Recent content by Milk-Drops

Do you by chance think that driving means you are operating a motor vehicle under commerce?

Snark doesn't change that you removed context.

You quoted it put of context. If you read Revelations the mark comes after the acceptance of the beastof the sea as ruler.

It's such a hoax that the same president that takes all credit for the creation of said vaccine is also loosening restrictions for those who didn't take it. If it was a ploy to infect everyone, why not make it worse for those who didn't take it?

You left out that the people getting the mark do so under the influence and worship of the beast. Meaning they take it willingly

I would say that this really is not damaging to Christianity. It's like flat Earth, it attracts people who need something to convince themselves they are over something. Considering the mark has to be known and taken willingly, the vaccine makes no sense.

Not to mention that the only motive is just Satan wants it to happen. Why? Who knows, small traces of graphene that may or may not have been in a run of one of the vaccines somehow means a large chunk of the world is full of nanobots.

So we dint have an objective, we have a scienfiction concept of their being enough graphine in an injection to act as a sensor for some network we don't know even exists? Sounds like motivated reasoning. You have your enemy (satan) The motive isn't necessary because you just plugged in Satan...

I ask specificly about claims made. If someone tells me that people who took the vaccines are supposed to be dieing in droves, I want to see the evidence.

Yes, I am up to date on all my vaccines including the Covid vaccine and the boosters. You literally don't understand the articles you are referencing. You are asking if I want a vaccine that has less then 0.01% chance of even injuring me. That's less dangerous then driving to India polish, and...

That is not what your paper said. If you want to play fallacy bingo what you are doing is called motivated reasoning or begging the question. You did not demonstrate that the people died by the vaccine. Free already pointed out the paper said "other" causes. You are assuming covid. No, I have...

It's not cognitive dissonance. The issue is you are not meeting your burden of proof/evidence. You made the claim that a mass of people died from the covid vaccines. The evidence you provided is that people died after receiving the vaccine, but the percentage of people who were injured was less...

I have. The deaths are not linked with vaccine injuries.

I understand being skeptical. My position on many of covid vaccine theories is that the amount of coordination and damage done would not be beneficial enough to anyone. Sure, we saw companies like Kroger, Walmart, and Amazon benefit due to the limited options for open sales and taking advantage...

No, you are reading into the paper what isn't there. 70,000 people vs millions who were vaccinated is a fraction of a percent. In the US over 80%were vaccinated and less than.01% have had medical complications that lead to serious injury.