Rocky

My grandkids are NOT your concern in any way. I don't believe you mean anything sincerely.

The "about us" page for that website has several articles with Ben Carson's picture on them. When I did an internet search on the phrase "Taiwan Halts 2nd Dose of Pfizer Covid-19 Jab for 12-17 Year Olds" the only source cite I recognized was rt.com (Russia Today). IOW, I question the source of this report.

The starting place for debate, IMO, needs to be examination/study of pertinent history (i.e 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic). That puts a number of the "concerns" you listed in proper perspective. It's important for EVERYBODY to study that history. Having done so early in the current pandemic, the resistance to sound medical and public (and personal) health practices has been quite frustrating in my mind.

"All of that being said, I have family and friends in different parts of the US. Even taking that into consideration, I think Allan's focusing a LOT more on the US than I am." Clearly.

Thank you Twinky. And Allan, my condolences to your wife for having to cope with you.

That's an argument. But it's not sound or rational.

It doesn't make sense to me that "Allan" lives in Australia and cares so much about what goes on in the US. It's almost as if he's somebody who used to post at GSC under a different fake persona or two or three.

At this point, it's quite obvious that "Allan" is toying with us. He has demonstrated no discussion skills and poor argument skills

Aren't YOU the one who expressed concern over people believing what they read without applying critical analysis, or something similar? Yes, you MAY be wrong (and almost certainly you ARE). For the last year, public health officials have been making COGENT arguments for the need for high rates of vaccinations to eradicate and end the virus. Herd immunity. Again, they've made sound, rational arguments that make sense... unlike the claim you made in the quote above.

Hey Allan, THAT is a great example of a teaser. I am compelled to check it out further. If you want people to view an hour long video, sell it like skyrider did this. I can guess (haven't looked yet, but I will) what at least one of the alleged life-saving meds in question is.

Huh? WTF are you rambling about now?

At this point, you obviously KNOW that you've been putting forth arguments (statements of position). Point of fact, you apparently want me to argue your position: Even though you clearly try to get readers and fellow commenters to believe (gaslighting us) that you're not doing that. Again, WHY should anyone give you an hour (that they can never get back) of their lives to watch a video you refuse to entice us with any reason (teasers) to do so? Simple question, yes?

How is that apparently rhetorical question at all related either to the comment to which you replied or the discussion topic of this thread?

As if you have earned the right for anyone to believe your specious arguments (statements of position)? Not hardly. You haven't effectively sold your idea. Again, HOW and WHY does that hour long video make a case that anyone hasn't already heard? We have already acknowledged the value of Vitamin D. Make your argument (cogently state your position such that anyone would want to buy it). And if you're inclined to try to tell us you're not making any argument... your response to my question was evidence that your intent IS to make an argument.

The video is more than an hour long. The guy advocates Vitamin D supplements. I take Vitamin D and have for years. How does this video relate to the covid vax? IOW, why would I want to spend an hour of my life to view the video, let alone "pick it apart?"

If you think it bothers me, then I have failed to be clear. I'm just hopeful one day you'll make sense when stating your positions.

You seem to be projecting. Argument is a form of making a statement. You've been doing it (arguing, albeit, not very successfully) all along. All of us who take a position are stating an argument. That I try to encourage you to make cogent arguments means that I hope you can form your statements in a way that inspires your readers to see things the way you do. But if you don't make sense, it's increasingly unlikely anyone will get your point, other than that you are, as you said in a comment today, about what pi$$es you off. You would have to reach into the imaginations of your readers and find something they can relate to. You being angry about something you have no possibility of influencing at all doesn't get the job done. And if you think simply stating your position would make anyone care what you think... well... thank you for arguing. In Thank You for Arguing, Jay Heinrichs endeavors to show why the lost art of rhetoric—the study of argument and persuasion—can help people understand the world, help them succeed, and generally improve their lives. In Part One, “Offense,” Heinrichs lays out the basics of arguing. Every argument has three basic steps: first, stimulating the audience’s emotions, second, changing the audience’s opinion, and third, getting the audience to do or choose something.

Yeah, that's quite an argument there Bolshevik!

what do you have against making cogent arguments? What got the attention of editorial page editors when I started getting published (op-eds and letters to editors, nearly 30 years ago) was making arguments that were able to get people to look at issues/situations differently than they had previously. You're not succeeding with your endeavors if that's your intent.

It seems fair to surmise the "powers that be" in both the R and R group and in TWI cling to the faulty premises of the good old days of Wierwille's faulty research. I enjoyed reading your nostalgia piece.

I wish you'd at least TRY to make cogent arguments when you (allegedly try to) criticize my comments.

Oh?

What right do you have to tell other posters what to do?