The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

...

[Funt Solo]

governments ... give us ... viruses.

No, they don't. 

[The Legendary Shark]

governments ... give us ... viruses.

No, they don't. 

Not literally, to be sure, but as a means of control, yes they do. More damage has been done by lockdowns and...

Oh, what's the point?

Worship your rulers if you wish. I won't.

[Funt Solo]

It's not worshiping anyone to point out that Covid wasn't created on purpose to control the masses. That's just you slinging mud cos you've got no logic to back up your assertions. Weak sauce. Dribble it on someone else, please.

[The Legendary Shark]

I never said it was, that's your strawman.

[IndigoPrime]

A reminder that COVID anti-science won't be tolerated.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

[Drunenkpost/ #whatever]

Wait...

...

...Do people actually post here when they're sober?

[The Legendary Shark]

I wouldn't have thought sho.

>hic<

[Funt Solo]

I never said it was, that's your strawman.

That's not true. I'm only ever reacting to what you actually say. You said that "governments give us viruses". You followed up with the self-contained non-sequitor "Not literally, but as a means of control, yes they do."

The only assumptions I'm making are that you're talking about Covid specifically. Are you not? Which virus, then, are you referring to? And if you're saying that governments both DO and DON'T give us viruses, which do you mean? And which governments?

If you're entirely unclear in your assertions, it seems a bit rich to blame me. I only respond because your anti-vaccine rhetoric (however thinly disguised) isn't welcome, and could cause real harm if people swallow it. If you can it, I'll can it.

[The Legendary Shark]

The word "give" has 20 or 30 definitions, or so I'm given to understand. Either you or I have fallen to equivocation. If it's me, I apologize.

[Funt Solo]

If, by using the phrase "governments give us viruses" you didn't actually mean that "governments give us viruses", perhaps you could elucidate on what exactly you did mean.

You're starting to sound a lot like Boris. He said that Starmer was responsible for not prosecuting Jimmy Savile. Then he said what he meant was that Starmer was in charge and therefore partly responsible. Then he changed it to Starmer wasn't responsible but had apologized. But we all know what Boris meant. He was trying to say that Starmer was a friend to pedos. He wriggles like an ugly worm to try to get away from it - but he said what he said - he meant what he meant. It's clear to everyone.

Next he'll be saying that Savile has 20 or 30 definitions...

[moogie101]

The word "give" has 20 or 30 definitions, or so I'm given to understand. Either you or I have fallen to equivocation. If it's me, I apologize.

Usually I just read your comments with a sense of bemusement and feel no need to respond, but that is a terrible argument to make.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

... perhaps you could elucidate on what exactly you did mean.

Are you some sort of masochist?

[The Legendary Shark]

Alright then, try this - add the words "their opinions on" after the words "they give us."

[Funt Solo]

If that's what you'd actually written down in the first place I would never have responded to your post.