heywood on 19/6/2020 at 14:46
FWIW Renz, I was not suggesting a ban.
Just think if in real life, you met someone at a party and they starting talking about the virus being a weapon. You'd probably argue at first. But when they tell you that peer reviewed science is all part of the deep state conspiracy and you can tell because the research center's web site isn't in 90's style HTML1 and it all traces to Hillary, you'd probably be all :erm: and go find somebody else to mingle with. At least I would. I'm just suggesting we treat nbohr1more similarly and not make him the life of the party.
nbohr1more on 19/6/2020 at 18:23
Quote Posted by heywood
FWIW Renz, I was not suggesting a ban.
Just think if in real life, you met someone at a party and they starting talking about the virus being a weapon. You'd probably argue at first. But when they tell you that peer reviewed science is all part of the deep state conspiracy and you can tell because the research center's web site isn't in 90's style HTML1 and it all traces to Hillary, you'd probably be all :erm: and go find somebody else to mingle with. At least I would. I'm just suggesting we treat nbohr1more similarly and not make him the life of the party.
This is so disgusting.
I remember when you could freely discuss what happened to JFK and even popular news outlets would have discussions about conspiracy theories.
Now we have to figure out ways to shun and socially isolate everyone who doesn't trust the "official story"?
Guess what? The longstanding "official story" for how police treat minorities was "appropriately". Do we now retroactively offer disgust about
that anecdotal grousing of the band "Public Enemy" and their "unfounded claims" that "911 is a Joke in your town" that have no "peer reviewed"
documentation to back up their "conspiracy theory" about an anti-black 911 system?
What else can't we speculate about?
Do we have to stay sturdy on the message that the Iraq War was justified because there were "weapons of mass destruction somewhere"?
Why the new "no conspiracy theories, that stuff is dangerous" ethos?
Because there is real info out there somewhere and now powerful people need to make sure random internet folks don't follow the breadcrumbs so
they have engineered new social mōrēs to ensure that everyone who engages with this content is a "Trump Supporter", "Racist", "Right Winger" etc.
Remember when they did the same thing to Bernie supporters during the primaries? Called them "sexist Bernie Bros"?
How well did that work?
Are we still glad that Bernie wasn't against Trump in 2016?
Do we feel good about rejecting the "sexism" of a Bernie vs Trump and following the officially approved voting pattern?
Go ahead and shun me.
Nicker on 19/6/2020 at 19:43
It's disgusting that you aren't being censored? Or is it disgusting that everybody else here is allowed to have their own opinions beside you?
You can speculate all you like. You just can't force anybody to accept your conclusions. That's called indoctrination, the flip side of censorship.
nbohr1more on 19/6/2020 at 19:47
Quote Posted by Nicker
It's disgusting that you aren't being censored? Or is it disgusting that everybody else here is allowed to have their own opinions beside you?
You can speculate all you like. You just can't force anybody to accept your conclusions. That's called indoctrination, the flip side of censorship.
It's disgusting that you are trying to develop ways to censor or soft-censor based on disagreement. I don't care if people don't accept my data or conclusions.
I know what a DKIM signature is and don't need "the faithful" to tell me to disbelieve known math.
Nicker on 19/6/2020 at 20:00
Actually we were discussing how to coexist on this private forum. How to differentiate between dissent and annoyance, passion and trolling, and how to encourage respectful disagreement and divergence of views. We are trying to describe those behaviours we exhibit WHILE disagreeing which might be actionable, not what ideas to take action against. It's about the how, not the what.
If we were as bad as you say we are, you would not be allowed to stay here and insult folks with the regularity and volume that you do.
nbohr1more on 19/6/2020 at 20:03
Quote Posted by Nicker
Actually we were discussing how to coexist with each other on this private forum. How to differentiate between dissent and annoyance, passion and trolling, and how to encourage respectful disagreement and divergence of views. If we were as bad as you say we are you would not be allowed to stay here and insult folks with the regularity and volume that you do.
Insult? Gasslight much?
Look at the number of posts calling "me" an idiot or some variant, and look at what I reply with... I mostly just try to argue my concept and ignore the slams.
nickie on 19/6/2020 at 20:45
I had a question I wanted to ask last night but all the wittering distracted me and I'm now not sure about what I wanted to ask. At least I am but doubt I'll be clear. Still, here goes.
I keep hearing that the reason 23 states' case numbers are going up is because of increased testing (Republicans). The argument to that is that it's not true because hospitalisations are also going up and also because the reverse would be true i.e. the more testing you do, the lower something is, to do with case numbers/statistics/something (scientists/doctors). I don't remember the exact wording.
If I didn't write this now I'd forget again so I'm not stopping to search for what I heard before posting.
I'd appreciate an explanation of the 'reverse being true' bit from someone who does know and can also fathom what I mean.
lowenz on 19/6/2020 at 22:43
The key is the "positive ones/tested ones" value.
lowenz on 19/6/2020 at 22:48
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
I mostly just try to argue my concept
Are you really believing that SARS2 is an "engineered bioweapon" ?
Cause here in Italy we got today the confirmation that the virus is here since the middle of December 2019 and with no sinergy with other seasonal diseases maybe we didn't even clinically know its existence.
It's not a weapons, it's a fluke of nature and the induced disease a fluke^2.
All the actual *new* positives here in Italy have not the severe form of the infection AND its lethal complications but only the light one. It can't be a "weapon".
nbohr1more on 19/6/2020 at 23:29
Quote Posted by lowenz
Are you really believing that SARS2 is an "engineered bioweapon" ?
Cause here in Italy we got today the confirmation that the virus is here since the middle of December 2019 and with no sinergy with other seasonal diseases maybe we didn't even clinically know its existence.
It's not a weapons, it's a fluke of nature and the induced disease a fluke^2.
All the actual *new* positives here in Italy have not the severe form of the infection AND its lethal complications but only the light one. It can't be a "weapon".
I don't think you can nail-down a timeline because this virus was meant to be deployed in a way that would progress like a natural pandemic.
The closest you might get is somewhere near the latest impeachment run November\December.
Now, there is really no need for it to be an "engineered" virus. Humans have been using natural bioweapons since the bronze age:
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biological_warfare)
but I am inclined to think this one was engineered because of:
1) The lockdown. We have never in history treated any pandemic like this
2) Mike Pompeo initially called it a bio-weapon
3) The virus has deployment phases that require self-destruction and a certain amount of predictive design
4) George Webb found some virus researchers who match the profile of who you would engage for this work
5) Now this Forbes article had a researcher who claims it is a bioweapon
6) "NEW" a research lab sponsored by Hillary Clinton's campaign manager came out of the woodwork to say "Not a bioweapon"
7) All the parrot news agencies went into panic mode about George Webb's statements and wrote think pieces about how "dangerous" his speculations are
