Australia goes full retard

[pellius]

Go live in Thailand and find a way to keep receiving that money. You'll live a good life with that amount of money and you can tan and get the girls.

I think even if you have to spend like a period of time in Canada to keep receiving the money you can financially afford a plane ticket once a few months.

Tell me more. I'm starting to think more and more to move to a place where the cost of living is cheap and can live comfortably without worry. It's just I wouldn't know where to start. How can I find a place in Thailand or the Philippines and get set up from where I am. I'm talking about finding a place, buying or sending my car over...

[djliftsthings]

Really? Can you post a pic in the exact same posture for us to compare and have a standard of what is fit and healthy? This guy is 55 years old. How many 55-year-olds do you know that looks this good?

 

[OAK]

Really? Can you post a pic in the exact same posture for us to compare and have a standard of what is fit and healthy? This guy is 55 years old. How many 55-year-olds do you know that looks this good?

If he is so fit and healthy why can't he work?

What is his disability?

[Grape Ape]

I can't believe and ANTIVAXXER called someone ELSE a gimmick.

😆😆😆

Since I'm not an anti-vaxxer, and have made that point many times, you have just confirmed what I said.

[pellius]

If he is so fit and healthy why can't he work?

What is his disability?

That has been thoroughly vetted many, many times. It has nothing to do with his physical health. He can tell you exactly what is his disability but that is beside the point. You called him obese. Will you post a picture of what you look like so he can have a standard to aspire to?

[OAK]

That has been thoroughly vetted many, many times. It has nothing to do with his physical health. He can tell you exactly what is his disability but that is beside the point. You called him obese. Will you post a picture of what you look like so he can have a standard to aspire to?

First of all it was a joke.

Second, his initial comments towards me were much worse (I know that I'm not well liked here because I'm PRO Vaccine) but I felt they were uncalled for....that's what you get.

[OAK]

Since I'm not an anti-vaxxer, and have made that point many times, you have just confirmed what I said.

Are you fully vaccinated?

[pellius]

First of all it was a joke.

Second, his initial comments towards me were much worse (I know that I'm not well liked here because I'm PRO Vaccine) but I felt they were uncalled for....that's what you get.

What makes you think anyone will consider what you said a joke? But a person's tone changes considerably when asked to post a pic after criticizing another person's look.

Also, it has nothing to do with being PRO vaccine. It's about personal choice. I answered your very legitimate question as to not understanding why someone would be anti-vax with a serious response which you have simply ignored.

The question in a free society is not always what is right and good but rather who should decide. There are countless things that we can impose on a society that would vastly prove health, safety, and welfare but we don't because of the imposition on our freedoms. The Soviet Union practically eliminated violent street crime by being a police state where no one had any rights to privacy. There are always trade-offs and it's a challenge to find the perfect balance.

What I am curious about is why people who are vaccinated care whether others are not. You promote that everyone gets vaccinated because you believe it provides some protection against the virus. You may say that it is not 100% but nothing in life is 100%. Is it worth it to remake our entire society because something is not 100% safe? You also admit that getting the vaccine doesn't prevent you from spreading it to others therefore you are offering no protection to others getting the vaccine. So getting the vaccine to protect others is a wash. Not getting may increase your chances of getting the virus. Why do you care?

The effects are the same on others as to whether or not you are vaccinated. It should be up to the individual to decide from themselves.

[OAK]

What makes you think anyone will consider what you said a joke? But a person's tone changes considerably when asked to post a pic after criticizing another person's look.

Also, it has nothing to do with being PRO vaccine. It's about personal choice. I answered your very legitimate question as to not understanding why someone would be anti-vax with a serious response which you have simply ignored.

I've been on this board for over 18 years. Calling someone "obese" is hardly SHOCKING here.

I've responded many times to your question. But, I'll answer it yet once again (sign).

Why do I care that people take the vaccine:

The unvaccinated are 6,000% more likely to end up in the ICU. This overwhelms our healthcare system and people are dying.

[King Shizzo]

 OAK, playing both sides to the T.

That's what gimmicks do.

[Zillotch]

oak sounds a lot like howard the coward - an imbecile.

[pellius]

I've been on this board for over 18 years. Calling someone "obese" is hardly SHOCKING here.

I've responded many times to your question. But, I'll answer it yet once again (sign).

Why do I care that people take the vaccine:

The unvaccinated are 6,000% more likely to end up in the ICU. This overwhelms our healthcare system and people are dying.

So your argument is that you want to control people's behavior because of the burden to our health care system. OK, fair point. By why stop there? Heart disease is the number killer in our society and it's almost all attributed to a poor diet. Shall we control that as well? Everyone is subject to a 4 monthly checkup and if you are above a certain BMI we limit your food intake. You get a meal card. Why don't we force people to work out 3 times a week? You are assigned a gym and a record is kept verified by trainers. Why don't we simply make cigarette smoking illegal already? How about we limit or eliminate foods like ice-cream and bacon which I solely consumed for enjoyment and not nutritional value. Shall we tax or limit participation in activities that are risky? Mountain climbing, riding a motorcycle, surfing, snowboarding...

I have absolutely no doubt that following these rules and limitations would vastly increase our society's health, safety, and welfare and decrease the cost of health care tremendously?

But again, it is not always a question of good or bad but rather who should decide. Do you want to live in a free society? There are always going to be tradeoffs. Are health and safety the number one priority that trumps all other values?

[pellius]

oak sounds a lot like howard the coward - an imbecile.

No, he's nothing special. He represents the vast majority of the population that are sheep. They don't question but follow. I see them every day. The guy wearing a mask alone in his air-conditioned car, the family that unknowingly abuses their small child forcing them to wear a mask. My nurse at my PCP office wears both a mask and a face shield all day. When I asked her why she said, "For the extra protection." They are not comfortable unless their health and safety are 100% assured.

One thing I realized, and this is just from getting older and paying attention, is that it is a myth that man yearns for freedom. Sure some do, but for the most part people far, far, far prefer safety and security. To be taken care of. To have the responsibilities left to others. It explains how a Jim Jones cult can exists or an Adolph Hitler can take over. A few lead, the vast majority just follow.

[OAK]

So your argument is that you want to control people's behavior because of the burden to our health care system. OK, fair point. By why stop there? Heart disease is the number killer in our society and it's almost all attributed to a poor diet. Shall we control that as well? Everyone is subject to a 4 monthly checkup and if you are above a certain BMI we limit your food intake. You get a meal card. Why don't we force people to work out 3 times a week? You are assigned a gym and a record is kept verified by trainers. Why don't we simply make cigarette smoking illegal already? How about we limit or eliminate foods like ice-cream and bacon which I solely consumed for enjoyment and not nutritional value. Shall we tax or limit participation in activities that are risky? Mountain climbing, riding a motorcycle, surfing, snowboarding...

I have absolutely no doubt that following these rules and limitations would vastly increase our society's health, safety, and welfare and decrease the cost of health care tremendously?

But again, it is not always a question of good or bad but rather who should decide. Do you want to live in a free society? There are always going to be tradeoffs. Are health and safety the number one priority that trumps all other values?

That’s easy. Heart disease isn’t contagious. If someone has a heart attack they don’t kill a thousand other people.

[pellius]

That’s easy. Heart disease isn’t contagious. If someone has a heart attack they don’t kill a thousand other people.

Again, you missed the point. Your argument was based on the burden to health care. And, by your own admission, and what "the science says" it doesn't matter whether you are vaccinated or not, you can still spread the virus.

Not so easy now when you include logic and using your own arguments.

[OAK]

Again, you missed the point. Your argument was based on the burden to health care. And, by your own admission, and what "the science says" it doesn't matter whether you are vaccinated or not, you can still spread the virus.

Not so easy now when you include logic and using your own arguments.

You are correct, but the vaccinated are way less likely to spread the virus.

Also, don’t forget, the unvaccinated are 6,000% more likely to end up in the ICU.

[djliftsthings]

Again, you missed the point. Your argument was based on the burden to health care. And, by your own admission, and what "the science says" it doesn't matter whether you are vaccinated or not, you can still spread the virus.

Not so easy now when you include logic and using your own arguments.

I like you pellius, you are a great great man, and Im not a fan of OAK. But it seems quite obvious that the unvaxxed are much more likely to end up in ICU. In Sask where I live, the difference is monumental in whos in the icu

sure vaxxed can spread, but even with a flu shot you can still get the flu and still spread the flu, you just get less sick

same thing here, in my opinion

[King Shizzo]

You are correct, but the vaccinated are way less likely to spread the virus.

Also, don’t forget, the unvaccinated are 6,000% more likely to end up in the ICU.

Bullshit. The vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus.

[OAK]

Bullshit. The vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus.

🙄

[King Shizzo]

If I’m just a gimmick why are you responding to me?

😎😎

I have been here far too long..... I'm not saying anything.

To be quite honest, I had no idea, nor cared about you, until you quoted me.

Who?

[OAK]

I have been here far too long..... I'm not saying anything.

To be quite honest, I had no idea, nor cared about you, until you quoted me.

Who?

🙄

[Coach is Back!]

Hate to agree with Shizzo but he’s right and it’s been proven time and time again. The “Oak” is trolling

[djliftsthings]

Bullshit. The vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus.

..but not in ICU from it. Both parties spread it

[King Shizzo]

🙄

Actually, I apologize.

The Oak account was created in 2003. I respect an OG.

 

[pellius]

You are correct, but the vaccinated are way less likely to spread the virus.

Also, don’t forget, the unvaccinated are 6,000% more likely to end up in the ICU.

I'm not sure where you came up with that as it's been revealed that it may be the opposite. So for me, it's a wash. Everybody has roughly the same ability to spread the virus. And percentages are misleading like this one. 6,000%? Compare to what? You can go from one to two and claim a 100% increase. But it's still just two. The bottom line is the mortality rate and it is less that 1%. Now, obviously, that fraction of a percent means little to those who have lost someone, but does it justifies completely restructuring our society and limiting our freedoms?

So again, you are ignoring your original argument which was the burden on the health care system and not the getting of the virus itself. And if that is the case, then, again, compare to what? There are many other things that are more of a burden to our health care system so why don't we do anything about that? Banning smoking and controlling nutritional intake would take care of 80% of our health care costs.