Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 55 56 57 58 [59]
[#] Sun Jan 02 2022 05:33:27 EST from darknetuser

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2022-01-01 07:58 from Nurb432
hentai fan i see.

 

( tho being serous for a second:  Im not a fan, and that isn't why i
chose an octopus when i rant about religion. it just sounded good "
Magic Octopus". Rolls off the tongue. And they are really cool
creatures too.


I agree. Octopuses are fascinating. Horses are more fun, though. I have some horse anecdote but I think I am gonna post it in some more apropiate room.

[#] Tue Jan 04 2022 17:59:32 EST from LoanShark

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


A lot to respond to here and I've been away for a few days and I don't have the energy.

First, my response was directed at IG, who is a friend, and most others in this thread have less standing to say anything.

So, here's the tea: is is a very firmly established fact that cardiovascular issues put a person at increased risk from the virus.
The vaccine does carry cardiovascular risks, but they are very rare (almost at the level of statistical background noise, and very hard to measure) and mostly apply to younger males, so largely not relevant to the discussion.

It is *not* an established fact that cardiovascular disease puts a person at significantly greater risk from the *vaccine*. Because the myocarditis risk is so rare.

And that's about the size of it.

[#] Tue Jan 04 2022 18:43:45 EST from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

These days facts are like 'holes' every one has one. It all depends on what one wants to believe, as there is research and 'scientific assumption' to back it up for you. 

My facts ( including having the china **flu** myself ) point to its all a big scam by the world's leaders, for a variety of sinister goals.  I also wonder if it the research lab chosen to fund was not intentional, knowing that they were sloppy and would release it by mistake.   "see, it wasn't us, they did it"

Once there is a virus that at least exceeds current flu death rates, I might listen. Until then, its a scam and i feel bad for people who bought into it and were used, in effect.

 

Tue Jan 04 2022 05:59:32 PM EST from LoanShark

A lot to respond to here and I've been away for a few days and I don't have the energy.

First, my response was directed at IG, who is a friend, and most others in this thread have less standing to say anything.

So, here's the tea: is is a very firmly established fact that cardiovascular issues put a person at increased risk from the virus.
The vaccine does carry cardiovascular risks, but they are very rare (almost at the level of statistical background noise, and very hard to measure) and mostly apply to younger males, so largely not relevant to the discussion.

It is *not* an established fact that cardiovascular disease puts a person at significantly greater risk from the *vaccine*. Because the myocarditis risk is so rare.

And that's about the size of it.

 



[#] Wed Jan 05 2022 10:58:24 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

So, here's the tea: is is a very firmly established fact that
cardiovascular issues put a person at increased risk from the virus.

It seems to be one of those "two movies on one screen" things. There's so much anecdote out there that anyone can pick the facts they want and come to the conclusion they want ... you, me, anyone ...

Recently-vaccinated soccer players having heart attacks on the pitch ... Carlos Tejada, a healthy 49 year old NYT editor, dies of a heart attack one day after bragging about getting his booster ... myocarditis cases among vaccinated children are on the rise ...

And of course both sides (I hate that there are sides) will claim that the others' facts are wrong.

So I remain skeptical and maintain that the virus, which is objectively becoming milder, is the smaller risk. I could absolutely be wrong.

[#] Wed Jan 05 2022 13:44:25 EST from LoanShark

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


this kind of relativism is literally dangerous. facts don't change depending on your perspective. facts just... *are*

I don't decide based on anecdote. Period. I have a more objective process for making decisions.

[#] Wed Jan 05 2022 15:28:23 EST from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The ones that dont think they are, normally are the worst.  

 

And look around you, that is how the world works. Facts do change. It all depends on what facts you want to believe. Don't kid yourself.

Wed Jan 05 2022 01:44:25 PM EST from LoanShark

this kind of relativism is literally dangerous. facts don't change depending on your perspective. facts just... *are*

I don't decide based on anecdote. Period. I have a more objective process for making decisions.

 



[#] Wed Jan 05 2022 16:05:01 EST from LoanShark

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Don't kid yourself.

Look in the mirror.

There's an objective truth which exists. It's your job to go find it.

[#] Wed Jan 05 2022 16:30:23 EST from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Instead of arguing, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.  

Enjoy your version, i will enjoy mine. 

 

 

Wed Jan 05 2022 04:05:01 PM EST from LoanShark

Don't kid yourself.

Look in the mirror.

There's an objective truth which exists. It's your job to go find it.

 



[#] Wed Jan 05 2022 18:21:39 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

this kind of relativism is literally dangerous. facts don't change
depending on your perspective. facts just... *are*

That's the problem. There is enough cognitive dissonance on this topic for everyone to be 100% sure they have the objective facts, even though there may be half a dozen conflicting truths to choose from.

"Everyone agrees on this, except for those who don't, but they don't count" isn't science; it's Science(tm).

Perspective is literally the only thing we have here.

[#] Thu Jan 06 2022 15:46:37 EST from LoanShark

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Perspective is literally the only thing we have here.

you keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, in the real world, which is not to be confused with the world that exists in your "perspective", hospitals are not overflowing with vaccine-induced myocarditis. They are overflowing with coronavirus disease.


facts. you should try them sometimes. because otherwise all you have is fantasy.

[#] Thu Jan 06 2022 16:53:31 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

People who drop dead from heart attacks tend to check in to a morgue, not a hospital. Anyway, whether your assessment is correct or not, the point I was making is that cognitive dissonance is so powerful that you can't tell when it's happening to you even when you're aware that it exists.

For better or for worse (and believe me, it's worse) the covid thing is just like global warming -- any "science" that may exist is dwarfed by the fact that people are choosing a body of facts that align with the ones approved by their political tribe, and then claiming that only their facts are the real ones.

You're doing it. I'm doing it. This isn't epidemiology -- it is, as you correctly point out, fantasy. But it's fantasy on *both* sides of the debate.
Objective truth is simply not available to us.

[#] Thu Jan 06 2022 17:28:58 EST from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I have friends and family in the medical industry.  They clearly state that hospitals are are overflowing due to lack of staffing, not number of patients. Anything else is is media spin.

 

Again, each has their own version of reality. 

Thu Jan 06 2022 03:46:37 PM EST from LoanShark
Perspective is literally the only thing we have here.

you keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, in the real world, which is not to be confused with the world that exists in your "perspective", hospitals are not overflowing with vaccine-induced myocarditis. They are overflowing with coronavirus disease.


facts. you should try them sometimes. because otherwise all you have is fantasy.

 



[#] Fri Jan 07 2022 20:52:27 EST from LoanShark

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

point I was making is that cognitive dissonance is so powerful that you

can't tell when it's happening to you even when you're aware that it

exists.

For better or for worse (and believe me, it's worse) the covid thing

is just like global warming -- any "science" that may exist is dwarfed

by the fact that people are choosing a body of facts that align with

the ones approved by their political tribe, and then claiming that only

their facts are the real ones.

You're doing it. I'm doing it. This isn't epidemiology -- it is, as

you correctly point out, fantasy. But it's fantasy on *both* sides of

the debate.
Objective truth is simply not available to us.

You say that a lot. "Cognitive dissonance." And it kinda sounds like you don't know what you mean by "cognitive dissonance" (we can't tell when it's happening, according to you), and if you don't, then why talk about it? Other than because Fuckwit Scott Adams talks about it a lot; he doesn't know what he means either.

So for me, that all is a null signal.

So, first of all: it's not like "two movies playing on the same screen." Instead, it's like this: one movie is playing on the screen. There are 4 people in the audience. 3 of them agree on what they're seeing on the screen.


But the fourth viewer is on LSD, and he also sees more or less the same thing that the other 3 audience members see on the screen, with the addition of some colored fringes (because LSD is not a strong hallucinogen, it generally does not make you see things that aren't even there; it just distorts.)


Viewer #4 sees "sorta" the same thing, but it's all out of whack because he can't *process* it. He's lost the plot of the movie. He can't remember exactly what happened in the previous scene; he can't keep the story straight in his head. He sees most of the3 same things, but to him, it's all a disjointed and incoherent series of random images.

Objective truth is available to us. I see it when I walk down the street and say "that car is red." We can all agree that the damn car is red. Doesn't pose a problem. Isn't controversial.

Obviously this is a more complicated situation. It takes careful analysis.



That means you have to do some work. Have to do some analysis, some thinking.


And if you just sit here and say, "fuck it, I can just believe whatever I want because facts are political", then you are just punting.

There is a process by which we seek after truth. Maybe we don't all agree with what the process is, but that at least is something that can be talked about and refined.



*How* do you make decisions? This is a question with a specific answer; you have to spend time thinking about what is observable and what isn't./[2 You have to spend time thinking about what your analytical framework is, and isn't, and why.

And if you just sit here and say "nobody knows", or "believe whatever you want", then you have failed to really think anout the framework for your own beliefs, or justify them, and have failed to say anything meaningful about the facts of the matter, so why bother discussing it.


In other words, your entire argument becomes "it's possible that I might be right"--but that says nothing. It doesn't actually say anything about the question at hand.

[#] Sat Jan 08 2022 12:10:57 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Quite simply, a consensus does not exist when one side of a debate is dominated by people who gain money and power, and they are actively censoring, suppressing, and ridiculing the other side. And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between science and Science(tm).

This is why it's not only acceptable but completely reasonable to remain skeptical.

[#] Mon Jan 10 2022 06:54:42 EST from darknetuser

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2022-01-05 13:44 from LoanShark

this kind of relativism is literally dangerous. facts don't change

depending on your perspective. facts just... *are*

I don't decide based on anecdote. Period. I have a more objective

process for making decisions.



Facts don't change but

1) You can use a given set of valid statistics to back nearly any point you want to back.
2) When an epidemy hits, dataset integrity goes right through the window (not talking about this one, but a common complaint I get from doctors regarding others is that datasets always get twisted, death certificates get manipulated etc. in order to contain panic).

and therefore assuming you are working with, not only imperfect, but far from perfect information... it is not unreasonable.

[#] Mon Jan 10 2022 07:02:27 EST from darknetuser

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2022-01-06 15:46 from LoanShark
Perspective is literally the only thing we have here.

you keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, in the real world, which is

not to be confused with the world that exists in your "perspective",

hospitals are not overflowing with vaccine-induced myocarditis. They

are overflowing with coronavirus disease.


facts. you should try them sometimes. because otherwise all you have

is fantasy.



I have lost track of the official local data around here, but so far we have no flood of either covid patients or vaccine side effects. We didn't have a real flood before the vaccine either.

But then I am seeing as many cases of people getting screwed by the virus as of people getting side effects so bad they need to take days off from work or outright cancel activities they outright need to do (such as medical treatments).

The mrna trick actually produces antibodies, but I think there is a sizeable slice of the population who would see no benefit from getting jabbed. There are demographic groups that will benefit and those who don't.

This is also a position I have heard from doctors that are in the trenches.

[#] Mon Jan 10 2022 07:10:45 EST from darknetuser

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Objective truth is available to us. I see it when I walk down the

street and say "that car is red." We can all agree that the damn car is

red. Doesn't pose a problem. Isn't controversial.



I have to introduce my mother to you.

You may say the car is red but she may tell you that the car is brownish crinsom.

If you want to step out of doubts you need to scan the color and determinate its sRGB, then compare it to a chart, but then you hit uncertainity thresholds because scanners are not perfect.

So, we can agree that the car is red up to a certain usable point given the proper tools. TV and social media and politicians aren't, sadly.

[#] Sun Jan 23 2022 15:43:35 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Well that's kind of the point, isn't it. We're two years into this ... thing ... and people on all sides still have the same uninformed opinions they did two years ago ... and people on all sides claim to be on the side of Science(tm).

[#] Mon Jan 24 2022 12:29:36 EST from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

<Holding the lit match over the can of gasoline>

Nah... ain't worth the effort. 

 



[#] Mon Jan 24 2022 14:20:40 EST from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

lol



Go to page: First ... 55 56 57 58 [59]