2 ms·
It's quite beside the point what anyone claims. The claim you're objecting to is about the lockdown policy, not claims about the lockdown policy. More specifi
by bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
It's quite beside the point what anyone claims.
The claim you're objecting to is about the lockdown policy, not claims about the lockdown policy.
More specifically: its substance and impact, not the rhetoric or stated intentions around it.
- justin66 6y agoI stand by my statement when an article starts out with a blatant lie, there's not much point in reading past that. If you think the opposite is true, I guess that's an entertaining thought. It's probably applicable to satire (which actually raises a question about your post, but nevermind). > The claim you're objecting to is about the lockdown policy, not claims about the lockdown policy. Right. It's saying something blatantly false about the lockdown policy. You seem to have been confused by my second sentence, so allow me to elaborate. A person would literally need to be living on a Pacific island alongside the old Japanese guy who nobody told the war was over and would need to have had no direct contact with the lockdown policy, human beings living under the lockdown policy, or indirect contact with the policy via reading about it or watching news about it in the media, in order to believe the claim made in the first sentence that the policy was about "containing the spread of the disease at all costs."
- bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago> when an article starts out with a blatant lie, there's not much point in reading past that. That's interesting, elaborate on that some more.