the police tell you to wear a hair net so other people don't get lice, even though you've never had lice, that would be a proper exertion of force, right?

[Benton]

(09-25-2020, 01:16 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: So if the police tell you to wear a hair net so other people don't get lice, even though you've never had lice, that would be a proper exertion of force, right?

So you agree that people shouldn't follow police commands if they disagree with local laws and regulations?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-25-2020, 01:16 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: So if the police tell you to wear a hair net so other people don't get lice, even though you've never had lice, that would be a proper exertion of force, right?

So you’re saying I shouldn’t cooperate with police orders?

Or I’m supposed to do what the police tell me to do?

Which is it?

[Mickeypoo]

(09-25-2020, 12:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You need to read your source again because that is not why she was arrested.

She was arrested for criminal trespass pass after not following the police officer’s instructions to leave after refusing to follow school policy. Resisting arrest lead to the use of force.

Again, do what the police tell you to do. Right?

Yup, I read it and I understand that.  It should have never happened in the first place.  Outdoor mask mandates are insane!  What's next?

[Mickeypoo]

(09-25-2020, 01:57 AM)Benton Wrote: So you agree that people shouldn't follow police commands if they disagree with local laws and regulations?

I think what he is saying is that it sets a scary precedent for control over small things.  I agree.  What's next?

[Mickeypoo]

(09-25-2020, 02:54 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So you’re saying I shouldn’t cooperate with police orders?

Or I’m supposed to do what the police tell me to do?

Which is it?

That's not at all what he's saying.  He's saying it is setting a very scary precedent for control over people for very minor things.  What are they going to mandate next in the name of "public safety"?

[GMDino]

Look the president said last night in Florida that the Democrats are trying to make him look bad by delaying the vaccine for the virus that affects virtually nobody except the very old and the sick (so don't wear a mask) and that would have killed 2.2 million people if he personally had not stopped some people from coming in from china.


So who are you going to believe?


The guy who said it's no worse that the flu or the guy who said it was much worse than the flu?


(Hint: They're the same guy.)

Wait, the deep state is trying to delay the vaccine for the fake thing affects virtually nobody? https://t.co/7Tm30kQUlL

— Randi Mayem Singer (@rmayemsinger) September 24, 2020

[Benton]

(09-25-2020, 08:43 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I think what he is saying is that it sets a scary precedent for control over small things.  I agree.  What's next?

A virus is a small thing. It's
s also killed a lot of people.

States/schools/businesses have implemented ways to try to protect people. 

Why dont people complain this much over their right to drink and drive? Their right to defecate in the chili at wendy's? The right to snort some coke and randomly fire a shotgun in public parks?

Nobody stands up for good stuff, they just go total Karen over having to not pass on their potentially deadly virus.