He was making a distinction between something being an agreement between whoever (family, community) and law. That would seem to be relevant. That you tag on a 'senility' comment (again) just because the poster is old, is a little petty. I would imagine that many of those you have cared about in life have been aged, and indeed you will be in that position one day yourself. For one he clearly isn't displaying such symptoms (it's just a childish 'angle', like your race obsession sh!te), and secondly even if he was deteriorating due to age, is that really some kind of infinite well of hilarity for you?

Edited by BlueJay (27 Mar 2022 3.26am)

Incorrect - and irrelevant to the conversation. It had nothing to do with making a decision that 'I didn't agree with', and a lot to do with making a decision that cost them their lives (that you're politically 'fine' with and so view criticism of to be incorrect). My encouragement to vaccinate provably would've saved some of the lives I talked of, your 'do what you like' logically ended some where people took that tack.

I wasn't addressing you anyway, but considering the standard of your conduct, the faux outrage has a short shelf life.

Edited by BlueJay (27 Mar 2022 5.39am)

It's not incorrect it's factual. You used the word 'prats' in that context. If you want to call Hrolf 'petty' we can call you insensitive. I wouldn't even mention it if you weren't so obsessed with moral superiority displays.

My approach was the position designed for these pandemics. I believe in treating people like adults, providing the information we know on death risk and encouraging vaccination for the most at risk and advice for everyone else.....Essentially the Great Barrington declaration position.

Your position wasn't based on that and involved recommending vaccination for young people at far less risk. We have already seen health implications there. Your position would have also made lockdowns inevitable as people would have insisted that national policy be based upon lowest possible risk regardless of national cost.

Indeed that's what happened.

As for the fact you weren't addressing me....ok, but Hrolf wasn't addressing you either.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Mar 2022 11.03am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Hrolf can say whatever the feck he wants to say.

Calling someone senile is fine (though wasn't it insane?), anyway I don't have your eagerness to support censorship. Which apparently goes missing when it's applied to people you like.

If you don't like something criticise it, personally I agree with Hrolf's incredulity.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Mar 2022 11.07am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I have little interest in expanding on my previous comment because it accurately describes something that you seek to contort. I think what you see as 'moral superiority displays' is just having a moral code, but I can understand why it would appear that way to you.

I disagree, you simply regard your insults as valid while regarding his as less so.

I don't necessarily criticise having a moral code, which are just principles. However there is a line between that and self righteousness to which I think you are often blind.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Mar 2022 11.59am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)