If the problem is churches taking too much money from people, how is taxing them going to change that? Won’t that just encourage them to take more?

Yes, it does apply, because the entirety of what I’ve posted below was classified as “misinformation” and thus removed under pressure from the government. That is censorship. The Supreme Court found you cannot be forced to not publish information from a source the government doesn’t like. The scope of the censorship was specific to social media - again, this information was deleted by Facebook under pressure from the government.

Simply because the government believes the benefits outweigh the risks does not mean people shouldn’t be informed of the risks; that would be censorship, which was what the government did to Facebook and Twitter.

My point there was to point out the efficacy claims were not as straightforward as the media claimed; government didn’t like that truth, so it was censored.

You’re splitting hairs on the remaining points. The point is that the link between surgical masks and the spread of diseases was not what the media claimed. The government didn’t want that to be known, and thus it was removed from social media.

I’m not sure if you’re willfully misinterpreting and downplaying my statements, but the lengths you’ll go to defend censorship and pointless imprisonment are startling. A society should function on the basis of doing good so that good may come, not doing bad so that good may come. I don’t see what’s so controversial about that. I’m only producing information that’s been published already. You’re the one defending what would rightly be called government overreach while refusing to explain what the distinction between is and fascism is.

Again, your arguments could be used to justify Trump removing pro-trans and pro-immigration information from social media. I don’t want anyone to have that power.

I don’t know why you’re accepting a boot on your neck. The Supreme Court is clear that the government cannot regulate the speech of an organization simply because they don’t like the content. If you would like to give the government the right to determine what is and isn’t true and thus permissible on social media, that would mean Trump could rightly censor whatever claims/information he wanted - say, trans rights promotion, immigration assistance, and the like.

Also, here’s some information about what was being censored:

• The link between vaccines and thrombosis
• The vaccines were not as effective as they were stated by the media - in fact, despite this article’s hair-splitting, you can still find a number of sites claiming this.
• Surgical masks aren’t particularly effective at stopping infections, at least partly due to poor use of them. If you give something to the general public and they cannot use it effectively, it is not an effective tool.
• Another source on the masks matter.

I’m glad we’re clear that you think the ends justify the means.

So it’s okay to force private companies to remove it if the government says it’s false?

I’m not sure why you’re insisting on not actually reading the document but alright:

On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive (whose name we’ve redacted as a courtesy) with the subject line “You are hiding the ball” and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebook’s own research into “the spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy,” as the paper put it. “I think there is a misunderstanding,” the executive wrote back. “I don’t think this is a misunderstanding,” Mr. Flaherty replied. “We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy—period. . . . We want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game. . . . This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.”

Emphasis mine is the government explaining the need for, and the demanding, censorship.

Next paragraph:

On March 21, after failing to placate Mr. Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the company’s planned policy changes. They included “removing vaccine misinformation” and “reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation.” Facebook characterized this material as “often-true content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.” Facebook pledged to “remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.”

This paragraph details how Facebook, under pressure from the government, agreed to remove information. That is, the government censored information. If you’d like to argue that a private individual being coerced into deleting something isn’t censorship, then perhaps you’d say the same about a newspaper being forced to not run a story about a government killing?

And for the sake of getting further context, let’s look at the next few paragraphs:

In that exchange, Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to “limit the spread of viral content” on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially “given its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.” The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.

Further explaining government demands for censorship.

On April 9, Mr. Flaherty asked “what actions and changes you’re making to ensure . . . you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.” He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech: “In the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election. . . . You only did this, however, after an election that you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, by your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.” The executive’s response: “Understood.”

The government, again, demands censorship.

On April 23, Mr. Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo that he claimed had been circulating in the White House. It asserts that “Facebook plays a major role in the spread of COVID vaccine misinformation” and accuses the company of, among other things, “failure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation” and “directing attention to COVID-skeptics/anti-vaccine ‘trusted’ messengers.

More pressure from the government.

On May 10, the executive sent Mr. Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken “to increase vaccine acceptance.” Mr. Flaherty scoffed, “Hard to take any of this seriously when you’re actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search,” and linked to an NBC reporter’s tweet. The executive wrote back: “Thanks Rob—both of the accounts featured in this tweet have been removed from Instagram entirely for breaking our policies.”

And this is a very clear example of censorship happening.

I think you get the idea. If you’d like to dispute what the article says, why don’t you read it yourself?

Literally the first paragraph from the article by the US Congress:

Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

And now you admit that the ends justify the means?

Really? That sounds like what you’re saying: it’s acceptable to censor information, criminalize going outsid and not wearing a piece of cloth if it’s for a good cause. Namely, it’s okay to do these things if fewer people die of a disease. This is, in fact, justifying the means by pointing to the goal (the ends). Can you explain the distinction between what you’re saying and how I’ve explained it?

So in other words… The ends justify the means?

So it isn’t fascism when you think it’s justified. Would you say the same thing about genocide or persecuton? How are are you willing to go with the idea that the ends justify the means?

You started off by saying my sources are bad, which is, by definition, disagreeing with them. Also, you haven’t explained how imprisoning people for going outside and censoring information isn’t fascist. I’m certain that fascists throughout history have done and defended stuff like this for the exact same reasons you are - “for the greater good,” “for the sake of public health,” etc. Maybe we should throw everyone in prison and never let them speak to each other in-person anymore so communicable diseases like COVID can never spread again, since if you do fascist things because you think you’re right, that makes it not fascism.

That doesn’t have anything to do with the quality of the sources. That’s just disagreeing with my point. But how is imprisoning people for going outside not fascism?

Are you saying these things didn’t happen? What’s wrong with my sources? And again would you imprison the whole country in the name of “safety”?

Forcing medical procedures on people, threatening them with arrest if they go outside, and censoring info about the vaccine is “for the greater good”? All while the people who were supposed to be protecting us were blatantly breaking their own regulations? How so? Would you throw every American in prison if it meant people were “safer”? What happened to “my body, my choice”?

Are you advocating for political violence? If so, Mr. Fed, why don’t you keep this discussion where people can’t take screenshots to make people on your side look unhinged?

I linked it because the abortion that happened in your article happened because of it:

Cox’s fetus was diagnosed on Nov. 27 with trisomy 18, a genetic abnormality that usually results in miscarriage, stillbirth or death soon after birth.

Wow, you’re completely incapable of basic reasoning.

Why is it relevant? All you’re saying there is literally just “This argument is absurd, it’s vaguely similar to your argument, therefore your argument is absurd.”

You can’t define antidisestablishmentarianism and you’re accusing me of genocide?!

I didn’t know antiwhatever was relevant to the debate. However, the definition of personhood is. And you don’t seem to know what a person is.

I used it colloquially, not professionally, so I’m grabbing the colloquial definition

What did you think of the other colloquial definition I provided for you? Like I said, it seems to line up more with your ideology, it’s even simpler than the one you gave, and it can justify killing anyone you want to!

a person who lives at the expense of another

I don’t know if it bothers you that it uses a word you don’t understand, but hey, up to you.

by your own logic if a fetus is a person then a caterpillar is a butterfly.

Again, you’re arguing from an illogical comparison. You haven’t explained why a fetus isn’t a person, and I have explained why it is. I mean, you’ve called me and my idea stupid, but that doesn’t make your actual judgement of it any clearer. Would you like to tell me so we can discuss it? Or do you just want to keep trying to chisel away at my definition like the world’s worst sculptor? The fact you’re this intent on not directly answering a very relevant question, along with this implication that I’m a bad person for wanting to protect life, are kind of weird, don’t you think?

forcing births through regulation does that.

Pro-life births are higher in Democrat counties, too.

It also tends to produce people who vehemently disagree with and hate you.

It tends to produce people who vehemently agree with me, too, And people who are ambivalent. It really just tends to produce people in general.

Rightly so

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

you monster

And to think, you’re the one who called me bitter. Projection, thy name is gamermanh.

If the law is being interpreted in court in such a way that the text of the law is being ignored for the sake of scoring more convictions, the state of Texas is begging to be smacked down for doing so. And that smackdown would be perfectly justified. The longer this obviously incorrect interpretation of the law goes unchallenged, the longer it will cause a chilling effect on the medical community that is truly trying to save lives. No, it is not easy to be the tip of the spear, but the state of Texas would owe them a great debt.

That’s irrelevant

If this is irrelevant, so is your caterpillar argument.

mental gymnastics

You can’t even define what a person is and you’re accusing me of mental gymnastics?

Looks more like you hunted a specific definition that specifies cross-species requirements so you could try to well ackshully someone. Failed miserably because it’s easy to google what words mean.

Right, it’s very easy to Google what words mean. That’s why I found three different definitions. Sticking with one you found from a dictionary in the face of three more authoritative sources is odd - especially since the same page cites the Britannica article I linked in the last post. From the same page, this definition sounds like it lines up better with your ideology:

a person who lives at the expense of another

Anyway…

I won’t, because your definition of “people” is faulty

But you can’t explain why…

and I don’t want to say anything you’ll take wrongly.

…or what you think a person is. Would you like to share that, or are you going to continue hiding behind ambiguity because it’s easier to attack something you can actually understand?

It pleases me to know bitter idiots like you are

I suppose that’s one benefit of refusing to explain your arguments. Can’t be stupid if you never say anything at all!

in fact, a dying breed who will be remembered as the stains on history you are 🙂

Ironic, since pro-life people give birth more than pro-choice people.

In one respect, they are similar: a caterpillar is the same species as the butterfly which it becomes, just like fetuses are to humans. In another sense, they are significantly different: no human society regards a butterfly’s life as highly as a born human’s. What moral ramifications are there for stepping on a butterfly that wouldn’t be relevant if it was still a caterpillar, and vice versa? If there are none, then it makes no sense to compare the two on that basis.

1. Here are the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia (citing a scientific textbook on archive.org that isn’t currently available, but apparently it was at some point) stating that a parasite is a member of a different species. Since the link won’t work, here is the definition given:

An animal or plant that gets nutrients by living on or in an organism of another species. A complete parasite gets all of its nutrients from the host organism, but a semi-parasite gets only some of its nutrients from the host.

I suspected you wouldn’t settle for a non-medical source for something with a precise technical definition, which is why I used that page.

2. If we’re just throwing whatever labels we want onto words like “parasite,” then what’s stopping us from using the same label for disabled people? Or born babies? Or children who still depend on their parents? Or people who depend on the structure of society in general? Since we’ve already slipped down the genocide slope of deciding that fetuses are parasites, why shouldn’t we go a little further for the good of the human race? They’re a burden anyway, right?

I won’t be mean to you, either, if you admit that killing innocent people is wrong and so is erasing personhood from human beings. If nobody here can admit that, then their disrespect means nothing to me.

I did. Here’s how I replied:

That threat was because she could have sought a C-section. If I’m understanding this page correctly, one’s fertility is reduced by about 13% after a C-section. If I’m not, feel free to show me how I got it wrong. Did that guy ever end up prosecuting anyone involved, though? Why would a judge side with the prosecution after a court literally gave her an order permitting her to do that?

Elaborating further, though the odds of the baby surviving past the first year are only 5-10%, its life should still be preserved if possible. People can and do elect to have surgery despite a low chance of survival.