TTK12G3 on 27/6/2020 at 21:45
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
Have we forgotten that documents can be forged?
Have we forgotten that actors exist?
Have we forgotten about Photoshop?
So all of the "evidence" you posted doesn't matter because it's probably forged.
Your logic is a little faulty, no?
faetal on 27/6/2020 at 23:56
How does any of this pertain to the COVID-19 virus being a bioweapon?
Mr.Duck on 28/6/2020 at 02:34
Ok, who let the door to ThiefGen open again?
catbarf on 28/6/2020 at 03:02
Let me get this straight: You gave two links and said they support your claim. I read the links. They had nothing to do with your claim. Now you give me two more links and say they support your claim, again, and surely if I just indulge you again,
this time it'll be worth it.
How about no. Post the directly relevant content yourself or fuck off.
nbohr1more on 28/6/2020 at 03:24
Quote Posted by catbarf
Let me get this straight: You gave two links and said they support your claim. I read the links. They had nothing to do with your claim. Now you give me two more links and say they support your claim, again, and surely if I just indulge you again,
this time it'll be worth it.
How about no. Post the directly relevant content yourself or fuck off.
Who cares what you think.
The video has a voice-recordings for Robert Creamer and others explaining exactly what they have been doing at Trump rallies and the wikileaks messages
prove that Robert's activities were well known by the higher-ups in the party.
Why should I care if they do this to "evil" Trump?
Because they did many of the same things to Bernie Sanders.
But hey, if you are cool with "the establishment" smearing everyone but the approved by sponsors candidates then cest la vie.
Sulphur on 28/6/2020 at 07:15
The majority of us think you're inhaling whippet, FYI. You haven't made your case so far in any feasible way, even when someone made a good faith attempt to engage with your assertions - faetal's still waiting for direct evidence proving your assertion of Covid-19 being a bioweapon. If you are able to provide actual proof, then we could take you seriously. Instead, what you've done is linked a biblical goddamn torrent of bullshit, failed to point out what was even relevant, then ranted about Photoshop and the CIA.
This is not how rational, logical examination of anything is done, let alone holding a normal conversation. If you don't want people to shun you, then step the fuck up, or step the fuck off.
lowenz on 28/6/2020 at 07:40
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
"the establishment" smearing everyone but the approved by sponsors candidates
You realise that the "smeared targets" can do the same when they can?
Don't idealize the "targets" (or the "victims") in power plays.
Starker on 28/6/2020 at 09:40
Looks like Sweden's gamble with their citizens' lives didn't pay off:
Quote:
(
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-didnt-impose-a-lockdown-its-economy-is-just-as-bad-as-its-neighbors-who-did-2020-06-25?mod=mw_more_headlines)
It is a common refrain from critics of the lockdown. Don't let the cure — locking down the economy — be worse than the disease it is preventing.
If that is the case, then, Sweden should be a case study in how to manage the disease.
It famously didn't lock down. Bars and restaurants remained open, as did hairdressers and gyms. The University of Oxford's government response tracker puts into numbers the light-touch effort, showing Sweden was one of the least restrictive countries in the world.
On the health front, Sweden has paid a heavy price. According to Johns Hopkins University data, Sweden has suffered 50.7 deaths per 100,000 people. That isn't the worst in the world — Belgium and the U.K. are higher, for example — but far above the 10.4 deaths per 100,000 in Denmark, the 5.9 deaths in Finland and 4.7 deaths in Norway.
But there is also an economic question. Did Sweden benefit economically from avoiding the lockdown?
The economic data doesn't suggest that. Dhaval Joshi, chief European investment strategist at BCA Research, pitted Sweden against Denmark, noting they speak near-identical languages and share a broadly similar culture and demographic, yet Denmark imposed one of the most aggressive lockdowns globally.
In both countries, the unemployment rate rose 2 percentage points (though Sweden has one extra month of data) and the consumer confidence numbers plunged in both, he said.
Sweden's consumer troubles can be seen in other data, too.
Passenger car registrations in Sweden fell 37% year-over-year in April and 49% in May. In Denmark, they fell 37% in April and 40% in May.
Sweden's services industry confidence index in May of -46.9 was actually worse than the EU-wide -43.3 reading, and Denmark's -41.9.
Why didn't Sweden benefit economically?
“The simple answer is that in a pandemic, most people will change their behavior to avoid catching the virus. The cautious behavior is voluntary, irrespective of whether there is no lockdown, as in Sweden, or there is a lockdown, as in Denmark,” Joshi said.
[...]
faetal on 28/6/2020 at 13:17
Quote Posted by Sulphur
This is not how rational, logical examination of anything is done, let alone holding a normal conversation. If you don't want people to shun you, then step the fuck up, or step the fuck off.
100% this. You are free to believe and say whatever you please, but you aren't entitled to be taken seriously
by default. That has to be earned.
It's never good to be too certain of anything, and the more complex the subject matter, the more a person without relevant education / knowlsged being 100% certain is likely to be a manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I'll unpack Dunning Kruger a bit since it is so overused in internet discourse these days, leading to drift from what it really refers to (hasty crib from wikipedia disclaimer):
"If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent ... The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."
"In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect"
and from a later study:
"poor performers do not learn from feedback suggesting a need to improve"
So the reason you feel you can be sure that you are right about the virus being engineered, is that you are unable to discern the actual details required to be certain of that type of thing, thus you are free to just go with your gut.
If the only outcome you can foresee from this discussion is that you'll go on assuming you are correct and we are wrong, that might be the cognitive dissonance talking. Specifically, the belief-disconfirmation paradigm.
Another unpack from wikipedia follows:
"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values; or participates in an action that goes against one of these three, and experiences psychological stress because of that."
That feeling of annoyance you get when you read something you don't agree with, but seems feasible? That's the psychological stress kicking in. So how to make that feeling go away?
"The contradiction of a belief, ideal, or system of values causes cognitive dissonance that can be resolved by changing the challenged belief, yet,
instead of effecting change, the resultant mental stress restores psychological consonance to the person by misperception, rejection, or refutation of the contradiction, seeking moral support from people who share the contradicted beliefs or acting to persuade other people that the contradiction is unreal."
The latter would probably explain any feelings of satisfaction you have on other forums where everyone is down with the deep state bioweapon stuff. It's also part of why conspiracy theorists mistrust experts, since the experts tend to be under-represented in the areas where conspiracy theorists feel accepted / comfortable. So you are faced with the possibilities:
a) You are likely incorrect to a moderate extent (discomfort, having to potentially change beliefs which your current identity is defined by)
b) Experts are wrong somehow (this might result in outlandish claims, like a peer-reviewed article is false because the lead author has a fancy website, therefore HILARY)
I'll leave it to you to decide what you think is most likely, but we've been studying the human brain long enough to know that it is not a good engine for taking in reality and pumping out truth - mostly it just wants you to stay nourished and safe, then fuck lots - whatever gets that done. To get at truth, we have had to spend centuries constructing a complex system of philosophy and practical arts which attempt to eliminate our brains' inherent biases. If you think that you are somehow exempt from that, that's your choice, but expect to come up against similar conversations when having these kinds of discussions in places not populated solely by the terminally stoned.
[Note - numerous edits to improve readability / clarity]
lowenz on 28/6/2020 at 13:36
Quote Posted by faetal
To get at truth, we have had to spend centuries constructing a
complex system of philosophy and practical arts which help to
eliminate our brains' inherent biases.
Problem is: is this.....the very same definition of contradiction?
Human science (daughter of our inherent problem-solving ability as an animal species) challenging our own human (absolutely natural as the problem-solving ability) bias would definitively need *another* intelligent species to prove its "validity at large" and it's why the AI is so important and central in the future of epistemology and gnoseology.
