textgel

9 ms·

31.
by textgel 5y ago
Sounds plausible but are there any sources on these mass testing efforts and their methods?
32.
by textgel 5y ago
You can't comprehend that richer nations would have better testing and would therefore have a better idea of how many cases they have... And you think hospitals would have records of patients testing positive for a disease we had no kn
33.
by textgel 5y ago
You're already lying about the rioters being armed with guns in point 1. If you're willing to lie here then what value is there in any of the rest of your claims?
34.
by textgel 5y ago
And when you dismiss it with accusations of bad faith and 'refute' the argument by primarily throwing derisive adjectives at it, that leads me to strongly believe you are operating in bad faith and making the accusation to pre-cou
35.
by textgel 5y ago
It's a perfect representation of progressivism. It's a complete fabrication used to forward malicious progressive agendas that received enthusiastic support when first seen and is only now being distanced because it's positi
36.
by textgel 5y ago
The radical progressive left is effectively the mainstream these days; the NYT is one of many high profile representatives of its beliefs.
37.
by textgel 5y ago
> And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them. Cite proof of this, this is exaggeration at best or more accurately a complete falsehood. > Turns out that in a l
38.
by textgel 5y ago
This feels like a demand for 1930s and 40s style book burning of 'dangerous' ideas.
39.
by textgel 5y ago
A possible counter argument at least to the plugin problem is that having the people who don't even know what HTTP is joining the internet was part of what led to the censorship problem in the first place.
40.
by textgel 5y ago
There are bans in numerous places around the world against people going up and bothering people to sell tickets etc. Seems the understanding is there, we just need to progress as a society and take it further.
41.
by textgel 5y ago
*removed for being rude > Attracting public attention is not theft of attention. Yes it is; you don't have the consent of the public to have it; it is ergo theft. And indicative of an entitled mindset worryingly common in other mal
42.
by textgel 5y ago
Which facts is it he's left out? You don't get to just lie and say he's doing it without stating which is being left out. So given that you are baselessly attacking him, and the only thing that drew you to him was the facts
43.
by textgel 5y ago
Seems they are adding facts that have been missed. Is there a particular reason you want these facts suppressed?
44.
by textgel 5y ago
No it isn't. We've had years of progressives screaming that private companies aren't allowed to just do as they please simply because they are private. You aren't permitted to suddenly become an ardent liberty advocat
45.
by textgel 5y ago
And you want missgendering to be interpreted legally as the equivalent of a death threat?
46.
by textgel 5y ago
Pronouns are defacto and typically dejure certifications. Do you think previously male transgender women should be permitted to enter women's athletic competition? Do you think it is trans-phobic to say you wouldn't date someone w
47.
by textgel 5y ago
No, but if you ask me to call you a chartered mechanical engineer when you aren't then that changes things.
48.
by textgel 5y ago
And the definition of harassed
49.
by textgel 5y ago
Yes funnily enough those who wanted to "Just have a discussion" were the ones who forced us into this mess in the first place. People might not like "having their identity being debated" but people also don't like h
50.
by textgel 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech > Freedom of speech[2] is a fundamental human right that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of re
51.
by textgel 5y ago
You don't have the right not to be offended. No matter how many times you ask.
52.
by textgel 5y ago
Always mixed feelings when we're once again watching HN judder round to the understanding that the sky IS indeed blue decades after the rest of the world figures it out, but hey, progress is progress.
53.
by textgel 5y ago
You have failed to provide an alternate source.
54.
by textgel 5y ago
Fair points; I'm trigger happy from progressives demanding people be fired for liking a tweet and am unwilling to let them weasel their way into stupid demands but those examples that surround actual legality are fair counters.
55.
by textgel 5y ago
No it basically is. Nor does it have multiple definitions. The only people who claim it does are those trying to smuggle censorship in while calling it "freedom of speech".
56.
by textgel 5y ago
It doesn't matter as nuance and risk management has never been permitted to matter previously. It's still a risk. Lives are at stake and that's the end of the discussion.
57.
by textgel 5y ago
Because those who want "just heart rate and temperature" will want more in future. We aren't setting that precedent and opening up the possibility for more.
58.
by textgel 5y ago
And without the complete abolition of capacity to transmit the disease you're still a risk to that goal.
59.
by textgel 5y ago
It's a quantified risk until one disagrees with the belief holder and then it becomes a boolean. You're less at risk but you're still a risk. Being a risk, no matter how small, has been the excuse for every response to this
60.
by textgel 5y ago
Yes. Obviously. There's plenty of privacy destroying actions a society could take that would "save lives" but we don't do these exactly because of the encroachment on civil liberties they would entail.

More ›