• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
No, mislabelling something is not a conspiracy. Here's my #848
You did not not claim "mislabeling".
You claimed changed the definition "so that their gene therapy could be labeled as such".

It is the "so that their gene therapy could be labeled as such" that is the claimed conspiracy.

Again, i would say nice try, but it isn't.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
You did not not claim "mislabeling".
You claimed changed the definition "so that their gene therapy could be labeled as such".
Mislabelling is implied by my claim. The point is that my claim doesn't imply that criminal intent exists, which is an essential element of conspiracy.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Mislabelling is implied by my claim. The point is that my claim doesn't imply that criminal intent exists, which is an essential element of conspiracy.
conspiracy theory​
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators​
: a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public​

conspiracy​
1:​
the act of conspiring together​
2​
a: an agreement among conspirators​
b: a group of conspirators​

I see absolutely nothing even implying that "criminal intent" is an 'essential element' of conspiracy.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
conspiracy theory​
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators​
: a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public​

conspiracy​
1:​
the act of conspiring together​
2​
a: an agreement among conspirators​
b: a group of conspirators​

I see absolutely nothing even implying that "criminal intent" is an 'essential element' of conspiracy.

Try Black's dictionary of law.

Conspiracy Ik:mspirQsiy I. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Try Black's dictionary of law.

Conspiracy Ik:mspirQsiy I. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.
what makes you think I am a lawyer?
Or that RF is a court of law?

I am still disinclined to accept your proposed conspiracy.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Ambiguity doesn't work in your favour. You brought up conspiracy theory, not me.
Yes I did.
On an internet message board.
Not in a court of law.

What was you saying about your ambiguity?

For someone who does not "give a rats arse" about it, you sure are committed to it....
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Source?



What about the continuing efforts to boogeyman the Covid vaccines? Why aren't you taking that into consideration?
CDC is the source, as noted in the article provided.

I'm not suggesting that boogey-manning the shot isn't factoring in. But at the end of the day, what the majoriy chooses is the indication of what the majority understands. The majority understands that the shot offers little-to-no benefit, and the disease isn't giving them a reason to conclude otherwise (a critical point). If it were, boogey-manning the shot would be ineffective because the evidence of massive disease and death would overwhelm the equation.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
CDC is the source, as noted in the article provided.

Specific citation?

I'm not suggesting that boogey-manning the shot isn't factoring in. But at the end of the day, what the majoriy chooses is the indication of what the majority understands. The majority understands that the shot offers little-to-no benefit, and the disease isn't giving them a reason to conclude otherwise (a critical point). If it were, boogey-manning the shot would be ineffective because the evidence of massive disease and death would overwhelm the equation.

Since Covid is deadlier than the Flu, how do you explain people taking the vaccine for the latter but not for former if not strictly because of the boogeyman surrounding it?

Also, there was undeniable massive death all around the US and many people still refused to take the vaccine, and the overwhelming evidence still wasn't enough to get the remaining 20% of the population vaccinated.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
On an internet message board.
Not in a court of law.
The same rules apply for arguments, since they're a form of commerce. The idea that the law doesn't apply is a big part of the reason for the CF which is the response of modern medicine to viruses in general and covid in particular.

For someone who does not "give a rats arse" about it, you sure are committed to it....
What I'm committed to is identifying error in general, not your specific case. The figurative arse has meaning within the context of natural medicine.
 
Top