Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "euronews"
channel.
-
36
-
35
-
21
-
19
-
16
-
16
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@0warfighter0 Please observe that at no stage did I state anything about promotion, nor did I make any comments that indicate fear or anti-gay perspective. Please stop trying to turn this conversation into something it's not, and please do not place words in my mouth. You only discredit yourself by doing either.
I am only concerned with the law being reported on and legitimate concerns of impact it may have. No one has thus far been able to point to any legitimate negative outcomes from such a law. I have looked through the statute and it doesn't appear to have anything in it that could possibly cause harm.
It doesn't outlaw homosexuality nor does it outlaw people talking about homosexuality in their own private conversations. It doesn't outlaw adults being part of societies, groups or non-profits surrounding homosexual rights or lifestyle. This particular law does not make illegal, establishments geared towards a homosexual clientele. It doesn't outlaw homosexual content at universities where all students are adults.
Importantly, it also does not introduce content into schools with a negative view of homosexuality.
The only thing this law does is outlaw homosexual content at schools in relation to minors. That is, it leaves sexuality completely out of schools for minors making that a question for parents. As such, I can see no negative outcomes here for homosexuals. Homosexual students in schools will still be homosexual, they'll still have the same number of friends as they had yesterday and those friends will naturally come to understand them as individuals.
Critically there is no discernible mechanism by which such a position alone can increase stigma, hatred nor lead to oppression.
So, unless someone can point to a direct harm I'm going to take this as a media beat up of a non-issue.
If this is how Hungary feel from a social and cultural standpoint then it seems a reasonable implementation.
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@GailBecker-MSED-CM-Author World history? 🤦🤦🤣
Man, imagine being so empty headed that you not only lie about your profession in some kind of misguided call to authority, but you choose one that isn't actually relevant, a subject authority or even slightly believable.
Let me clue you in here. People who genuinely study world history, don't flap delusions about a storybook character. Because people who genuinely understand world history know there was never any such person in reality. People who genuinely study world history understand the difference between real, and fiction. And they can discern propaganda.
We know plenty about you, you've shown us first hand. We needed only listen.
We know you're insecure about your beliefs. So much so that you need to proselytize in the same way a smoker needs others to smoke with them for validation.
We know you have delusional thinking.
That you're willing to lie about yourself to try to "win" some kind of muddled interaction with complete strangers on the internet.
We know that you have absolutely no understanding of what's happening in the Donbas.
We also know that in a desperate attempt to try to get back some of your lost credibility, your likely next comment will contain stuff you just did a web search for, maybe even direct quotes but more likely you'll try to pass it off as knowledge you already had.
And now thanks to your child like lie, that it's likely you are immature and uneducated. That provides a high likelihood you are 25 or under, but leaves potential for you to be older and just a loser.
Either way, my original comment stands as does my second. I hope you get the mental health interventions that you so obviously require. Good day.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sucram1018 That is completely false. Vaccination absolutely protects you. Your problem is that you don't understand how vaccines work.
None of the regular schedule vaccines stop the spread of their target pathogen. Not any of the vaccines in MMR, not the polio vaccine, not varicella, not hooping cough.
All they do is prime your immune system to actively look for their target pathogen so that it can be destroyed through immune response before it has a chance to take hold in your body.
All boosters do is remind your immune system that it's supposed to be actively looking for the target pathogen.
If you have a large enough group of unvaccinated people, then the target pathogen (in this case SARS-CoV-2) is able to turn those people into reservoirs. That is, the pathogen replicates in the unvaccinated host and is able to spread around infecting lots of people.
That's why you've heard a lot from different governments about their goal vaccination percentages. Not all people are eligible to be vaccinated. Children under 12 for now, and under 5 for some time to come for example. People with some types of immunosuppressive disorders, or particular illness also can't be vaccinated. That leaves these cohorts (groups) vulnerable to infection.
For that reason we need enough people vaccinated so that the pathogen does not have the ability to get a foothold in the community and spread around. It helps protect the vulnerable who aren't able to get vaccinated.
Think of it like a rainy day in a crowded outdoor space. If only a few people have umbrellas, lots of people are going to get wet, and sometimes the water will splash off those without umbrellas onto those with umbrellas.
If you have 70% of people with umbrellas in the same space 30% of people will still get wet and some of that water will splash onto people with umbrellas.
If you have 95% of people in the same space holding umbrellas, there's so many umbrellas that the 5% who don't or can't have one can still walk along under everyone else's umbrellas and not get wet either. No one gets wet and there's no side splash because there's so many umbrellas that you've created a shield against the rain.
That's the same concept behind vaccination. The more people who get vaccinated the better protected the community is, but they don't become their most effective until you get the right amount of people vaccinated.
For coronaviruses like sars, mers and SARS-CoV-2 that magic number is 95% vaccination. Once you get there you eliminate the pathogen from your community because it can't create a reservoir and dies out.
I understand that you're afraid, but there really truly is nothing to be afraid of. There aren't any conspiracies going on, no one is trying to harm you, the vaccines aren't experimental (in fact the platform AstraZeneca is built on is 20 years old).
All medicines carry some risks with them. AstraZeneca is 100x less likely to have a serious side effect than common medicines like the oral female contraceptive.
You're 2500% more likely to be injured in a car accident to or from getting vaccinated, than you are to develop any kind of serious side effect from vaccination.
I hope you do your duty not just to your community, or country but to the species by getting vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just like with protests anywhere, they aren't putting them in jail. They're forcing the bulk to move on. That's why they're using the word detained, not arrested. Arrests are few and far, but that also makes Russia seem more relatable/reasonable so they can't have that.
4000 people involved in a protest in Russia is 0.002% of population. For context, police in yankville detained 4x as many people during the 2020 BLM riots.
What Russia have asked for is quite reasonable and has popular support. They have asked NATO to halt advancement towards their border and rule out (in writing) that Ukraine will join NATO in the next 30 years. For context, Ukraine joining NATO would put NATO bases, soldiers, missiles, etc on Russia's border. It's the equivalent of the bay of pigs. Russia's other demand is for Ukraine to stop murdering their own civilians in the Donbas, which they have been doing openly for the last 8 years and every major news agency on the planet (including this one) has covered in detail. I dunno about you but don't put NATO military assets in our backyard and don't murder civilians because you want the oil/gas under their towns seem like pretty straightforward demands to me.
Ukraine has refused to abide. Yankville led NATO has refused to abide. Indeed both Ukraine and Yankville did everything in their power to escalate, and Ukraine is endlessly pushing propaganda. Al Jazeera has an incredibly brave journalist covering what's happening in Ukraine and very frequently he will report what Zelenskyy is saying then contradict him by pointing out (often accompanied by video evidence) that the journalist and his camera person were just at that location and found no evidence of what Zelenskyy is saying.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ravenmoon5111 Firstly, the 100K troops on the border only occurred last year. They are in addition to the troops already fighting in the Donbas and came under direct presidential order.
The Russian troops are standing on the opposite side of the border to the Ukrainian troops and arrived after the Ukrainian troops did.
If it looks like a duck and smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance it's a duck. Similarly if it looks like defensive posturing from Russia, and they're saying very straightforwardly that it's defensive posturing from Russia, and there is cause for them to be defensive, then they're probably engaging in defensive posturing.
Secondly, the Donbas voted to leave after the 2014 coup. They don't want to be part of a Ukraine run by a criminal gang from Kiev. Pretending otherwise is false, misleading and intellectually dishonest. Thousands of men, women and children in the Donbas region has DIED fighting for their right to self destination.
The contested area is officially part of the Russian Federation, attacking it is indeed attacking Russia. Ukraine invading it is indeed invading Russia.
What Russia is clearly worried about is Ukraine trying to take the Donbas by force. The people of the region don't want to be part* of Ukraine, let them be who they want to be
For Zelenskyy and Biden this is all about oil and gas, nothing more. They don't care about human rights. They don't care about how many people lose their lives. They don't care about the suffering it may cause. They want to fill their own pockets.
Edit: Fixed a typo
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@azimny97 False.
The UDHR and convention on refugees hold now such limitations. No one seeking asylum is "barging in" they are seeking asylum. Not all countries are signatories to the UDHR &/or convention on refugees. There are no limitations under international law on how many countries you may transit before you find one you feel safe in. The safety requirement is subjective, it isn't where you or I think an asylum seeker might be safe, it's where they individually feel safe.
The EU as a bloc have an internal law that pretends all EU member states are the same with the same rights and values as each other, so states that inside the EU asylum will count as from the country the asylum seeker first entered the EU from. This is done mostly to protect inner countries like Germany, France and Belgium from having to process many, if any, asylum applications.
However once an asylum claim has been granted and they become refugees they are allowed to move freely throughout the EU and live in any EU member state.
EU law inside of the bloc is separate to international law, and works because the EU is a bloc with common laws.
These international laws have been around since 1947. That means unless you're 76 or older, they have been in existence your entire life. They have certainly been in existence for the entire lives of essentially everyone in politics today. So rallying again asylum laws is frankly, idiotic.
Germany should process and deal with all the Syrian asylum seekers, because Germany invited them to the EU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dogelore Fundamentalist Sharia did not apply during the last 20 years. Parts of Sharia applied but most of it was excluded.
Remember that the Islamic Emirate was in control before the ISAF invasion, and they have ceased control by force again upon the ISAF withdraw. One can not accurately describe a paramilitary cult who have ceased control a government. Governments are legitimate entities who have the authority to govern. A paramilitary religious cult who took a country by force are not legitimate.
Before their control it was Russian supported governance.
During the ISAF supported governance men and women mixed in society freely. Women had rights, they could move around on their own, they could work in any profession, they attended mixed gender schools, they were an integral part of the democratic government holding positions as ministers, aides and advisors.
Music was allowed. Public laughing was allowed. Dancing outside of ritual was allowed. Attire was not controlled by law. There weren't morality police trying to flog you on the street if they didn't like something you wore or did. Poetry that wasn't scripture was allowed. There was a heavy influence of human rights and western idles. There was a free press.
None of those things are allowed under Sharia law, and none of them have been allowed since the Taliban ceased control.
The ISAF supported government wasn't perfect, they suffered a lack of real experience and corruption. But it was a start, experience, anti-corruption mechanisms and good governance take time for a society to build. Time spans best measured in generations. You have to be running a democratic society to build them though.
The economy of Afghanistan was building, it was becoming vibrant. It wasn't self sustaining yet but it held all the signs that it was on track to become self sustaining. Afghanistan had all the right signals to tell us it was finally becoming a free society.
If the Taliban want the aid money flowing to Afghanistan again they must remove Sharia law, give people back their rights and reinstate democracy. It's very simple and that's what this meeting is about
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cyberfunk3793 That's good, because I didn't make a further argument.I simply pointed that you are objectively wrong in your statements. Stating simple facts without further conclusion is not an argument.
I have no need to make any further argument, I have already stated the facts. Your mental backflips however could be construed as a "nah-uh" argument however. At any rate there is no substance or truth to your words, just mindless contrarian nosh.
I further see you are dedicated to one such false statement, which deploys more logical fallacies than I care to note, for you have continued to repeat it. I suspect the reason therefore is out of intellectual laziness, to dismiss truth in place of propaganda laden anchoring bias.
Allow me to clear that up. Your casual racism aside; which ironically represents both sides in the war in question, I'm not even on the European continent let alone Russian. Nor do I have any direct financial, genealogical or any other connection to Russia. As uncomfortable as it might make you, it is simply the case that what I have stated are the facts.
Sanctions are not a foregone conclusion to war. Wars happen every day without sanctions. Ending the sanctions on Russia would result in a rapid reduction of inflation throughout countries sanctioning them. The wonderful thing about facts are they don't rely on random people believing them, so I have nothing to convince you of.
Nonetheless, it's best you head back to whatever swamp you dragged your knuckles out of. This conversation is a tad too far on the complex side for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All radiation is not the same. Non-ionising radiation from EMF, such as that appearing in WiFi and cellular broadcast, is produced by every electronic device and motor in your home.
From your fridge and oven, to your tv, electric blankets and fans. Even the lights. Indeed light itself is a form of electromagnetic radiation, and colour merely the perception of different spectrum of such radiation.
All of the electrical wiring from the power plant to the walls of your home emit some EMF radiation, and the amount increases over time as the insulation shielding degrades. This can be to the point that in wall junctions built in the 70s & 80s can sometimes cause hallucinations and feelings of paranoia (interestingly such junctions appearing in bedrooms is a common cause of what people claim are paranormal experiences or alien abductions). Such exposure has no long term consequence other than perhaps convincing the individual something happened which in fact did not.
Wired CAT cabling, switches and computers likewise all produce EMF radiation. What one has to consider in terms of radiation output is that shorter CAT cable runs can result in longer power runs and closer exposure to the switch.
Li-Ion batteries, such as those found in laptops and mobile phones, contain the radioactive rare earth metal lithium as their active metal in the chemical reaction. They emit small amounts of ionising radiation, which is different than the non-ionising radiation given off by EMF.
Terrestrial radio, television, short-wave, CBs, etc all use different spectrum of non-ionising EMF radiation to broadcast. As most people will know, FM radio is a low enough frequency that it can successfully make it into areas, such as through concrete walls, which cellular and low dB WiFi broadcasts cannot.
Non-ionising radiation is the not scary radiation, and is mostly harmless. Certainly it poses no risk to humans in the spectrum and dose given off by any of the components discussed thus far.
Ionising radiation is the type that in high doses can be harmful, but in low dose is equally harmless. As previously discussed very small doses of Ionising radiation are emitted by Li-Ion batteries, but it's also emitted by building materials.
All stone, brick, gypsum and CONCRETE structures give off ionising radiation. Due to small amounts of naturally occurring radioactive elements such as radium, uranium, and thorium these building materials have the potential to produce radon gas which is genuinely poisonous to humans.
The potential for this production increases when you cluster the radioactive elements closer together such as when you twin cycle the concrete to make it denser and thus "printable".
That's what makes @anonymousanomaly9538 comment so ironic. Worried about exposure to a minutè non-harmful radiation, where multiple studies including longitudinal ones, have conclusively demonstrated no risk of harm from cellular and WiFi broadcast.
Yet happy about a structure that while shielding from cellular and WiFi broadcasts, emits low dose ionising radiation and has a greater potential to produce radon gas.
With as much respect as is due, it's actually quite an amusing statement to have made and demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Having the technology to do something isn't the whole story. We have the technology to end world hunger today but doing so would produce more carbon, devastate the environment, increase population even faster and collapse the global economy.
You can't focus just on one thing, solving one disaster only to create 3 more isn't a solution. Early onset osteopaenia, other bone density problems, chronic anaemia, early cardiovascular diseases, liver and kidney damage, etc are all on the rise, particularly in women on the backs of predominantly women switching to vegan diets.
Major infrastructure projects take time, there aren't just physical limitations to consider, there's social impacts. If you suddenly put 100K people in a country out of work with no chance of new employment you're going to have major civil unrest and economic recession.
Even Taalas didn't go so far as to pretend industry could be significantly reduced in cO2 output let alone become clean. The reductions he's referring to come mostly from reduced output from reduced demand. Even that reduction means job losses, and worse, poorer lives for everyone but those who are already mega rich.
Battery technology is still highly polluting, especially Li-Ion. Solar panel are also polluting in manufacture. Both solar panels and batteries have a limited lifespan after which they become disposable, highly toxic landfill that can not currently be recycled.
None of these measures, not one of them, tackles the real driving force behind climate change. Population growth. They just place us in a position where we're aiming for ever decreasing, ever out of reach targets.
If you want to do something about climate change we must do something about the global birth rate and redesign our economies to work with a flat or decreasing population.
If we're going to make comparisons to 1750, like EuroNews have with atmospheric content of greenhouse gases, then in the same period we've had a 149% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide we've had a 1412% increase in population. It's expected to be a 1900% increase by 2050.
It's the largest sustained population boom of any species on our planet in history. The more of us there are the more resources we use, the more food we need, the more emissions we create to make the same level of production, the more vehicles there are, the more energy we need. This can't go on. It's a difficult discussion but it's one we must have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianthelion97 You're completely out of touch with reality mate. You've brought into an alarmist narrative that simply does not exist in reality, and you're proposing solutions to problems no one asked about.
You apparently don't even understand what "net zero" actually means, because apparently you believe it actually does something about climate change. It in fact does not. Net zero just means you buy enough carbon credits to "offset" the emissions your industry makes. It's what politicians say in election years when they have to seem to be doing something about climate change but know they can't without destroying the economy or upsetting a lot of people.
Climate change is fundamentally the story of the industrial revolution and the population explosion that accompanied it. We passed the point of no return on climate change in 2006, all we can really do now is attempt to slow things down which is why the language has changed from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.
The climate has been changing since the mid-19th century. It's been having meaningful effects on the planet since the 1960s. But a changed climate isn't going to end the planet or our species. It just means we need to adapt to new conditions and a new reality.
Slowing things down in a meaningful way isn't something that can happen quickly. The barrier isn't an upfront cost, it's the overall stability of the economy and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that get lost in the process. Doing something meaningful about climate change is about more than just taking some reusable bags down the shops or buying a car your told is "green" but really is worse for the environment. It means a fundamental change to people's lifestyles and more importantly a lower standard of living.
That's not something that can be actioned quickly without dire consequences, nor is it something that people will be too happy about. People have to be trained to accept the new reality, in the same way retail trains consumers every day.
Natural growth is shrinking in developed countries, but exploding in the developed world. Shrinking populations are a goal, because to really do something about emissions but none of our economic models are designed for a declining population. So the problem is, how do we responsibility encourage depopulation without blowing up the economy and causing undue suffering?
You understand the environmental impact of the internet...right? That by the time you finish reading this comment the internet will have collectively created emissions equivalent to a round the world plane trip?
Do you know what mining rare earths like lithium (used in batteries for everything from cellphones to Telsas), cobalt (used in steel and electronic screens) and neodymium (used in electric motors, lasers and hardened glass products such as "gorilla glass") do to the environment? The toxic wasteland they create?
This isn't a simple problem, there are no fast solutions and many of the "solutions" you've been sold are nothing but a con job.
The climate is going to continue to change, there is nothing we can do about that now. All we can do is try to manage that change in a way that gives us the time to adapt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matts5164 Mate, you're not pointing to direct harms and I'm not sure you grasp what that means. You're pointing to politically motivated ideology. This is a pragmatic questions, I'm not asking about opinions, your feelings or whether it's subjectively "fair". I'm asking for objective harms caused, none have been presented.
Here are some examples of scenarios with obvious direct harms. If practicing medicine is outlawed and all hospitals are closed, critically sick & injured people will die. If drug rehabilitation clinics are banned, there will be an increase in crime, ODs, suicides, mental health admissions and family break ups. If seat belts stop being mandatory in vehicles, there will be an immediate increase in fatal vehicle accidents.
You have not pointed to any direct harm caused by this law, it appears there are none.
As a matter of curriculum children are not taught about people with red hair, downs syndrome, Indian ethnicity or low income. It is unhelpful to single individuals out as if a single characteristic defines them. Homosexual children, are just children the same as all others. Who they happen to be attracted to is largely irrelevant, there's so much more to someone than the gender of who they might get a crush on.
Unless you're talking about genuine indoctrination, that is attempting to change how people think; then gay kids are going to have the same amount of friends and the same school experience regardless of this law.
Similarly other than for side show freak style spectacle or advancing a wrong stigma we don't see TV with families or main characters who are/have, little people, schizophrenia, morbid obesity, paraplegia, ASPD, rickets or Hutchinson-Gilford syndrome (progeria) either. TV is not supposed to mirror or represent reality, it's not intended to normalise who you are. It's mass market entertainment as escapism.
Your earlier rant about an anthropomorphic bee you parroted off twitter was poorly thought out. No one is actually going to have a romantic relationship with a bee. You understand that anthropomorphic animals are used in children's television to escape the confines of gender and sexuality, to make it relatable to everyone, so they can just tell a cute little children's story about believing in ones self and about finding a friend you can love.
Because 6 year olds aren't sitting around thinking about sexuality or sex, and maybe you should think about those things less. If it helps you get through the day somehow though, in real life all bee drones are female so you can think about that movie as a lesbian Beastophile if you like, but you'd be missing the point of the movie.
You're too busy flogging buzzwords, parroting nonsensical ideology and trying to "win" to stop and really think about what you've been saying. Too busy trying to contradict, in order to stop and think about how illogical your statements are. You have shown me you are willing to be intellectually dishonest, to make strawman arguments, to lose your integrity, to misuse language and to disregard reality. That has robbed you of credibility and revealed you as disingenuous. Therefore we are done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arthurmark2013 A refugee has absolutely zero to do with the amount of money in their bank account. Someone moving for economic reasons is an economic migrant. We aren't talking about economic migrants.
A refugee is someone fleeing war, violence, persecution or conflict. The convention on refugees defines a refugee as
“someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”
You can be a billionaire and still be a refugee. Edward Snowden, a man with significant financial resources is a great example of a refugee. He felt persecution for being a government whistle blower. Alexi Navalny also a refugee, one who fled directly to Germany. He's a millionaire and was granted asylum. Being a refugee has nothing to do with wealth.
With that said, one would hope if you sold everything you own and withdrew every cent you have, that'd you'd be able to pull together €99 for a plan ticket from Turkey to Belarus.
There's plenty who fly directly to Germany.
Again, the majority are coming on foot through Ukraine and Belarus. There's a few who can afford a plane ticket from their life savings but most are walking. Those who have flown, walk from the airport to the border.
You're the one who actually has no clue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monro2447 ROFLMAO.
That's some nice EU propaganda you've got there. I know you didn't make it up all on your own. Someone's been watching a bit too much DW.
You want a dose of truth and reality, ok.
You're right not all 215 countries are equal, I never said otherwise. I said the majority don't support Poland. Of the G20, just 4 support Poland. Of the G7 just 2 support Poland. No matter what way you slice it the majority do not support Poland. Period.
Yes, a number of countries have come out and explicitly condemned Poland and the EU over the handling of this crisis.
Human rights isn't a virtue signal, when used in the context of geopolitical negotiation or communication human rights is a weapon. When used in the context of economic deals, human rights is a means of coercion.
If you think China has anything whatsoever to lose by destroying the EU on human rights you're out of your mind. If you think any trade deals with China are at risk without China's say so, then you are completely clueless. China own the global supply chain of essentially every industry. There's no industries, even domestic industries, that aren't touched in some way by China.
The reason yankville wanted to make clear they didn't want a cold war with China is because they know they've already lost. China already owns us all. Destroying the EU on human rights helps China by forcing the EU to step back from sanctions and taking the human rights issues the EU has with China off the table.
That's why China has already publicly started on at the EU about human rights. China can only win from it.
You've also far overstated China's problems. Xi isn't going to let the Chinese economy crumble, that would end him. He's in it for life. Not to mention, the Chinese economy crumbling would make the 2008 GFC look like a walk in the park. Picture Lebanon, everywhere with runaway global hyperinflation.
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this, but it sure is helping to show your true colours. The Syrian war is a war started and perpetuated by yankville and the EU. Syrians are by definition all automatic refugees. It's Europe's and Yankvilles mess to clean up, you ruined their country you owe them.
Moreover Merkel invited them to Germany. That invite can't be revoked very easily, you have to wait a few decades.
No one is taking over your country. No one is introducing Sharia to Europe. Those are pathetic, empty nonsense arguments to make.
Come back when you're able to form an actual rational argument that doesn't rest on your racism and xenophobia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juan-pierreleroux8323 You're spreading lies.
A third shot (booster) is required after 6 months to jog the immune system.
Vaccines regularly require boosters, the MMR schedule for example requires boosters at 6 months, 2 years, 4 years and 13 years then every 10 years thereafter.
Boosters are required because the immune system starts to become less proactive in seeking out the target pathogen over time and so we need to give it a prod to remind it what it's supposed to be doing.
However without the booster AstraZeneca still remains 75% effective, and pfizer is still 67% effective. That is, it's still giving you some protection just not as good as it otherwise could. Normally AstraZeneca and Pfizer are greater than 90% effective.
There is no such thing as natural immunity with SARS-COV-2. The literature is clear that having caught SARS-COV-2 you become more susceptible to reinfection and that's without even factoring in the high chance of "long CoVID"
Moreover, even if natural immunity were possible, people would have to acquire the infection first to get such immunity. In so doing you risk severe illness (which over burdens the health system), you risk death (which is actually at ~6%) and you risk the exceptionally high rate of long CoVID. Long CoVID is no joke mate, people with it have reduced life expectancy and their quality of life plummets. Perhaps more importantly people with long CoVID can no longer work. Would your family be able to survive if you could no longer work?
Greater than 90% of israel is vaccinated. Israel is not showing us "natural immunity" they're showing us that one needs a vaccine, and that boosters were required.
Being scared of needles isn't cause to spread misinformation. You don't know what you're talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1