No, there is no reason to exchange one stupidity for a slightly lesser stupidity. There is no stupidity budget that needs to be balanced, the stupidity budget needs to be eliminated completely. There is no need for either, if anything, only psychiatric aid for those who can't stand to live without either as not being able to cope with risks existing in the world is genuinely a mental health problem.
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
I know they already existed, just I can't imagine how MUCH more will be.
I was talking about the man leaving his fiance for an unknown ?
Tulsi Gabbard is once again being a Russian shill. I understand the need to help the American people, but why exactly can't this be done simultaneously with helping Ukraine? As for what winning is and how this ends, winning would mean an end to Russia's offensive and having Russia permanently give up on its efforts to conquer Ukraine. At the very least, this would mean preventing Ukraine from losing any or at least much additional territory to the Russians while also ensuring that Russia eventually gives up its effort to try to conquer Ukraine AND DOES NOT TRY doing the same thing again sometime in the future. Would also be nice if Ukraine also had a say in its future choice of alliances, though I suspect that the West might enjoy seeing Russian bled dry in Ukraine and thus might unfortunately be hesitant to offer Ukraine even non-NATO security guarantees.
How is a Russian shill when she doesn't want to spend money on Ukraine and rather spend the money for those are struggling in her country?
That's a reasonable request.
The same thing I want to do for Italy l stopping spending our wealth away because we are commanded by a pro-NATO banker.
I hope the West looses.
Because they took 2 years of my life and poisoned friends and family while calling me a fascist grandma killer while they acted like totalitarian parasites while we got poorer in health and money.
bintananth
behind a desk
Back then getting captured was worse than getting shot. If you were shot you would get the some of the best medical care available in the 1860's and sent home. Diseases killed way more people than combat did back then and, IIRC, about 1/4 of Mississippi's state budget was used to care for disabled Confederate veterans.
If you were captured you'd be lucky if you were paroled. The parole terms were basically "go home and give up the fight" with a commuted death sentence hanging over your head.
No, and stupid ultimatums like that are why no one should trust anyone who pushes lockdowns or 'health mandates' ever again.
Then again, I think you are someone who is fine pushing shit on people to infringe on their bodily autonomy, based off threads you've made an ideas you've floated before.
Why do you insist on repeatedly and routinely floating stupid ideas like that; do you just get off to imagining authoritarian policies being forced on people?
Doomsought
Well-known member
No, that sounds like a demand for surrender by an enemy.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Haven't seen his posts or threads, is the one about eugenics ?
Would you have also opposed vaccine mandates for polio in the 1950s if a lot of people would have refused to get vaccinated?
Oh, there's more than that, though eugenics is in there;
- Forcing Vasalgel on male at puberty if elective abortions are no longer protected by DC/RvW.
- Abolition of birthright citizenship
- Why should human infants have more rights than cats or dogs
Those are just a few of his greatest hits.
If the vax was as dodgy and side-effect prone as the Wu Flu vax's have proven to be, sure. Same if the the gov and corps had enacted the same punitive measures to try to compel/coerce vaccination in those who dare to do their own homework on it's safety or effectiveness.
I mean they tried an earlier Polio vax before then that turned out all sorts of bad and left people in bad ways without actually helping stop polio.
You cannot even begin trying to justify loss of bodily autonomy and forced vaccination unless you can first prove the vax you want to push is both effective and safe, neither of which the Wu Flu vax has shown to be.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Well fuck.
I forgot about the third and didn't know about the first two.
Who the fuck would force males for that ?
-You get more reasonable child support laws, and you won't need this. Of course, if one values protecting prenatal lives above all else, then mandatory Vasalgel injections for males actually do make sense. Males could subsequently remove these injections at any time.
I'm not the only one who has made proposals along these lines:
Backlash against 'contraception in water' suggestions
A demography expert has hit back at claims putting contraception in the water supply could be a way to reduce women of low intelligence having unwanted children.
www.newshub.co.nz
-Birthright citizenship makes guest-worker programs harder to implement, which make reducing global poverty harder to achieve. In any case, abolishing birthright citizenship is apparently widely popular on the US political right.
-Peter Singer has apparently raised the same question in regards to the treatment of human infants vs. cats and dogs. He's against speceicism.
No different than any other war, I think.
We already have a vax that is pretty effective against Monkeypox.
It's called the smallpox vax.
Yes, which a definite good thing.
Still, coerced vaccinations for the general public are not something to be lauded or wanted.
If a bug is bad enough to justify it, the vax safe enough, and you can prove this to the public, people won't *need* to be coerced to get a vax against a disease like that.
Like, the smallpox vax is damn near one of the oldest around at this point, and is a very well known quantity, with nothing experimental about it.
You're talking about the same people who sometimes believe in QAnon. Not always a very encouraging prospect, honestly.
The smallpox vaccination was introduced in 1801 (with less effective but still lifesaving variolation existing since the fifteenth century, although it was unknown in Europe until the early 1700s), and yet smallpox was not eradicated until 1977, and it *did* in fact take a global campaign of mandatory vaccination to achieve that.
Sometimes conspiracy theories come true, as we've seen with what all has been discovered about the fudged numbers and overcounts o Wu Flu death numbers and oversensitive tests, along with the links to NIH/Fauci and the Wuhan lab.
Not everything 'QAnon' types say is bullshit, and more than a few times conspiracy types have been ahead of the curve lately.
And with smallpox, it was justified as smallpox was something that had no other truly effective treatment except vaccination and it did save millions of lives from a disease that had ravaged humanity for thousands of years.
There are very few bugs/health situations that reach that level of justification, and acting like forced or coerced vaccinations is at all a good thing, instead of an occasional necessary evil with certain bugs, is tossing bodily autonomy out the window for often nebulous and unachievable goals.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
But when they are wrong, isn't it true that they are unreasonably difficult if not impossible to convince of the truth?
Sometimes, though most of QAnon are fucking glowies of one sort or another trying to keep the opposition ineffective, or grifters just looking to make money off rubes.
However, QAnon is not where I got the info about how fucked the Wu Flu vax shit is; that info was mostly just connecting the dots between publicly available documents and then adding in some FIOA'd stuff that revealed what Fauci and the NIH was doing in Wuhan with that lab/the EcoHealth Alliance.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they heavily rely on echo chamber logic where evidence is filtered based on whether or not it agrees with the predetermined conclusion of the conspiracy.
So even the most shaky and unreliable evidence is regarded as clearly true as long as it fits the conspiracy (and its very shakiness is often seen as making it more true because of the imagined agents of the conspiracy "working to suppress the truth"), whereas all evidence against the desired conclusion is offhandedly dismissed as "part of the conspiracy" (and conversely, the better the counter-evidence is, the more it just "proves they're out there").
Yeah.
Military get it when heading to korea or middle east, basically anywhere it could be used as a weapon.
Same with Anthrax