🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@realcaseyrollins

Hahaha got to it first.. yes monty python.

Also I can tell you democracy.town is a cess pool of an instance. Even half the liberals hate them because the moment they get offended they start lying or making random shit up and threatening everyone. They tried pulling that shit on me saying I was antivax and shit, and people asked him what I actually said and he had nothing, of course (talking about the admin of the instance)

Really is just a stinking pile of shit over there.

@hector @verita84

@Hyolobrika

Bold of you to assume they are competent enough to have the option.

@realcaseyrollins

@swiley Those are hardly your options. You can be vocally against mandates, and you should be. But you should do so in a way that comes across educated, informed, reasoned and ultimately causes people not dismiss you as a nut case. That means, generally, you lean more towards truth than just trying to sell any wild story no matter how absurd that might remotely be anti-vax.

If people trust what your saying as coolheaded, informed, and respectable then when you talk out against mandates on vaccination then at least you will be heard by people who might be inclined to agree with you.

I'm not sure why you feel being absurd and selling conspiracy theory nonsense or violence is your only two extremes and why selling your side while sticking to truth and reason is somehow not an option...

@swiley Thats an ignorant view. Conspiracy theories have never in recent history being so common or pervasive. Yes few decades ago a few small percentage of hte population believed in all sorts of idiotic conspiracy theories. Now we are talking about presidents and half the population believing such nonsense from the earth being flat to half a dozen COVID conspiracies.

The prevalence is the important part and that is not even remotely comparable to what it used to be.

In fact last time we had forced mandates on vaccines was during the small pox vaccination. People started to beleive conspiracy theories and as such many states made it illegal not to be vaccinated and would fine people or jail them for believing in such conspiracy theories because it resulted in so many people dying. Directly contradicting your assertion.

Think about it, do you really think saying you beleive in things with no basis that are absurd and complete nonsense and makes you and the side you take look like you dont have a clue what you are talking about is really going to work in favor of your side... I would hope you know well enough it wont.

The funny thing is, this is pretty much exactly what the other side wants, for people who are against the mandates to make such a fool of themselves that public confidence in them is eroded and the mandates are supported.... you are playing right into their game.

@swiley **You** were being quite. Everyone else against mandates was acting a fool, and we got mandates. Now you've adoped their behaviors that got us those mandates, way to go.

@swiley Ironic since shitposting like this is the best way to ensure the mandates continue and expand as it makes anyone arguing against it look like a conspiracy theory wackadoo. Creating conspiracy nonsense and clearly unfounded claims is about the best way to errode the confidenc ein your side and ensure the other side gets increasing support.

As someone who is against the mandates myself I cant say im happy to see you go through so much effort to increase the support for them.

@swiley You got a source for that?

@swiley I see you decided to take your conspiracy theory shit posting up a notch. I'm impressed.

While I have no interest in discussing this with someone who already made up their mind, I will leave my response here before muting the thread.

Funny thing is, you havent apparently seen the evidence. Here is the actual complete image of the one you posted, which shows even the evidence you seem to have claimed contradicts you.

Notice that the image you posted is in fact from the sections on polling people who are not particularly interested in politics. In other words, of the people who dont have a strong opinion on politics they do learn slightly more to the democrat side. However when you poll people who take a strong political stance and more extremely commit to one side or the other it shows that republicans are, in fact, more polarized than democrats. Overall this difference is small though and for the most part both sides have diverged away from center.

I have muted @PakkonenCT as I have no wish to discuss this with someone who already made up their mind, but others are welcome to discuss.

@matrix

well except pi and euler's constant... those are the only two numbers that exist anyway :)

@Science

"Math is never just numbers, when words fail us we use math to describe the inexpressible, the things that terrify us most: the vastness of space, the shape of time, the weight and worth of a human soul." - Foundations

#math #quote #Foundations #Science #stem #philosophy @Science

@skypage depends on what you mean.. if you are proposing it is an actual event that happened, or if there is simply merit to it on a philosophical basis.

Again this is an argument of semantics. The premise here is that we are using one of two definitions of liberty. The definition you are using is the other one. Semantic arguments are boring, neither of us are wrong just depends on what definition we attach to the word.

@PakkonenCT Thanks, you saved me the trouble.

@PakkonenCT

I already said I have no interest in discussing it with you. Come back to me when you wish to actually have a two way conversation where you actually consider the possiblity of being wrong. Until that time, good day.

@skypage It only infringes on the liberty of the person being harmed (which i stated).. the person doing the harming however has a maximum amount of liberty, it just happens to be at the expense of someone elses liberty.

In fact if you give everyone liberty you can not give them a maximal amount of liberty because as you point out the only way everyone can have liberty is if it is a **moderate** amount of liberty where it doesnt include murder.

@PakkonenCT I have changed my mind on issues such as this countless times in my life.

Though considering your own statement seems to think you have an absolutly provable stance and that others are to be proven wrong without any indication of yourself being mallable to other ideas or the possiblity of being wrong, then no.. I dont really have much interest in debating it with you.

I welcome people with a difference of opinion to share it, but when presented with certainty and a nearly dogmatic introduction from the get go, then I have little interest in such a discussion.

Let someone prove me wrong who actually has the ability to question their own stance as part of the conversation. If that doesnt go both ways then the conversation will almost certainly be a shit show.

@PakkonenCT I dont agree, it hasnt been moved left, it has been polarized outward in both extremes. The right has become as idiotic and extremist as the left and the middle as a whole is quite thin lately.

@skypage Depends on which definition of liberty we are talking about. The most basic would be "the power or scope to act as one pleases.".. By that definition a person has liberty if they can murder someone (though the person they murder would not have liberty). So there is an argument that giving any one person too much liberty would in fact be bad.