Coronavirus - the new pandemic

[Frustration]

You never used those precise words, it's true, yet you insist upon making statements that make sense only if the reader attributes those concepts to you.

[Frustration]

Well, after rolling back protective measures, the virus is spiking again. Like yiffing clockwork.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man;
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began:
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire...

[McAvoy]

You never used those precise words, it's true, yet you insist upon making statements that make sense only if the reader attributes those concepts to you.

In what way? You made a statement. Back it up.

[Frustration]

I've seen this trap before: giving people the benefit of the doubt and refuting their specific points leads to them making MORE statements with MORE absurd contentions, which must then be refuted in their turn, leading to MORE idiocy.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and honesty can look at your posts in this thread and find multiple instances of you failing to engage with the content of statements, and making further statements which make sense only if interpreted according to counterfactuals.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and honesty

That's a fancy way of saying "I don't have to prove my point because I'm smarter than you."

I haven't seen anything to suggest that McAvoy is sealioning or otherwise arguing in bad faith.

[McAvoy]

I've seen this trap before: giving people the benefit of the doubt and refuting their specific points leads to them making MORE statements with MORE absurd contentions, which must then be refuted in their turn, leading to MORE idiocy.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and honesty can look at your posts in this thread and find multiple instances of you failing to engage with the content of statements, and making further statements which make sense only if interpreted according to counterfactuals.

You made a statement. Back it up.

Not interested in excuses why you think you shouldnt.

[McAvoy]

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and honesty

That's a fancy way of saying "I don't have to prove my point because I'm smarter than you."

I haven't seen anything to suggest that McAvoy is sealioning or otherwise arguing in bad faith.

I honestly had to look up sealioning. Never heard of the term till now.

I go by three strikes. After that, not interested in anything that follows.

[Frustration]

I haven't seen anything to suggest that McAvoy is sealioning or otherwise arguing in bad faith.

One of the problems with arguing with people whose levels of language comprehension are much lower than mine is that they often have no idea what's actually going on in the debate.

I suggest you go back and look for examples of McAvoy making statements which are only meaningful responses if objective, generally-accepted facts are ignored.

[TGLS]

One of the problems with arguing with people whose levels of language comprehension are much lower than mine is that they often have no idea what's actually going on in the debate.

Arrogance. How charming.

[Frustration]

Hey, if they fly like ducks, walk like ducks, swim like ducks, sound like ducks, and in every way behave in the way ducks do, they just might be ducks - and eventually we are obliged to treat them like ducks.

There are only so many demonstrations of stupidity I can excuse before I'm forced to the conclusion that given individuals are, in fact, stupid. Either they understand what they're doing, and are deliberately using rhetorical tricks and double standards, or they do not, and they are fools.

Neither liars nor idiots are worth debating.