Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ah-so

  1. 1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

    Lol... The smaller the man, the bigger the hammer!

    First you doctor a quote and get busted, then you delete it, then you lie about it, then you post that ad hominem tripe :rolleyes:



    I didn't doctor a quote - I added something in square brackets to add context to what you were referring to. The square bracket is understood as an insertion to a quotation to give context and being something that was laterly inserted. 

    "Use square brackets to include words within a quote that are not part of the original quote. For example, if a quoted passage is not entirely clear, words enclosed in square brackets can be added to clarify the meaning"


    I hope this helps you in the future. 

    You might also need to learn what an ad hominem is, because you clearly don't. 

    They say it's never too old to teach an old dog new tricks - good luck!

  2. 1 hour ago, Flat Bear said:


    90% of the Adult population sorry, I did actually put down I was unsure on my post if you check. The figure they gave for England was 89.8% but I took the liberty of rounding up 0.2% for the extra people who caught the virus or who got vaccinated over the past 12 days. (report out 7th July)

    The new report comes out on the 21st July and I would expect the figure to be higher, but it depends on the survey sample as you know. The ONS can be quite vague when they want to be.

    Thanks. It's interesting because reading the post of those who have been vaccinated at least and those who have caught COVID doesn't seem to add to 90%, even if there were no overlap. Perhaps I'm reading the data in your post wrong. But I'm not going to argue with it because I assume it is based on solid statistics. 

  3. 6 minutes ago, Flat Bear said:



     Is this all-good news?

    You are all correct. Lockdown, mask wearing, etc. was a waste of time and people’s lives. Most of us knew this from the beginning but we are where we are.

    I have been looking through all the data, and the information I have seen is much more positive than Vallance suggests. What he is actually telling younger people in affect is getting a vaccination is a waste of time. Why?

    The data I have seen shows that the risk of catching the virus is drastically reduced, that if you do catch it getting seriously ill is even a lower risk, and actually dying becomes extremely low even for those with complications. This virus for the vaccinated is a lower risk than the Flu we are subject to each year.

    Looking at the situation at this time.

    Approximately 25% to 30% of the population has had covid in the past 18 months.

    Approximately 50% of the population have been fully vaccinated (made up of the more vulnerable population)

    Approximately 200,000 people a day are being fully vaccinated

    Approximately 50,000 people a day are catching covid and it is growing number.

    It is said that 90% of the population have covid antibodies (I think this is just the adult population but am unsure)

    Looking forward

    We are now opening up fully and within a month the spread will be at maximum. Maybe 250,000 per day?

    At current trends we will have 100% (if it is ever possible) of the whole population who have either been vaccinated or who will have had covid well before Christmas. There will be no new hosts for the virus to infect. It will no longer be a threat.

    Questions are how many people will be hospitalized and how many will die as a direct effect of Covid and how much more immunity do you get from actually catching Covid than having a vacination?




    Not sure how you get to 90% of the population having COVID antibodies. 

  4. 1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

    Sky News ticker....

    Sir Patrick Vallance says that 60% of those admitted to hospital with Covid are double vaccinated.

    COVID-19: 60% of people being admitted to hospital with coronavirus have been double jabbed, says Vallance | UK News | Sky News


    Did you know that at one point 100% of people who were hospitalised were unvaccinated. 

    And if everyone was vaccinated 100% of those hospitalised would be vaccinated. 

    Not sure why I typing this because but has been explained so many times that you must have read the explanations before. Which leads me to conclude that you either have very limited capacity to understand basic statistics or are deliberately posting this to wind people up. Which is it?

  5. 1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said:

     So how did I cut and paste it from your post?


    I don't know, but what exactly did you cut and paste? Perhaps it was marked for moderation after you quoted it.

    I now understand what you mean about doctoring quotes - I added some square brackets to the text to provide context to the reader as to the topic that you were referring to - I was not trying to make it look like you had written something you hadn't - perhaps i did it a bit clumsily.

    But in summary, you think it is fine to compare the treatment of the unvaccinated to those murdered people in Germany, but you didn't say that, and that wasn't your comparison, but you will keep making the comparison because if you don't it will mean eradicating those crimes from the history books. Or some such incoherent gibberish. Your logic is frankly hard to follow

  6. 4 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

    The problem was because I mentioned a group of people whose name begins with "J", I got a message that the post was being withheld/hidden and it was coloured a kind of pinky/mauve. Surprised that you could see - perhaps a moderator released it. Anyway, I fiddled around with it a couple of times, couldn't get its status to change so deleted it.

    There are rational reasons other than me trying to misquote you. As I said, I quoted anonguest, not you, because he very specifically drew parallels with the worst events of the 1940s.

  7. 20 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

    If you are weighing up the risk then you should state what you gain from not wearing a seatbelt. It’s hardly a hardship to take 1 second out your life to belt-up for the sake of yourself and others. 

    They can't be bothered to think through how belting up could save other's lives, let alone their own.

    Remember, when dealing with such people you are not always dealing with the most rational group - "gut feelings" and ill-thought out principles take the place of rational thought.

  8. 15 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

    Now you've stooped to doctoring my quotes to add another straw man reference.which is something that I specifically did not say as I was talking about population control, not genocide.

    Lowest of the low :(.

    You didn't, but anonguest did, and that was who I was quoting.

    And if we are talking about the horrific events of the 1930s/40s in reference to Germany any use of the word "population control" has fairly clear implications.

  9. 12 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

    There you go again, straw man after straw man. Has anyone suggested that encouraging vaccination will end up in concentration camps and genocide? 


    Yes, anyone who brings up 1930s Germany implicitly does that  - that's the very purpose is to show how small action 'a' leads to extreme result 'b'.  And to quote anonguest:


    The continued and popular comparisons with the 30's are made because they are apt.

    IIRC Jewish people were not stripped of property and sent straight away to camps. It first started with 'simple' discrimination - stopping them from working certain jobs, preventing them from using various services, etc.  By the time the unvaccinated are, proverbially if not literally, being placed in camps it will be too late!

    If comparisons to Germany are just a bit of rhetorical hyperbole, may I suggest you use something else?

  10. 3 hours ago, anonguest said:

    So, slippery slopes do not exist?  All major societal changes in history have been abrupt and sudden? Rather than more gradual in nature?

    And in two sentences you display that you don't understand the slippery slop fallacy.

    but to make it simple, the fallacy is a fallacy because it cannot distinguish between modest moves that are intended to be the goal, versus a genuine momentum towards some extreme scenario.

    The slippery slope resist all progress because it equates even modest changes with a slide into extremism, even when that clearly isn't the case.

    The example you gave of the 1930s - do you really think that the slippery slope of encouraging vaccination will end up in concentration camps and genocide? Of course you don't, so don't made such silly comments. And more importantly, don't defend it - we have all probably made some mistaken reference to Germany in the 30s and 40s, but don't double down.

  11. 43 minutes ago, anonguest said:

    All irrelevent points to my reply.

    The OP dismissively stated that he didn't care about impositions on the unvaxxed until they get their property confiscated/get sent to camps. My point was that once things get to that stage it's usually too late to do anything to help - so ideally best to not let things get that far in the first place.

    The classic slippery slope fallacy.

  12. 39 minutes ago, anonguest said:

    Have patience Grasshopper.  😉

    The continued and popular comparisons with the 30's are made because they are apt.

    IIRC Jewish people were not stripped of property and sent straight away to camps. It first started with 'simple' discrimination - stopping them from working certain jobs, preventing them from using various services, etc.  By the time the unvaccinated are, proverbially if not literally, being placed in camps it will be too late!

    Superficial similarities to some elements of early Jewish discrimination still try to allude to a suggestion that te unvaccinated will entually be rounded up, imprisoned and sent to death camps.

    Guess what, during WW2 all British citizens had to carry identification cards, just like the Jews in Nazi Germany!!!

    If you are going to choose analogies, choose appropriate ones, not crassly insensitive ones.

  13. 40 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

    We also decide you should wear seatbelts in the car and not drive drunk. That is because we have to consider the safety of others.

    That is an incredibly stupid and crass comparison.

    They can't help themselves making comparisons to 1930s Germany.

    When the unvaccinated are placed in concentration camps and stripped of their property, give me a shout.

  14. 2 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

    That "law" is an abomination. It only exists to shut down discussion when the fascist apologists are on their back foot.

    No it doesn't. It highlights the absurd exaggerations that people will make. On Property 118, the Welsh landlady who's name I forget (Rosalind Beck) compared the treatment of landlords to the Nazi's treatment of Jews. And now people are discussing the fight against an actual pandemic and the distribution of the medicine to save lives as being akin to putting people in gas chambers. 

    Goodwin's Law mocks those who compare things to the Nazis that are not even comparable. Some things can be compared to it, and we have seen quite enough genocide in my lifetime alone to know that there is plenty to compare it to. 

  15. 26 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

    Deluded is as deluded does.... You brought Godwin's Law into the discussion, not me :rolleyes:.



    I had good reason to - immediately before people had brought up yellow badges (tick) and 1930s Germany (tick). I was simply noting that the law was again shown to be correct. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.