Did You Get Vaccinated? - Page 42 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Did You Get The Jab?

Yes.
47
81%
No, but I will.
2
3%
No, but I will if required.
1
2%
No, and I never will. Fuck off.
5
9%
Other.
3
5%
#15200439
Drlee wrote:Yea I know Igor. Its just that those of us who have been jabbed are about a bazillion times less likely to die the agonizing death you would be risking had you not secretly turned yourself into a "mud blood" a long time ago.

But, of course, people like you do not care who they kill. Sociopaths are like that.


And those of us who have had the virus and gotten over it with ease (because it's just the cold) are up to 17x better protected against the og strains and even more protected against future variants. Your half baked vaccines will not save you. You fate is sealed. You WILL get the virus. You WILL get over it with ease. You WILL join me in rebellion when they mandate your 10th experimental booster.
#15200440
Drlee wrote:Yea I know Igor. Its just that those of us who have been jabbed are about a bazillion times less likely to die the agonizing death you would be risking had you not secretly turned yourself into a "mud blood" a long time ago.

But, of course, people like you do not care who they kill. Sociopaths are like that.

I don't think he is a sociopath. He is just craving attention.
Reminds me of "needy" malingering patients that come to the hospital complaining of non-existing diseases. Constantly making shit up, faking seizures, injecting themselves with urine/poop to become sick. I am seeing some of the same behavior.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15200442
@jimjam
Oh, come on. Don't you know by now that covid vaccines are just a plot by Biden to gain control of your brain and infect you with a lethal case of diarrhea


Well just between you and me, yes I do know it. In fact I was explaining it to little Elizabeth today over Champaign in the basement of this pizza parlor I know.

But don't tell anyone. You share one little thing like this and those Q anon loudmouths will fuck the whole thing up.

@XogGyux
I don't think he is a sociopath. He is just craving attention.
Reminds me of "needy" malingering patients that come to the hospital complaining of non-existing diseases. Constantly making shit up, faking seizures, injecting themselves with urine/poop to become sick. I am seeing some of the same behavior.


You are right. He is just like that. Crying out for attention. Perhaps if he got a girlfriend..... well....

Booster for me tomorrow! Couldn't get it before because I was chasing cataract surgery and the eye dentist ;) asked me not to... So glad to be getting it finally. 10 months on my clock now.
#15200444
XogGyux wrote:I don't think he is a sociopath. He is just craving attention.
Reminds me of "needy" malingering patients that come to the hospital complaining of non-existing diseases. Constantly making shit up, faking seizures, injecting themselves with urine/poop to become sick. I am seeing some of the same behavior.


You're seeing nothing. You know nothing. I control you with this text.
#15200456
Pants-of-dog wrote:I was explaining @Potemkin’s allusion to corvids as an example of intelligent birds.

Forget it, @Pants-of-dog. @XogGyux doesn’t get it, and will never get it. He understands only what he wants to understand, and sees only what he wants to see. He was informed long ago that fish are fish and mammals are mammals and birds are stupid, and he sees no reason to change his opinions now. His understanding of the natural world is Linnaean rather than Darwinian. And he seems to be inordinately proud of his big human-sized brain. Lol.
#15200476
Potemkin wrote:Forget it, @Pants-of-dog. @XogGyux doesn’t get it, and will never get it. He understands only what he wants to understand, and sees only what he wants to see. He was informed long ago that fish are fish and mammals are mammals and birds are stupid, and he sees no reason to change his opinions now. His understanding of the natural world is Linnaean rather than Darwinian. And he seems to be inordinately proud of his big human-sized brain. Lol.

So you think fish are not fish? Or mammals are not mammals? :lol:
You seem to be putting forth a quite compelling argument for being the runner-up for bird-sized brain after Igor. :eek:
#15200477
XogGyux wrote:So you think fish are not fish? Or mammals are not mammals? :lol:

Fish are fish, but they are also worms; and mammals are mammals, but they are also fish (and worms). A fish can never give birth to anything which is not itself a fish. We are descended from fish, therefore we are fish. Just highly evolved ones, that's all. And the human body plan is essentially the same as that of fish. Which is unsurprising, because we are descended from them. Our swim bladders became lungs, our fins became limbs, and after a long, long time we started walking upright. And so here we are: walking, talking fish. :)

You seem to be putting forth a quite compelling argument for being the runner-up for bird-sized brain after Igor. :eek:

As I said, you seem to be inordinately proud of your big human-sized brain. I am sure that peacocks are inordinately proud of their big peacock-sized tail fans too. I have no idea why the fact that you have a big brain rather than a big tail fan makes you think you are superior to a peacock. I am sure the peacock would think exactly the opposite. :)
#15200495
late wrote:Why do I suddenly want a fish sandwich?

Image
"A fish what?!" :eek:
#15200536
Potemkin wrote:Fish are fish, but they are also worms; and mammals are mammals, but they are also fish (and worms).

Are you foking mental? We are fish, but human cannot give birth to an actual fish fish, just to a fish human....
I wonder if you go to the restaurant, the waitress announces that the specialties are fried chicken and fried salmon and you say "I'll take the fish" and he brings you the chicken if you will be so understanding because "chicken, after all, are fish, just like us".
Bullshit. This idea is bonkers, nobody in the field would give any sort of thought to this nonsense. My major before medical school is Biology, you are not going to lecture me about basic phylogeny and evolutionary biology and this nonsense of "we are all fish" is just that, complete, utter, unequivocal nonsense.

We are descended from fish, therefore we are fish. Just highly evolved ones, that's all.

Nonsense.

And the human body plan is essentially the same as that of fish.

Absolutely not. Not to mention, that you would have a much harder time saying the same crap about animals that evolved from an earlier branch. For instance, the parallel to animals with radial symmetry such as jellies, which despite their colloquial name "jellyfish" are not in fact fish, but cnidaria. Or perhaps tree? do you see yourself being a tree? :lol: Or a fungy? Maybe you are a single-cell archean...

And so here we are: walking, talking fish. :)

Certainly not.
As I said, you seem to be inordinately proud of your big human-sized brain.

I don't become proud of things that I don't have any control over. So being a human, is not something I can be proud, I didn't have any choice on the matter, I didn't "work hard to become a human". I am proud of my academic achievements nontheless.
#15200555
XogGyux wrote:Are you foking mental? We are fish, but human cannot give birth to an actual fish fish, just to a fish human....
I wonder if you go to the restaurant, the waitress announces that the specialties are fried chicken and fried salmon and you say "I'll take the fish" and he brings you the chicken if you will be so understanding because "chicken, after all, are fish, just like us".
Bullshit. This idea is bonkers, nobody in the field would give any sort of thought to this nonsense. My major before medical school is Biology, you are not going to lecture me about basic phylogeny and evolutionary biology and this nonsense of "we are all fish" is just that, complete, utter, unequivocal nonsense.

Evolution is about the descent of animals. Chickens are indeed fish, cladistically speaking, since they are descended from fish, just like us. But the clade to which we belong and the clade to which chickens belong separated about 300 million years ago. This is why humans are not chickens, and why mammals are not birds.

Nonsense.

Humans are fish, cladistically speaking. The clade to which we belong were fish about 400 million years ago, give or take. And before then, they were worms.

Absolutely not. Not to mention, that you would have a much harder time saying the same crap about animals that evolved from an earlier branch. For instance, the parallel to animals with radial symmetry such as jellies, which despite their colloquial name "jellyfish" are not in fact fish, but cnidaria. Or perhaps tree? do you see yourself being a tree? :lol: Or a fungy? Maybe you are a single-cell archean...

No, because these organisms belong to different clades, which separated from ours long, long ago (more than a billion years ago, in the case of the tree or the fungus). We are not descended from trees or fungi, therefore we are not trees or fungi. We trace our line of descent back through the primates, the placental mammals, the synapsids, the amniotes, the amphibians, the lobe-finned fish, the bony fish, the worms, and back to the earliest colonies of choanoflagellate eukaryotes…. But not back through the cnidaria or the fungi or the plants. They belong to completely different clades. Evolution is all about lines of descent.

Certainly not.

Certainly yes. :)

I don't become proud of things that I don't have any control over. So being a human, is not something I can be proud, I didn't have any choice on the matter, I didn't "work hard to become a human". I am proud of my academic achievements nontheless.

You have repeatedly insulted birds for their supposed lack of intelligence, as though nature itself values intelligence more than, say, physical strength or the ability to fly. Having an oversized brain is no better than having an oversized tail fan - they are both merely evolutionary strategies to enhance the chances of passing on our genetic material to the next generation.
#15200556
Potemkin wrote:Evolution is about the descent of animals. Chickens are indeed fish, cladistically speaking, since they are descended from fish, just like us. But the clade to which we belong and the clade to which chickens belong separated about 300 million years ago. This is why humans are not chickens, and why mammals are not birds.


Humans are fish, cladistically speaking. The clade to which we belong were fish about 400 million years ago, give or take. And before then, they were worms.


No, because these organisms belong to different clades, which separated from ours long, long ago (more than a billion years ago, in the case of the tree or the fungus). We are not descended from trees or fungi, therefore we are not trees or fungi. We trace our line of descent back through the primates, the placental mammals, the synapsids, the amniotes, the amphibians, the lobe-finned fish, the bony fish, the worms, and back to the earliest colonies of choanoflagellate eukaryotes…. But not back through the cnidaria or the fungi or the plants. They belong to completely different clades. Evolution is all about lines of descent.


Certainly yes. :)


You have repeatedly insulted birds for their supposed lack of intelligence, as though nature itself values intelligence more than, say, physical strength or the ability to fly. Having an oversized brain is no better than having an oversized tail fan - they are both merely evolutionary strategies to enhance the chances of passing on our genetic material to the next generation.

nonsense. Have you never heard from eukaryote clade? you are a tree.
#15200560
XogGyux wrote:Humourous tongue and cheek do not equate you = fish. Please, go troll someone else.
This is ridiculous I don't believe for a second that you think you are a fish. Fuck off.

I think I touched a raw nerve. :lol:
#15200561
Potemkin wrote:I think I touched a raw nerve. :lol:

Does it give you pleasure to be a troll? :lol:
I don't care if you are ridiculous enough to believe this nonsense, it is your problem after all. I just don't believe you for a second that you actually believe that crap.
#15200562
XogGyux wrote:Does it give you pleasure to be a troll? :lol:
I don't care if you are ridiculous enough to believe this nonsense, it is your problem after all. I just don't believe you for a second that you actually believe that crap.

Of course I believe it. It’s mainstream science now, and has been since the 1960s. A biologist denying the validity of cladistic analysis is like a geologist denying the validity of continental drift. How long ago did you study your Biology degree? :eh:
#15200563
Potemkin wrote:Of course I believe it. It’s mainstream science now, and has been since the 1960s. A biologist denying the validity of cladistic analysis is like a geologist denying the validity of continental drift. How long ago did you study your Biology degree? :eh:

Humans being fish is not mainstream science.
Cladistic biology does not say you are a fish.
Just because you share a common ancestor millions of years ago does not mean you are the same.
If you cannot understand this, well, perhaps you need to go back to high school.
Oxygen is made out of protons, electrons, neutrons which in turn are made of subatomic particles. The same is true for argon, yet if you breathe nothing but argon you die and suffocate. Just because there is a common element does not mean it is the same.
#15200564
XogGyux wrote:Humans being fish is not mainstream science.
Cladistic biology does not say you are a fish.
Just because you share a common ancestor millions of years ago does not mean you are the same.
If you cannot understand this, well, perhaps you need to go back to high school.
Oxygen is made out of protons, electrons, neutrons which in turn are made of subatomic particles. The same is true for argon, yet if you breathe nothing but argon you die and suffocate. Just because there is a common element does not mean it is the same.

We are highly evolved fish, but fish nonetheless. We are descended from fish, as all vertebrates are. At what generation does a fish give birth to something which is not itself a fish? :eh:
#15200565
Potemkin wrote:We are highly evolved fish, but fish nonetheless. We are descended from fish, as all vertebrates are. At what generation does a fish give birth to something which is not itself a fish? :eh:

You don't understand evolution then. A modern fish is a highly evolved fish, we are not "more evolved fish" we are in fact not fish.
Didn't your middle school biology teacher tease you by assuring you that jellyfish are not fish? that starfish are not fish? did you ever wonder why?
  • 1
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
Problems With Socialism

Socialism is an economic system where eve[…]

The number of public school teachers who have mol[…]

Who cares?

This. Again. Putin wont invade Ukraine. We get t[…]