Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates

[Damocles]

I tend to stick to sources that I find are fairly reliable. Those sources usually link to material that -they- find reliable. I find Wikipedia to be good on some subjects, not on others, so I tend to use it only on subjects where I find it to be good.

You tend to stick to sources that confirm your bias, often are not authoritative, and almost always refer to the same three articles or books that you came to your opinion from.

 

[Scott]

There are definitely rules in this forum. They're even posted here:

Thread 'Rules of the Board!'

Jul 22, 2006

This site uses user driven content, each user is responsible for the content and opinions in their posts. The owners of the site JPPolitics LLC do not necessarily share the opinions of the author of any post on the forums. This forum was created for Political commentary, News, Education, and entertainment purposes. Please read the rules carefully before posting on the forums.

General Forum Rules
(These rules apply to the entire site)

1. No posting private information without consent. We will delete the posts and you will likely not have access for at least a couple...

• Generic
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Rules

That being said, posting a set of rules is not the same thing as enforcing them. Things get especially complicated when the rules are ambiguous. This is why I reported one of IBDaMann's posts- to try to get some clarity on whether or not JPP Admins consider IBDaMann's quote box altering qualifies as quote box altering under Rule 16.

They are listed but not actually enforced anymore.

I suspect the truth is more nuanced. I think that they may be -partially- enforced, depending on the points of view of the poster. This is a problem I've certainly seen in other forums as well. In any case, I am still hoping that Damocles or another Admin gets back to me on whether what IBDaMann did was a violation of Rule 16. I see that Damo is certainly active, just having posted in this thread. Perhaps simply asking him to look at the relevant post within this thread? @Damocles, what say you on post #1316?

 

[Damocles]

I suspect the truth is more nuanced. I think that they may be -partially- enforced, depending on the points of view of the poster. This is a problem I've certainly seen in other forums as well. In any case, I am still hoping that Damocles or another Admin gets back to me on whether what IBDaMann did was a violation of Rule 16. I see that Damo is certainly active, just having posted in this thread. Perhaps simply asking him to look at the relevant post within this thread? @Damocles, what say you on post #1316?

Let me look. Did you report it? If you did, we've already decided that it was nothing. If you didn't, you need to report these things or we won't see them. There is zero possibility we can read every post on the board.

 

[鬼百合]

I suspect the truth is more nuanced. I think that they may be -partially- enforced, depending on the points of view of the poster. This is a problem I've certainly seen in other forums as well. In any case, I am still hoping that Damocles or another Admin gets back to me on whether what IBDaMann did was a violation of Rule 16. I see that Damo is certainly active, just having posted in this thread. Perhaps simply asking him to look at the relevant post within this thread? @Damocles, what say you on post #1316?

Good luck but you will see you are wasting your time.

 

[TOP]

Forced ignore is the best...

 

[Scott]

I suspect the truth is more nuanced. I think that they may be -partially- enforced, depending on the points of view of the poster. This is a problem I've certainly seen in other forums as well. In any case, I am still hoping that Damocles or another Admin gets back to me on whether what IBDaMann did was a violation of Rule 16. I see that Damo is certainly active, just having posted in this thread. Perhaps simply asking him to look at the relevant post within this thread? @Damocles, what say you on post #1316?

Let me look. Did you report it?

Yes.

If you did, we've already decided that it was nothing.

That's fine, but could you explain the reasoning? It looks like a pretty clear cut case of quote box altering to me.

 

[Damocles]

FTFY. Do you now see how that works?

From the moment I asked you about your support for contract killings, you have been totally dishonest, refusing to discuss the topic and pulling the absolutely lamest excuses out of your nether orifice. It is disingenuous for you to imply that I am somehow making it difficult to "continue" a discussion in which you have never started.

@Scott You are talking about the above post.

FTFY is an acceptable way to note that you have changed a quote. Please read rule 16. Look for this part: or inform that you have "corrected" the quote in your response to it (something like "fixed that for you" or FTFY will do fine).

 

[Scott]

I suspect the truth is more nuanced. I think that they may be -partially- enforced, depending on the points of view of the poster. This is a problem I've certainly seen in other forums as well. In any case, I am still hoping that Damocles or another Admin gets back to me on whether what IBDaMann did was a violation of Rule 16. I see that Damo is certainly active, just having posted in this thread. Perhaps simply asking him to look at the relevant post within this thread? @Damocles, what say you on post #1316?

Good luck but you will see you are wasting your time.

Hope springs eternal.

 

[Scott]

@Scott You are talking about the above post.

FTFY is an acceptable way to note that you have changed a quote. Please read rule 16. Look for this part: or inform that you have "corrected" the quote in your response to it (something like "fixed that for you" or FTFY will do fine).

My apologies. I fully acknowledge that I didn't read all the way to the bottom of the rule -.-

 

[TOP]

Even better than fake ignore...

 

[Scott]

I tend to stick to sources that I find are fairly reliable. Those sources usually link to material that -they- find reliable. I find Wikipedia to be good on some subjects, not on others, so I tend to use it only on subjects where I find it to be good.

You tend to stick to sources that confirm your bias, often are not authoritative, and almost always refer to the same three articles or books that you came to your opinion from.

I'd say that almost everyone, if not everyone, tends to stick to sources that they find to be reliable. I think we could agree that not everyone's sources -are- reliable- if they were, I doubt that we'd have the heated disagreements that we have in this forum.

I think the key to constructive debates is to try to understand why we disagree with each other. A lot of time, that involves delving into each other's sources of information and from there, making arguments as to why those sources are biased and/or authorative.

As a sidenote, I've referred to a -lot- more than 3 articles. A clue is that almost all of my threads start with a different article, and I've posted a fair amount of threads in my time here.

 

[Damocles]

I'd say that almost everyone, if not everyone, tends to stick to sources that they find to be reliable. I think we could agree that not everyone's sources -are- reliable- if they were, I doubt that we'd have the heated disagreements that we have in this forum.

I think the key to constructive debates is to try to understand why we disagree with each other. A lot of time, that involves delving into each other's sources of information and from there, making arguments as to why those sources are biased and/or authorative.

As a sidenote, I've referred to a -lot- more than 3 articles. A clue is that almost all of my threads start with a different article, and I've posted a fair amount of threads in my time here.

Yes, however the articles you refer to refer back to those 3 books and articles you began with.

If they all stem from the same sources, they are fruit of the poisoned tree.

You still have not answered the number one question: Why would every single government, all universities, every single doctor, all scientific studies, act to trick everyone into thinking that viruses exist? Give me the motive, man. You can't say it is riches, Salk took no patent and made no riches.

 

[Scott]

In any case, it appears that you agree that you are averse to using defintions for abortion found in dictionaries and encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. This is a shame, because it implies that we may have reached be reaching an end in terms of how far we can discuss the subject of abortion.

We're supposed to be discussing contract killings, but you have done nothing but EVADE the topic like it is the plague.

Come now IBDaMann, we both know that I had been discussing abortions with anonymoose before you stepped in with your question on contract killings and that you believe that abortions are a subset of contract killings. You also know I don't agree with this assertion. I've even explained why. This avenue looks like a dead end to me.

 

[Scott]

I'd say that almost everyone, if not everyone, tends to stick to sources that they find to be reliable. I think we could agree that not everyone's sources -are- reliable- if they were, I doubt that we'd have the heated disagreements that we have in this forum.

I think the key to constructive debates is to try to understand why we disagree with each other. A lot of time, that involves delving into each other's sources of information and from there, making arguments as to why those sources are biased and/or authorative.

As a sidenote, I've referred to a -lot- more than 3 articles. A clue is that almost all of my threads start with a different article, and I've posted a fair amount of threads in my time here.

Yes, however the articles you refer to refer back to those 3 books and articles you began with.

In JPP as a whole, I've referred to a -lot- of articles that in turn refer to a lot of other articles. There is only one subject I can think of that I discuss where I've referred to a fairly limited amount of sources, though some of these sources have a lot of articles. That subject is the lack of evidence that biological viruses exist. I have no idea where you got this idea that all my articles refer back to 3 books and 3 articles.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, you're doing the exact opposite of avoiding the errors here, you are introducing them

Nope. I am correctly avoiding errors and introducing a rejection of your supremacy, which you treat as an error and an oppressive VICTIMIZATION.

My set theory is correct. You have neither refuted anything I have said nor supported your killing supremacy in any way. You are simply virtue-signaling your continued adherence to an indefensible position.

No, we agree on math.

Incorrect. You are rejecting set theory, and that's why you lost flat out. You still have not specified any abortion that is not a contract killing.

It's your definitions of words like abortion where we disagree.

The topic is still "contract killing". Stop EVADING and get back on topic.

 

[IBDaMann]

Come now IBDaMann, we both know that I had been

Come on now Scott, you've known for weeks that the topic is "contract killing". You are still, nonetheless EVADING.

 

[IBDaMann]

Well, I tried to find common ground for word definitions with you, but I think at this point it's become a lost cause.

You only looked for common ground in Wikipedia where you were certain there would be none.

The topic is "contract killings" and your support, nay, advocacy, for a subset of them.

 

[IBDaMann]

Can you provide evidence for your assertion?

Let's use the word "proof"

A contract killing is the ordered killing of a living human by a customer who hires a professional killer to unalive said living human.

You support the particular subset of contract killings in which a woman orders the killing of her own child in the womb, by hiring a professional killer to unalive him, and usually to also dispose of the body.