Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (176891)	8/21/2021 6:20:54 PM
From: maceng2	2 Recommendations Recommended By Follies pak73 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217645

f your freedom fcucks me up.. fcuk u :) ... If I understand the data and the info correctly, "vaccinated" people are producing more viruses and varients then "unvaccinated" people. So, in the interests of civilization, how are you going to unvaccinate yourself? Just as well us "anti vaxxers" are a tad more tolerant then you guys -g-

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (176891)	8/21/2021 8:29:22 PM
From: marcher	1 Recommendation Recommended By ggersh Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217645

--if your freedom fcucks me up.. fcuk u :) ... ... maybe go live in the wilderness if it's no good for you ...-- you replied to my question about science/truth with these comments. are you referring to me? how do your comments relate to what i've posted? my question's intent was to delve into your relativistic truth position in relation to your support for 'science'. i was wondering if you were being consistent. it's still not clear to me. when someone has a belief in relativistic ethics, it seems like that person would be less likely to say another person is 'wrong'... since claiming someone is "wrong" would violate notions of relativism. seems confusing. really don't get the 'freedom fcuk' response.