You don't even claim that what you are saying is worth taking seriously. But you make claims nevertheless, and claims are allegations about reality. You don't make any caveat that "this is just my hare-brained personal preference." What I was putting forth were counter-explanations (alternative and more credible theories), but you dodged them like they were bullets.
Now you refer to statistics. In your original comments you were comparing news accounts to "what we see around us." I'm not aware that anyone is keeping stats on "celebrities." Or that miscellaneous news accounts are "statistics." If there were statistics, you could cite them. You don't.
Bottom line: no evidence or basis to believe in "kill switches" for the vaxx, or even that Navalny was vaxxed. Pure imagination.
I'm not impressed with flights of fancy being palmed off as works of careful deduction. Paranoid delusions are not the stuff that will make us free, or enable us to help anyone puzzled by events. There is a lot of incredible bullshit that is tolerated on this page, and few here seem to appreciate how seriously it undermines our credibility to "outsiders." It has seriously undermined my credulity toward what goes on here. It has caused people to walk away and be public about their dismay and reservation. Such great PR. I come here to gain insight...not to share delusions.
When I force you to make a coherent statement and prove that its based on faulty logic you revert back to your ramblings. You dont seem to have the capacity of nuanced thinking. Everything is black and white for you.
I'm not impressed with flights of fancy being palmed off as works of careful deduction.
This place is not intended to "impress" anyone. Plenty of sleeping people who will find this place outrageous. Its not really for them.
No. You cater to those who can't resist checking under their beds. No "kill switch."
You want me to take you seriously---or you don't want to "impress" me? You can't even make an argument to support your pipe dream. My "coherent statement" was nothing other than the face value of the words I used, and I am only surprised that what I said was initially beyond your grasp. Surprised no longer.
Since I myself am still in my journey for the question for the answer to this question, and all I can do so far is simply analyse pieces of information, I am very eager to know how you can assert this so confidently.
Go ahead, enlighten me. I am all ears. And note that until you clearly and logically prove this, I am not interested in any other ramblings from you.
The same way I dismiss the existence of leprechauns: no evidence, and no rationale. The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim. If you don't understand that to be a basic principle of logic, you have something to learn. I am under no obligation to disprove a flight of fancy, when the flight of fancy has no substance behind it. If you think you are in a position to judge an impossible proof, you are not in that position.
The reason for this is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative ["there isn't x"]. It is only possible to prove a positive ["there is x"]. Otherwise there would be no limit of the claims to be disproved. Do bats speak Esperanto? Do elves operate internet gambling rings? Is there really someone in your closet?
You don't even claim that what you are saying is worth taking seriously. But you make claims nevertheless, and claims are allegations about reality. You don't make any caveat that "this is just my hare-brained personal preference." What I was putting forth were counter-explanations (alternative and more credible theories), but you dodged them like they were bullets.
Now you refer to statistics. In your original comments you were comparing news accounts to "what we see around us." I'm not aware that anyone is keeping stats on "celebrities." Or that miscellaneous news accounts are "statistics." If there were statistics, you could cite them. You don't.
Bottom line: no evidence or basis to believe in "kill switches" for the vaxx, or even that Navalny was vaxxed. Pure imagination.
I'm not impressed with flights of fancy being palmed off as works of careful deduction. Paranoid delusions are not the stuff that will make us free, or enable us to help anyone puzzled by events. There is a lot of incredible bullshit that is tolerated on this page, and few here seem to appreciate how seriously it undermines our credibility to "outsiders." It has seriously undermined my credulity toward what goes on here. It has caused people to walk away and be public about their dismay and reservation. Such great PR. I come here to gain insight...not to share delusions.
When I force you to make a coherent statement and prove that its based on faulty logic you revert back to your ramblings. You dont seem to have the capacity of nuanced thinking. Everything is black and white for you.
This place is not intended to "impress" anyone. Plenty of sleeping people who will find this place outrageous. Its not really for them.
No. You cater to those who can't resist checking under their beds. No "kill switch."
You want me to take you seriously---or you don't want to "impress" me? You can't even make an argument to support your pipe dream. My "coherent statement" was nothing other than the face value of the words I used, and I am only surprised that what I said was initially beyond your grasp. Surprised no longer.
Since I myself am still in my journey for the question for the answer to this question, and all I can do so far is simply analyse pieces of information, I am very eager to know how you can assert this so confidently.
Go ahead, enlighten me. I am all ears. And note that until you clearly and logically prove this, I am not interested in any other ramblings from you.
The same way I dismiss the existence of leprechauns: no evidence, and no rationale. The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim. If you don't understand that to be a basic principle of logic, you have something to learn. I am under no obligation to disprove a flight of fancy, when the flight of fancy has no substance behind it. If you think you are in a position to judge an impossible proof, you are not in that position.
The reason for this is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative ["there isn't x"]. It is only possible to prove a positive ["there is x"]. Otherwise there would be no limit of the claims to be disproved. Do bats speak Esperanto? Do elves operate internet gambling rings? Is there really someone in your closet?