4 ms·

I'm not mixing anything up, and you aren't fooling anyone any more. You are using that "serious caveat" because it's the go to trope for anti-maskers seeking t

I'm not mixing anything up, and you aren't fooling anyone any more. You are using that "serious caveat" because it's the go to trope for anti-maskers seeking to pollute absolutely every fucking discussion on this subject. I asked you to explain why you're posting anti-masker arguments if you are, as you claim, "all for masks" and all you've done is repeat the same anti-mask bullshit. Next time I won't bother assuming possible good faith on the part of anyone spouting textbook anti-masker noise.

Kiro 6y ago
You know, it's possible to be for masks and still acknowledge it's not the perfect solution. You are the one pushing me into a corner of "either you're with us or against us". The ECDC guidelines recommend face coverings but still recognise the caveats, but in your eyes they are heretics and anti-maskers for even mentioning it. You appear like a religious fanatic. Very sad to see and it completely kills any serious discussion about the topic.
- pmachinery 6y ago
  The ECDC is not here, hammering on the same anti-mask arguments over and over again in every post, ignoring whatever anyone else says that counters it, you are.
  - Kiro 6y ago
    Yeah, what a fool I am for discussing the topic at hand. You are the one polluting this thread with ad hominem attacks and overly defensive windmill fighting against imaginary anti-maskers. Again, read the thread before you decide to jump into a conversation next time.
    - pmachinery 6y ago
      It's not up to you who jumps into a thread or why or when, and when you jumped in it was not to discuss the topic, but to spout anti-mask noise that wearing a mask "may be a net negative", under the guise of 'Hey, I'm just innocently saying what "Scandinavian countries" are saying'. When you were informed that Scandinavian countries are not taking an anti-mask stance, instead of holding your hands up that your argument was based on something false, you simply carried on making the same anti-mask point by fixating on something else (three sentences from a six page PDF) instead. Like I said, you are not fooling anyone.

Kiro 6y ago

You know, it's possible to be for masks and still acknowledge it's not the perfect solution. You are the one pushing me into a corner of "either you're with us or against us". The ECDC guidelines recommend face coverings but still recognise the caveats, but in your eyes they are heretics and anti-maskers for even mentioning it. You appear like a religious fanatic. Very sad to see and it completely kills any serious discussion about the topic.

pmachinery 6y ago
The ECDC is not here, hammering on the same anti-mask arguments over and over again in every post, ignoring whatever anyone else says that counters it, you are.
- Kiro 6y ago
  Yeah, what a fool I am for discussing the topic at hand. You are the one polluting this thread with ad hominem attacks and overly defensive windmill fighting against imaginary anti-maskers. Again, read the thread before you decide to jump into a conversation next time.
  - pmachinery 6y ago
    It's not up to you who jumps into a thread or why or when, and when you jumped in it was not to discuss the topic, but to spout anti-mask noise that wearing a mask "may be a net negative", under the guise of 'Hey, I'm just innocently saying what "Scandinavian countries" are saying'. When you were informed that Scandinavian countries are not taking an anti-mask stance, instead of holding your hands up that your argument was based on something false, you simply carried on making the same anti-mask point by fixating on something else (three sentences from a six page PDF) instead. Like I said, you are not fooling anyone.