Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I only ask to give your answer, whatever it is.
You did.
Where were you going with the question, though?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I only ask to give your answer, whatever it is.
You did.
It seemed just a rephrasing of my question.Where were you going with the question, though?
It seemed just a rephrasing of my question.
Now it's less clear.I had to rephrase it. I couldn't understand it so I made it active voice. But I did answer your question. I don't see vaccines worse than COVID and to advocate such would be misinformation. Unsafe?
I guess not but I'm not sure why you ask to know if I'm addressing to your point.
Now it's less clear.
I asked to know.The answer?
Why did you ask? It would give me an idea of where you going with this or just curiosity to confirm your beliefs you've already had on my position (guessing here)?
Kind of hard not to feel a bit of schadenfreude when the same people who have been hurling insults at anyone taking the disease seriously die of the disease. I don't wish anyone ill, and I wish NO-ONE would die of COVID, or, heck, anything else, really, but if you call me a sheep for wearing a mask or getting vaccinated, and go out of your way to spread misinformation that results in OTHER people getting sick, but end up sick yourself? Well, like I said, I won't wish you ill, but don't ask me to feel bad for you, either.So some people's pain, suffering, and death from COVID is worse and more important than others based on their political views on the vaccine (for or against)??
I asked to know.
Already answered, ie, I wanted to know.Because?
Tis best to not presume some hidden agenda behind a question.Unless you're just playing with me, I honestly want to know?
It's no use making a point(s) and opinion if you don't want to expand and clarify them.
It makes them, well, pointless and loses your intended response.
Its hard to take what you say into consideration. All talk no discussion.
Already answered, ie, I wanted to know.
Ask again, & it'll be the same answer.
Tis best to not presume some hidden agenda behind a question.
I don't have one.
I've been clear.This is a cop out. If you want to end the discussion or make a clear point do it maturely abs assertively. I'm too old for games.
I've been clear.
The problem lies elsewhere.
Actually, you're the one who doesn't seem to care about the dying. You certainly haven't shown that you care about the people who died from the misinformation from people like Marc Bernier.It would. When I am presented with a direct statement(s), I can't deny them. If they are assumptions (seems/conclusions/insinuate/etc) I can't defend or agree with that. People's opinions don't always reflect facts.
Here's the full post:
But the suffering and death of people with COVID importance shouldn't be divided if people actually care about the dying.
It makes it seem like you guys don't care about people dying in general. It really devalues the argument of getting the vaccine if the importance of one's pain and suffering is dependent on their vaccination status.
--
The importance of suffering and death of COVID victims shouldn't be divided (or people shouldn't make double standards in care) if they actually cared about the dying.
It makes it seem like you guys don't care about the dying in general.
There's that anti-vax nonsense again.It devalues your argument of getting the vaccine because the care you guys have for COVID victims is based on their vaccination status not their pain and suffering.
This double standard devalues the argument of getting the vaccine.
Sorry - I can't parse this sentence. Can you rephrase?How does saying don't make a double standard in people provaxxers care about encouraging people not to take the vaccine???
I had a quick look through your threads... in retrospect, it seems like you may just be repeating anti-vaxxer and anti-masker talking points without realizing that they're anti-vaxxer or anti-masker talking points.I never made that argument.
I never made statements against vaccines.
You really need to give me a direct statement because like my example above, your opinions aren't aligning with facts. I can't take what you say into consideration unless you give me direct examples to support your opinions.
Cause I'm literally at a lost.
Actually, you're the one who doesn't seem to care about the dying. You certainly haven't shown that you care about the people who died from the misinformation from people like Marc Bernier.
There's that anti-vax nonsense again.
Sorry - I can't parse this sentence. Can you rephrase?
I had a quick look through your threads... in retrospect, it seems like you may just be repeating anti-vaxxer and anti-masker talking points without realizing that they're anti-vaxxer or anti-masker talking points.
I'm debating on replying to your points or taking this seriously. Unless you have facts and not just opinions its pretty much has no substance other than insult and misinformation.
This happens when people watch media thinking they are getting facts but just confirming they're on biases. That doesn't help many provaxxers who see what they want to see and don't look at what's hidden and/or take into consideration challenges.
Is it unsafe advice to say vaccines are more dangerous than COVID? Ill informed advice but only dangerous if people take it as such.
I'm sure people can determine fact and opinion-regardless if they are unvaccinated or not.
I am (and no one else is) in no position to say what's safe for the other I don't know
Take it as venting.I'm debating on replying to your points or taking this seriously. Unless you have facts and not just opinions its pretty much has no substance other than insult and misinformation.
What do you think "provax" people aren't seeing?This happens when people watch media thinking they are getting facts but just confirming they're on biases. That doesn't help many provaxxers who see what they want to see and don't look at what's hidden and/or take into consideration challenges.
Provax arguments on RF are perfect examples of this.
But that doesn't compare. Many unvaccinated go to work, come home, fix meal for the family, and wake up to do it all over again. If anything it's more like accusing people not wearing a seatbelt for possibly hitting a person in an accident. The consequence of "not" doing something. But the fact is seatbelts don't cause accidents so the decision and action are from the person not just the law (or pandemic data) and not the seatbelt (the vaccine). The person driving drunk is "doing something" to put others in danger. People who arent vaccinating aren't doing anything to increase their risk. They're leaving themselves open not increasing the risk of transmission.
Its both sides. You guys aren't the Law.
If you're on a high way doing the speed limit, you'd practically get ran over. If you go with traffic, VA law lets a driver go over the speed limit to flow with the traffic. If you are going by the law, you can get into an accident. If you go by the flow of traffic, you're safer.
Take walking across the street. In my area you have to watch the cars not just the light. When I thought I was going blind, the department of the blind showed me how to go across the street by the car pattern since I couldn't see the cross signal.
This would mean that if the crossing light wasn't on (since cars don't go by pedestrian cross signals) and the cars move, I side with the cars not the light. It's "thinking for yourself" in some respects to keep yourself safe.
That's the counter examples of the seatbelt analogies often used.
I couldn't follow the story. It wasn't getting to the point other than him saying he didn't want to take the vaccine.
Shrugs. I dislike people's behavior but if they are ill and die, I do feel something for them. In other words, I can't relate to your sentiment but what can I say.
But that doesn't compare. Many unvaccinated go to work, come home, fix meal for the family, and wake up to do it all over again. If anything it's more like accusing people not wearing a seatbelt for possibly hitting a person in an accident. The consequence of "not" doing something. But the fact is seatbelts don't cause accidents so the decision and action are from the person not just the law (or pandemic data) and not the seatbelt (the vaccine). The person driving drunk is "doing something" to put others in danger. People who arent vaccinating aren't doing anything to increase their risk. They're leaving themselves open not increasing the risk of transmission.
The OP cites an anti-vaxer with a radio platform, so it absolutely does compare.
I couldn't follow the story. It wasn't getting to the point other than him saying he didn't want to take the vaccine.
Shrugs. I dislike people's behavior but if they are ill and die, I do feel something for them. In other words, I can't relate to your sentiment but what can I say.
Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? At no point have I stated that I feel absolutely zero sympathy for such individuals. What I have said is that I find it much HARDER to feel sympathy for someone like that. I sympathize with anyone who is suffering, regardless of how much they may be responsible for their own suffering. It’s just easier to feel sympathy for someone who isn’t responsible for their own suffering. You’ve said as much yourself when it comes to the drunk driver, so not sure why you have so much trouble comprehending the same sentiments from me.
Clearly it takes more than just emotionalism and sarcasm for you to lack comprehension, since I was being neither emotional or sarcastic. When I stated that it's HARDER for me to have sympathy for someone who's responsible for their own suffering you foolishly decided to conclude that means I have NO sympathy. And then you kept on suggesting as much, even after I'd informed you that you're wrong.Actually, yes. I have trouble with reading comprehension.
It's easier to address people's points without the emotionalism/sarcasm. That, or if you really want to spark reaction separate your points (guys) so it won't be lost in the mix.
That way we won't be arguing with emotions as if they are part of the topic discussed.