Your thinking is illogical. The visibility of celebrities is much higher than for anyone "around us." Think of trees fallen in the forest. At an altitude of a hundred feet, they would be obvious. In the middle of dense forest, you would be lucky to encounter one.
Secondly, for cultural reasons (social visibility, herd-following), a celebrity is more likely to have taken the vaxx, and their numbers could be high. In any case, there is no substance to the supposition that their numbers are statistically abnormal.
A "kill switch" is absurd nonsense...and a testimonial to the farther limits of an overworked imagination. Likewise, we don't "all know" that any of these celebrities sold their soul to Satan. We may imagine it, but we don't know it. We laugh at Africans who believe in witchcraft (and many do), but we simply have our own preference for witches and evil spells.
No. Logical is the word. You were drawing logically unsupported inferences about the purported victims. All you do here is argue that they are no less likely than anyone to have taken the vaxx. You have no argument against the assymetric public visibility. Physician, heal thyself. (Or pluck the plank from your own eye.)
Rather than debate the issue, you quibble over vocabulary. Change of subject is always a sign of a failing argument. But...I don't think you knew that.
When you have taken a long breath, read again what I wrote, and actually understand what I am saying in its entirety, and then come to me with actual numbers that compares increase in excess mortality amongst Celebrities before and after the vaccines, and compare it against the increase in excess mortality amongst the rest of the population, then I will consider there is an "issue to debate" and who knows, I might even take your bait ;)
You surmise that "The number of suddenly died amongst celebrities is much higher than what we have seen around us." No evidence or argument given to support the surmise. No refutation of the counter-observation that the relative visibility of celebrities to the public is higher than of the public to the public (fallen tree in forest effect).
You claim "we all know a lot of these celebrities Satanically sold their soul to get there (etc.)." No we don't. Nor do you. This is fantasy.
You say "Theory of a remote kill switch, while pretty outrageous, does fit this scenario." Anyone could say the same thing of black magic, but dreaming up a magical cause does not establish the reality of that cause. This is an example of delusional thinking, where speculation is considered to be truth.
Yes, illogical, taking your words at face value. You are the one making claims about relative mortalities and other imponderables, so the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims. That is the logical burden of proof you are obligated to assume.
Your thinking is illogical. The visibility of celebrities is much higher than for anyone "around us." Think of trees fallen in the forest. At an altitude of a hundred feet, they would be obvious. In the middle of dense forest, you would be lucky to encounter one.
Secondly, for cultural reasons (social visibility, herd-following), a celebrity is more likely to have taken the vaxx, and their numbers could be high. In any case, there is no substance to the supposition that their numbers are statistically abnormal.
A "kill switch" is absurd nonsense...and a testimonial to the farther limits of an overworked imagination. Likewise, we don't "all know" that any of these celebrities sold their soul to Satan. We may imagine it, but we don't know it. We laugh at Africans who believe in witchcraft (and many do), but we simply have our own preference for witches and evil spells.
Personally, outside my own son and wife and one friend, vaxx intake is 100%. I doubt the celebrity stats can beat that number ;)
You are again confusing logical , probable, possible , plausible and provable but this time you have to find someone else to educate you!
No. Logical is the word. You were drawing logically unsupported inferences about the purported victims. All you do here is argue that they are no less likely than anyone to have taken the vaxx. You have no argument against the assymetric public visibility. Physician, heal thyself. (Or pluck the plank from your own eye.)
Rather than debate the issue, you quibble over vocabulary. Change of subject is always a sign of a failing argument. But...I don't think you knew that.
When you have taken a long breath, read again what I wrote, and actually understand what I am saying in its entirety, and then come to me with actual numbers that compares increase in excess mortality amongst Celebrities before and after the vaccines, and compare it against the increase in excess mortality amongst the rest of the population, then I will consider there is an "issue to debate" and who knows, I might even take your bait ;)
You surmise that "The number of suddenly died amongst celebrities is much higher than what we have seen around us." No evidence or argument given to support the surmise. No refutation of the counter-observation that the relative visibility of celebrities to the public is higher than of the public to the public (fallen tree in forest effect).
You claim "we all know a lot of these celebrities Satanically sold their soul to get there (etc.)." No we don't. Nor do you. This is fantasy.
You say "Theory of a remote kill switch, while pretty outrageous, does fit this scenario." Anyone could say the same thing of black magic, but dreaming up a magical cause does not establish the reality of that cause. This is an example of delusional thinking, where speculation is considered to be truth.
Yes, illogical, taking your words at face value. You are the one making claims about relative mortalities and other imponderables, so the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims. That is the logical burden of proof you are obligated to assume.