No false premise. How can you say something is necessary without saying what it's necessary for?
You set up a false premise (unnecessary yes or no) and then act like any answer outside of your narrow acceptance window is dodging.
No one in their right might would propose that and expect a real answer.
No. I said the process for us took about 24 hours after we notified our tenants. (shrugs)
The sky is blue.
Am I wrong about that because I did not know about the legal parameters of evictions in Texas?
So the sky is not blue, because "I stated gossip as fact".
Fascinating.What color is the sky in your world then?
And I've accepted when I've been proved wrong.spent the last 17 years telling people they are wrong on ST
dual PhD in "you're wrong"
You haven't. You and others here have a jihad going against those who do prove you wrong. It's funny.
So the sky is not blue, because "I stated gossip as fact".
Fascinating.
The goal of zero deaths is a false premise.
Sure, the thousands of pages of back and forth between you and ____________ (insert random poster here) proves it!
Yes or no?
[crickets]If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?
I didn't think it was that hard.
Anyone else want to try it?
If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.
Your posts definitely prove it.
Sure, the thousands of pages of back and forth between you and ____________ (insert random poster here) proves it!
Yes or no?
It was what Vy65 stated and you were obviously aware of it (you're always here), thus you had a chance to offer a different number.
What is the acceptable number of fatalities?
Misleading trap.
Which diseases are you referring to and show the statistics to back up your claim without the kindergarten antics. Use your words.
^another example of you never being wrong
It's not even your premise but you'll use it in your jihad.
I am willing to accept a different number. What is the acceptable number of fatalities? What is the goal of the lockdown, statistically?It's not even your premise but you'll use it in your jihad.
It's my opinion. I think it's true but I'll look for evidence to the contrary from you if you have it.
This is how you manage thousands of pages of tripe - noise posting and evasive maneuvering.
Generally zero. *If* they can be avoided. Some people will die no matter what, so that is not entirely possible here.
If the health care system gets overwhelmed, people will die from lack of treatment that would not have died otherwise.
The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Agree? Disagree?
You can't think of one for yourself?
Why not?
When you say "limit deaths", anything other than every human on earth meets that requirement. Quantify it.
I am not the one asking about "necessary".
Not trying to be misleading at all. Merely succinct. Sorry if you don't understand it. I will try to clarify there then.
Two fictional diseases, totally made up. The only thing I am trying to get here is simply agreement on a principle.
If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.
Now you're demanding I quantify someone else's policy. I don't know what they thought was acceptable or if they even thought in those terms. I'm going to conclude they knew zero was an impossible goal.
When you say "limit deaths", anything other than every human on earth meets that requirement. Quantify it.
I don't know but do think the "acceptable losses" number has been quantified by governments as they reopen, but that number is and will remain in a black box.
Generally zero. *If* they can be avoided. Some people will die no matter what, so that is not entirely possible here.
If the health care system gets overwhelmed, people will die from lack of treatment that would not have died otherwise.
The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Agree? Disagree?Hmm. Agree or disagree?
When you say "limit deaths", anything other than every human on earth meets that requirement. Quantify it.
The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Yes? No?
I am.
Ultimately I'm asking you would've been OK with a higher death rate than we've already had to this point. It seems like you're OK with the concept but don't want to admit it.
Meh, most of these people had it coming. Karma and/or natural selection. Take your pick.
There's no reason to ask a hypothetical other than to lay a trap so when you reveal "ah hah! COVID will be 12x more deadly in 12 months!" (which is a falseshood since they both appear to have seasons).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote