Conspiracy Theory Coronavirus #2: Lockdowns

Thoughts on COVID-19? (Choose 2 options)

  • It's a naturally occurring virus

    Votes: 15 20.3%
  • It came from a Chinese laboratory

    Votes: 31 41.9%
  • It came from a US/other laboratory

    Votes: 5 6.8%
  • It's dangerous and harsh restrictions are necessary

    Votes: 19 25.7%
  • It's not dangerous enough to warrant harsh restrictions

    Votes: 22 29.7%
  • It's basically another flu, so restrictions are silly

    Votes: 14 18.9%

  • Total voters
    74

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. They do.

Trying to cram Gates in to everything is folly.

Everything today and related to Covid I will. His influence is all over the patents so why wouldnt i?

You are the one dragging the past into it. I want to talk about the Big Pharma of today. The one where J&J has 19,000+ lawsuits on hand for its asbestos related deaths as a example
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Everything today and related to Covid I will. His influence is all over the patents so why wouldnt i?

You said Clinton created BigPharma. Pfizer has been a multi-billion dollar company for decades, and had been around for over 100 years before Clinton even became President.

BigPharma existed well before Clinton, and neglects that pretty much every single multi-national company is far bigger today than they once were due to the wonders of technology.
 
Im mashing the time Pharma became the 1 percent and changed tact to become the 100% profit hedge fund supporting goliath it now has become.

I tend to think things from 1849 to today change and develop over time

Could the exponential progress in medicine and associated life expectancy have occurred without the substantial profit incentive?
Clearly not - so again you prove your lack of perspective.
 
You said Clinton created BigPharma. Pfizer has been a multi-billion dollar company for decades, and had been around for over 100 years before Clinton even became President.

BigPharma existed well before Clinton, and neglects that pretty much every single multi-national company is far bigger today than they once were due to the wonders of technology.

Read the articles I post please. It explains the Big pharma definition Im discussing. You cant ask me for proof/evidence and refuse to read the articles I post.

Not really a fair or proper way to argue
 
Read the articles I post please. It explains the Big pharma definition Im discussing. You cant ask me for proof/evidence and refuse to read the articles I post.

Not really a fair or proper way to argue

Which articles? You made the statement in that post I replied to, I wasn't reading the previous pages if they'd been linked there as this thread had jumped about 6 or 7 pages.
 
Which articles? You made the statement in that post I replied to, I wasn't reading the previous pages if they'd been linked there as this thread had jumped about 6 or 7 pages.




Anyway here it is again
 
Choices do occur in a vacuum. Its why a faceless unelected health advisory board is dictating legislation, thats of course if you believe what Mark says

But they don't.

You're arguing you should be free to make whatever personal choice you like. Those choices don't occur in a vacuum though, which means your choices impact upon others. At what point does your freedom impacting upon someone else mean your freedom should be curtailed?

When we apply water restrictions during a drought do you decide that you should be free to use however much water you like because well, you want to?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

But they don't.

You're arguing you should be free to make whatever personal choice you like. Those choices don't occur in a vacuum though, which means your choices impact upon others. At what point does your freedom impacting upon someone else mean your freedom should be curtailed?

When we apply water restrictions during a drought do you decide that you should be free to use however much water you like because well, you want to?

It depends how liberal you want to be with your narrow definition. My choice to drive a car incredibly impacts on others. Should I not have my car license removed irregardless of my behaviour?

You are creating the imaginary line and I am too. I tend to think my line has existed for longer then your newly created one though. Im arguing a status quo, you are arguing a movement of that line based om newly created events. I believe the line should follow the same philosophies of times past, you are saying philosophies need to be adaptable to a new environment

The honest truth is we should follow the same philsophies because unless you are willing to hand in your car keys, your cigarette, your alcohol and your freedom of movement you are creating a line that you yourself cross every day
 

Anyway here it is again

Right. So that article doesn't say what you think it says then.

Clinton's responsible for not doing much to stop what was already happening, and allowing them to advertise on TV.

1968 was far more relevant to what it became than Clinton.

Before 1968, inventors had been required to assign any inventions made with NIH funding back over to the federal government. Now, those inventions were being sold to the highest bidder.
 
Right. So that article doesn't say what you think it says then.

Clinton's responsible for not doing much to stop what was already happening, and allowing them to advertise on TV.

1968 was far more relevant to what it became than Clinton.

The laws about funding changed in Clintons era though to open funding up to the extreme levels we see today
 
Not likely to find the evidence you need

Just to go on a bit from there, even if scientists outside of China found the evidence within the virus that it had been rigged with human interference, I think it might be kept quiet. The ramifications would be enormous, not just outside of China but within and amongst their people.
 
It depends how liberal you want to be with your narrow definition. My choice to drive a car incredibly impacts on others. Should I not have my car license removed irregardless of my behaviour?

You are creating the imaginary line and I am too. I tend to think my line has existed for longer then your newly created one though. Im arguing a status quo, you are arguing a movement of that line based om newly created events. I believe the line should follow the same philosophies of times past, you are saying philosophies need to be adaptable to a new environment

The honest truth is we should follow the same philsophies because unless you are willing to hand in your car keys, your cigarette, your alcohol and your freedom of movement you are creating a line that you yourself cross every day

Again. You're all over the shop trying to make your personal agenda seem like something in the interests of public good.

In times past we've restricted international movement, and even made plans to restrict movement across state borders.

The last sentence is nonsense.
 
Again. You're all over the shop trying to make your personal agenda seem like something in the interests of public good.

In times past we've restricted international movement, and even made plans to restrict movement across state borders.

The last sentence is nonsense.

My agenda is the status quo? How is my personal situation being brought in? I am impacted but I am arguing for a return, you are arguing for a alteration. The agenda of similarity isnt a agenda that needs defining like that

Can you alert me to the times past you were forced to wear certain objects, forced to write your name and contact details everywhere you went, fined for re entering the country if breaching certain conditions and I could go on. Cherry picking 1 tiny part of legislation to prove your point is childish
 
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...K-lockdown-latest-coronavirus-update-video-vn
Matt Hancock told Sophy Ridge on Sky News that a double dose of a coronavirus vaccine results in around 97 percent protection against dying from the virus. However, the Health Secretary admitted that the flip-side of that figure meant that there was still a possibility that some could die from the virus. It comes as the Indian variant is causing concern due to how quickly it spreads - but it is not thought to be resistant to current vaccines.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...K-lockdown-latest-coronavirus-update-video-vn
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...K-lockdown-latest-coronavirus-update-video-vn


unnamed.jpg





:think:
 
Last edited:
My agenda is the status quo? How is my personal situation being brought in? I am impacted but I am arguing for a return, you are arguing for a alteration. The agenda of similarity isnt a agenda that needs defining like that

Can you alert me to the times past you were forced to wear certain objects, forced to write your name and contact details everywhere you went, fined for re entering the country if breaching certain conditions and I could go on. Cherry picking 1 tiny part of legislation to prove your point is childish

Can you point me to a time you were conscripted to go to war? Needed to ration food?

These things haven't happened in almost anyone's lifetimes. That doesn't mean they can't occur, or shouldn't occur when the need arises.

Do you believe something - anything - should have been changed in response to coronavirus?
 
Can you point me to a time you were conscripted to go to war? Needed to ration food?

These things haven't happened in almost anyone's lifetimes. That doesn't mean they can't occur, or shouldn't occur when the need arises.

Do you believe something - anything - should have been changed in response to coronavirus?

Conscription? WTF are you on about. You are re writing the concept and definition because you cant admit you are wrong .

I outlined what my response would have been before in a point by point scenario. Ill try to dig it out
 
Uh huh.

Choices don't occur in a vacuum though.
Correct, just like the choice to turn a health system into a Covid-only service causes a crisis down the line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top