Girlz Gone Wild - Episode 2 of The Ladies Who Lunge...
might I suggest a vulture as a support animal...?
Meryl asks - Outraged answers - and the games begin…Much thanks to Outraged for taking this on and doing the heavy lifting…
The New Year is kicking off with some heated healthy debates…
and since cage fights are exploding this new year…we will need some memes to stay sane…
and a Diva tip on winning an Argument: If you’re losing an argument…do not hesitate to use excessive profanity. You’re welcome…
and there’s more…I have a feeling I will be adding to this post for dayzzzz…
the debate rages on…I guess it was time to have it…and we’re off…Be sure to read Wallach’s response…
This reminds me of something I was going to say with respect to the question about the existence of viruses:
Neither side, (viruses do exist/viruses do not exist), IMHO, has been willing to engage in an open/public discussion/debate about this topic. The one attempt I am aware of resulted in a back and forth with respect to ground rules which was never settled or agreed upon (there seemed to be truculence on both sides) and therefore, it never transpired. Instead, there have been a great deal of ad hominem attacks which are totally counterproductive.
There are many committed proponents of the "viruses don't exist position" who can cogently present the evidence which they purport proves their position. There are few if any of the opposite persuasion who are willing to grant that the question is even worthy of debate. Their position seems to be that it is either self-evident or akin to "settled dogma", which is unscientific. Rather it is more akin to divinely inspired revelation (theology) rather than empirically derived scientific evidence. Unlike the effect of gravity, which can be demonstrated by everyone, anywhere on earth, this topic requires materials/methods/special equipment/experiments as well as the expertise to interpret them.
If one hopes to settle this question, it would be necessary to find proponents of each position who are able and willing to engage in a detailed public presentation of all the evidence for and against the idea that viruses exist. A set of pre-agreed upon ground rules would have to be clearly stated and adhered to in order for each side to be satisfied and willing to proceed. For example, each side must agree about the definition/prerequisites for something to be called a virus and what materials/methods/evidence will be considered dispositive by both sides, (there appears to be an insurmountable fundamental disagreement over terminology currently). Without this, proponents of each position might never engage on the actual question but instead resort to arguing past each other. I get the impression that many people are more interested in expressing their opinion on the matter than actually debating it properly. Otherwise, it would have occurred already. It may be that the ptb will not allow it as too much of their agenda is tied to it being true.
A similar situation exists with respect to the question of whether advanced nanotechnology is being used against all life forms on earth, including human beings. While the ptb have clearly stated their intention to transform/catalogue all life on earth, they apparently do not want anyone proving that they are actually doing it and detailing the methods being used.
Big LOL at the "vulture as a support animal" idea. And when this virus/no-virus argument is finally over (we can still hope, right?) the support animal can also double as the clean up crew for the vanquished. No undertaker required! ☠️😱