Oh dear I must have hit a nerve. My posts have been respectful. I have not resorted to calling anyone an "idiot." I have not even gone close to using the word "sheeple." Yet certain usual suspects from those on the opposing side of the discussion are losing their cool and name calling and misrepresenting me. I wonder why. I think you know the answer, readers.
By the way, I'm not rating anyone's intelligence. I just felt that the one liners about tanks were not a very intellectual response to my post. Is that fair enough? Let the thread readers decide. And free spirit you have absolutely no idea about me. You delude yourself into thinking you do. So please don't bore me with your condescending advice. If we are to get along better, start showing me some real hardcore evidence that you are as smart as you pretend to be. Try posting comments that are articulate and correctly spelled with correct grammar. Dropping the F bomb, not that I don't do it myself sometimes, is usually a sign that you're trying to make a point by cursing as a proxy for solid rational thought. Lose the ego trip and talk respectfully and we can get along just fine. And we both. more than likely. may have something to offer each other.
On a final note, could I please ask free spirit and Wim to answer the question I asked Henry. The one about having an opposing view on something to those three bodies I mentioned. I would be genuinely interested in your answers.
PS free spirit, are you saying that it is openly known and taught that the elite, through their influence with government have a depopulation program operating, are spraying poisonous chemicals in the air, geo-engineering weather, spying on everything we do, putting poisonous chemicals in our drinking water, giving us cancer through telecommunication technology and the like, harmfully genetically modifying our food and setting up a one world order where the minority will rule the majority with a rod of iron? I could go on and on, that's just a tiny part of the whole story. Are you saying this is openly known and taught? A sensible answer, please, that would be nice.
(And you want me to roll up my sleeve and let them jab me!!!! :lol: )
PS free spirit, are you saying that it is openly known and taught that the elite, through their influence with government have a depopulation program operating, are spraying poisonous chemicals in the air, geo-engineering weather, spying on everything we do, putting poisonous chemicals in our drinking water, giving us cancer through telecommunication technology and the like, harmfully genetically modifying our food and setting up a one world order where the minority will rule the majority with a rod of iron? I could go on and on, that's just a tiny part of the whole story. Are you saying this is openly known and taught? A sensible answer, please, that would be nice.
(And you want me to roll up my sleeve and let them jab me!!!! :lol: )
no that is not what I am saying. I pretty clearly said your conspiracy **** is the irrelevant fumbling attempt to explain the universe of an idiot. It is openly known that your freedom to live at all is controlled and limited and completely at the disposal of the elite and powerful.
Why they give a fark about mind controlling you through your drinking water is up to your delusions to rationalize.
Wim, I didn't mean to be judgemental and condescending. If I came across that way I apologise.
I doubt you were trying to make an intellectual point about not having any tanks to stand in front of. And rather it was you who failed to grasp my intellectual meaning in that the tank is symbolic of the point I was trying to make about standing up to the tyranny of popular consensus which you believe to be wrong. In a sense, when I posted my dissenting views on vaccination here I knew I would be run down by a tank of opposition. But I had to have the courage to do it anyway. Because that is what us humans should do.
PS free spirit, are you saying that it is openly known and taught that the elite, through their influence with government have a depopulation program operating, are spraying poisonous chemicals in the air, geo-engineering weather, spying on everything we do, putting poisonous chemicals in our drinking water, giving us cancer through telecommunication technology and the like, harmfully genetically modifying our food and setting up a one world order where the minority will rule the majority with a rod of iron? I could go on and on, that's just a tiny part of the whole story. Are you saying this is openly known and taught? A sensible answer, please, that would be nice.
(And you want me to roll up my sleeve and let them jab me!!!! :lol: )
no that is not what I am saying. I pretty clearly said your conspiracy **** is the irrelevant fumbling attempt to explain the universe of an idiot. It is openly known that your freedom to live at all is controlled and limited and completely at the disposal of the elite and powerful.
Why they give a fark about mind controlling you through your drinking water is up to your delusions to rationalize.
Thanks for answering the way you did, fs. Actually your phrase "Government for the maintenance of a powerful elite is a known political philosophy that's been openly known and taught" was what I was referring to which was in your paragraph below what you said about my "conspiracy **** "
I see it is openly known by you "that your freedom to live at all is controlled and limited and completely at the disposal of the elite and powerful." I'm glad to hear that you know that. But, I would respectfully suggest that the majority of people have no idea. Yet, what strikes me as odd, is how you can know the truth about our enslavement and yet call me delusional when I simply spell out how they actually go about doing it.
But as I said, I'm glad you answered the way you did, as it helped confirm a few things for me (and maybe others). ;)
If that's the case then I mistook your analogy of standing up to public pressure in this forum for standing up to very alleged government oppression.
I think you'll agree it was a pretty easy error to make, given the photo was posted with only 'there should be more of this' to go on.
No, no it would be wrong and dishonest of me to say that the tank analogy was only in relation to this forum. Of course the analogy could be applied to standing up to a tyrannical government. See, in my view, any government that would FORCE people to be injected against their will is tyrannical as that is something I see as a crime against us under natural law. You have the right to say no to someone injecting a substance into your body against your will. By the way I think they used a tank like vehicle to bust down the door of a bikie gang's headquarters in Melbourne this week. Sorry if this Reservoirite has a closer relationship to the idea of tanks in suburban streets than you do, Wim :lol:
If that's the case then I mistook your analogy of standing up to public pressure in this forum for standing up to very alleged government oppression.
I think you'll agree it was a pretty easy error to make, given the photo was posted with only 'there should be more of this' to go on.
No, no it would be wrong and dishonest of me to say that the tank analogy was only in relation to this forum. Of course the analogy could be applied to standing up to a tyrannical government. See, in my view, any government that would FORCE people to be injected against their will is tyrannical as that is something I see as a crime against us under natural law. You have the right to say no to someone injecting a substance into your body against your will. By the way I think they used a tank like vehicle to bust down the door of a bikie gang's headquarters in Melbourne this week. Sorry if this Reservoirite has a closer affinity to tanks in suburban streets than you do, Wim :lol:
At face value, I don't find that view without merit.
I'd argue the act could be described as tyrannical without the government being so.
From there I guess you need to ask whether the right to say no to inoculation carries with it the waiving of government responsibility to treat the illness you've decided not to prevent.
Of course then you get into trouble with minors rights and whether they should be punished for the views of their parents.
Having said all that, I think that's the limit of our common ground on this.
If that's the case then I mistook your analogy of standing up to public pressure in this forum for standing up to very alleged government oppression.
I think you'll agree it was a pretty easy error to make, given the photo was posted with only 'there should be more of this' to go on.
No, no it would be wrong and dishonest of me to say that the tank analogy was only in relation to this forum. Of course the analogy could be applied to standing up to a tyrannical government. See, in my view, any government that would FORCE people to be injected against their will is tyrannical as that is something I see as a crime against us under natural law. You have the right to say no to someone injecting a substance into your body against your will. By the way I think they used a tank like vehicle to bust down the door of a bikie gang's headquarters in Melbourne this week. Sorry if this Reservoirite has a closer affinity to tanks in suburban streets than you do, Wim :lol:
At face value, I don't find that view without merit.
I'd argue the act could be described as tyrannical without the government being so.
From there I guess you need to ask whether the right to say no to inoculation carries with it the waiving of government responsibility to treat the illness you've decided not to prevent.
Of course then you get into trouble with minors rights and whether they should be punished for the views of their parents.
Having said all that, I think that's the limit of our common ground on this.
I will paraphrase the situation.
"Sorry, Wim, you were not vaccinated on the grounds that it is your right under natural law to refuse mandatory vaccinations. You did not have the confidence in the serum that your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government did. And now, regrettably, you have caught the disease. You'll have to just go away and die as punishment for doubting your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government. And that goes for your kids too. We hope you understand."
If that's the case then I mistook your analogy of standing up to public pressure in this forum for standing up to very alleged government oppression.
I think you'll agree it was a pretty easy error to make, given the photo was posted with only 'there should be more of this' to go on.
No, no it would be wrong and dishonest of me to say that the tank analogy was only in relation to this forum. Of course the analogy could be applied to standing up to a tyrannical government. See, in my view, any government that would FORCE people to be injected against their will is tyrannical as that is something I see as a crime against us under natural law. You have the right to say no to someone injecting a substance into your body against your will. By the way I think they used a tank like vehicle to bust down the door of a bikie gang's headquarters in Melbourne this week. Sorry if this Reservoirite has a closer affinity to tanks in suburban streets than you do, Wim :lol:
At face value, I don't find that view without merit.
I'd argue the act could be described as tyrannical without the government being so.
From there I guess you need to ask whether the right to say no to inoculation carries with it the waiving of government responsibility to treat the illness you've decided not to prevent.
Of course then you get into trouble with minors rights and whether they should be punished for the views of their parents.
Having said all that, I think that's the limit of our common ground on this.
I will paraphrase the situation.
"Sorry, Wim, you were not vaccinated on the grounds that it is your right under natural law to refuse mandatory vaccinations. You did not have the confidence in the serum that your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government did. And now, regrettably, you have caught the disease. You'll have to just go away and die as punishment for doubting your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government. And that goes for your kids too. We hope you understand."
That position doesn't really resonate with me.
I'd leave out the Almighty stuff, as it's completely irrelevant, but I agree.
We shouldn't refuse to treat people because they've made a terrible decision against all evidence.
If that's the case then I mistook your analogy of standing up to public pressure in this forum for standing up to very alleged government oppression.
I think you'll agree it was a pretty easy error to make, given the photo was posted with only 'there should be more of this' to go on.
No, no it would be wrong and dishonest of me to say that the tank analogy was only in relation to this forum. Of course the analogy could be applied to standing up to a tyrannical government. See, in my view, any government that would FORCE people to be injected against their will is tyrannical as that is something I see as a crime against us under natural law. You have the right to say no to someone injecting a substance into your body against your will. By the way I think they used a tank like vehicle to bust down the door of a bikie gang's headquarters in Melbourne this week. Sorry if this Reservoirite has a closer affinity to tanks in suburban streets than you do, Wim :lol:
At face value, I don't find that view without merit.
I'd argue the act could be described as tyrannical without the government being so.
From there I guess you need to ask whether the right to say no to inoculation carries with it the waiving of government responsibility to treat the illness you've decided not to prevent.
Of course then you get into trouble with minors rights and whether they should be punished for the views of their parents.
Having said all that, I think that's the limit of our common ground on this.
I will paraphrase the situation.
"Sorry, Wim, you were not vaccinated on the grounds that it is your right under natural law to refuse mandatory vaccinations. You did not have the confidence in the serum that your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government did. And now, regrettably, you have caught the disease. You'll have to just go away and die as punishment for doubting your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government. And that goes for your kids too. We hope you understand."
That position doesn't really resonate with me.
I'd leave out the Almighty stuff, as it's completely irrelevant, but I agree.
We shouldn't refuse to treat people because they've made a terrible decision against all evidence.
If that's the case then I mistook your analogy of standing up to public pressure in this forum for standing up to very alleged government oppression.
I think you'll agree it was a pretty easy error to make, given the photo was posted with only 'there should be more of this' to go on.
No, no it would be wrong and dishonest of me to say that the tank analogy was only in relation to this forum. Of course the analogy could be applied to standing up to a tyrannical government. See, in my view, any government that would FORCE people to be injected against their will is tyrannical as that is something I see as a crime against us under natural law. You have the right to say no to someone injecting a substance into your body against your will. By the way I think they used a tank like vehicle to bust down the door of a bikie gang's headquarters in Melbourne this week. Sorry if this Reservoirite has a closer affinity to tanks in suburban streets than you do, Wim :lol:
At face value, I don't find that view without merit.
I'd argue the act could be described as tyrannical without the government being so.
From there I guess you need to ask whether the right to say no to inoculation carries with it the waiving of government responsibility to treat the illness you've decided not to prevent.
Of course then you get into trouble with minors rights and whether they should be punished for the views of their parents.
Having said all that, I think that's the limit of our common ground on this.
I will paraphrase the situation.
"Sorry, Wim, you were not vaccinated on the grounds that it is your right under natural law to refuse mandatory vaccinations. You did not have the confidence in the serum that your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government did. And now, regrettably, you have caught the disease. You'll have to just go away and die as punishment for doubting your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government. And that goes for your kids too. We hope you understand."
That position doesn't really resonate with me.
I'd leave out the Almighty stuff, as it's completely irrelevant, but I agree.
We shouldn't refuse to treat people because they've made a terrible decision against all evidence.
No, the Almighty stuff is relevant. Because in my view, and the view of many others, it would not be against all evidence.
Therefore, if the government set itself in such a position as to force you to do something against your honest assessment of the evidence, they would be sort of playing God in the sense that they believe they have an infallible, omniscient view of the situation and you couldn't possibly.
If that's the case then I mistook your analogy of standing up to public pressure in this forum for standing up to very alleged government oppression.
I think you'll agree it was a pretty easy error to make, given the photo was posted with only 'there should be more of this' to go on.
No, no it would be wrong and dishonest of me to say that the tank analogy was only in relation to this forum. Of course the analogy could be applied to standing up to a tyrannical government. See, in my view, any government that would FORCE people to be injected against their will is tyrannical as that is something I see as a crime against us under natural law. You have the right to say no to someone injecting a substance into your body against your will. By the way I think they used a tank like vehicle to bust down the door of a bikie gang's headquarters in Melbourne this week. Sorry if this Reservoirite has a closer affinity to tanks in suburban streets than you do, Wim :lol:
At face value, I don't find that view without merit.
I'd argue the act could be described as tyrannical without the government being so.
From there I guess you need to ask whether the right to say no to inoculation carries with it the waiving of government responsibility to treat the illness you've decided not to prevent.
Of course then you get into trouble with minors rights and whether they should be punished for the views of their parents.
Having said all that, I think that's the limit of our common ground on this.
I will paraphrase the situation.
"Sorry, Wim, you were not vaccinated on the grounds that it is your right under natural law to refuse mandatory vaccinations. You did not have the confidence in the serum that your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government did. And now, regrettably, you have caught the disease. You'll have to just go away and die as punishment for doubting your Almighty, Omniscient, Infallible Government. And that goes for your kids too. We hope you understand."
That position doesn't really resonate with me.
I'd leave out the Almighty stuff, as it's completely irrelevant, but I agree.
We shouldn't refuse to treat people because they've made a terrible decision against all evidence.
No, the Almighty stuff is relevant. Because in my view, and the view of many others, it would not be against all evidence.
Therefore, if the government set itself in such a position as to force you to do something against your honest assessment of the evidence, they would be sort of playing God in the sense that they believe they have an infallible, omniscient view of the situation and you couldn't possibly.
Doesn't sound like the Almighty government can win.
They tell you the best way a society can protect itself from horrible diseases, and if you ignore their advice and get the disease they're still the bad guy.
Edit: You couldn't possibly what? Know inoculation protects communities from horrible diseases? You could totally possibly. In fact, you could definitely.
They (the Almighty Government) have an infallible, omniscient view of the situation and you couldn't possibly have an infallible, omniscient view of the situation. That is because they are God and you are not.
They (the Almighty Government) have an infallible, omniscient view of the situation and you couldn't possibly have an infallible, omniscient view of the situation. That is because they are God and you are not.
They're just like the real God, then.
Their omniscience and infallibility is over-rated.
Having said that, you don't need either to observe the results of inoculation against certain horrible diseases.
