Just wonderin'

[BSM1]

No, not still a "no." But your response suggests I was correct in what's driving you about this topic. You need a denial, so you've manufactured one.

But have it your way. And hey, maybe Derek Chauvin can use this defense when his trial for the killing of George Floyd comes up. He can just claim, "hey, it wasn't my knee that killed him -- it was the lack of oxygen to his brain. Totally different issue."

To see how that analogy is actually very good, just Google "how COVID-19 kills."

I just asked a simple question that required nothing more than a 'yes' or 'no' answer. The triggers are entirely yours.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So that's a no then?

Correct.

Are we supposed to draw some sort of conclusion from the responses to your question?

 

[columbus]

I just asked a simple question that required nothing more than a 'yes' or 'no' answer. The triggers are entirely yours.

Many of the posters on this thread are educated enough to realize that your question is neither simple nor a "Yes or No".
Until there's a whole lot more rigorous data and sophisticated analysis there is no way to be sure if C19 alone killed someone or not.

The fact that you aren't educated enough to realize that, and consider the question important enough to start a thread about, strongly suggests that your motivation is minimizing the disaster caused by Trump's policies by minimizing the death and suffering caused by C19.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Feel free to correct me. If I am wrong, I apologize. But I see that going on around me all the time in my Trump supporting community. And you do have a history on RF.
Tom

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Many of the posters on this thread are educated enough to realize that your question is neither simple nor a "Yes or No".
Until there's a whole lot more rigorous data and sophisticated analysis there is no way to be sure if C19 alone killed someone or not.

The fact that you aren't educated enough to realize that, and consider the question important enough to start a thread about, strongly suggests that your motivation is minimizing the disaster caused by Trump's policies by minimizing the death and suffering caused by C19.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Feel free to correct me. If I am wrong, I apologize. But I see that going on around me all the time in my Trump supporting community. And you do have a history on RF.
Tom

Why do you (guys) reply to a thread when you already defined the OPs intent before even somewhat answering his question?

If you guys already know how the OP will respond, what's the use of being involved in the thread?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why do you (guys) reply to a thread when you already defined the OPs intent before even somewhat answering his question?

If you guys already know how the OP will respond, what's the use of being involved in the thread?

I have no idea what the OP's intent was. That's why I asked.

Assumptions run rampant in this thread.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have no idea what the OP's intent was. That's why I asked.

Assumptions run rampant in this thread.

I guess the question applies only to those did assume. I've no clue what the intent was either, but it didn't occur to me to ask since most likely it won't go into my daily log book of things to think about.

 

[columbus]

Why do you (guys) reply to a thread when you already defined the OPs intent before even somewhat answering his question?

If you guys already know how the OP will respond, what's the use of being involved in the thread?

I answered his question.

But I see a bunch of people minimizing the C19. Sorry if people who think that risking my mother-in-law's unnecessary death so they can go to churches and casinos get my dander up and make me a little sharp edged.
But they do.

Sorry if my hardcore Prolifer beliefs make you uncomfortable.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I have no idea what the OP's intent was.

But after being asked, @BSM1 never gave me a reason to believe that his intent was anything other than usual intent in minimizing C19. A basket of deplorables trying to keep Trump in power.

That's my interpretation of the OP. Anybody can give me another option for the motivation behind the OP.
Tom

 

[SalixIncendium]

But after being asked, @BSM1 never gave me a reason to believe that his intent was anything other than usual intent in minimizing C19. A basket of deplorables trying to keep Trump in power.

That's my interpretation of the OP. Anybody can give me another option for the motivation behind the OP.
Tom

So in the absence of a reason, you decided to make your own based on assumption?

 

[columbus]

So in the absence of a reason, you decided to make your own based on assumption?

It is not in the absence of reason.
Or, more precisely, the absence of evidence. There's plenty of evidence on this subject, and I can reason from that.

And sometimes, lack of evidence is evidence. If a bunch of evidence suggests a conclusion, and there's no evidence suggesting that conclusion is wrong, that is yet more evidence for the conclusion.
Tom

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is not in the absence of reason.
Or, more precisely, the absence of evidence. There's plenty of evidence on this subject, and I can reason from that.

And sometimes, lack of evidence is evidence. If a bunch of evidence suggests a conclusion, and there's no evidence suggesting that conclusion is wrong, that is yet more evidence for the conclusion.
Tom

Evidence of what?

 

[columbus]

Evidence of what?

That I'm correct about the motivation behind the OP. Diminishing the importance of preventable deaths for partisan purposes.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How does that connect to ideas and thoughts on RF (and reactions to them) not life threatening???

Because people can read something like "we can't control it," or "all these people and yet only a few people personally know someone" or "masks are problematic and there is no danger in not wearing them around others" and act on that. That is threatening to the life and wellbeing of not just the one who read and acted on it, but also those they will be encountering and interacting with.
Online websites do not exist in a vacuum of their own universe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I answered his question.

But I see a bunch of people minimizing the C19. Sorry if people who think that risking my mother-in-law's unnecessary death so they can go to churches and casinos get my dander up and make me a little sharp edged.
But they do.

Sorry if my hardcore Prolifer beliefs make you uncomfortable.
Tom

You're taking it personal when from what I'm reading on his end, didn't sound like it was so-not on purpose if one likes.

Maybe you guys have bones to pick with the OP, grudges, or so have you but why reply to the OP at all if that's how it would be perceived?

If it's bait, why take it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

That I'm correct about the motivation behind the OP. Diminishing the importance of preventable deaths for partisan purposes.
Tom

I haven't see such evidence, but perhaps I missed it. Can you please point me to the post that contains it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But after being asked, @BSM1 never gave me a reason to believe that his intent was anything other than usual intent in minimizing C19. A basket of deplorables trying to keep Trump in power.

That's my interpretation of the OP. Anybody can give me another option for the motivation behind the OP.
Tom

I see no reason to assume otherwise given the history of the poster in question. And he certainly hasn't tried to set anyone straight if were wrong.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I see no reason to assume otherwise given the history of the poster in question. And he certainly hasn't tried to set anyone straight if were wrong.

Perhaps this is what I'm missing. I haven't really interacted with him in the political fora.

 

[columbus]

I haven't see such evidence, but perhaps I missed it. Can you please point me to the post that contains it?

Let me repeat myself:

And sometimes, lack of evidence is evidence. If a bunch of evidence suggests a conclusion, and there's no evidence suggesting that conclusion is wrong, that is yet more evidence for the conclusion.

Perhaps @BSM1 had a sensible motivation for asking a stupid question. I do not use the term "stupid question" lightly. But it was stupid, in the context of current events. The only real answer is "Nobody knows."
And after a couple of hundred posts, BSM1 still hasn't given anybody reason to interpret his motivation as anything other than blind support for Trump. That's the lack of evidence that I consider evidence.
Tom

 

[cataway]

i just want to know the truth .

 

[Revoltingest]

I just asked a simple question that required nothing more than a 'yes' or 'no' answer. The triggers are entirely yours.

Triggerist!