Is Coronavirus as serious as they say?

The entire tweet is based on a blatantly flimsy false equivalence. "Big Pharma" has nothing to do with doctors suggesting that pregnant woman abstain from drinking alcohol or unpasteurized juice.

To her larger point, this sudden devotion to the FDA among people with her beliefs is a typically disingenuous rhetorical trick. The FDA approves the tobacco that you smoke in the cigarette that gives you cancer. The FDA considers it acceptable to ingest the cancerous glyphosate pesticides that sit on your produce. There is nothing inherently altruistic or honest about anything that the FDA does. When the full approval comes sometime after the summer (disregarding the fact that the vaccines are currently approved for emergency use), will it put your mind at ease? Or will you simply invent a new reason for your apprehension?

Candace Owens was a low-level liberal blogger who was fortunate enough to stumble into unintentional favor with conservatives. Like any good opportunist, she saw an open door and ran through it (shedding her meager principles in the process). She hocks disingenuous opinions to people desperate for chum. I suspect she laughs at people like you and rifke all the way to the bank. As Dave Chappelle said, "I can't think of a worse way to make money."

So, while I understand that you think you've got me cornered when you accuse me of resorting to a lazy ad hominem in not addressing her "points," it's completely absurd not to consider the source when bothering to be analytical about these things. She's a notorious bad faith actor. That isn't irrelevant.
To answer your point yes I will feel easier when it gets FDA approval but still would like to see what happens over a 4-5 year period.

As to Candace herself, since you've gone on and on about her personality making the erroneous assumption that I am a fan. I'm not, I agree I think she is someone who is a grifter and is a bad look for Conservatism. Good examples of this were her shouting match with Blair White on Dave Rubin's show and the Joe Rogan show, Joe really ran rings around her that day. Signing on to work with the Con Inc. king himself Ben Shapiro should tell anyone all they need to know about her.

However unlike you I don't have to like/agree with someone's personality in order to agree with them if they make a point I believe to be valid. This kind of weird tribal thing where both sides are in their camps and that means that whatever someone says form the other camp you MUST disagree with, because they are just a terrible person etc etc seems terribly reductive to me and not very forward thinking.
 
True, the "plandemic" part was not helpful to the discussion and made assumptions. The real point was that I think most people will go with a gut feeling and then seek evidence to support it. We all do this.
You do bring up some other issues that are interesting. If someone in their 80's isn't interested in the vaccine this must mean that they've decided the vaccine is a greater risk than contracting covid 19. Being in a high risk group this would seem to be a serious decision.
The other issue is that choosing not to be vaccinated does not just affect the person making that decision, assuming they are not living in total isolation, because some people can not be vaccinated, like infants, and so, theoretically, you can be putting others at risk. This is the theory with all vaccinations.
I haven't participated in this discussion much because feel like most people with strong opinions on it are just repeating something they've read or heard that supports their gut feeling. I don't think that arguing with people about it can lead to any greater knowledge than you can get by just choosing sources you trust and informing yourself directly.
I agree that we tend to have our predisposed bias and either consciously or subconsciously look for information that will confirm it.

As to my father, he just has the approach that he is in his late 80's he's lived a long life and something has to kill him. He believes in a good diet and natural immunity and if it still gets you it gets you. I guess it's something of a fatalistic approach but that is my dad.

As to the getting the vaccine for others your example of infants probably isn't great as the numbers dying form Covid are almost nonexistent. I take your point though that some people can't take the vaccine due to other medical conditions which is definitely a bit more tricky. I would really prefer to see what this thing looks like after 5 years before I take it myself. I'm old enough to remember thalidomide babies, so I admit the lack of long term testing makes me nervous. What if say in 5 years it turns out that people who took the vaccine and then go on to have kids, those kids suffer say autism at a much higher rate? There is a lot about the rushed nature of this that makes me nervous.
 
However unlike you I don't have to like/agree with someone's personality in order to agree with them if they make a point I believe to be valid. This kind of weird tribal thing where both sides are in their camps and that means that whatever someone says form the other camp you MUST disagree with, because they are just a terrible person etc etc seems terribly reductive to me and not very forward thinking.
That's all fine and dandy, but I didn't do any of that. I called out Candace Owens, a person who almost exclusively talks complete bullshit.
 
That's all fine and dandy, but I didn't do any of that. I called out Candace Owens, a person who almost exclusively talks complete bullshit.
The original post was about two points she made regarding the vaccine. Instead of addressing those points you launched into an ad hominem attack, so yeah you did exactly that.
 
Downvoting and then posting links at me isn't really making me to eager to click. It's reminding me why I quit Facebook.
Perhaps I should have split my post. Rest assured the link wasn't posted at you, nor do I care if you click it. The downvote was merited.
 
The original post was about two points she made regarding the vaccine. Instead of addressing those points you launched into an ad hominem attack, so yeah you did exactly that.
I attacked Candace Owens because she’s an idiot, not because of some tribalistic impulse to disparage the “other side.”

It’s also far too generous to pretend that tweet had one point, let alone two.
 
I attacked Candace Owens because she’s an idiot, not because of some tribalistic impulse to disparage the “other side.”

It’s also far too generous to pretend that tweet had one point, let alone two.
She made 2 points you didn’t rebut either, you just went into a weird rant.
 
No, she didn't. Do you call falsely claiming that Big Pharma tells women not to drink alcohol while pregnant a "point"?
She made the point about FDA approval and lack of long term testing. Instead of rebutting either of those points you attacked her personality. Go back and read your own post it’s there for everyone to see.
 
🤒
BGV you refused to rebut and then launched
an ad hominem attack:blushing:
this after siphoning posts.:blushing:
befriending liquored up Magento:blushing:
3 strikes in 24 hrs:hammer:
 
Naomi Wolf got suspended from Twitter. I blame the teddy bear.

IMG_20210605_135842.jpg


IMG_20210605_163933.jpg


IMG_20210605_163840.jpg
 
I received a phone call a couple of days ago from some Vax centre. The bird on the phone sounded aggressive, like the old time Dr receptionist types. You know, those horrors who can’t express themselves at home lol. I was fascinated, I kept her talking in order to confirm her bitter nature. Ultimately I decidead to throw her, her voice softened and with a sense of relief on her part , we ended the call. How I laughed.
 
His party parents have a lot to answer for. Who falls for this hype? I know, suckers, silly f…..s.
Every time I see a CELEBRITY gawping into a camera, wearing a muzzle, with a rolled up sleeve, I laugh. Do they really think they are that influential? Yep, they sure do. They’ll regret it one day.
 
Back
Top Bottom