4 ms·

Anyone who shamelessly changes their debate opponent's quote from "might kill" to "will kill" as a form of gotcha is either an asshole or stupid. If, after it w

by mthoms 5y ago

Anyone who shamelessly changes their debate opponent's quote from "might kill" to "will kill" as a form of gotcha is either an asshole or stupid. If, after it was pointed out to them they don't even acknowledge it, then it could even be both. You think the reader doesn't notice stuff like that? You think the reader doesn't notice when you disingenuously equated the current "overwhelmed" health care system with the pre-covid "overwhelmed" health care system? And then in your latest reply, never claimed that's what you did? It's right there for anyone to read: You're not engaging in the conversation honestly. Don't bother replying - I'm looking to converse/debate with only capable, intelligent people.

switch007 5y ago
I didn't quote, first of all. And I didn't change the meaning. The difference in will vs might is of no significance in my sentence. You just saw saw red, picked a tiny little thing to go off the rails about as an excuse not to engage. I said: "the statistics ... that an unvaccinated person will kill you". If I had written "the statistics ... that an unvaccinated person might kill you" the meaning is exactly the same. The 'statistic' we're /both/ referring to is the statistic of spreading, someone catching, and dying. Not "might die", the actual incidence of dying. Studies wouldn't measure the incidence of "might" deaths. But you know that So now that's cleared up: what is the chances of the unvaccinated "might" killing you? Which statistics have you seen? (I'm double vaccinated btw ;-)
- mthoms 5y ago
  As I said, I'm not interested in word games. So far you've needlessly conflated using the healthcare system with overwhelming the healthcare system (then denied it), implied that the health care system was comparably overloaded before Covid (then denied it), and then introduced a needless debate around whether or not being around in an un-vaxed person could kill you. What is it about that sentence you are debating exactly? Are you saying it's false, or that me and my loved ones have too low risk of death tolerance? Those are the only two options. Understand: The degree to which this risk is acceptable is not up to YOU to decide. Go ahead, put yourself at risk all you want, you have no right to put the safety of others at risk. So do what you want. But we, the rest of society, would like you to stay away from us until this boils over.
  - switch007 5y ago
    Master grandstander, playing to the gallery. You aren't even the person I originally replied to. You went straight for an ad-hominem ("snowflake", "selfish", "jerk") Troll, nothing more. Just pure troll :-)

by mthoms 5y ago

switch007 5y ago

I didn't quote, first of all. And I didn't change the meaning. The difference in will vs might is of no significance in my sentence. You just saw saw red, picked a tiny little thing to go off the rails about as an excuse not to engage. I said: "the statistics ... that an unvaccinated person will kill you". If I had written "the statistics ... that an unvaccinated person might kill you" the meaning is exactly the same. The 'statistic' we're /both/ referring to is the statistic of spreading, someone catching, and dying. Not "might die", the actual incidence of dying. Studies wouldn't measure the incidence of "might" deaths. But you know that So now that's cleared up: what is the chances of the unvaccinated "might" killing you? Which statistics have you seen? (I'm double vaccinated btw ;-)

mthoms 5y ago
As I said, I'm not interested in word games. So far you've needlessly conflated using the healthcare system with overwhelming the healthcare system (then denied it), implied that the health care system was comparably overloaded before Covid (then denied it), and then introduced a needless debate around whether or not being around in an un-vaxed person could kill you. What is it about that sentence you are debating exactly? Are you saying it's false, or that me and my loved ones have too low risk of death tolerance? Those are the only two options. Understand: The degree to which this risk is acceptable is not up to YOU to decide. Go ahead, put yourself at risk all you want, you have no right to put the safety of others at risk. So do what you want. But we, the rest of society, would like you to stay away from us until this boils over.
- switch007 5y ago
  Master grandstander, playing to the gallery. You aren't even the person I originally replied to. You went straight for an ad-hominem ("snowflake", "selfish", "jerk") Troll, nothing more. Just pure troll :-)