View source for In Resopnse to an AntiVaxxer


I've asked myself: "Under what conditions would I change my mind about what Panch says" and I wonder "Under what conditions
would Panch change his mind about what I said."  I'd have to see lots more reports of "adverse effects" to support your "The
vaccine is bad" thesis. I understand that your counter to that is "There is a big cover up so you will never see those results".
Of course your case on the evidence you provide is "air tight". But no rational person only looks at the evident provided by
either the prosecution or the defense. When I say reports I'm not saying CBC, or MSM, or google ( I do use DuckDuckGo).

If what you were saying was true ( and it might be ) then I'd see it in other places too. For example from my friends in healthcare,
and the folk I interact with on a day-to-day basis.

How many of your vaccinated friends need to not suffer any serious effect before you think "Well I guess it's not that bad after all".

I mean is that even an avenue of thought for you? Do you leave open avenues for your mind to be changed?

Next topic: Trolling.

I suppose that if one truly believed in something and another persistently countered your reality it would seem like Trolling.
That is: Being contrarian, starting a conflict for the sake of the conflict itself and not for some sound reason.

I've often wondered: How can Panch Troll so hard? What's in it for him? As I assume you must do for me.

I can only reasonably assume you believe in what you profess to believe in, and hence aren't a Troll.

You engage for the same reason I do; Because untruths can't be left to lie ( If you'll pardon the pun ).

So you may or may not be a troll, but that's not important to me. What is important to me that untruths as I see them are fought.

Is the same true for you?