Typical response when someone produces credentials and track record: deny that such things are relevant to what one says. A perfect argument for those who have neither credentials nor track record.
Legalistic argument is a form of sophistry, and it is called "legalistic" because it often shows up in courtrooms. You are a natural.
But now you do make a lie. You really and truly admitted that your remark about kill switches was fantasy, and seemed rather proud of it. But you don't know logic as well as you imagine. The problem of proving a negative is real and not to be discounted. A "kill switch" for mRNA is purest fantasy, lacking even any physical basis for operation. (Microwaves and millimeter waves are at least millimeters long. The mRNA is a molecule. The longer waves would simply go around the molecules without exchanging energy. How's that for an objection? It's called physics.)
You really and truly admitted that your remark about kill switches was fantasy
My remark (nice to see you finally use this word) is meant exactly, word to word, as I typed it and not an iota different. First you assumed it was a declaration. Now you are assuming its a fantasy. As always, both your assumptions are wrong. The reason why you keep making these mistakes is because you cannot differentiate between a "logical statement" and a "factual statement". You cannot differentiate between a piece of evidence and proof of crime.
Legalistic argument is a form of sophistry
And yet you keep trying to apply "burden of proof" from a courtroom to a logical debate on a Internet forum. Good to see you are acknowledging this now.
A "kill switch" for mRNA is purest fantasy, lacking even any physical basis for operation. (Microwaves and millimeter waves are at least millimeters long. The mRNA is a molecule. The longer waves would simply go around the molecules without exchanging energy. How's that for an objection? It's called physics.)
Its cute to see that you have now embarked on yet another attempt to prove something that is built on so many levels of fallacies. The most obvious ones that surely even you cannot fail to comprehend:
You assume these shots have just mRNA and nothing else
You assume that if you argue that one mode of kill switch is impossible (microwaves and millimeter waves) somehow it proves all other possibilities are somehow purest fantasy
Will you also abandon this futile effort as easily as you abandoned your previous efforts and resort to ramblings? We have to wait and see.
You stated the kill switch to be a true thing, and that is a declaration. The ordinary meaning of a statement. Such things can also be remarks. You apparently cannot tolerate overlapping categories.
I will stick with your own admission it was a fantasy. You came right out and conceded that it was. I have a good memory for that kind of faux pas.
Burden of proof comes from logic, and was applied to trial proceedings. You are maybe aware that lawyers were originally trained in logic? (Maybe not.)
You are the one saying these are mRNA shots. But if there is anything on the same physical scale, the criticism still applies. You have just abandoned the ever-popular "it's 6G" crowd. I'll sit back and watch. Now you have no plausible mechanism for a switch. The net result, which I will continue to come back to, is that you have absolutely no basis of proof for your fantasy. What else can you call it? It is not a reasoned and supported hypothesis.
In your case, I can win lots of bets with the presumption that you will wiggle your way to deflect and avoid coming up with any substance to your claim. Kill switches are fantasy. Prove me wrong. (Prediction: you won't because you haven't because you can't.)
Look you said there was a kill switch. That makes sense only if you are imputing truth to what you say Or, as you admitted, it was just fantasy. Here you are now denying it was a true thing...which equals it being a fantasy. Why do you keep doing this?
Typical response when someone produces credentials and track record: deny that such things are relevant to what one says. A perfect argument for those who have neither credentials nor track record.
Legalistic argument is a form of sophistry, and it is called "legalistic" because it often shows up in courtrooms. You are a natural.
But now you do make a lie. You really and truly admitted that your remark about kill switches was fantasy, and seemed rather proud of it. But you don't know logic as well as you imagine. The problem of proving a negative is real and not to be discounted. A "kill switch" for mRNA is purest fantasy, lacking even any physical basis for operation. (Microwaves and millimeter waves are at least millimeters long. The mRNA is a molecule. The longer waves would simply go around the molecules without exchanging energy. How's that for an objection? It's called physics.)
My remark (nice to see you finally use this word) is meant exactly, word to word, as I typed it and not an iota different. First you assumed it was a declaration. Now you are assuming its a fantasy. As always, both your assumptions are wrong. The reason why you keep making these mistakes is because you cannot differentiate between a "logical statement" and a "factual statement". You cannot differentiate between a piece of evidence and proof of crime.
And yet you keep trying to apply "burden of proof" from a courtroom to a logical debate on a Internet forum. Good to see you are acknowledging this now.
Its cute to see that you have now embarked on yet another attempt to prove something that is built on so many levels of fallacies. The most obvious ones that surely even you cannot fail to comprehend:
You assume these shots have just mRNA and nothing else
You assume that if you argue that one mode of kill switch is impossible (microwaves and millimeter waves) somehow it proves all other possibilities are somehow purest fantasy
Will you also abandon this futile effort as easily as you abandoned your previous efforts and resort to ramblings? We have to wait and see.
You stated the kill switch to be a true thing, and that is a declaration. The ordinary meaning of a statement. Such things can also be remarks. You apparently cannot tolerate overlapping categories.
I will stick with your own admission it was a fantasy. You came right out and conceded that it was. I have a good memory for that kind of faux pas.
Burden of proof comes from logic, and was applied to trial proceedings. You are maybe aware that lawyers were originally trained in logic? (Maybe not.)
You are the one saying these are mRNA shots. But if there is anything on the same physical scale, the criticism still applies. You have just abandoned the ever-popular "it's 6G" crowd. I'll sit back and watch. Now you have no plausible mechanism for a switch. The net result, which I will continue to come back to, is that you have absolutely no basis of proof for your fantasy. What else can you call it? It is not a reasoned and supported hypothesis.
In your case, I can win lots of bets with the presumption that you will wiggle your way to deflect and avoid coming up with any substance to your claim. Kill switches are fantasy. Prove me wrong. (Prediction: you won't because you haven't because you can't.)
Liar. I challenge you to show me where I stated it as a true thing.
Look you said there was a kill switch. That makes sense only if you are imputing truth to what you say Or, as you admitted, it was just fantasy. Here you are now denying it was a true thing...which equals it being a fantasy. Why do you keep doing this?