>>14396544 (/lb)

>>14396549 (/lb)

>>14396551 (/lb)

>>14396559 (/lb)

Just so you all know exactly where my mind is at, BLANKET SMEARS/ATTACKS without a single shred of evidence, not a single substantive documentation, to PERSUADE me that my decision is 'wrong', ONLY FURTHERS MY RESOLVE TO CHOOSE THE WAY I AM.

I also realise and understand VERY CLEARLY that this board right here ALSO has bad actors who do NOT have any compassion for any Anon's health, that there is intentional DISINFO to intimidate and silence and push a narrative to benefit other bad actors.

I know there are shills here trying to form a 'consensus' that ALL VACCINES are genocide. You do this to cast a 'narrative' that 'pro-Q' is synonymous with 'absolutely anti-vaccine'. That's FALSE.Q#1010 [NOT ALL]vaccines are bad.

None of you provided any information that treats me as your equal, which is ANOTHER signal that what I said IS OVER THE TARGET.

None of your scare tactics will work on me. I am immune from it. But if the choice I am faced with is DEATH FROM STARVATION or J&J vaccine, YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I'M CHOOSING WHATEVER STOPS ME FROM STARVING TO DEATH.

One is a certain death, the other is a possible death.

It's strictly logical.

None of the above is an 'advocacy' of any mandate, nor is it an 'apology' for it.

So yes, I will choose the vaccine Trump mentioned IF AND ONLY IF the alternative is death by starvation.

>>14396734

Your disinformation does not work on me.

>>14396741

To the point where you can't buy food or have a job?

Do you trust the military (Operation WarpSpeed)?

You sound sooooooo 'concerned' for my health. Why? You have no idea who I am or what kind of a person I am.

I SEE that what I said has triggered the FUCK out of 'anons'.

Why?

Why is what I said so 'dangerous'?

Trump RECOMMENDED to take a vaccine. That isn't sufficient for me to constitute a decision, only that it confirmed for me that Q1010 is correct. NOT ALL.

Trump mentioned J&J.

I AM JUST THINKING LOGICALLY.

IF the choice I am faced with is either no job and death by starvation, or J&J vaccine, I'm choosing what is NOT killing 'everyone' who takes it.

>>14396758

I am not yet faced with the choice, so I am not doing it now.

This is a contingency.

>>14396798

You know what I think? I think you're just angry that Trump is trusted.

For me it's logical.

I trust the military.

Military asked Trump to run for President.

Q asked repeatedly "Has Trump ever said anything that turned out false?"

I've been seeing a LOT of ATTACKS on posts that say they will take J&J vaccine.

I ALSO SAW lots and LOTS of attacks in the fake news against J&J.

So you honestly expect anons who have at least two brain cells wouldn't notice the overlapping pattern in the fake news attacks and the attacks on qresearch re: J&J?

I AM using my best judgment and I AM thinking for myself, and I AM trusting what I see.

What I see INCLUDES what is said.

"This shit will not stop until the system collapses"

What 'shit'? If some vaccines are SAFE, then those are NOT 'part of the system' designed to depopulate, keep sick, etc.

I am thinking logically.

>>14396875

>KEK! Appropriate pic if you were a J&J Marketing spokesman

Because that MUST be the 'only' explanation, right?

No, I just LISTENED to Trump very carefully.

If the world were different and the names were different, and it just so happened that Moderna was attacked by the fake news and by 'anons' on qresearch, then I would be here saying I would choose Moderna over death by starvation.

But the world we're in now has the names they do and the people and the statements that we see, so, you're seeing me say J&J, not because I am a 'spokesman' for it (that's ad hominem because it doesn't engage the MESSAGE), but because that's the world I have found myself living in. It is what it is.

How do you KNOW that by 'shot' Trump ONLY meant 'Regeneron'?

Why are so many 'anons' so suddenly concerned with my health?

It isn't my health that's motivating any of it, it's a NARRATIVE.

WHY IS THERE A IDENTICAL PATTERN OF ATTACKS FROM FAKE NEWS THAT MATCHES THE ATTACKS BY SOME 'ANONS' ON QRESEARCH, HMMMM?

>>14396932

You're not trustworthy.

>>14396918

It's not a straw man because I am not attributing any argument TO YOU or anyone else here, to then 'knock down' what it is you're actually saying.

I am communicating to you a CHOICE I WOULD MAKE IF IT WERE THE CHOICES I WAS FACED WITH.

The fact you are attacking me for having an informed choice IF that were to be the choice I am faced with, ONLY FURTHERS MY RESOLVE THAT I AM ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

No, I will not take any vaccine now, contrary to your demand I do. What I WILL DO is choose A over B IF AND ONLY IF A and B were what I am faced with. I am not saying that WILL be the actual empirical choice, only that I would choose it IF it were to be that way.

So thank you for toughening my resolve. Attack me more, it is GLORIOUS to witness.

>>14396843

No, I am not taking any vaccine UNLESS AND UNTIL the choice is death by starvation or J&J vaccine.

>>14396817

>You've

You don't know who I am, you're just trying to take all the many anon's statements and all those you don't like you try to convince everyone it's just from one person, so fuck me right?

>We don't care

I don't care whether or not you care.

You're just seething that Trump is trusted.

I am not doing this blindly. I see the reports. Where are all the deaths from J&J vaccine?

You don't intimidate me at all.

Try harder.

>>14396918

I never said Trump 'pushed' any vaccine.

The fact he MENTIONED it, he knows that anons know that information logic works a certain way, that the mere mention of it is CODE for an ABSENCE OF DANGER from it.

>To you it is

Strictly logical means strictly logical to anyone alive. Nice try in your attempt to view logic as 'divided' across people. There is only one logic.

If the choice is death by starvation, or J&J vaccine, and I want to avoid death by starvation, then logically I would need to choose vaccine.

It's just logic, why you mad?

>>14397057

>…

…

>>14397059

>Which is a strawman.

No, it isn't a straw man. I am not attributing to you any argument that contradicts your 'real' argument.

I am communicating to you A PERSONAL CHOICE.

A personal choice for self is NEVER a 'straw man'. This choice is ONLY FOR MY BODY.

>Do you even know where you are right now?

Yes, qresearch.

Do you even know the meaning of 'straw man'?

It's NEVER a straw man to pose as a potential hypothetical future state of affairs.

>Show me where I hurt you, sweetie

No, it isn't 'hurting' me, it is an identification of your post as an attack, which it was.

You're in a strange inconsistency aren't you. The topic is my health yet you are trying to both attack it and defend it.

This is why it's in principle easy to collapse the moloch cult. All it takes is to stop trusting what is or is not supposedly good for the health of me and others.

You can't coherently be both in favor of my health and against it. But that's the position you're in right now.

How's that going?

>>14397021

Show the evidence of that for the vaccine I mentioned.

I don't trust random anon comments.

>>14397124

>diagnosed

Source

>>14397123

So in that post you're not concerned with my health.

Yet you engaged my posts prior telling me I shouldn't for my own good.

Do you even see the predicament you're in right now?

You're ostensibly replying to me saying for my own health I shouldn't EVER take J&J vaccine, and yet, you're also telling me to dig a deeper hole.

The dialectic Plotinus began, which Hegel extended and Marx politicized, all collapses, it seems, by addressing the narrative on anon's personal safety, health and well being.

Are you in favor of my safety, health and well being, or not?

You keep contradicting yourself, flipping between two inconsistent logics.

>>14397175

>Astrazeneca.

Seems my 'hypothetical' scenario of 'death by starvation' or 'J&J vaccine' is still holding up.

But even then, I'd rather have bell's palsy than DEATH.

>>14396983

>You said that.

No, I never said anything about 'spokesman' this or that, that was YOU.

>You made an inference, you obviously didn't listen to anything else he's said on the matter.

False. I ALSO made an inference, but it isn't the ONLY information support I am using. Your claim of what I 'obviously' did or did not view outside this board is an argumentative fallacy.

You can't claim to know what I know. Only I know what I know.

>Your pushing a narrative - but, your body your choice.

I am only communicating a choice for my body.

You are communicating a narrative because you're not talking about your personal health when you attack my choices.

>I'll stick with my 99%+ odds of survival vs the odds of injury or death from experimental gene therapies which have clearly known posions in them.

See the irony is that according to your own false definition of straw man, YOU JUST WROTE A STRAW MAN there.

I'll stick with MY 100% probability of not dying from starvation if the choice should ever be death by starvation or J&J vaccine.

>>14397270

Nothing I said is logically inconsistent with having faith.

You have no rational basis for your conclusion.

>>14397288

It's the old guard's manufactured 'thesis-antithesis-synthesis' model of reality.

>>14397352

Jussie Paddock?

Isn't he the cousin of Gretchen Oswald?