you still haven't made clear whether the 'key measure' bit adds anything. Do You disagree with the simpler version that

"as long as the health care system is handling the stress then measures should not be upheld or re-instituted."

On some things "yes", on other things "no."

I don't know what you are asking there tbh?

If you are asking 'am i sticking to that core part of my position as stated prior and consistently', then yes I am.

I dont how to make it clearer? All I can say is that I think my statement is ~correct and if you're adding anything significant about measures then that's where I disagree with you.

This is not about right or wrong. It's about our possibly differing view on extreme measures being dependent on who is getting ill.

I guess what i am saying is that is "my statement" you seem to be asking me to acknowledge is correct.

And that is not a small nitpick. It is what i say seems to be core to many of our disputes. You actually are not disputing anything I have ACTUALLY said, and the disputes come from stuff you insert and then ask me to address.

So yes, I agree with my opening position.

I'm sure you do agree with yours. i agree with mine. They are not the same

Yours can be reduced to mine but only if "available measures have been made available and taken by those who want them." is irrelevent which I dont think you think it is.

This is no nitpick. it's about attitude towards those who dont take vaccines (and everything similar). Quite an important political issue these days.

ya I am still not sure what distinction you are trying to make and not sure it is worth pursuing but if you do feel free to simply quote what it is specifically you disagree with in my position and then give me the re-write of contrast in you post for comparison.

I have many times. I dont think whether we keep or reintroduce lockdown measure depends on "available measures have been made available and taken by those who want them". (I'll accept it can matter a tiny bit). Afaics you do think it significantly depends on those measures being available for thsoe who want them.

We both agree that stresses on the healthcare services do matter.

btw i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying I have a different political opinion to you. Nothing wrong with that as this is not a matter of fact.

Do you want the government to direct your decisions for the things you cannot make a decision for?

Monteroy - I got news for you. This site is rigged. “Bobo Fett’s” response had the loquaciousness and passive aggressiveness of a teenage girl. Your communication is very confusing and deceiving, and I cannot tell how much of it is deliberate. I care not to dissect your post to point out the lies and misleading points/statements. Also, your communication reeks of insincerity and passive aggressiveness. I’d rather not hear from you again.

I'm not sure what you have against teenage girls, but I know many who would be quite capable of explaining how they connect unrelated ideas, to allow for some kind of useful conversation. I'm also quite certain you can too, but you don't seem to be interested in doing so for some reason. As a result, "LOL" still seems a solid response.

Bobo Fett - stay tuned. If lagtight responds, we may get to a point where my unrelated ideas are connected. Otherwise, if you take two seconds and think about it, you may be able to crack the code.

Meh, I'm not especially worried about it. I've seen enough silly arguments like this before; nonsense like Covid restrictions you don't agree with being equivalent to spitting in the faces of soldier who died for their country is just another twist on more of the same.

And what's the point discussing anything with someone who wants their account deleted? But to answer that question of yours here, I can ban your account now if you like. There's no personal info associated with a forum account, so unless there's some personal info in some posts you'd like edited or deleted, I'd think a ban should take care of things.

I would like to applaud that rando's use of a dictionary word of the day for his latest nonsensical post, and I wish him all the best in his whatever endeavors pursuing the American Dream or equivalent after his account that nobody will remember gets closed here.

Now, if he wants to connect his whatever dots to when the Pope will be arrested by a togated force - that definitely needs to be heard beforehand!

I am still struggling with the point of discernment.

So focusing on what you have highlighted and I said...

"available measures have been made available and taken by those who want them"


That statement by me is one saying that societies that were prior locked down to protect everyone, that have not yet got the vaccines fully available and distributed can still justify lock downs while they focus on FIRST getting their citizens as much protection as they are willing to take voluntarily, and then reopening after.

So what I am saying is that I would not think it right to re-open in Canada, when the US got the vaccine and before Canada (months behind) got supplies of the vaccine, but once Canada had their own supplies of vaccine and everyone who wanted it had a chance to get it, then re-open. If derps choose not to then, take them, and are still at risk, that should not impact the decision one iota to reopen.


(all of the above again caveated with a Health Care system not at risk.)

my issue is not on whether we agree or not on a matter of opinion. It is that I think, once again, you added in a point I was not making, as a counter to statement I made, then proceeded to argue against it. A constant frustration and one where we almost always go 10 pages before you finally say 'well fine, I was not arguing that anyway, I was arguing this ____' which is something I kept repeating all through out I was NEVER arguing.

It seems to me you often input your assumption into my posts (others posts) and then hold to them even when the other tells you that is not their point.

But it is my point. And it's different to your point on the same issue. Hence we have a disagreement.

I profundly disagree on this bit. i dont know why you insist we agree. It's ~only about stress on the NHS/etc imo. That is different to your position.

Because if i am offering a position on Point A and B and not C for you to come in and say you disagree with me on C is not proper. That you say but point C is 'my point' does not change that if i am not arguing nor have I taken a position on it.

Does that not make sense. If you are discussing whether XYZ book is good. And I retort why ABC is NOT good, because that is MY point. as a counter to what you said, that will be confusing, at a minimum and generally more of a WTF.

But anyway on to the actual point of contention instead of why you bring up 'your points no is arguing' is not the correct thing to do...

I am not saying we agree. I was struggling to see what you were saying we disagreed upon and thus the constant distilling down. Now I think i get it. Well not really actually?

You seem to be saying that you greatly disagree with Canada, for instance holding back the relaxing of measures while they secured and got the vax into arms, why?


We have already agreed prior that 'stress on the NHS is the principle factor' and any stress that is taxing the system is a reason to shut down so that is a point OFF the table and neither of us dispute it. I have said that from the very beginnings.

Therefore if derps are dying in large numbers but it is NOT stressing the system (as i have said over and over and over) that is NO REASON to institute measures again to protect the derps from themeselves.


So again, it seems that now we know what we agree upon it seems the only thing in my statement you captured to disagree with is 'holding measures in place while you get vax shots in arms'. Why do you think that is wrong?

Now we are getting to the nub of it.

Where I profoundly disagree is that you are saying if some group (the ones you dehumanise) are predominantly the ones dying then you take a different view on emergency measures than if deaths are taken from the population as a whole.

So if a new strain comes along that renders the vaccines useless and causes deaths but doesn't stress the NHS/etc too much then I respond with ~same emergency measures as if the same stress is caused by the unvaccinated when there's a vaccine that does work. (Other non-emergency type measures would be very different for the different scenarios)

On some things, "Yes." For example, after the 9/11 attacks, the government temporarily banned air travel. I couldn't "decide" to fly to Mexico City in my private jet (if I had one) on the evening of 9/11/2001. I respect the government to make decisions like that in times of emergency. I consider a pandemic a national emergency. Do you?

Is it your opinion that zero Americans who "gave their lives fighting for the American Dream" would support any of the ongoing restrictions/policies?

My opinion: Many who died for the so-called "American Dream" would support policies that help prolong the lives of their fellow citizens.

Are you talking about this? Because 140 saudis could fly right after 911, might have been on the same day.

'When the 9/11 commission resumes its hearings Tuesday, it will be fascinating to see whether it addresses what may be the most serious security failure related to the attacks: the evacuation of about 140 Saudis almost immediately after 9/11.'


https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...r11-story.html

It’s okay - I don’t want to hear from you, either.

As far as banning - it’s okay, I appreciate the offer, it’s all good for now. I’ll let you know and/or post in that forum if I do end up changing my mind.

lagtight replied to you, so you should take that opportunity to share your insight on all the inner details of whatever it is you believe is happening to the American Dream as you said you would. Don't hold anything back - make your voice heard. Thanks!

All the best.