GM is pulling back on EVs

[sk47]

I note that you didn’t actually respond to any of the points I made, instead choosing to go off yet another tangent.

At no point whatsoever did we say that natural immunity wasn’t a thing. Fuck. Seriously.

Want we said was that the risk of DEATH from exposure to the virus made the acquisition of natural immunity less viable than vaccination.

STOP MISREPRESENTING THIS.

Regardless of that, neither naturally acquired immunity nor immunisation, will provide lasting immunity. So, as I stated originally, even if a person had a previous covid infection' they were still going to have to walk in and get a shot at some point, whether that be 3 months, 6 months or perhaps even 12 months later.

Short version, naturally acquired immunity is inferior to vaccine immunity in terms of risk associated with the path to achieving that immunity. Don‘t believe me? Go ask all of the Americans who died whilst trying to acquire natural immunity

I‘ll ask again.

HOW WOULD YOU HAVE DEALT WITH THE PANDEMIC?
I asked one question and you failed to give a response, instead opting to misrepresent what has been said before.

Hello; This is too rich. My stance has been those who first had Covid then survived have a natural immunity. You seem to forget that around a year passed from the start of the covid pandemic to the time of the first shots.
Literally hundreds of thousands if not millions got and survived the infection before the shots were available. Those are the people I argued had natural immunity protection. Never back then nor now do I argue that deliberately becoming infected is what people should do to acquire natural immunity. What a dumb idea, yet you have posted such several times. Better yet you try to attach your dumb idea to me. Interesting you still consider yourself one of the smart ones.

But keep on posting. Has to be helping me in a big way.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

I note that you didn’t actually respond to any of the points I made, instead choosing to go off yet another tangent.

I asked one question and you failed to give a response, instead opting to misrepresent what has been said before.

Hello; Had to point out what I noted about the control thing. This is just another example of how it seems natural for you to try to set rules for discourse. You sometimes make itemized list and then insist I and others cater to you.

 

[Burkey]

It's a control mentality, actually admitted to by one on this thread.

The thought process is the avg person is not smart enough to make his/her own decisions so they, the so called smart ones, will do it for us through law or intimidation.

The average person can’t even control their urge to consume too many calories.
Just remember that next time you start talking about how they should be allowed to form government policy against all of science.

Hello; This is too rich. My stance has been those who first had Covid then survived have a natural immunity. You seem to forget that around a year passed from the start of the covid pandemic to the time of the first shots.
Literally hundreds of thousands if not millions got and survived the infection before the shots were available. Those are the people I argued had natural immunity protection. Never back then nor now do I argue that deliberately becoming infected is what people should do to acquire natural immunity. What a dumb idea, yet you have posted such several times. Better yet you try to attach your dumb idea to me. Interesting you still consider yourself one of the smart ones.

But keep on posting. Has to be helping me in a big way.

I attach it to you because you keep insisting that natural immunity should provide an exemption from immunisation.
As you clearly stated yourself, the original infection could have occurred at any time in the 12 months prior to the release of vaccines.
Ergo, that natural immunity would likely be waning and In need of propping up via a vaccine.

How does a government go about determining how protected you are from future infections? Answer: by having a record of you immunisation status and scheduling boosters as required.

For the third time, I’ll ask how YOU would’ve dealt with the pandemic?

 

[K4fxd]

How does a government go about determining how protected you are from future infections? Answer: by having a record of you immunisation status and scheduling boosters as required.

Those records are protected in the US. It is "supposed" to be illegal to access them without a court order.
I say supposed because medical records went digital and who knows who has access.

 

[WildHorse]

GM is investing 900 million buckaroos into the next gen V-8.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

What a bunch of phonies and frauds. And citizens are supposed to trust these people because why? “Let them [us] eat cake.” I’ll start worried about climate change when these cockroaches start worrying.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-activist-dems-dropped-more-181424224.html

 

[Burkey]

That’s an interesting way of saying “I don’t understand what net-zero is all about”.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

That’s an interesting way of saying “I don’t understand what net-zero is all about”.

No, it’s an interesting way of saying politicians and elites should lead by example. You seem fine allowing these climate activist to violate the very rules they want others to live by. That these con artist can have as large of a carbon footprint as they wish, and justify it by the amount of monies they spend for the cause.

They think they can buy their way out of their massive carbon footprints. You must be OK with this; l’m not.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-labeled-hypocrite-flying-164452530.html

 

[Burkey]

No, it’s an interesting way of saying politicians and elites should lead by example. You seem fine allowing these climate activist to violate the very rules they want others to live by. That these con artist can have as large of a carbon footprint as they wish, and justify it by the amount of monies they spend for the cause.

They think they can buy their way out of their massive carbon footprints. You must be OK with this; l’m not.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-labeled-hypocrite-flying-164452530.html

Lead by example?
We can all leave as large of a carbon footprint as we like right now (to a point).
You too can jump on a private jet and go for your life.
They aren’t advocating for laws that they won’t be subject to. That would be hypocritical.
It’s like arguing that a high earner who wants higher earners to pay more taxes should be paying more taxes before the rules can change. It makes no sense.

Private jet use won’t cease. It will however become more expensive.

And yes, the wealthy will find ways around the problem as they always do.
Me not being able to afford to fly in a private jet or offset the emissions of that jet has no bearing whatsoever on whether someone else should be able to do it. It’s a ridiculous argument and it does absolutely NOTHING to refute the science.

By your logic, a person who owns a gun can’t advocate for stricter gun laws. It’s just insane.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

Lead by example?
We can all leave as large of a carbon footprint as we like right now (to a point).
You too can jump on a private jet and go for your life.
They aren’t advocating for laws that they won’t be subject to. That would be hypocritical.
It’s like arguing that a high earner who wants higher earners to pay more taxes should be paying more taxes before the rules can change. It makes no sense.

Private jet use won’t cease. It will however become more expensive.

And yes, the wealthy will find ways around the problem as they always do.
Me not being able to afford to fly in a private jet or offset the emissions of that jet has no bearing whatsoever on whether someone else should be able to do it. It’s a ridiculous argument and it does absolutely NOTHING to refute the science.

By your logic, a person who owns a gun can’t advocate for stricter gun laws. It’s just insane.

Lead be example means, putting your money where your mouth is. If you belief that greenhouse gasses are affecting the climate and yet you are lecturing people to reduce their footprint, then you should reduce your own footprint.

They are advocating for people to reduce their carbon footprint, while they have the largest footprints in the world. If you don‘t see this as hypocritical, then you are are extremely naive and lack critical thinking skills.

I don‘t care what these people drive or fly. I don‘t care how big their carbon footprint is. Just don’t lecture others how greenhouse gasses are harming the environment, and then go out and create the largest footprints in the world. They don’t get a free pass like you want to give them.

Who said anyone was refuting the science? These hypocrites seem to agree on the science, yet go out of their way to thumb their nose at the science anyway. Hypocrites and phonies. And then they try to argue to that they are offsetting their carbon footprint. No one buys their way out of their footprint, this is just something elites use to justify their hypocrisy. If you want to give these clowns a free pass, have at it, I will continue to see them as they are, elitist hypocrites, many who have a financial stake in this movement.

Buy the way your gun reference is not even relevant to the points I made.

 

[Burkey]

If you belief that greenhouse gasses are affecting the climate and yet you are lecturing people to reduce their footprint, then you should reduce your own footprint.

I don’t “believe” that GHG’s are changing or can change our planet. This is beyond any dispute at this point. The dispute surrounds to what extent they will change it. That’s a debate worth having.

Why should a politician forego the same rights and privileges that you are entitled to? If they did that you’d probably then accuse them of virtue signalling….
No matter what they do, they can’t win with you people.
They could stop flying on jets and next it would be that they’re driving ICE vehicles. Then they’d swap to EV’s and you’d be calling them hypocrites for living in homes that require carbon dioxide release to produce them…
It‘s a game that you can’t lose right? All you need to do is shift the goal posts a little further each time….

If you don‘t see this as hypocritical, then you are are extremely naive and lack critical thinking skills.

It’s funny that you would accuse me of a lack of critical thinking skills whilst simultaneously repeating the whole private jet thing, which is quite clearly something that’s been doing the rounds on right wing media.

The funny part is, I don’t think you understand hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy would be them criticising you for riding in a private jet while they ride in a private jet, or demanding that you only be allowed to emit x emissions while they’re allowed to emit y. They aren’t saying that. They aren’t asking for special conditions nor are they criticising your actions.
They will be subject to the exact same laws that you are and yet they STILL want those laws. I wonder why?

This is a classic example of what happens when a lobby group pretending to be a think tank gets their BS published in the media and then swallowed by people who want to believe it to be true.
You literally wouldn’t have come up with this example by yourself. Your reasoning skills wouldn’t have allowed it.
It’s that stupid.

What you could reasonably argue is that they might be able to do some of their work via video conference rather than in person. I’d absolutely agree that this would be better for the environment.
But, I’d also argue that literally anything that reduces emissions is also a good thing, so there’s no need to point at private jets specifically, but of course that’s the specific thing you’ve been taught to be outraged over. Seems that the programming worked as intended.

EDIT: if a doctor is a smoker and warns you that smoking is harmful, does his habit do anything to overturn the scientific evidence that suggests smoking is harmful to your health? Have a think about it.
Your argument is fallacious. He’s not even a hypocrite. He’s just explaining facts to you. If he then wanted smoking banned, he still wouldn’t be a hypocrite, because he would also be banned from smoking.

This article actually specifies the logical fallacies of the argument.



The ad hominem being one and the old red herring being another. It’s likely that there are more.

 

[K4fxd]

What is the "consensus" .1 or .2 degrees C in the next 100 years. Yep a real crisis.

What was the mean avg temp in the Jurassic period? Did the earth die?

 

[Gregs24]

I can’t comment directly on the situation in the US but what I can say is that here in Australia, for quite some time, healthcare workers have been legally required to get a range of vaccinations in order to keep their jobs. Previous infection has NEVER been regarded as a reason to avoid those shots. It’s also worth noting that the annual flu shot may/may not be part of that, depending on the specific area of care being provided.
So yeah, for DECADES, vaccine mandates have applied to people working in health care. It was nothing new.

So yeah, when a healthcare professional refuses to take steps that can prevent infection in their patients, or protect themselves adequately from being infected, both the government and the employer should have the right to refuse them employment.

We don’t allow construction workers in drop zones to be without a hard hat. It’s THAT simple.

Yes, vaccine immunity wanes over time, as does natural immunity. So, for the example you’ve provided, no matter what happened, she was going to have to go and get a shot at some point during this pandemic, regardless of her previous infection status. Her refusal to do so was her choice, in the same way that an employee can refuse to take the flu vax and lose their job as a result.

Nobody OWES you a job. You either comply with the rules set out by the employer (or government rules that the employer is compelled to enforce, like OH&S laws) or you don’t work. This isn’t a new concept.

Stop acting like there was something controversial going on. What did you expect? Did you honestly think you were going to be able to continue on, business as usual, while a global pandemic was raging?

What was YOUR solution to the problem?
If you were in government, how would YOU have dealt with the threat to the people you’ve been entrusted to protect?

Don't let the moron derail this thread with his antivax stuff.

 

[Gregs24]

I note that you didn’t actually respond to any of the points I made, instead choosing to go off yet another tangent.

At no point whatsoever did we say that natural immunity wasn’t a thing. Fuck. Seriously.

Want we said was that the risk of DEATH from exposure to the virus made the acquisition of natural immunity less viable than vaccination.

STOP MISREPRESENTING THIS.

Regardless of that, neither naturally acquired immunity nor immunisation, will provide lasting immunity. So, as I stated originally, even if a person had a previous covid infection' they were still going to have to walk in and get a shot at some point, whether that be 3 months, 6 months or perhaps even 12 months later.

Short version, naturally acquired immunity is inferior to vaccine immunity in terms of risk associated with the path to achieving that immunity. Don‘t believe me? Go ask all of the Americans who died whilst trying to acquire natural immunity

I‘ll ask again.

HOW WOULD YOU HAVE DEALT WITH THE PANDEMIC?
I asked one question and you failed to give a response, instead opting to misrepresent what has been said before.

He will NEVER answer that question. He refused point blank on the other thread he got banned from.

 

[Gregs24]

GM is investing 900 million buckaroos into the next gen V-8.

And $35 billion in EV development!

Sponsored