By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
iron_megalith said:
Torillian said:

Stop trying to read between the lines before you read the actual lines themselves. I am arguing against someone that said "Your bullet and punch example falls flat when it is a fact that more people die from being hit physically than from being shot every year"

Now do you agree with the quote (in which case there's a debate to be had about how math and stats work and how they should be interpreted) or not (in which case I have no real debate with you on that topic)

I would not agree into something so futile as it is devoid of any reality when it comes down to the actual situation. You can try to use the argument of a kid lunging at you with a fork but you know you are making a tongue and cheek point just to see if I would fall for it. If that's an honest argument, you really lost the plot.

But yeah let's leave it at that. I've had enough amusement with you. :)

Ah ok....so you don't understand how hypotheticals work. I'll try to keep that in mind. 



...

Around the Network
iron_megalith said:
IvorEvilen said:

I'm gonna have a bit more sympathy for someone out there protecting their own property, particularly their home. Otherwise, I'm gonna trust that they have insurance and can weather the unfortunate turn of events.  If you seriously think it is worth risking your life in defense of things, well, that's your prerogative.  But we as a society still reserve the right to judge your actions.

The reality was that the vast majority of people and property were at minimal to no risk of damage over the course of the summer of 2020.  I'm sorry if you were negatively impacted by the riots in any shape or form, but I suspect most people are outraged by the hypothetical, not the actual scenario.  There are legal remedies to damages that were sustained.  But we unfortunately cannot bring the dead back to life.  While I am disappointed in the results of the Rittenhouse trial, I would rather see legislative reform rather than outrage leading people down a path to anarchy.  If both sides do not think the law can protect them, whether physical, property, or otherwise, we go down a dangerous path.

Lmao. You really think a lot of insurance companies will pay for everything? How naive. They will fight tooth and nail to only pay the bare minimum of what you should be getting.

IvorEvilen said:

I cannot really comment on Binger, because myself, like many Americans, do not really care to educate myself on gun operation.  I do not need to know how to operate a firearm to know how dangerous they are.  I can see the data.  I have talked to a number of Americans who think that me not knowing something about gun operation is a "gotcha" moment.  I do not give two-shits about how to operate a gun.  It's a deadly weapon.  I have no need for such an instrument.


It's not a gotcha moment. It's a prime example of people not knowing what the fuck they're talking about and trying to make a point. Nobody told him to get hold of the gun and point it at the jury in that manner. It's his ignorance seeping out. If you don't give two-shits about it when he's trying to make a closing argument, then that's just hilarious. If you feel that you don't need guns, then you be you. But let people who are decent to have them if they feel that they need it. If we live in an alternate reality and succeed in taking away guns, another thing will just emerge from it. Or the bad ones will have it. Case in point. Nazi Germany.

IvorEvilen said:

For your last point, to deny the race element in this entire discussion is kind of "missing the point"... and also assuming all of this happened in a vacuum.  This was a racially charged issue from its inception.  As another commenter pointed out above, this particular night of rioting was occurring during demonstrations following the Jacob Blake shooting.  Rittenhouse was there with a gun to assist police officers in policing demonstrations that were intended to protest excessive use of force by police and over-militarization of police, particularly against minorities and people of color (this was the political speech I was referencing in my initial post).  The fact that police did not see Rittenhouse as a threat, in contrast to the widely publicized incidents of police being too quick to shoot now and ask questions later when dealing with people of color... just seemed to provide even more evidence for people that police are crooked.

Not to mention Rittenhouse getting all buddy-buddy with white nationalists... Yikes.

I cannot convince you that media is not biased.  But there is a distinction between news reporting, editorializing, and entertainment.  None of the media I consumed was "preaching things that never happened", but there was investigative reporting, interviews, analyses of the trial, etc.  All of this was evidence-based or clarified that "details were not verified".  The more outlandish things I saw were always on social media (left and right) about completely fabricated details that I could not fathom where they were coming from.

Yes. You cannot convince me as this post of yours reeks so much bias. I'm merely killing time here and having some fun trying to see how a lot of you folks twist this thing to make it seem like there was no justice here. It's like a small version of Twitter in here. Nothing but an Echo chamber to validate your beliefs.

By the way, you forgot to mention that Kyle was also there helping the community before the shooting happened. Also if I remember correctly, his friends and family live in Kenosha. But who cares. He shouldn't have drove 20+ miles to go to a community and try to help. It's not as if violence wasn't being rampant throughout that time to which the media would say, it has been a "fiery but peaceful protests" while a whole fucking building burns at the background.

One last thing. If you're trying to disparage his character for being a white supremacist because he maybe friends with one. Be careful who you make friends with. If you are friends with closet Neo-Nazi, by that logic, I will label you a Neo-Nazi as well. Birds of the same feather right? What a great argument!

There are literally pictures of Kyle making white supremacist hand signs.

---

The very fact that there is so much disagreement and discussion in this forum is evidence enough that this is not an echo chamber.  An echo chamber is a place where everyone agrees so they feel better about themselves.  If people disagree with you, that certainly does not mean they all agree with each other.  Stop trying to deflect and with the old "if I can't convince them, they are all biased against me".

If you do not want to have a discussion, then I guess there is no sense in continuing.



iron_megalith said:
Torillian said:

Is your argument therefore that any weapon that could be deadly should be met with the same use of force as any other weapon that could be deadly regardless of their likelihood to end in death? 

A skateboard can hurt, but I would gladly face someone with a skateboard over someone with a knife, and gladly face a knife over an AR-15, and gladly face an AR-15 over a tank. The idea that all of those attacks should be met with the same level of force makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone starts throwing punches outside a bar should police shoot them just in case? 

First of all, I will say that this statement of mine has nothing to do with legality of this incident. So just in case someone wants to twist my words again. This post is just talking about the reality of nature.

First rule of nature, you respect whoever has the advantage. You don't go crying when you try to fight someone with fists and up losing because he had a gun or is more experienced than you. Huber was a fucking idiot. He wanted to play "hero" because he was convinced he was. He chased Kyle, tried smack him, got shot and died. I mean who knew someone's self preservation will kick in when you try to smack someone in the head with the skateboard during a really incident where a mob is involved. It's a pure failure of common sense on his behalf.

Well one could argue that this whole situation happen because Kyle was a fucking idiot that wanted to play the hero because he was convinced he was.





IvorEvilen said:
iron_megalith said:

Lmao. You really think a lot of insurance companies will pay for everything? How naive. They will fight tooth and nail to only pay the bare minimum of what you should be getting.

IvorEvilen said:

I cannot really comment on Binger, because myself, like many Americans, do not really care to educate myself on gun operation.  I do not need to know how to operate a firearm to know how dangerous they are.  I can see the data.  I have talked to a number of Americans who think that me not knowing something about gun operation is a "gotcha" moment.  I do not give two-shits about how to operate a gun.  It's a deadly weapon.  I have no need for such an instrument.


It's not a gotcha moment. It's a prime example of people not knowing what the fuck they're talking about and trying to make a point. Nobody told him to get hold of the gun and point it at the jury in that manner. It's his ignorance seeping out. If you don't give two-shits about it when he's trying to make a closing argument, then that's just hilarious. If you feel that you don't need guns, then you be you. But let people who are decent to have them if they feel that they need it. If we live in an alternate reality and succeed in taking away guns, another thing will just emerge from it. Or the bad ones will have it. Case in point. Nazi Germany.

Yes. You cannot convince me as this post of yours reeks so much bias. I'm merely killing time here and having some fun trying to see how a lot of you folks twist this thing to make it seem like there was no justice here. It's like a small version of Twitter in here. Nothing but an Echo chamber to validate your beliefs.

By the way, you forgot to mention that Kyle was also there helping the community before the shooting happened. Also if I remember correctly, his friends and family live in Kenosha. But who cares. He shouldn't have drove 20+ miles to go to a community and try to help. It's not as if violence wasn't being rampant throughout that time to which the media would say, it has been a "fiery but peaceful protests" while a whole fucking building burns at the background.

One last thing. If you're trying to disparage his character for being a white supremacist because he maybe friends with one. Be careful who you make friends with. If you are friends with closet Neo-Nazi, by that logic, I will label you a Neo-Nazi as well. Birds of the same feather right? What a great argument!

There are literally pictures of Kyle making white supremacist hand signs.

---

The very fact that there is so much disagreement and discussion in this forum is evidence enough that this is not an echo chamber.  An echo chamber is a place where everyone agrees so they feel better about themselves.  If people disagree with you, that certainly does not mean they all agree with each other.  Stop trying to deflect and with the old "if I can't convince them, they are all biased against me".

If you do not want to have a discussion, then I guess there is no sense in continuing.

On the bolded. I do have some hope that perhaps Kyle won't become the posterchild the far right are hoping for based on his statement that he supports BLM. While it can be difficult I will try my best to give him the benefit of the doubt and it's possible that he's just an idiot that had no idea that those were proud boys (or perhaps what the proud boys represent) and was goaded into taking a picture with a handsign he didn't understand. He could easily be or be becoming a white surpremicist but here's hoping he's just a dumb kid who didn't know what that picture meant. 



...

Torillian said:
Ryuu96 said:

My conversation was specific to cops as Thismeintiel tried to get another user on a "bet you'd be bitching if the cops shot a bunch of violent rioters" whilst lacking all sorts of context so I wanted clarification on this attempted gotcha but now I'm just shaking my head in disbelief, it wasn't about Kyle or regular civilians.

Though now I'm curious on all sorts of scenarios, if all things share the same threat levels, can a cop shoot someone who uses a pencil as a weapon since it could kill someone if stabbed in the right spot too? If there's two people doing fisticuffs in the streets, can the cop then shoot one of them as they perceive them to be a threat, without knowing who the instigator even is?

Giving cops free reign to shoot at any perceived threat is an absolutely awful idea I can't even begin to imagine how terrible that would go, American police are already trigger happy as it is, I don't see why you want to make that even worse, and that's without getting into the fact that the cop doesn't know who instigated it if we're talking about civilians fighting each other.

Cops absolutely should be able to asses situations if the threat is directed towards them too and use the appropriate response, they have more at their disposal than just a pistol, Lol.

But I think I've said all I have to say on this, I know how I want cops to behave, I sure as shit am glad they don't behave like a deer in headlights, Lol.

Don't bother, Ryuu....hypotheticals seem to be ineffective in this particular conversation. 

You're right, I don't see this going anywhere anyway and it has steered away from Kyle. As a Brit, I try to stay out of these US Political threads too. Although...There was that one time Austin Powers killed Random Task for throwing a shoe so...



Around the Network

I wish this thread would turn more into higher level discussions on philosophy of government, with friendly expressions of said views and justification for them, rather than responses to hot button, controversial events that none of us witnessed ourselves.

I suppose it's better to offer a solution than complain about a problem, so here goes my attempt. I think, as a conservative (and this is very much not aligned with fellow conservatives), that no term limits is actually great for US Senate. The House kind of terrifies me. Wave elections bring a LOT of fresh blood into the lower chamber. A bunch of hot headed people not prepared for the complexity of running this nation. We aren't some tiny country supported by a super power that can get away with having incompetent leaders. If we look incompetent, the whole world makes fun of us and our enemies take advantage of not only us, but out considerably weaker and dependent allies. This is why I like the Senate for what it is. A bunch of extremely seasoned folks who, for the most part, have been in government for decades. They know what they are doing. They know what they will do if we are attacked. I like having people in high positions that know what they are doing. Do some get corrupt and make a bunch of money? Sure. But I'd rather have that problem than a wave election where a vast amount of both houses are brand new. This is why I am against term limits. Having people in those positions for 20-30 years knowing how to handle everything lets me sleep more easily at night, regardless of what party they are from. Unless, of course, they are so old they can't think as quickly or have other problems.

*And I'm not just talking about Biden there. I'm sure if I was alive when he was President, I'd have been just as concerned about Reagan's age, or Taft's inability to get out of a bath tub. Fitness is huge, but plenty of seasoned folks are still very physically and mentally healthy.



@Dulfite


This is a rather insightful post. I had never looked at it from that angle. There are really no solutions to anything, only trade offs. 

Now, let me ask you this about the senate : don’t you think that enacting the 17th was a bad trade off? 



Ryuu96 said:

I'm very glad we actually live in countries which aren't this bloodthirsty, if you want that, there's a certain few countries that are backward enough where they shoot into crowds of protesters, at least you aren't saying they should be shot for destroying property so I suppose that's progress. I also want cops to be able to think under pressure, accurately assess a situation and the danger levels, their first response should not be to whip out the pistol and start blasting, especially not towards a damn fist fight, Lol, might as well just let the army police America with that logic.

Of course more people die from being physically hit than being shot because way more people get physically hit than shot, Lol. That's not what we're talking about though, we're comparing them on an individual basis from a cops view, it is much easier to kill someone with a gun (or knife) than a punch. Cops DO take into account threat levels and "reasonable force" response is a legit thing in law (at least, here it is). What weapon someone is using absolutely does and should change the response, not everything requires a bullet, Lol. I think a lot of your post forgets that we're talking about this from a cops perspective too, not a regular citizen.

"HE'S GOT A SKATEBOARD, FIRE AT WILL LADS!" - See how ridiculous that sounds?

I'm picturing the cops in the London riots who had stuff thrown at them being like "that's it lads, they got violent, start blasting!" Insanity. It seems like you think the only role of a cop is to point gun and shoot bad guy, also this is without getting into how stupid shooting a live bullet into a crowd actually is.

Has nothing to do with being bloodthirsty.  It has to do with putting the well being of law abiding citizens above that of violent criminals.  No one is talking about firing upon protesters.  You guys just love labeling rioters and violent criminals as just protesters to further your argument.

Police officers will assess the situation and handle as they see fit.  My point is that they should not have to be thinking about how the media is going to twist a justified shooting into them being a racist and ruin their lives.  And what weapon the perpetrator is using does not change that, it is the intent, as anything can be deadly.  There is no difference if he is beating a man to death with his fists or if he were stabbing them.  That's why there is no law, that I am aware of, that determines self-defense guidelines or officer conduct based on what weapon is used.  We don't need people like you saying, "But he was only using his fist to beat that person do death, why did he feel the need to shoot him. Throw that man in jail."

Torillian said:

Alright then, I'm only arguing with the person that thinks more deaths from non-guns means bats are as deadly as AR-15's. If your quote wasn't you agreeing with that portion of his argument than my mistake. 

If I put a bat and a gun on a table, which will kill someone faster?  If your answer is neither, you're correct.  Again, ANYTHING can be deadly.  It is the intent in which it is used.  I could use an AR-15 to just injure someone.  I could use a bat to kill.  This whole "we have to judge cases by what weapon was used" is a ridiculous standard, and is why it never works.  "Oh, he only hit him with X."  It only makes you look like a callous bastard to the jury, as they can picture themselves getting hit with it and would never say, "Oh, he's just hitting me with a bat, at least he's not using a gun to kill me."

Torillian said:

Previous replies not withstanding. I will say it sucks that people want to dump on the 2nd and 3rd people shot. Their understanding was that they were responding to an active shooter in a crowd. Sucks that they died but I appreciate their desire to stop the situation. If Kyle's intentions mean that the shootings were self defense than the intentions of the others should be taken into account as well. 

Except they weren't responding to an active shooter.  Active shooters don't run away after shooting one person.  They don't tell everyone chasing them that they are turning themselves into the police.  And they sure as Hell don't lower their gun when some pretends they aren't going to be a threat anymore.  The active shooter crap is just an excuse by a bunch of thugs so they don't get charged for the crap they did that night.  Like destroying property and bringing an illegal firearm to a "bar fight."

Machiavellian said:

Here is a scenario for you.  Lets say you are out and about like Kyle and you see someone break a window of a store.  You with your trusty gun point it at that person and they turn around and shot you.  Would the person who shot you be able to claim self defense.

The point is that you are not a police officer so your ability to point your gun at anyone unless they are directly attacking you goes out the window.  Once you point your gun, then the terms of engagement changes and its whoever shoots first wins the day.

Nothing make me smile more than when someone just totally do not understand context. I have no clue what the heck you are talking about that I am pushing that games make people violent.  Since it probably escaped you since you are very much so keen to not see the slight humor of walking around with your gun in your hand like Call of Duty which mind you is a game where you walk around with your gun always in your hand.

Also you have no clue on "My Way" because if I was Rittenhouse, I would have shot everyone as well because at that point he is getting attacked.  My point is that his decisions as well as the attackers lead to this situation and if he came up against the wrong people he would have been dead.

Even your reply says you would do the same stupid thing believing you are in the right because as you say, the Police was not doing anything but the police is the authority.  You going out to protect some property that isn't even yours and wind up dead, maimed or paralyzed for life, you would be thinking to yourself if not 6 feet under, why did I not just say home.

Ever hear of a citizen's arrest?  If I see someone committing a crime, it is legal for me to detain them til the authorities get there.  If he fires upon me, he would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if I survived or murder if I died.  There is no self-defense for people breaking the law in the first place.

Oh, that's not what you are implying?  Yet, you seem to be in Kyle's case.  Even though, he was very responsible with his gun, as I stated. And his only decision was to protect his community, which he had the right to do. Further enforced by the ruling of the jury. 

No, this is not Nazi Germany.  The people are the authority.  We give the government the authority to protect us, our property, and our community.  When they are told not to by a political hack in charge, we can take that authority in our own hands.  That is our right and the law.  That is why people hoped he would lose because it may put that right into jeopardy.  However, it just reinforced it.

IvorEvilen said:

Please do not put words in my mouth.  Nothing I have written has defended or justified the actions taken by the rioters or looters regarding the destruction of private property.  In fact, I have said the exact opposite.  That being said, the tales of widespread rioting and destruction through out the US was LARGELY exaggerated.  My point was that to those who did experience losses, there were financial windfalls through insurance, government aid, and/or civil lawsuits.  "Destruction of their way of life" is just hyperbole.  I would much rather rely on the legal system to sort this out, rather than vigilante justice.  I value lives more than property.

---

There's a pretty obvious explanation for why the Rittenhouse trial has garnered so much attention.  It is controversial.  There are two sides, not everyone agrees, and everyone felt there was a lot at stake in the trial.  I hear about Ahmaud Arbery in the news every day, so I do not know what you are talking about there, but I would agree the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was perceived as much higher stakes.  But I also notice much less controversy in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial... most people seem to agree it was murder.  Also, just in case it needs to be stated, no one is saying that every black police suspect or black criminal is killed by police... it's about the statistics.

---

I hope you are not saying white supremacists are not real?

---

The Nick Sandmann case is interesting, but it did not highlight media bias.  Like many other cultural flashpoints in America these days, the story originated from a video that was widely spreading on social media.  Obviously the media had to report on it as well, but they were reporting on a video that did not contain all the context.  As the days went on and journalists were able to do more digging, they discovered more information and revised their narratives.  There was no cover-up.  A lot of people were duped, and it did not help that the key witness, Nathan Phillips, either lied about what went down or was equally oblivious.  The biggest criticism I have is against media personalities who jumped on the story without waiting a day or two (but that's not how media works).

You say this can all could be resolved with the even the smallest amount of research, but hindsight is 20/20.  Even the March for Life rally (the reason Nick Sandmann and his classmates were in Washington DC) released a statement that criticized the students for their behavior, before walking it back a few days later.  Every lawsuit filed by Sandmann was either dismissed or eventually settled.  That does not imply guilt, but it is often cheaper to settle than to pay for lawyer and court fees.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to media companies to not just run stories on random internet videos with political agendas, without stopping to ask if there is more to the story.

Oh, don't justify it, just minimize the millions in damages the riots caused.  As well as the people who lost their lives during them.  And yes, let's just let rioters do whatever they want.  Who cares if those people actually had insurance.  Or how long it takes to get government aid, which we all pay for, including those with their houses and businesses destroyed.  Or how long and expensive civil will be.  This is not to mention the emotional and physical strain it must put on those people watching everything in their lives burn to the ground.  Who cares because we may hurt the ittle rioter scum.  Like I said, no empathy for decent citizens.  Just excuses and looking the other way for criminals.

Yea, it is about statistics.  And white people are far more likely to be shot by police officers than blacks.  Interesting since blacks make up around 50% of the violent crime.  Of course, that doesn't even take into account how many of ones that we actually get worked up about end up being justified shootings.  But, do people follow up on that.  Nope, just slap all the faces of unrepentant criminals on shirts and deify them like they are all equal.  Personally, that really dishonors the ones that weren't justified.

As far as Nick Sandman goes, that was complete bias.  It's why they were so quick to cover the story.  It feed into their narrative.  It's why they started covering the Texas school shooter...until they found out he was black.  Just the smallest amount of research and interviewing would have proven the reporting wasn't true on Sandman.  And did they give the corrections the same coverage as the initial story?  Nope.  But, that's the point.  You cover the Hell out of the initial story.  Bring on countless talking heads to talk about how horrible it and Nick was.  Wait for social media or maybe Fox News, to show the other side, which turned out to be the real story, then cover it real quick and be done.  It's no different to when newspapers run front page news for a few days, then on page 36 one day, they offer the correction.  No one reads that, and that's the point, because the initial story is in the zeitgeist.  It is completely on purpose and done with bias. 

And they settled for millions cause they knew they fucked up and may have had to pay out a larger sum.  He actually has 4 more cases going right now.  All 4 of which the judge denied their dismissal, so it will go forward.  That boy will not have to work a day in his life.  I hope the same happens with Kyle.

Torillian said:

I'm just trying to bring us back to reality here. If my child rushes me with a fork I shouldn't shoot him in response even if some people die from accidental fork stabbings. Kyle can be reasonable in his actions at the time without equating every single weapon even vaguely capable of killing someone. We aren't supercomputers but we should be able to differentiate use of force in different scenarios. 

Your mind reading skills need work. 

That's not a hypothetical.  That's called a false equivalency.  You know your child is not really trying to kill you.  But, more importantly, you can easily overpower your child.  Let's see how you do against a lunatic pedophile who was just released from a mental hospital, still had his "gift bag" and a chain in his hands, and has been screaming for someone to shoot them all day.  Then, a large group of other criminal rioters who are pissed you stopped their fun in an attempt to end the destruction of your community.

IvorEvilen said:

There are literally pictures of Kyle making white supremacist hand signs.

---

The very fact that there is so much disagreement and discussion in this forum is evidence enough that this is not an echo chamber.  An echo chamber is a place where everyone agrees so they feel better about themselves.  If people disagree with you, that certainly does not mean they all agree with each other.  Stop trying to deflect and with the old "if I can't convince them, they are all biased against me".

If you do not want to have a discussion, then I guess there is no sense in continuing.

Tell me you're easily duped without telling me you're easily duped. 

I love what fools the Left and media has made themselves out to be.  A massive troll job by 4chan, who bet they could get the Left to believe that anything was racist, including the internationally known OK hand sign, and won that bet just because it was something Trump does when he talks.  Talk about TDS.  The best part?  Instead of acknowledging they got had, they kept going along with it.  Now, EVERYONE is a White Supremacist.  Oh God, it's so fucking good. 

I guess Biden is a massive White Supremacist, too.



Holy shit. Someone here actually falls for the the White Power hand symbol meme? LMAO.

I wouldn't even be surprised if someone also fell for the "It's OK to be white" movement and were enraged by it. I don't care if you're left or you're right. Falling for these memes and taking it unironically just tells how much you're out of touch. Whether you advocate to ban the symbol because you believe white supremacists do actually use it in a serious manner. Or whether you are a white supremacist that bought the meme and used it yourself within your group. Just believing it is a thing and taking it seriously just proves their point that people are fucking gullible. Congratulations for demonstrating boomer levels of ignorance right there.

This thread really is Twitter lite simulation. You guys crack me up.

Last edited by iron_megalith - 6 days ago

RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:

Lol, who's playing a game, now. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Locking down and mandating the jab. You'd think you guys would be more sensitive to the government seizing control, given the history of that area, but oh well. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Oh no, someone on the Left has accused me of being far-right for disagreeing with them. Whatever shall I do? Oh yea, not care. It's almost like you guys have overplayed that hand too many times for it to even mean anything. Like I said, we don't care. We're done with the lies.

Indeed, I could assume what you meant based on your warped views, but still... I wanted to leave you with the option to save face. The history of Austria is that there's a precedent for a mandated jab that lasted for over three decades. The result was that the illness in question was eradicated, so a mandated jab is not harmful, but the exact opposite. The reason why the anti-COVID-19 jab is planned to be mandated from February 2022 onwards is because Austria slipped into this situation due to the government banking on the population to do the right thing voluntarily. This, however, was very ill-advised considering the strong presence of the far-right in this country. Not only did the traditional far-right political party rally hard against common sense since the start of the pandemic, but another two new parties who are all about the single issue of anti-vax gained traction, one of which got into the regional parliament of Upper Austria. It's no surprise that Upper Austria with its highest concentration of stupid people is now due for the strictest measures to regain control of a situation that has spun out of control. Austrian's population at large isn't opposed to the government taking action, rather it's the opposite because the seemingly oblivious bunch of government politicians is finally starting to do their job after ignoring the analyses of experts for months.

The prerequisite to be against vaccination is the belief that vaccination is more harmful than the illness it works against, a belief that is neither based on science nor facts.

What exactly do you mean in the context of Austria when you say that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

I don't go around and call anyone I disagree with far-right. I say that you are far-right based on your irrational behavior and argumentation that is basically the textbook definition of a far-right mindset. I don't expect to change your mind either, because a defining trait of the far-right is that they are so far gone that they can't be reasoned with anymore. This really shows in the discussion about Austria where you seriously believe that a mandated jab is something negative when it's realistically the only way to put a country with far too many stupid people in it back on the right track. Without the mandated jab, Austria would be bound to lock down again in 2022 because the voluntary vaccination rate is far below the necessary threshold.

As for the USA portion of the discussion, you live in a country where you personally would rather trust teenagers with assault rifles than the police to protect its citizens.

Do you have a list of scientific papers that you have published? Any advanced degree in statistic?

All cause-mortality (the only reliable and relevant indicator) has increased in most countries in 2021 compared to 2020 "despite" the miracle jabs. The US is a good example with the summer wave 2021 being much more lethal compared to summer 2020 and it looks like the upcoming winter wave 21 could be worse than winter 20. What changed in 2021? With >80% of the risk group fully vaxxed there should be nearly no Covid left as a lethal disease but the opposite is happening right now.

Last four weeks have delayed reporting so the decline at the end is not real.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Last edited by numberwang - 6 days ago