Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. The point remains.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Suppression of Free Speech on Covid
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
This is a debate forum. You might find Facebook more your speed.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Yes. Look at who they have for a president.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
That's a fallacy (appeal to authority), not a fact. Facts are verifiable by ordinary people.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Its a logical fallacy if appealing to authority to claim and cite organizations that declared a pandemic?
You still haven't produced stats/.
But not everyone is interesting enuf to
warrant serious response, especially when
an attempt at discussion has been shown
unproductive.
It's best not to pursue why I responded
as I did, lest feelings be hurt.
Last edited:
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
A critical distinction!
Whether you think the science is accurate or not, it is, and sadly you're wrong which you can't seem to grasp. Pot meet kettle.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Thank you Ken for sharing. I am glad to read this. I have been saying this also many times the past few years. I am surprised that a court ruled this way though, I gave up all hope on righteous justice already
They also threatened forums that they would not get money from Google ads IF they did not censor, I was told by a moderator
Free Speech lost it's meaning quite a bit, I would say
WOW!
I would assume that additional pressure was placed on sites that did not have a medical background to determine what was true and false and their only plumb-line was whether or not it fit the narrative given by the government.
For us in the US, it was this very reason why our forefathers wanted a Constitution that required a very small non-intrusive national government with more power to the individual States. We are really moved away from the original intent
McBell
Admiral Obvious
No, it is not.
Yes it is.
All you have to do to verify the fact that covid was declared a global pandemic is to follow the link provided.
Your disagreeing with the fact, does not in any way negate the fact that it was in fact declared a global pandemic.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Vastly more competent and complicit with basic Judeo-Christian values than the previous. Here's what Steven Hawking said about those who support Trump: Hawking called Trump “a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator,” -- Stephen Hawking Angers Trump Supporters with Baffling Array of Long Words
Do you honestly believe even for one second that Trump reflects Judeo-Christian values? Or is it that you don't care?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Like Fox?
No serious news station would be willing to do that as they are protected by the 1st Amendment.
We tried that under the Articles of Confederation, but the FF quickly realized that this didn't and wouldn't work. The Constitution gives the government more power than the Articles but also has limitations. For example, no one stopped Trump from speaking his malicious stupidity and dishonesty even though the experts with their studies well knew the damage he was doing.
He was voted out in 2020, I guess you are as poorly informed about this as you are covid.
The 1st and 2nd ammendments assume citizens are well informed and responsible for themselves. Rights were never intended to be "free for all" nonsense. It astounds me that the 2nd amendment even applies at all today since it is one sentence and states that the right is to allow citizen militias, which no longer exist. The rights exanded to citizens completely ignores half of the sentence.Like Fox?
No serious news station would be willing to do that as they are protected by the 1st Amendment.
We tried that under the Articles of Confederation, but the FF quickly realized that this didn't and wouldn't work. The Constitution gives the government more power than the Articles but also has limitations. For example, no one stopped Trump from speaking his malicious stupidity and dishonesty even though the experts with their studies well knew the damage he was doing.
The more freedom a citizen wants the more willing they should be to act personally responsible. But this requires a sort of careful introspection and being well informed. This doesn't seem to be conservatives in the last decade.
Do you believe that Hillary & Joe reflect those values?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I suspect a much shorter list would be the one of politicians who reflect those values.
I'm not a fan of Christian values anyway, eg, slavery,
Crusades, intolerance, Manifest Destiny, etc, etc.
But some politicians are so much worse at embracing
the most evil aspects, eh.
Like Fox?
No serious news station would be willing to do that as they are protected by the 1st Amendment.
And like CNN
No... It was a little more complicated than just that.
Articles of Confederation vs The Constitution: A comparative Analysis of The Differences and Similarities. - Dandy Law
In 1787, the United States approved the Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation as the country’s governing document. The Constitution outlines a stronger national government with clear divisions of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The Articles...
dandylaw.com
I understand your aversion to Trump... I like a more balance approach so I can include both parties