In order for a creature to want to attack a living being, it needs will
This is still irrelevant. A falling rock doesn't have will, but it will fall down and wreck someone's truck over an embankment. Will and life aren't requisite for danger.
I'm not sure what to say about the last half of your comment. I feel you. Injecting poison is retarded and now their mistake is our problem.
The rock is a natural occurrence, not an attack! TF you talking about man? I never said something had to be alive to kill you, man, only that something has to be alive to WANT to kill you, and intention is EVERYTHING.
I have literally seen PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that viruses don't exist in a lab in one of the best and most widely known science colleges in America with a guy i grew up with and you're saying that when a rock flies into my windshield on the highway, its an attack?
Muy estupido. It doesn't even track as an actual thought pattern and to me that is the biggest red flag scenario.
I decided around twenty years ago that there would be no more needles in my future. Fun OR not fun. All gone. So right there, vax is out. Nevermind what i saw at MIT.
I don't know who your MIT friend is, but we worked with virus in uni. Similar to a construction worker saying "You can't tell me bricks don't exist because I've worked with bricks."
Virus exists. I'm sorry someone fooled you. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.source
The rock metaphor was simply to address a claim that virus must be A Living Organism in order to harm a person. Broken glass on the floor hurts people and glass isn't alive.
Your twist is that something must be alive to ATTACK. Which may be true--it's semantics. But being ATTACKED only applies if you're being force-inoculated by someone. The virus is the proximal weapon, the knife, not the aggressor. And you can harm yourself against it without being ATTACKED.
Now i think you're just either pretending to not understand or at worst, you are too stupid to understand...if its the second, you need to reread my comment and then look up "proof," "attack," and "intention" in the dictionary. If its the first, go fuck yourself because my friend studied this for over a fucking decade, you're just some half-wit dumbfuck on the internet. Now! Fuck off!
Just because there was nothing there doesn't mean nothing was there. Gotcha. Show me proof viruses attack cells, like ACTUAL proof, not just some.dumb fucking link you pull out of your ass that still has some.lube on it.¹ Thanks.
¹ "Logically Fallacious" is not a fucking
valid reason to put a link you nimrod!
A ROCK.CAN KILL BUT IT CAN NOT MURDER BECAUSE A ROCK CAN NOT HAVE INTENTION. FIRE HAS KILLED MILLIONS BUT IT HAS MURDERED NONE.
What would constitute proof? I could show you documentation of a plant that does NOT produce a certain protein of our choice, be administered an 'alleged virus' into the plant, and then the plant produces that certain protein of our choice.
If that's not evidence that we know what we're talking about and that viral payloads exist...
This is still irrelevant. A falling rock doesn't have will, but it will fall down and wreck someone's truck over an embankment. Will and life aren't requisite for danger.
I'm not sure what to say about the last half of your comment. I feel you. Injecting poison is retarded and now their mistake is our problem.
The rock is a natural occurrence, not an attack! TF you talking about man? I never said something had to be alive to kill you, man, only that something has to be alive to WANT to kill you, and intention is EVERYTHING.
I have literally seen PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that viruses don't exist in a lab in one of the best and most widely known science colleges in America with a guy i grew up with and you're saying that when a rock flies into my windshield on the highway, its an attack?
Muy estupido. It doesn't even track as an actual thought pattern and to me that is the biggest red flag scenario.
I decided around twenty years ago that there would be no more needles in my future. Fun OR not fun. All gone. So right there, vax is out. Nevermind what i saw at MIT.
I don't know who your MIT friend is, but we worked with virus in uni. Similar to a construction worker saying "You can't tell me bricks don't exist because I've worked with bricks."
Virus exists. I'm sorry someone fooled you. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. source
The rock metaphor was simply to address a claim that virus must be A Living Organism in order to harm a person. Broken glass on the floor hurts people and glass isn't alive.
Your twist is that something must be alive to ATTACK. Which may be true--it's semantics. But being ATTACKED only applies if you're being force-inoculated by someone. The virus is the proximal weapon, the knife, not the aggressor. And you can harm yourself against it without being ATTACKED.
Now i think you're just either pretending to not understand or at worst, you are too stupid to understand...if its the second, you need to reread my comment and then look up "proof," "attack," and "intention" in the dictionary. If its the first, go fuck yourself because my friend studied this for over a fucking decade, you're just some half-wit dumbfuck on the internet. Now! Fuck off!
Just because there was nothing there doesn't mean nothing was there. Gotcha. Show me proof viruses attack cells, like ACTUAL proof, not just some.dumb fucking link you pull out of your ass that still has some.lube on it.¹ Thanks.
¹ "Logically Fallacious" is not a fucking valid reason to put a link you nimrod!
A ROCK.CAN KILL BUT IT CAN NOT MURDER BECAUSE A ROCK CAN NOT HAVE INTENTION. FIRE HAS KILLED MILLIONS BUT IT HAS MURDERED NONE.
What would constitute proof? I could show you documentation of a plant that does NOT produce a certain protein of our choice, be administered an 'alleged virus' into the plant, and then the plant produces that certain protein of our choice.
If that's not evidence that we know what we're talking about and that viral payloads exist...
Massively available resource to generally understand the process.