|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On February 13 2022 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:
"Betting" that there is overlap between two groups as BlackJack did definitely makes an inherent statement that both groups exist.
Well, maybe not in theoretical mathematics, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
I'd also mention that after weeks of the Ottawa police chief begging for military support it would be pretty weird if <2/3 of Canadians wanted military support and military force available for the Ottawa police.
Not exactly.
If I for example say:
"I bet there is substantial overlap between the group of people thinking that some random Jimmy have any credibility and the group of people with 17 legs."
That doesnt imply that I have evidence that any of those group exists. All it says is that I believe that there is overlap between them. For all I know both sets may be empty, as well as not.
Mere fact that I said "I bet" rather than "I am sure", implies that this is just a guess - therefore I dont need/want to prove it.
Most importantly though - nothing in this statement is announced as "fact" and this is the part to which I referred to in my post.
|
On February 13 2022 01:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2022 00:23 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 12 2022 23:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 12 2022 14:42 BlackJack wrote:
I bet there is substantial overlap between the group of people protesting police brutality last year and the group of people begging for the police to go in and start cracking some skulls of the Canadian truckers. As the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Who are the people asking for that? There is lots of people asking for the police to start towing there trucks so they can open their business or get their supplies across the boarders. There is also a lot of people upset about all the animals stuck on liners without food and water. There might be some key board warriors but even the tweets they've shown have not been "asking for for police to crack skulls". Do you have any source on this or is another BJ assumption stated as fact with no basis in reality? the irony of suddenly caring about people wanting to open their business or supply lines in general good luck with just "towing the trucks" How is it irony? The chambers of commerce here all supported the "passports", even in Alberta the chambers sent a open letters to the government about how they should keep them and they should have instead lowered the number restrictions and hours shortening. You are living in the fantasy world where businesses didn't like the restrictions. Businesses liked the vaccines they hated Covid, because that is what was and is hurting their businesses. And they also know the unvaccinated have made the problems worse. https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/lifting-restrictions-like-ripping-off-a-band-aid-before-wound-has-healed-chamber-of-commerce-president-and-ceo-1.5773949
some chamber of commerce =/= representative sample of brick and mortar business owners
The irony is the government shut down business owners for months on end, and most people who oppose truckers, didn't care at all. Now they block a bridge disrupting some business, and it's "OH MY GOD BRING THE MILITARY, ARREST THE TRUCKERS BUSINESS MUST OPEN"
I personally know many business owners, and they hate all the covid passport non sense, hated it for over a year, and specially hate it with omnicron given pretty much everyone has it. Sure, when they started way back, some where "please just do it and let us open" but that's basically being coerced into supporting it.
Also, "just towing the trucks" is not easy. And unlike other protesters, if they all go on strike, it's actually a problem. Just end the mandates. The US is doing it, not because "The Science Changed", but because the polling in blue states changed. In a month they will pretend they never supported any of this, or masking children, or anything like it.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23313 Posts
@Razyda In this context ‘I bet that…’ or ‘I’m willing to bet…’, always comes with the inference that the person saying it believes what they’re observing to be the case, or likely to be true.
That you have an opinion, either backed by something tangible or not (although that remains unstated), that this is the case. At least in native speaker/of the British English vernacular.
Most evidence we use to make conclusions isn’t directly empirically observed.
I don’t see the relevance of claiming one believes something to be the case vs claiming it’s a fact, in this particular circumstance in threads specifically about discussion.
‘I think this thing is the case’ naturally leads into agreement, or alternatively ‘why do you think that is the case?’ questioning or, ‘Hm I’ve got this other reading and I think that’s wrong’.
Which entirely breaks down if we get into ‘oh well I didn’t say I had proof/that it was verifiable fact so it’s outside the purview of further discussion’
Just gets a tad messy.
|
On February 13 2022 02:13 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2022 01:34 JimmiC wrote:On February 13 2022 00:31 Razyda wrote:On February 12 2022 23:35 JimmiC wrote:On February 12 2022 21:36 Razyda wrote:On February 11 2022 22:54 JimmiC wrote:
Because you misread my first question as one reason instead of one's reasons, I'm guessing. If you are going to try to hold each word as some exact reason in one part of the post, you shouldn't completing get the sentence wrong in the other.
English has interesting words we use imperfectly. You are right that if you want to say I cant be 100% they would all feel that way, by the same token you can not be the other direction.But if it makes you feel better I should have said "I'm sure most" or "I'm sure almost all". Its also a throw away comment of the post that the only legitimate reason you can pick out is for a tiny fraction.
The point of it was we are talking about public health rules who meed to look at the decisions of many and how they impact the whole group. The same way people are not saying you have to know everything to make a medical suggestion, you just have to trust the doctors and specialists who do.
You somehow trust them with the other vaccines, tgose also have tiny obscure risks as does advil. You trust them on hand washing for cooks, even though everyone wont die, few wiil. Same on meat expirary day rules even though much of that meat would be fine few would get sick and less would fie, it would work out great for many! And then you follow all sorts of rules that have no health or safety compoment, think all the silly dress code shit. And even wearing close im the first place, what if people dont want too? How about smoking in doors? There is 1000s of rules you dont bat an eye at or dont think about because they've always been there or effect you indirectly.
What people are scared of is change amd they dont like it. The people not following the health orders are the ones letting fear drive their lives. The others are letting experts, science and data do it for large societal impacting choices.
On February 11 2022 09:15 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - because I really dont, similarly as I dont care what faith they are, or if they Labour/Conservative voters or if they prefer automatic over stick, or shooters over rts. Everyone have their own reason for those and it is simply not my business what they are.
Italic - there is couple of issues I have with this approach. First of all, whoever I'll be talking to is infinitely more aware of their circumstances than I'll ever be. Therefore they are way more qualified than I am to make this choice. This makes me saying "You should/shouldnt get vaccinated" an empty statement really, or rather declaration of the side rather than anything else. Second somewhat comes from first - let say that they take my advice and something goes awfully bad -thats on me. I am not the kind of person who would go "oh, well sucks for him/her" and carry on with my life. I simply dont have enough knowledge/information to take on such responsibility. On February 11 2022 09:18 JimmiC wrote:
What are the reasons that one shouldn't get vaccinated? Quite frankly my first reaction was disbelief that there exists someone who can get that out of my post. Therefore I Specified "First one" and gave you reason which can't really be argued. I also asked you a question (which you still didn't answer btw and you didn't because there is only 1 answer to this question and this answer reveal your lack of good judgment) which was aimed at making you aware whose attitude is more responsible one considering that: neither of us is medical professional neither of us know circumstances of every person reading our opinions yours - effectively giving people medical advice mine - refusing to do so At this point you really should just let it go. Or if you wanted to argue, admit that this is valid reason and ask for my reasons. What you did though: On February 11 2022 09:49 JimmiC wrote:No I'm sure the .000001% of people who have those would wish the rest would get it and everyone (the like 50 people in Canada LOL) with that reason would qualify for an actual medical exemption and be treated at the pharmacy or hospital where they got the shot. How about other reasons, like yours? The odds you'll have a severe allergic reaction or anaphylaxis to a vaccine is about 1 in 760,000 https://www.healthline.com/health-news/youre-probably-not-allergic-to-vaccines You did ask the question, but for some reason decided to add bolded part which in no way is related to anything which was discussed so far (which seems to be habit of yours). On top of that you made grand statement, what people you know nothing about would want. without anything to support this claim. I then pointed out that you didn't answer my question, and challenged your claim. I also answered your question as this is generally accepted practice. On February 11 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:I dont understand your first paragraph. I was asking tge reasons someone shouldnt. You brought up one super obsecure reason that effects almost no one and kills a number so small most people would consider it zero. I thought with so many people against it you have a whole bunch of reasons that were realistic concerns for people, hopefully at least on par with the downsides of not. Im sure that its a good idea to go all in with a pair of aces pre flop, but Im also not going to be right 100% of the time every time. If I was 100% sure, or thought every single one was, I would have wrote that and then your word play burn would have made more sense. I mean technically yes, the same way it is for a guy who pushes all in with 2, 7 offsuit and wins the pot. The thing is when making public policy or a series of decisions making a choice that works out badly more of the time will negatively outcome the system. The same way that even if you won that pot with the 2 7 offsuit it would still be a bad decision to do it again and worse the more times you plan on making it. So when you are the government and you are considering millions of hands instead of just 1 you dont take that risk because with huge numbers there is consistency instead of randomness. This is basically the why government makes all health and safety rules. https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-large-numbersAre you going to start a movement to halt all vaccine requirements? Because most places have a lot but Brazil has tons! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy This was your answer. In first paragraph you still refuse to answer my question, pretending that you dont understand what I am asking for. You also try to diminish validity of the reason I gave you, while sounding borderline psychopathic (italic). In second you trying to withdraw from your claim, while maintaining its validity using incorrect poker examples. In third only your first sentence is related to discussion we have. Unless I am making decisions for entire communities bolded is unrelated to anything so far discussed. I then again pointed out that you still didn't answer my question, pointed out that reason for not taking vaccine I gave you is good enough for government and further challenged validity of your claim and your dishonesty which you tried to cover with some language gymnastics. On February 11 2022 22:54 JimmiC wrote:
Because you misread my first question as one reason instead of one's reasons, I'm guessing. If you are going to try to hold each word as some exact reason in one part of the post, you shouldn't completing get the sentence wrong in the other.
English has interesting words we use imperfectly. You are right that if you want to say I cant be 100% they would all feel that way, by the same token you can not be the other direction.But if it makes you feel better I should have said "I'm sure most" or "I'm sure almost all". Its also a throw away comment of the post that the only legitimate reason you can pick out is for a tiny fraction.
The point of it was we are talking about public health rules who meed to look at the decisions of many and how they impact the whole group. The same way people are not saying you have to know everything to make a medical suggestion, you just have to trust the doctors and specialists who do.
You somehow trust them with the other vaccines, tgose also have tiny obscure risks as does advil. You trust them on hand washing for cooks, even though everyone wont die, few wiil. Same on meat expirary day rules even though much of that meat would be fine few would get sick and less would fie, it would work out great for many! And then you follow all sorts of rules that have no health or safety compoment, think all the silly dress code shit. And even wearing close im the first place, what if people dont want too? How about smoking in doors? There is 1000s of rules you dont bat an eye at or dont think about because they've always been there or effect you indirectly.
What people are scared of is change amd they dont like it. The people not following the health orders are the ones letting fear drive their lives. The others are letting experts, science and data do it for large societal impacting choices.
Bolded - please point out which part of this exchange lead you to believe that this is what we discussing??? that is the whole discussion, when people say "we should have vaccine mandates" or not, they are not talking about themselves individually, they are talking about the government or group. People are not suggesting they personally know all the reasons, they are suggesting the doctors are. There is legitimate reasons for like .001 of the population to not get vaccinated, which is fine for society, it has been for each vaccine. The cry babies that are scared of needles, or scared of some made up fantasy years down the road, scared of their DNA, scared of the gubberment takin der freedum, scared scared scared, need to suck it up so we could move on. The worst is for all the people who have had to suffer and will have their lives cut short because of the lack of medical care. It looks like because of Omicron we will get to move on in spite of the scared and selfish, we got lucky. I dont think you are able to explain, how what you wrote has anything to do with my post you quoted?? Language you are using to describe people who dare to have different opinion than you do speaks volumes abut what kind of person you are btw. On February 12 2022 23:30 JimmiC wrote:
Do you have any source on this or is another BJ assumption stated as fact with no basis in reality? This is hilarious. Dont worry I will go through that step by step with you so you may be able understand why. He didn't wrote anything which state that this is a "fact". You are actually stating "stated as fact with no bases in reality" You doing very thing you falsely accusing him of doing, in the very same sentence where you accuse him. do you get the irony? You really should add to your signature "Doesn't apply for JimmiC" You are not making sense, sorry do not know how to reply.He said there is a group of people who are asking for police to go crack skulls. I live here, watch and read local news, I have not seen or heard anything about this group. I'm asking where he did or if he is just guessing that it exists. There is no irony, nor do I think you understand the word. Edit: If you are looking for hypocrisy it most certainly exists (and as usual it is bare and from "your side". The conservatives politicians (and supporters) that are supporting these blockades, are the same ones that put in laws against the indigenous blocking railways on their land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Infrastructure_Defence_Act#:~:text=The Critical Infrastructure Defence Act,, destroy, or obstruct infrastructure. The rule of law except if we don't like it or it it is against us crowd is getting so tiring. You still didnt answer any of my questions. You do, you just dont want to. Thats not what he said? Beside: "two-thirds of Canadians would support the use of military force to help clear out Ottawa protesters" "53 per cent support the use of force by Ottawa police to remove truckers, their families and others who refuse to leave. This includes the use of tear gas and other methods, with the understanding that such measures could result in injury."
Two-thirds of people in a first world democracy want to use the freaking military on peaceful protesters. Thanks for sharing, too bad it will be treated as a "nothing to see here" in this thread.
|
Northern Ireland23313 Posts
I don’t know enough about the situation to comment with anything meaningful. Well, even less so than usual.
The few Canadians I’m friends with on Facebook seem rather irked, but it was one of those stories I found irritating to read about so I’m mostly in the dark.
Historically over here the military going in to any scenario was a huge escalation of potential force on the table, from what tidbits I’ve read it seems the military option is purely as the additional manpower is needed.
Those numbers don’t remotely surprise me. I would say the majority of people are tolerant of illegal/disruptive protesting if they’re for the cause, and the inverse will apply.
Add to that a considerable level of pissed off over Covid, something I myself share.
My first instinct is very much ‘fuck em’, although that is reined in when I think about it a bit more holistically. Especially as I’m not so au fait with the situation.
|
On February 13 2022 03:15 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2022 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:
"Betting" that there is overlap between two groups as BlackJack did definitely makes an inherent statement that both groups exist.
Well, maybe not in theoretical mathematics, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
I'd also mention that after weeks of the Ottawa police chief begging for military support it would be pretty weird if <2/3 of Canadians wanted military support and military force available for the Ottawa police. Not exactly. If I for example say: "I bet there is substantial overlap between the group of people thinking that some random Jimmy have any credibility and the group of people with 17 legs." That doesnt imply that I have evidence that any of those group exists. All it says is that I believe that there is overlap between them. For all I know both sets may be empty, as well as not. Mere fact that I said "I bet" rather than "I am sure", implies that this is just a guess - therefore I dont need/want to prove it. Most importantly though - nothing in this statement is announced as "fact" and this is the part to which I referred to in my post.
This might be about definitions, but i am pretty sure that empty sets can't have overlap. Overlap to me means that there is at least one object which is in both sets. Which means that empty sets, containing zero objects, cannot have overlap with any set.
|
On February 13 2022 05:42 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2022 03:15 Razyda wrote:On February 13 2022 02:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:
"Betting" that there is overlap between two groups as BlackJack did definitely makes an inherent statement that both groups exist.
Well, maybe not in theoretical mathematics, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
I'd also mention that after weeks of the Ottawa police chief begging for military support it would be pretty weird if <2/3 of Canadians wanted military support and military force available for the Ottawa police. Not exactly. If I for example say: "I bet there is substantial overlap between the group of people thinking that some random Jimmy have any credibility and the group of people with 17 legs." That doesnt imply that I have evidence that any of those group exists. All it says is that I believe that there is overlap between them. For all I know both sets may be empty, as well as not. Mere fact that I said "I bet" rather than "I am sure", implies that this is just a guess - therefore I dont need/want to prove it. Most importantly though - nothing in this statement is announced as "fact" and this is the part to which I referred to in my post. This might be about definitions, but i am pretty sure that empty sets can't have overlap. Overlap to me means that there is at least one object which is in both sets. Which means that empty sets, containing zero objects, cannot have overlap with any set.
I agree with that. You can't have shared elements between sets if there aren't any elements to share.
|
Wow this escalated quickly  .
It got interesting though too.
First things first:
Apologies and thank you - it is now corrected, I added link to original post.
@Simberto and @DarkPlasmaBall you are both correct and thank you for pointing it out - this makes my example flawed due to description of the second set. Apologies for that - everyone makes mistakes.
Now for the sake of discussion can we please assume that description of the second set allows existence of at least two elements meeting its conditions, but also allows possibility that there are no elements meeting its conditions.
On February 13 2022 04:42 WombaT wrote:
@Razyda In this context ‘I bet that…’ or ‘I’m willing to bet…’, always comes with the inference that the person saying it believes what they’re observing to be the case, or likely to be true.
That you have an opinion, either backed by something tangible or not (although that remains unstated), that this is the case. At least in native speaker/of the British English vernacular.
Most evidence we use to make conclusions isn’t directly empirically observed.
I don’t see the relevance of claiming one believes something to be the case vs claiming it’s a fact, in this particular circumstance in threads specifically about discussion.
‘I think this thing is the case’ naturally leads into agreement, or alternatively ‘why do you think that is the case?’ questioning or, ‘Hm I’ve got this other reading and I think that’s wrong’.
Which entirely breaks down if we get into ‘oh well I didn’t say I had proof/that it was verifiable fact so it’s outside the purview of further discussion’
Just gets a tad messy.
Bolded - this is exactly my point.
Italic - is the part which I have issue with ( I am not a native English speaker - so please correct me if I am wrong)
I believe that if you open your statement with "I believe", "I think", "I bet", "In my opinion" you directly implying that this is something you personally consider correct, however you are not 100% certain that this is actually the case. It is a way of signalling, that what you are saying is not a fact, but opinion. Contrary to opening your statement with phrases like "I know", "The fact is", "Truth is", "I am sure", or just stating something - which are indicators that your statement is based on facts.
Now questioning, disproving, etc someone's opinion is perfectly normal and actually can enrich/provoke discussion and make it more interesting.
So in my understanding following happened:
BlackJack expressed his opinion.
Jimmi accused him of stating it as a fact, which BlackJack didnt.
What I found particularly funny:
"Do you have any source on this or is another BJ assumption stated as fact with no basis in reality?"
Bolded is perfectly fine, however italic seems much more apply to itself, than to BlackJack post.
|
Point about the truckers, like I have mentioned several times before is with each further mandated booster there will be more opposition to it, same as any other job.People will not put up with this whole ‘Get a jab every 3-6 months or lose your job’, especially not after the majority has natural immunity and can see the variant trend appears to be more contagious & less dangerous.Mandates are done.
The only way to permanently end the trucker blockade is to scrap the mandates and scrap all covid restrictions as is already happening in many saner parts of the world.
|
On February 13 2022 04:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2022 02:13 Razyda wrote:On February 13 2022 01:34 JimmiC wrote:On February 13 2022 00:31 Razyda wrote:On February 12 2022 23:35 JimmiC wrote:On February 12 2022 21:36 Razyda wrote:On February 11 2022 22:54 JimmiC wrote:
Because you misread my first question as one reason instead of one's reasons, I'm guessing. If you are going to try to hold each word as some exact reason in one part of the post, you shouldn't completing get the sentence wrong in the other.
English has interesting words we use imperfectly. You are right that if you want to say I cant be 100% they would all feel that way, by the same token you can not be the other direction.But if it makes you feel better I should have said "I'm sure most" or "I'm sure almost all". Its also a throw away comment of the post that the only legitimate reason you can pick out is for a tiny fraction.
The point of it was we are talking about public health rules who meed to look at the decisions of many and how they impact the whole group. The same way people are not saying you have to know everything to make a medical suggestion, you just have to trust the doctors and specialists who do.
You somehow trust them with the other vaccines, tgose also have tiny obscure risks as does advil. You trust them on hand washing for cooks, even though everyone wont die, few wiil. Same on meat expirary day rules even though much of that meat would be fine few would get sick and less would fie, it would work out great for many! And then you follow all sorts of rules that have no health or safety compoment, think all the silly dress code shit. And even wearing close im the first place, what if people dont want too? How about smoking in doors? There is 1000s of rules you dont bat an eye at or dont think about because they've always been there or effect you indirectly.
What people are scared of is change amd they dont like it. The people not following the health orders are the ones letting fear drive their lives. The others are letting experts, science and data do it for large societal impacting choices.
On February 11 2022 09:15 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - because I really dont, similarly as I dont care what faith they are, or if they Labour/Conservative voters or if they prefer automatic over stick, or shooters over rts. Everyone have their own reason for those and it is simply not my business what they are.
Italic - there is couple of issues I have with this approach. First of all, whoever I'll be talking to is infinitely more aware of their circumstances than I'll ever be. Therefore they are way more qualified than I am to make this choice. This makes me saying "You should/shouldnt get vaccinated" an empty statement really, or rather declaration of the side rather than anything else. Second somewhat comes from first - let say that they take my advice and something goes awfully bad -thats on me. I am not the kind of person who would go "oh, well sucks for him/her" and carry on with my life. I simply dont have enough knowledge/information to take on such responsibility. On February 11 2022 09:18 JimmiC wrote:
What are the reasons that one shouldn't get vaccinated? Quite frankly my first reaction was disbelief that there exists someone who can get that out of my post. Therefore I Specified "First one" and gave you reason which can't really be argued. I also asked you a question (which you still didn't answer btw and you didn't because there is only 1 answer to this question and this answer reveal your lack of good judgment) which was aimed at making you aware whose attitude is more responsible one considering that: neither of us is medical professional neither of us know circumstances of every person reading our opinions yours - effectively giving people medical advice mine - refusing to do so At this point you really should just let it go. Or if you wanted to argue, admit that this is valid reason and ask for my reasons. What you did though: On February 11 2022 09:49 JimmiC wrote:No I'm sure the .000001% of people who have those would wish the rest would get it and everyone (the like 50 people in Canada LOL) with that reason would qualify for an actual medical exemption and be treated at the pharmacy or hospital where they got the shot. How about other reasons, like yours? The odds you'll have a severe allergic reaction or anaphylaxis to a vaccine is about 1 in 760,000 https://www.healthline.com/health-news/youre-probably-not-allergic-to-vaccines You did ask the question, but for some reason decided to add bolded part which in no way is related to anything which was discussed so far (which seems to be habit of yours). On top of that you made grand statement, what people you know nothing about would want. without anything to support this claim. I then pointed out that you didn't answer my question, and challenged your claim. I also answered your question as this is generally accepted practice. On February 11 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:I dont understand your first paragraph. I was asking tge reasons someone shouldnt. You brought up one super obsecure reason that effects almost no one and kills a number so small most people would consider it zero. I thought with so many people against it you have a whole bunch of reasons that were realistic concerns for people, hopefully at least on par with the downsides of not. Im sure that its a good idea to go all in with a pair of aces pre flop, but Im also not going to be right 100% of the time every time. If I was 100% sure, or thought every single one was, I would have wrote that and then your word play burn would have made more sense. I mean technically yes, the same way it is for a guy who pushes all in with 2, 7 offsuit and wins the pot. The thing is when making public policy or a series of decisions making a choice that works out badly more of the time will negatively outcome the system. The same way that even if you won that pot with the 2 7 offsuit it would still be a bad decision to do it again and worse the more times you plan on making it. So when you are the government and you are considering millions of hands instead of just 1 you dont take that risk because with huge numbers there is consistency instead of randomness. This is basically the why government makes all health and safety rules. https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-large-numbersAre you going to start a movement to halt all vaccine requirements? Because most places have a lot but Brazil has tons! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy This was your answer. In first paragraph you still refuse to answer my question, pretending that you dont understand what I am asking for. You also try to diminish validity of the reason I gave you, while sounding borderline psychopathic (italic). In second you trying to withdraw from your claim, while maintaining its validity using incorrect poker examples. In third only your first sentence is related to discussion we have. Unless I am making decisions for entire communities bolded is unrelated to anything so far discussed. I then again pointed out that you still didn't answer my question, pointed out that reason for not taking vaccine I gave you is good enough for government and further challenged validity of your claim and your dishonesty which you tried to cover with some language gymnastics. On February 11 2022 22:54 JimmiC wrote:
Because you misread my first question as one reason instead of one's reasons, I'm guessing. If you are going to try to hold each word as some exact reason in one part of the post, you shouldn't completing get the sentence wrong in the other.
English has interesting words we use imperfectly. You are right that if you want to say I cant be 100% they would all feel that way, by the same token you can not be the other direction.But if it makes you feel better I should have said "I'm sure most" or "I'm sure almost all". Its also a throw away comment of the post that the only legitimate reason you can pick out is for a tiny fraction.
The point of it was we are talking about public health rules who meed to look at the decisions of many and how they impact the whole group. The same way people are not saying you have to know everything to make a medical suggestion, you just have to trust the doctors and specialists who do.
You somehow trust them with the other vaccines, tgose also have tiny obscure risks as does advil. You trust them on hand washing for cooks, even though everyone wont die, few wiil. Same on meat expirary day rules even though much of that meat would be fine few would get sick and less would fie, it would work out great for many! And then you follow all sorts of rules that have no health or safety compoment, think all the silly dress code shit. And even wearing close im the first place, what if people dont want too? How about smoking in doors? There is 1000s of rules you dont bat an eye at or dont think about because they've always been there or effect you indirectly.
What people are scared of is change amd they dont like it. The people not following the health orders are the ones letting fear drive their lives. The others are letting experts, science and data do it for large societal impacting choices.
Bolded - please point out which part of this exchange lead you to believe that this is what we discussing??? that is the whole discussion, when people say "we should have vaccine mandates" or not, they are not talking about themselves individually, they are talking about the government or group. People are not suggesting they personally know all the reasons, they are suggesting the doctors are. There is legitimate reasons for like .001 of the population to not get vaccinated, which is fine for society, it has been for each vaccine. The cry babies that are scared of needles, or scared of some made up fantasy years down the road, scared of their DNA, scared of the gubberment takin der freedum, scared scared scared, need to suck it up so we could move on. The worst is for all the people who have had to suffer and will have their lives cut short because of the lack of medical care. It looks like because of Omicron we will get to move on in spite of the scared and selfish, we got lucky. I dont think you are able to explain, how what you wrote has anything to do with my post you quoted?? Language you are using to describe people who dare to have different opinion than you do speaks volumes abut what kind of person you are btw. On February 12 2022 23:30 JimmiC wrote:
Do you have any source on this or is another BJ assumption stated as fact with no basis in reality? This is hilarious. Dont worry I will go through that step by step with you so you may be able understand why. He didn't wrote anything which state that this is a "fact". You are actually stating "stated as fact with no bases in reality" You doing very thing you falsely accusing him of doing, in the very same sentence where you accuse him. do you get the irony? You really should add to your signature "Doesn't apply for JimmiC" You are not making sense, sorry do not know how to reply.He said there is a group of people who are asking for police to go crack skulls. I live here, watch and read local news, I have not seen or heard anything about this group. I'm asking where he did or if he is just guessing that it exists. There is no irony, nor do I think you understand the word. Edit: If you are looking for hypocrisy it most certainly exists (and as usual it is bare and from "your side". The conservatives politicians (and supporters) that are supporting these blockades, are the same ones that put in laws against the indigenous blocking railways on their land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Infrastructure_Defence_Act#:~:text=The Critical Infrastructure Defence Act,, destroy, or obstruct infrastructure. The rule of law except if we don't like it or it it is against us crowd is getting so tiring. You still didnt answer any of my questions. You do, you just dont want to. Thats not what he said? Beside: "two-thirds of Canadians would support the use of military force to help clear out Ottawa protesters" "53 per cent support the use of force by Ottawa police to remove truckers, their families and others who refuse to leave. This includes the use of tear gas and other methods, with the understanding that such measures could result in injury." Two-thirds of people in a first world democracy want to use the freaking military on peaceful protesters. Thanks for sharing, too bad it will be treated as a "nothing to see here" in this thread.
This is disgusting to see.
|
Protest are gathering worldwide like France and New Zealand. Worrying signs.
There are many in this thread who prefer to dissect examples rather than discuss the underlying arguments of others. Some examples may be vague, poorly worded, and confusing. Still, it's rather amusing how pedantic people can be (reminds me of people at office who will question the premise of every sentence and debate semantics to avoid work or pass off their questioning as 'adding value').
P.S. 'Many' as in numbers or proportion? Examples, like what? Please don't compare NZ with France? Fire away, people! 3, 2, 1...
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Declaring a protest like this to be an unlawful assembly and talking about using military force to get rid of it is... questionable at best. They're not rioting, the protest has significant popular appeal, and the hard-line approach is more likely than not to backfire (kind of looks like it already did). To be fair they're only using police so far and only talking about military, but ramping up the rhetoric like that is how you'll get a protest ten times as big and with more violence. And upon a quick scan it looks like the French protests include tear gas right off the bat. Yikes.
On the one hand, I agree that blocking shipping routes is a big deal and you can't just let that stand. On the other hand, this looks like the exact wrong way to handle the problem.
Edit: Upon reading it a little further, I'll say it seems like the official response is actually pretty measured and that the calls for stupidly aggressive action comes from others. Good that the government seems to have more sense than the average short-sighted fool that thinks military force against a peaceful protest is a good idea.
|
On February 13 2022 15:27 RKC wrote:
Protest are gathering worldwide like France and New Zealand. Worrying signs.
There are many in this thread who prefer to dissect examples rather than discuss the underlying arguments of others. Some examples may be vague, poorly worded, and confusing. Still, it's rather amusing how pedantic people can be (reminds me of people at office who will question the premise of every sentence and debate semantics to avoid work or pass off their questioning as 'adding value').
P.S. 'Many' as in numbers or proportion? Examples, like what? Please don't compare NZ with France? Fire away, people! 3, 2, 1...
Clearly the big thing to discuss is whether my use of the words "I bet.." to start a sentence constitutes me stating my opinion or me stating a fact.
As much as I love having all my posts here pedantically scrutinized in such a ridiculous way, I think the desire to use the military on peaceful protestors by two-thirds of Canadians is the real story.
|
On February 13 2022 16:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2022 15:27 RKC wrote:
Protest are gathering worldwide like France and New Zealand. Worrying signs.
There are many in this thread who prefer to dissect examples rather than discuss the underlying arguments of others. Some examples may be vague, poorly worded, and confusing. Still, it's rather amusing how pedantic people can be (reminds me of people at office who will question the premise of every sentence and debate semantics to avoid work or pass off their questioning as 'adding value').
P.S. 'Many' as in numbers or proportion? Examples, like what? Please don't compare NZ with France? Fire away, people! 3, 2, 1... Clearly the big thing to discuss is whether my use of the words "I bet.." to start a sentence constitutes me stating my opinion or me stating a fact. As much as I love having all my posts here pedantically scrutinized in such a ridiculous way, I think the desire to use the military on peaceful protestors by two-thirds of Canadians is the real story.
"peaceful" and only blocking 1/4 of the trade between USA and Canada. There are dramatic knock-on effects to people's lives and livelihood, and when police won't shut it down, military is the obvious escalation.
They are loud, obnoxious and very much unrepresentative of the views of a a large majority. Antivax, racist protesters involved with the "trucker convoy" are clearly a loud minority. It's not often you get that much public support in favour of anything. Putting it into perspective, that's similar to public support for legalization of marijuana in Canada prior to legalization occurring (roughly 70% in 2016)
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/7-in-10-canadians-support-marijuana-legalization-nanos-poll-1.2968953
|
On February 13 2022 17:23 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2022 16:16 BlackJack wrote:On February 13 2022 15:27 RKC wrote:
Protest are gathering worldwide like France and New Zealand. Worrying signs.
There are many in this thread who prefer to dissect examples rather than discuss the underlying arguments of others. Some examples may be vague, poorly worded, and confusing. Still, it's rather amusing how pedantic people can be (reminds me of people at office who will question the premise of every sentence and debate semantics to avoid work or pass off their questioning as 'adding value').
P.S. 'Many' as in numbers or proportion? Examples, like what? Please don't compare NZ with France? Fire away, people! 3, 2, 1... Clearly the big thing to discuss is whether my use of the words "I bet.." to start a sentence constitutes me stating my opinion or me stating a fact. As much as I love having all my posts here pedantically scrutinized in such a ridiculous way, I think the desire to use the military on peaceful protestors by two-thirds of Canadians is the real story. "peaceful" and only blocking 1/4 of the trade between USA and Canada. There are dramatic knock-on effects to people's lives and livelihood, and when police won't shut it down, military is the obvious escalation. They are loud, obnoxious and very much unrepresentative of the views of a a large majority. Antivax, racist protesters involved with the "trucker convoy" are clearly a loud minority. It's not often you get that much public support in favour of anything. Putting it into perspective, that's similar to public support for legalization of marijuana in Canada prior to legalization occurring (roughly 70% in 2016) https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/7-in-10-canadians-support-marijuana-legalization-nanos-poll-1.2968953
Do you really think its right to use the military against a peaceful protest even if its "loud, obnoxious" and unpopular. I strongly disagree cracking down on peaceful protests with the military power of the state is what a democratic free nation should be doing, but I guess people have different opinions.
|
Northern Ireland23313 Posts
On February 13 2022 13:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Point about the truckers, like I have mentioned several times before is with each further mandated booster there will be more opposition to it, same as any other job.People will not put up with this whole ‘Get a jab every 3-6 months or lose your job’, especially not after the majority has natural immunity and can see the variant trend appears to be more contagious & less dangerous.Mandates are done.
The only way to permanently end the trucker blockade is to scrap the mandates and scrap all covid restrictions as is already happening in many saner parts of the world.
Oh how convenient, what people have been advocating for the entirety of the pandemic instead of sucking it up and making the smallest of personal sacrifices for the sake of wider public health.
Eventually of course they will be correct, fingers crossed we are approaching that period.
|
On February 13 2022 17:46 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2022 17:23 Lmui wrote:On February 13 2022 16:16 BlackJack wrote:On February 13 2022 15:27 RKC wrote:
Protest are gathering worldwide like France and New Zealand. Worrying signs.
There are many in this thread who prefer to dissect examples rather than discuss the underlying arguments of others. Some examples may be vague, poorly worded, and confusing. Still, it's rather amusing how pedantic people can be (reminds me of people at office who will question the premise of every sentence and debate semantics to avoid work or pass off their questioning as 'adding value').
P.S. 'Many' as in numbers or proportion? Examples, like what? Please don't compare NZ with France? Fire away, people! 3, 2, 1... Clearly the big thing to discuss is whether my use of the words "I bet.." to start a sentence constitutes me stating my opinion or me stating a fact. As much as I love having all my posts here pedantically scrutinized in such a ridiculous way, I think the desire to use the military on peaceful protestors by two-thirds of Canadians is the real story. "peaceful" and only blocking 1/4 of the trade between USA and Canada. There are dramatic knock-on effects to people's lives and livelihood, and when police won't shut it down, military is the obvious escalation. They are loud, obnoxious and very much unrepresentative of the views of a a large majority. Antivax, racist protesters involved with the "trucker convoy" are clearly a loud minority. It's not often you get that much public support in favour of anything. Putting it into perspective, that's similar to public support for legalization of marijuana in Canada prior to legalization occurring (roughly 70% in 2016) https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/7-in-10-canadians-support-marijuana-legalization-nanos-poll-1.2968953 Do you really think its right to use the military against a peaceful protest even if its "loud, obnoxious" and unpopular. I strongly disagree cracking down on peaceful protests with the military power of the state is what a democratic free nation should be doing, but I guess people have different opinions.
Seems that it's a moot point anyways as Trudeau has already stated no military (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60364821_).
Does / did Canada have any plans for easing measures prior to the protests? Countries should be moving away from restrictions soon, but doesn't seem quite the right time in Canada yet. Probably sometime in March. Assuming the situations doesn't change with a new variant, that would be the time to protest if no plans are in place to ease the restrictions. These anti-vax/anti-measure protests are quite embarrassing given the current situation (i.e., not out of omicron yet lol).
|
Northern Ireland23313 Posts
On February 13 2022 17:46 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2022 17:23 Lmui wrote:On February 13 2022 16:16 BlackJack wrote:On February 13 2022 15:27 RKC wrote:
Protest are gathering worldwide like France and New Zealand. Worrying signs.
There are many in this thread who prefer to dissect examples rather than discuss the underlying arguments of others. Some examples may be vague, poorly worded, and confusing. Still, it's rather amusing how pedantic people can be (reminds me of people at office who will question the premise of every sentence and debate semantics to avoid work or pass off their questioning as 'adding value').
P.S. 'Many' as in numbers or proportion? Examples, like what? Please don't compare NZ with France? Fire away, people! 3, 2, 1... Clearly the big thing to discuss is whether my use of the words "I bet.." to start a sentence constitutes me stating my opinion or me stating a fact. As much as I love having all my posts here pedantically scrutinized in such a ridiculous way, I think the desire to use the military on peaceful protestors by two-thirds of Canadians is the real story. "peaceful" and only blocking 1/4 of the trade between USA and Canada. There are dramatic knock-on effects to people's lives and livelihood, and when police won't shut it down, military is the obvious escalation. They are loud, obnoxious and very much unrepresentative of the views of a a large majority. Antivax, racist protesters involved with the "trucker convoy" are clearly a loud minority. It's not often you get that much public support in favour of anything. Putting it into perspective, that's similar to public support for legalization of marijuana in Canada prior to legalization occurring (roughly 70% in 2016) https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/7-in-10-canadians-of support-marijuana-legalization-nanos-poll-1.2968953 Do you really think its right to use the military against a peaceful protest even if its "loud, obnoxious" and unpopular. I strongly disagree cracking down on peaceful protests with the military power of the state is what a democratic free nation should be doing, but I guess people have different opinions.
If they’re holding livelihoods hostage, surely the protest could loosen while still taking place, even if it’s still a bit inconvenient or disruptive.
Police the Western world over have little compunction breaking up many a less disruptive, more publicly supported protest than this.
I think more than most topics people will draw their own arbitrary lines in the sand over what’s acceptable protest and what isn’t, or what constitutes peaceful protest or doesn’t. I’m unsure what the tenor is of this protest and how it’s impacting folks around the area. Is it peaceful both by the lack of violence, as well as having a serene atmosphere, or is it lacking violence but a cloud of intimidation covers it? As I said I don’t know personally any of that kind of stuff.
I do try to be both generally permissive and consistent, just because myriad protests I support get shut down doesn’t mean I want that courtesy extended to those I do not.
That said, I did have to think about it, my initial reaction was a less charitable ‘fuck em’. I suspect opinion polls on the topic don’t account for this.
The Canadian truck blockades are a symbol and an embodiment of every irritating, frustrating and selfish individual I’ve interacted with over the whole course of the pandemic.
Assuming one doesn’t support their cause, there is a huge amount of frustration that’s accumulated interest and is liable to lead to places one might not, on reflection want to go, such as the military cracking down on the protest.
|
There's nothing sacred about a "nonviolent" protest. They are routinely broken up by police forces across the western world, as wombat said.
It's interesting to compare this to groups like extinction rebellion chaining themselves to freeways. The truckies are, ironically, always first in line to see those guys get dragged off, and the rules are exactly the same here. If your peaceful protest is causing a significant disruption, the state can choose to exercise its monopoly on violence to move you on.
It's obviously better to do so via the police, but given the hardware available to the protestors, perhaps that's not possible. Domestic use of the military is more of a red line in the US for historical reasons. I don't see it as a universal rule. I don't think there's a fundamental difference if the state delegates its monopoly to people wearing green as well as blue, provided it's done under the same rules of engagement as the police would use, and public opinion is supportive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
