No such thing as 'fully vaccinated'!!!

originally posted by: nonspecific
I cannot comment as the thought police is not a real thing.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: nonspecific

What is your opinion regarding the thought police telling you how to speak?

My response doesn't live up to the standards of decorum I like to keep.

My fully vaxxt mom (5th shot in September) just tested positive for the vid. Now is where I'm supposed to post on social media how much worse it would have been w/o the jab. Getting fully vaccinated seems to give one prescient powers.

LOL

It's truly amazing the lack of self-awareness and consistency on display here lately.

You can't reasonably go around thinking that everyone who dies its possible it was a COVID vaccine that did it though can you.

This looks like you incredulous that others dare think something.

You also seem to forget, just a day ago, claiming that I was trying to restrict your speech. You implied that there were people trying to bully you, ironically, while participating in an ongoing dogpile of derailment that resulted in another members threads being closed. I guess the thought police only exist when you feel personally victimized?

There seems to be a strange situation developing here lately where members think they can bully others if they dont join in the doom porn dance.

This looks like you again.

Of course there is also a pending lawsuit over actual policing of speech by the US government, a quite literal clandestine thought police. Their attempts to create a separate division of thought police was rejected so thoroughly that they temporarily put it on hiatus.

Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left," the lawsuit says, "senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called 'disinformation,' 'misinformation,' and 'malinformation.'…As a direct result of these actions, there has been an unprecedented rise in censorship and suppression of free speech—including core political speech—on social-media platforms

In response to inquiries, Landry and Schmitt say, "Facebook and Instagram identified 32 federal officials, including eight current and former White House officials," who have contacted them regarding "misinformation and censorship of social-media content." YouTube "identified 11 federal officials, including five current and former White House officials," while Twitter "identified nine federal officials, including at least one White House official."

reason. com

In your own country people can be jailed and fined for expressing wrongthink. Its codified into law, making your entire collective police force a defacto thought police.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

That would depend on your definition of fully vaccinated.

Quick question here.

Are you good with the dictionary definition of vaccine being changed?

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You clearly have never been 'fully' indoctrinated?

No. I didn't really believe in the Covid dogma and the vaccine ideology.

What did you believe in, then, and why did you believe it? Do you ever question the foundation of your beliefs?

originally posted by: slatesteam

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

That would depend on your definition of fully vaccinated.

Quick question here.

Are you good with the dictionary definition of vaccine being changed?

Thanks in advance.

As William said it: "a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet".

a reply to: Asmodeus3

True , the sheep can never be 'fully vaccinated' as the 'vaccines' don't even work to stop you getting on transmitting this 'covid'. And the cash cow must be fully operational at all times

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe you can show him what that means, you know, help out a fellow ATS member.

No - I'm antisocial(media).

a reply to: Asmodeus3
It is still just a matter of semantics. If you understand that "fully vaccinated" means "up to date with the vaccines" it makes no difference which term is used.

a reply to: daskakik

In that case, why are the so-called "experts" telling us not to use one but to use the other?

a reply to: zosimov
It seems to be the opinion of one so-called "expert", you would have to ask them why.

a reply to: daskakik

If someone just now vaxxs up, at what point would that person be "up to date"? After the 4th or 5th booster all in a row? Or is it two? Or 3?

a reply to: nonspecific

I find this intereasting. Id be happy for you to explain how you work out who is wrong or right based on that algorithm? Take your time and then go ahead. originally posted by: KKLOCO That’s comical when comparing our karma scores. It’s all analytics in your avatar dude. The proof is in the pudding. Apparently, in all your years here, you didn’t realize that.

Since this still exists, I’ll help you understand why.

You were the one that stated nobody’s cares about my opinion (your comment were deleted by mods). Do you see that lightning bolt in your avatar? It means something. I won’t explain it to you. Figure it out on your own.

a reply to: TDDAgain
Not sure but I think that even varies from country to country so there really isn't a set number, which actually supports my claim that it is really just semantics.

a reply to: daskakik

It was always semantics that constantly changed fluid, whenever the actual numbers / reality disagreed with the official narrative. I am too tired to list it all up again.

So it's just more bureaucratic chaos on top of the nightmare. I wonder how that aligns with Agenda 21+30.

a reply to: TDDAgain
Good thing you didn't waste your time listing things that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

a reply to: daskakik

If that claim would be valid, you would not be able to talk about semantics either and staying on topic. And if you think you are on topic with your semantics claim (you are) then my addition is too, since the semantics happen in the same domain (!!)

Nice try though. A bit transparent but nice try.

a reply to: nonspecific

Remember when vaccinated meant you took a medical therapy which stopped transmission and infection of a virulent disease? Now it's a loose, everchanging and pliable term, which might reduce the severity of symptoms in a best case scenario.

I'm petitioning the Oxford English Dictionary.

Vaccination
1. Inoculation with an experimental concoction in order to generate profits for pharmaceutical industry.
2. Psychological experimentation on gullible participants.
3. Virtue signalling indication of submission to authority.

a reply to: TDDAgain
My claim is in regards to the semantics argument in the OP.

I'm guessing your list would have included semantics in other areas, which ar not the topic of the OP, although they might have to do with covid, like dying with covid isn't dying from covid or the mrna shots not being vaccines.

I'm sure you can see how those are independent topics even if they have covid and semantics in common.

a reply to: daskakik

Of course they are independent topic, nonetheless they can act as an example to demonstrate that it was about semantics from the very beginning. Like changing definitions.

Why would you try to suppress that while at the same time allow yourself to use semantics as an answer?

And you're not really constructive either. You just had that snarky remark to make, probably because you can not refute that it was about semantics from the beginning. So restricting what is allowed to use and not is your only fallback. You basically lost the argument by pulling that off and admitted you have nothing to counter, so I conclude that you internally agree with me.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
Of course they are independent topic, nonetheless they can act as an example to demonstrate that it was about semantics from the very beginning. Like changing definitions.

"It" is you trying to lump these different things together.

Why would you try to suppress that while at the same time allow yourself to use semantics as an answer?

How am I suppressing anything? Are you not here having your say?

All I'm saying is that the list you might have posted isn't necessarily pertinent to the matter expressed in the OP.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You clearly have never been 'fully' indoctrinated?

No. I didn't really believe in the Covid dogma and the vaccine ideology.

What did you believe in, then, and why did you believe it? Do you ever question the foundation of your beliefs?

I don't believe in anything.
To accept something I need some good evidence.
I am trying always to avoid dogma and ideology. That's why I avoid the absurd vaccine ideology that seems to be at odds with common sense and basic science.