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.
No refutation of the counter-observation that the relative visibility of celebrities to the public is higher than of the public to the public
Nothing to refute since this is just a word salad with no meaning since you have not defined what you mean by:
Visibility celebrities to public
Visibility of public to public
"we all know a lot of these celebrities Satanically sold their soul to get there (etc.)."
No we don't.
Its clear that you don't. Thats not due the lack of crumbs.
Nor do you.
Don't presume to know what I know or don't.
If I thought you were making these statements in good faith, I would have said to go and read Q drops. But, hey, you are already here, and you have made it clear you dont always argue in good faith..
You say "Theory of a remote kill switch, while pretty outrageous, does fit this scenario."
where speculation is considered to be truth
See, this is your problem. You cannot differentiate between a "logical statement" and "assertion of truth". Saying "this fits the scenario" is not saying "this is true".
But the reason you jump to that conclusion is because, as I have repeated numerous times, you don't understand the difference between logical, plausible, possible, probable and provable.
Anyone could say the same thing of black magic
This is an illogical statement. And unlike you, I will back this up with a simple demonstration.
Consider the statement: "Electricity is what makes the light bulb glow"
Now consider whether your statement is logical. "Anyone could say the same thing of black magic". Yes, you can say "Black magic is what makes the light bulb glow". However, saying that statement has no relevance and cannot prove or disprove the original statement.
So the reason why you came up with this illogical statement is because of the logical fallacy that two similar sounding but mutually independant statements can prove or disprove each other.
More defensive quibbling over words. If you didn't understand what I meant about visibility, you never bothered to ask what I meant. And that would have made you look stupid, because then we would be struggling with the meaning of common words, like "visibility" (the ability to be seen). Feigning stupidity as a defense against producing a response is a low tactic, but I am not surprised.
We don't know anything about celebrities and Satanism. "Crumbs" in this context are only Rorschach blots into which we read meanings from our imagination. The fact is that there is no evidence for what you are saying about this, and the demands of logic and proof is that you have the burden of presenting a case that would convict---not just a collection of fancies and smears.
Why argue that something "fits the scenario" if there is no reason to think it is true? No, it is an attempt to impart credibility to a fancy. By the way, I don't believe that YOU know the difference among logical-plausible-possible-provable, or you would be enlightening me instead of using them as a club. Go to a dictionary. I'm good with those definitions. Prove me wrong.
We were talking about "kill switches" setting off a "vaccine"-based contamination in Navalny. Exactly analogous to black magic (i.e., entirely imaginary), yet you jump from "if it can be imagined" to "it must be real."
Your remark about electricity is tautological; light bulbs are designed to produce light from electricity. It is a definition of what a light bulb is. It's a question of logic only to the extent that it is a statement of truth; there is no syllogism involved with it. Some light sources produce incandescent light without electricity. Now we use quantum physics to produce light from electricity. I wouldn't expect you to know the details. I'm not the one saying "kill switches" exist or do anything; you are. And they are logically interchangeable with black magic, since there is nothing real to differentiate them. Your phrase about black magic and light bulbs is only from you, not from me. It is not semantically analogous. Why would you make that statement? Easy---to produce a straw man of your own making and put it in my mouth. Well, if the readers of this exchange think that makes sense, I can't help them.
Net result: Navalny died of a clot, which kills many people, often suddenly. Of which I have considerable personal experience. Paranoid fantasies are not required to accept his cause of death.
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.
Nothing to refute since this is just a word salad with no meaning since you have not defined what you mean by:
Visibility celebrities to public
Visibility of public to public
Its clear that you don't. Thats not due the lack of crumbs.
Don't presume to know what I know or don't.
If I thought you were making these statements in good faith, I would have said to go and read Q drops. But, hey, you are already here, and you have made it clear you dont always argue in good faith..
See, this is your problem. You cannot differentiate between a "logical statement" and "assertion of truth". Saying "this fits the scenario" is not saying "this is true".
But the reason you jump to that conclusion is because, as I have repeated numerous times, you don't understand the difference between logical, plausible, possible, probable and provable.
This is an illogical statement. And unlike you, I will back this up with a simple demonstration.
Consider the statement: "Electricity is what makes the light bulb glow"
Now consider whether your statement is logical. "Anyone could say the same thing of black magic". Yes, you can say "Black magic is what makes the light bulb glow". However, saying that statement has no relevance and cannot prove or disprove the original statement.
So the reason why you came up with this illogical statement is because of the logical fallacy that two similar sounding but mutually independant statements can prove or disprove each other.
More defensive quibbling over words. If you didn't understand what I meant about visibility, you never bothered to ask what I meant. And that would have made you look stupid, because then we would be struggling with the meaning of common words, like "visibility" (the ability to be seen). Feigning stupidity as a defense against producing a response is a low tactic, but I am not surprised.
We don't know anything about celebrities and Satanism. "Crumbs" in this context are only Rorschach blots into which we read meanings from our imagination. The fact is that there is no evidence for what you are saying about this, and the demands of logic and proof is that you have the burden of presenting a case that would convict---not just a collection of fancies and smears.
Why argue that something "fits the scenario" if there is no reason to think it is true? No, it is an attempt to impart credibility to a fancy. By the way, I don't believe that YOU know the difference among logical-plausible-possible-provable, or you would be enlightening me instead of using them as a club. Go to a dictionary. I'm good with those definitions. Prove me wrong.
We were talking about "kill switches" setting off a "vaccine"-based contamination in Navalny. Exactly analogous to black magic (i.e., entirely imaginary), yet you jump from "if it can be imagined" to "it must be real."
Your remark about electricity is tautological; light bulbs are designed to produce light from electricity. It is a definition of what a light bulb is. It's a question of logic only to the extent that it is a statement of truth; there is no syllogism involved with it. Some light sources produce incandescent light without electricity. Now we use quantum physics to produce light from electricity. I wouldn't expect you to know the details. I'm not the one saying "kill switches" exist or do anything; you are. And they are logically interchangeable with black magic, since there is nothing real to differentiate them. Your phrase about black magic and light bulbs is only from you, not from me. It is not semantically analogous. Why would you make that statement? Easy---to produce a straw man of your own making and put it in my mouth. Well, if the readers of this exchange think that makes sense, I can't help them.
Net result: Navalny died of a clot, which kills many people, often suddenly. Of which I have considerable personal experience. Paranoid fantasies are not required to accept his cause of death.