“Bizarre pandemic procedures” during presidential election

What Mitch McConnell says between minute 1:30 and 1:35

log­i­cal­ly ren­ders obso­lete every­thing else he utters to the con­trary in his speech, sug­gest­ing by his own admis­sion that he is wrong and the cur­rent US pres­i­dent is right. Because if the expres­sion “bizarre” with regard to reg­u­la­tions in some swing states con­cern­ing vot­ing, the foun­da­tion of a con­sti­tu­tion­al repub­lic, does not trans­late into “ille­gal”, what does?

Another case of some­one con­scious­ly attempt­ing at dis­tort­ing log­ic in a like man­ner as the one I high­light­ed yes­ter­day.

And unfor­tu­nate­ly, the log­i­cal con­se­quence of an out­right refusal to engage in ratio­nal, i.e. log­i­cal dia­logue, phys­i­cal vio­lence, has indeed start­ed to real­ize itself just one day after I warned about this being to be feared.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on vk
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print

“We are happy about [psychological] terrorism if it drives people to get vaccinated”

“The delta vari­ant is like a com­mon cold, but …”: Matteo Bassetti, noto infet­tivol­o­go tele­vi­si­vo: “La vari­ante Delta è come un sem­plice raf­fred­dore ma sono con­tento se si usa per fare ter­ror­is­mo per vac­cinare la gente!” Un medico che sposa la strate­gia del ter­rore deve essere denun­ci­a­to e radi­a­to dall’Albo dei medici. pic.twitter.com/YnPEvv0Mhe — RadioSavana (@RadioSavana) August 3, 2021 Why would one want to get vac­ci­nat­ed against the com­mon cold (which coro­n­avirus­es have caused prob­a­bly since humans exist)? A pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine who states such illog­i­cal­i­ty vio­lates his hip­po­crat­ic oath, and not only. He is respon­si­ble for phys­i­cal harm that vac­ci­na­tion caus­es

An implicit declaration of (civil) war

What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.

Leave a comment / join the discussion

An implicit declaration of (civil) war

What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.