re: WEF: “we can induce meat allergy by using ticks to stop the consumption of meat”

quote:

---

SFP derails another thread

---

Naw I'm on topic outside of responding to a few people like you trying to derail the thread

quote:

---

that he neither agrees or disagrees with

---

What a huge fail

Yeah you take them at face value which is the stupidest part of it.

quote:

---

Who has supported this idea in any way?

---

Directly and technically you didn't.

However you did ostensibly dismiss the WEF speaker's expressed plan, threat and implication of WEF advocacy of sabotaging the world meat supply as un-serious, unfounded paranoia and CT. And that Liao's stated plan was "misunderstood" and taken "out of "context".

quote:

---

Directly? Technically not.

---

So nobody. Got it. He can't support his entire argument. Got it

quote:

---

And that Liao's stated plan was "misunderstood" and taken "out of "context".

---

Now you're engaging in a straw man.

His message was clear. And everyone posting ITT has rejected it.

quote:

---

I agree - venue matters and people notice patterns in how ideas travel from fringe to mainstream.

---

You really are a piece of work.

quote:

---

Some are expansions of individual choice or speech norms, some are border policy debates, and this idea would be a direct, coercive biomedical intervention. Those trigger very different veto points.

---

Man, THAT is some gymnastic contortionism and pretzel logic.

quote:

---

“what conditions have to be present for a fringe idea to cross from talk --> policy --> coercion?

---

"Fringe". You mean those first-responders who alert everyone else to obvious and over-officious lock-down shenanigans and medical tyranny?

Well, gee. Now what would it take to mandate voluntary or in-voluntary "buy-ins"....


Could it be, National OR International "Heath Emergencies Powers? "Security Emergencies Powers"? If only there was some kind of "enforcement" mechanism in place.

I’m going to set the tone piece aside and stay with substance with ideas that you can consider if you like and I hope that others will if you won't.

When I used “fringe”, I wasn’t talking about whistleblowers or early critics of policy. I was talking about ideas that sit far outside existing legal, medical, and ethical practice. Those aren’t the same thing, and collapsing them together is part of why these conversations slide sideways so fast.

You’re right that emergency powers exist, and that COVID showed how elastic they can become under stress. That’s exactly why I return to mechanisms instead of motives. Emergency authority alone didn’t erase consent requirements, medical ethics boards, courts, or public backlash - even during a once-in-a-century crisis.

My claim isn’t “nothing bad could ever happen” from an idea like this. Science has been turned to numerous different evil ends. It’s that different kinds of ideas face very different barriers on the way from discussion to enforcement, and pretending those barriers don’t matter makes it harder to judge real risk versus narrative acceleration.

If someone wants to argue that those barriers themselves are eroding, that’s a concrete claim worth examining (are you? I would like to discuss that if you're up for it). But that’s a different argument than treating every unsettling idea aired at a conference as already halfway to mandate.

quote:

---

Tainted electro-magnetic frequencies.

---

Oh, boy...

You would’ve walked right in the gas chamber thinking you were going take a shower in Auschwitz.

You would’ve thought something was wrong with the plumbing when you saw Zyklon B hit the floor.

quote:

---

But are they "tainted"?

---

"Concerns surrounding "tainted" or, more formally, non-ionizing electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) relate to potential long-term, low-level exposure impacts on human health that fall outside current, primarily thermal-based safety standards."

quote:

---

If WEF pays him to spew his nonsense for years and years, then it is safe to assume that they agree with his thoughts.

---

You have this backwards

He has to pay THEM to get the platform.

That's the WEF's real game: charging people for perceived clout.