Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "euronews" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8.  @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
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20.  @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
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42.  Ludo Wic  The only propaganda going on here is by a couple of slavs who are talking absolute nonsense about Sputnik V and refuse to take on board anything that contradicts their claims. You are straight up lying about Sputnik V. Although extremely rare, death is a potential side effect for 100% of prescription medications on the planet, including Sputnik V. Further, death is a rare potential side effect for 100% of non-prescription medicines that have active ingredients. Death is also a potential side effect of - Medical operations - Using power tools - Driving - Walking - Cooking - Using a ladder - Swimming - Eating - Existing The point of medicine isn't to be without risks, all medicines that do anything and I really mean ALL of them, have side effects and amongst other more common things include in rare instance death. The point of medicine is to balance the potential risk of a treatment with not having the treatment. The risk of blood clotting from CoVID-19 is 1:250, anything that gives you better odds than that but can prevent SARS-CoV-2 is safer than getting infected with it. It turns out that the risk of acquiring a blood clot from the Oxford vaccine is significantly lower than it is from SARS-CoV-2 infection. 4:1M That means you're twice as likely to get a blood clot from the MMR vaccine as you are the AstraZeneca vaccine. It also means you're 16x more likely to die in a car accident on your way to or from getting vaccinated than you are acquiring a blood clot from the AstraZeneca vaccine. That indeed makes it a safe vaccine. Which is good news for Sputnik V, because it means it's also safe. Despite that, to date 4 people have died as a result of Sputnik V and 6 have had life threatening medical complications after the vaccine regardless of what the Kremlin want to pretend. Being alive has an element of risk involved. You can't get the good without the bad.
    1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1