“Both causes of severe bodily harm are largely preventable — covid-19 through vaccination..."
The author of the article accepted this statement as fact when it is known to be absolutely false. This flaws his response.
*“Both causes of severe bodily harm are largely preventable — covid-19 through vaccination..."*
The author of the article accepted this statement as fact when it is known to be absolutely false. This flaws his response.
“Both causes of severe bodily harm are largely preventable — covid-19 through vaccination..."
The author of the article accepted this statement as fact when it is known to be absolutely false. This flaws his response.
I took it in the sense that the author advocates accepting the premise to better be able to use it against them. Perhaps I was mistaken.
>
“Both causes of severe bodily harm are largely preventable — covid-19 through vaccination..."
>
The author of the article accepted this statement as fact when it is known to be absolutely false. This flaws his response.
I took it in the sense that the author advocates accepting the premise to better be able to use it against them.
Perhaps I was mistaken.
(post is archived)