My point is that from my point of view Robtard might actually be serious because he might be a liberal, now I don't see him stating it anywhere but based on his posts it does seem that way,
As I have mentioned some liberals are psychopaths. For example they will say you can have freedom of speech several years down the line they are threatening to klill people with difference of opinion. You also have to understand that sometimes they joke about things that they are dead serious about so when Hillary Clinton said she wanted to make 'fun camps' what she really mean't was concentration camps but if she calls it that people would be shocked. Also bare in mind that there seem to be a lot of liberals who believe that gun owners should be put in forced labour camps. So taking the bahavious of some liberals Robtard might actually be serious.
Originally posted by Deadline
My point is that from my point of view Robtard might actually be serious because he might be a liberal, now I don't see him stating it anywhere but based on his posts it does seem that way,As I have mentioned some liberals are psychopaths. For example they will say you can have freedom of speech several years down the line they are threatening to klill people with difference of opinion. You also have to understand that sometimes they joke about things that they are dead serious about so when Hillary Clinton said she wanted to make 'fun camps' what she really mean't was concentration camps but if she calls it that people would be shocked. Also bare in mind that there seem to be a lot of liberals who believe that gun owners should be put in forced labour camps. So taking the bahavious of some liberals Robtard might actually be serious.
I don't know where you're getting this idea about forced labor camps for gun owners. On the other hand they do scoff when conservatives say they wanna take guns, but then they turn around and praise places that had mandatory gun buy backs.
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't know where you're getting this idea about forced labor camps for gun owners. On the other hand they do scoff when conservatives say they wanna take guns, but then they turn around and praise places that had mandatory gun buy backs.
Originally posted by Deadline
That just seems subjective to me, besides aren't pesticides and growth hormones built in labs as well? I think GMO in food has been shown to have negative long term affects on humans so you should be concerned about that. This doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned about vaccines but about food as well.
Pesticides and growth hormones aren't "meant" to be ingested by humans. Neither are micro plastics. It just happens we drink and eat those because they cannot be easily disposed of.
The vaccines are meant to be put into a living organism and they are secluded during their creation. Their environment is much more controlled.
Originally posted by BentleyXenobiotic oestrogens are perhaps the biggest problem substance humans ingest and probably the reason some 20-40 year old men today are more feminine with lower sperm counts than in the past.
Pesticides and growth hormones aren't "meant" to be ingested by humans. Neither are micro plastics. It just happens we drink and eat those because they cannot be easily disposed of.The vaccines are meant to be put into a living organism and they are secluded during their creation. Their environment is much more controlled.
Originally posted by Bentley
Pesticides and growth hormones aren't "meant" to be ingested by humans. Neither are micro plastics. It just happens we drink and eat those because they cannot be easily disposed of.The vaccines are meant to be put into a living organism and they are secluded during their creation. Their environment is much more controlled.
Anyway the argument is that they are deliberately putting harmful stuff in the vaccines for the general public.
Given how widely vaccines are distributed the idea of them containing nocive elements spread on purpose would be next impossible to hide. The elements should be already there before they were confirmed noxious if such negative effects are to be considered at all. Specially if they serve no purpose as far as effectiveness for the vaccine goes
Originally posted by Bentley
Given how widely vaccines are distributed the idea of them containing nocive elements spread on purpose would be next impossible to hide. The elements should be already there before they were confirmed noxious if such negative effects are to be considered at all. Specially if they serve no purpose as far as effectiveness for the vaccine goes
Yea it would be impossible to hide that doesn't mean that they don't fool most people or a lot. Why on earth would you argue this when governments get caught doing all sorts of things to people in mass?
Originally posted by Deadline
Yea it would be impossible to hide that doesn't mean that they don't fool most people or a lot. Why on earth would you argue this when governments get caught doing all sorts of things to people in mass?
The nature of actions taken by governments makes them very different to hide depending on what they entail.
Here we are talking about a physical object (vaccines) that to reach their purpose would need to be distributed to all the population (because otherwise the logistics would show) or at least randomly. There are much easier and discreet ways to poison people if your goal is to cause them harm. Trying to hide a secret that is impossible to hide is ludicrous from the get to go.
I find it easier to believe that antivaxxers campaigns were created by the government as a social experiment.
Edit: it's proven you can kill populations of uneducated people by convincing them not to get vaccinations btw
Originally posted by Bentley
The nature of actions taken by governments makes them very different to hide depending on what they entail.Here we are talking about a physical object (vaccines) that to reach their purpose would need to be distributed to all the population (because otherwise the logistics would show) or at least randomly. There are much easier and discreet ways to poison people if your goal is to cause them harm. Trying to hide a secret that is impossible to hide is ludicrous from the get to go.
I find it easier to believe that antivaxxers campaigns were created by the government as a social experiment.
Edit: it's proven you can kill populations of uneducated people by convincing them not to get vaccinations btw
You are aware that governments have done secret experiments on their populations right? You do realise that you could also argue that the other experiments were impossible to keep secret as well?
EDIT: It's like trying to argue that a serial killer won't kill eventhough he's done it before. Completely illogical.
Originally posted by Deadlineyes, but this would not be an individual goverment it would be global. I have to go with Bentley here mate unless you have something solid.
You are aware that governments have done secret experiments on their populations right? You do realise that you could also argue that the other experiments were impossible to keep secret as well?EDIT: It's like trying to argue that a serial killer won't kill eventhough he's done it before. Completely illogical.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
yes, but this would not be an individual goverment it would be global.
facepalm And governments have collaborated together to experiment on their citizens America has collborated with Canada. UN has been caught doing all sorts of horrible things.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I have to go with Bentley here mate unless you have something solid.
I don't have to prove anything solid about THIS. It's not about wether I think it's fact it's wether it's plausible. Basically you're argument is that governments (I could add governments working togther) do evil things to their population but they wouldn't do this.
Fact of the matter there are lots of evil people in government and in intelligence agencies they work with other governments we're always finding out about new evil stuff that they get up to but for some reason this couldn't happen.
haermm