Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

I think DeepBreath87 DeepBreath87 just gave an excellent example.

No it's not. There's nothing inherently condescending about asking questions designed to steer the subject towards the right answer.

If he's free to extrapolate to whatever degree he likes, he can't "go too far". He can go too far for your liking but that's a different thing. The problem here is that there are qualifiers missing in your propositions. e.g. you constantly assume that you know the truth and your interlocutor doesn't. That comes across as condescending and arrogant.

We're not talking about what I like. It's about what is justified by the evidence. We are discussing scientific matters after all, not matters of opinion. This necessitates a certain degree of specificity and showing of work.

It isn't, you need those qualifiers from time to time. You can't just blanket assume that the sources you cite are always telling the truth and not withholding or distorting information, unless you've verified each and every one of them personally. The core issue here is trust. Just because other people are not as trusting or optimistic as you are doesn't mean their perspective is not valid.

You're arguing semantics now. This is irrelevant to the point at hand. I am not invalidating Zefa's perspective. I'm showing him how it does not match the data he's presenting.

 

[Chaplain]

Fellow posters, can we focus on having civil discourse and not on our differences. We were all forced to deal with a pretty brutal year that reset our planet. We should be uniting together, focused on our commonalities.

 

[DeepBreath87]

No it's not. There's nothing inherently condescending about asking questions designed to steer the subject towards the right answer.


We're not talking about what I like. It's about what is justified by the evidence. We are discussing scientific matters after all, not matters of opinion. This necessitates a certain degree of specificity and showing of work.


You're arguing semantics now. This is irrelevant to the point at hand. I am not invalidating Zefa's perspective. I'm showing him how it does not match the data he's presenting.

You’re just full of shit dude. Either that you have some kind of interpersonal disorder that makes it difficult for you to deal with other people. If multiple people are telling you something and you choose not to hear it, that’s kind of another example of your arrogance, now isn’t it?

“Designed to steer the subject towards the right answer?” The subject? Where do you think you are exactly? And who do you think you are? Again. This is arrogance. The fact you can’t see it as such really just reinforces this.

For a guy who was recommending self reflection, you really have a hard time doing it yourself.

If someone said to me, “hey, you can be an asshole online sometimes.” I wouldn’t be like “no way man! You’re wrong.” Have some self awareness.

 

[Pol Pot]

Fellow posters, can we focus on having civil discourse and not on our differences. We were all forced to deal with a pretty brutal year that reset our planet. We should be uniting together, focused on our commonalities.

You’re just full of shit dude. Either that you have some kind of interpersonal disorder that makes it difficult for you to deal with other people. If multiple people are telling you something and you choose not to hear it, that’s kind of another example of your arrogance, now isn’t it?

“Designed to steer the subject towards the right answer?” The subject? Where do you think you are exactly? And who do you think you are? Again. This is arrogance. The fact you can’t see it as such really just reinforces this.

For a guy who was recommending self reflection, you really have a hard time doing it yourself.

Apparently not Chaplain

 

[Rentahamster]

You’re just full of shit dude.

Well that's polite of you.

Either that you have some kind of interpersonal disorder that makes it difficult for you to deal with other people. If multiple people are telling you something and you choose not to hear it, that’s kind of another example of your arrogance, now isn’t it?

Argumentum ad populum. The way to resolve this is to show specifically how rude I've been that doesn't rely on feelings.

“Designed to steer the subject towards the right answer?” The subject? Where do you think you are exactly? And who do you think you are? Again. This is arrogance. The fact you can’t see it as such really just reinforces this.

For a guy who was recommending self reflection, you really have a hard time doing it yourself.

For a guy who is recommending self reflection, I sure did ask quite nicely for any dissenting opinions about my behavior and accepted input.

Where do I think I am? On a discussion forum. Discussing matters.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Apparently not Chaplain

I literally posted that about 30 seconds after

Well that's polite of you.


Argumentum ad populum. The way to resolve this is to show specifically how rude I've been that doesn't rely on feelings.


For a guy who is recommending self reflection, I sure did ask quite nicely for any dissenting opinions about my behavior and accepted input.

Where do I think I am? On a discussion forum. Discussing matters.

I did show you. Several times. You are incapable of accepting it even when others point it out besides me. Which is an example of… wait for it. Arrogance.

 

[Rentahamster]

I literally posted that about 30 seconds after

I did show you. Several times. You are incapable of accepting it even when others point it out besides me. Which is an example of… wait for it. Arrogance.

I accepted that, and I pointed out how there's nothing inherently insulting about the way I typed that out. No insults, no expletives, no belittling present. If you can't point out any specific hostile language, then I can only assume that this is a difference of interpretation, which is quite easy to do on the internet, and my response is "no condescension is intended so please do not interpret my text in the worst way possible".

 

[DeepBreath87]

I accepted that, and I pointed out how there's nothing inherently insulting about the way I typed that out. No insults, no expletives, no belittling present. If you can't point out any specific hostile language, then I can only assume that this is a difference of interpretation, which is quite easy to do on the internet, and my response is "no condescension is intended so please do not interpret my text in the worst way possible".

Or… you could adjust your writing style. Like if multiple pointed out that I am abrasive online at times, I wouldn’t be immediately in denial about it. Again, self awareness. At that point I can either accept that yes, I am willing to come across as abrasive, or I can adjust so that I don’t come across that way. You don’t get to dictate how others receive your writing just by virtue of you saying so. If multiple people, people who don’t know each other or agree about things, are telling you that you are being arrogant, and you persist to tell them that no, they are all wrong, and that because you don’t feel you’re being arrogant, that is the way it is, that is, in fact, you being arrogant. You don’t dictate how you are to be received. Other people do. And if you’re consistently told something by others and reject it, that’s a you problem at that point.

But this has gone on long enough. I’d just leave this as a lesson to you at this point on self reflection.

 

[QSD]

No it's not. There's nothing inherently condescending about asking questions designed to steer the subject towards the right answer.

There is; assuming you know the right answer.

We're not talking about what I like. It's about what is justified by the evidence. We are discussing scientific matters after all, not matters of opinion. This necessitates a certain degree of specificity and showing of work.

We've just agreed that we are extrapolating/speculating. That doesn't need to be justified by evidence.
Everything you write on this forum falls under the rubric of 'opinion', this isn't a journal or an official debate.
If you try to dictate the terms of the conversation like this, that comes across as overbearing and obnoxious.

You're arguing semantics now. This is irrelevant to the point at hand. I am not invalidating Zefa's perspective. I'm showing him how it does not match the data he's presenting.

I'm trying to explain why your tone is bothering people. You can take it to heart or just continue on. Either way, I'm going to sleep.

 

[Pol Pot]

I feel like Rentahamster has been informative, engaging, and concise in their posts in this topic.
I appreciate the knowledge and effort.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You really have to believe me when I tell you that I'm not approaching this with condescension or arrogance. I haven't once insulted you or your intelligence. I haven't once resorted to passive aggressive language. If you can quote me where I did, I'll take it back, but I really don't see how you're interpreting it that way.

I'll take your word for it and stop bringing it up if that's not your intent.

That's missing the point somewhat. I haven't stated any conclusions because my conclusions, as anyone else's, should mirror the conclusions of the paper. I'm pointing out to you that the conclusions you're coming to aren't necessarily supported by the paper itself and that you're extrapolating too far than is justified.

Again, I was responding to this sentence primarily: "The protein is dangerous, sure, when attached to the actual COVID19 virus. However, the spike protein on its own is not." That seems pretty conclusive to me...

In regards to the conclusion not being supported by the paper, well, here's a tweet from one of the authors of the paper that seems to support the idea that the spike proteins are likely doing damage to humans as well independent of the virus.



Now, he's of course arguing with people who are anti-COVID vax and using his paper to claim the vaccines aren't safe, which he thinks is preposterous and he explains his thoughts in other tweets that can be found in this article: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-deadly-coronavirus-spike-protein/

 

[Chaplain]

This chart is extremely helpful on how to continue having civil discourse.

 

[Lanrutcon]

Damn, where are you?

A friend's kid got sick and the doctor didn't even test her for Covid because the numbers are so low she said there was no way.

South Africa. We're busy with wave 3 atm.

 

[llien]

Germany as of today (left) vs 9th of june (right), grey area means zero (!!!) new cases in the last 7 days:

Number of infections per 100k down to 15.5 per week with downward trend.

Where I leave, nearly everything has opened (restaurants, non-food shops etc), I wonder what/when we'll see impact.



In Europe cases are dropping, with Portugal, UK and Russia being notable exceptions (Russians are not vaccinated, UK is nearly open and has delta shit, Portugal is the favorite tourism destination for Brits, perhaps they got lots of delta too), Albania also is seeing increase, but number of cases is laughably low:

#	Country, Other	Cases in the last 7 days	Cases in the preceding 7 days	Weekly Case % Change	Cases in the last 7 days/1M pop	Deaths in the last 7 days	Deaths in the preceding 7 days	Weekly Death % Change	Deaths in the last 7 days/1M pop	Population
1	Russia	86,542	63,949	+35%	593	2,684	2,616	+3%	18	145,994,086
2	Germany	13,860	20,423	-32%	165	562	817	-31%	7	84,039,039
3	UK	52,077	35,796	+45%	763	66	59	+12%	1.0	68,225,401
4	France	27,435	46,595	-41%	419	390	531	-27%	6	65,411,076
5	Italy	12,083	15,875	-24%	200	450	460	-2%	7	60,377,078
6	Spain	24,863	29,232	-15%	532	281	283	-1%	6	46,772,033
7	Ukraine	8,926	12,558	-29%	205	477	679	-30%	11	43,483,060
8	Poland	2,279	3,049	-25%	60	414	415	0%	11	37,807,102
9	Romania	824	1,215	-32%	43	103	167	-38%	5	19,115,223
10	Netherlands	9,169	14,967	-39%	534	33	58	-43%	2	17,170,982
11	Belgium	5,536	9,602	-42%	476	55	93	-41%	5	11,637,638
12	Czechia	1,416	2,330	-39%	132	19	36	-47%	2	10,727,905
13	Greece	5,235	7,860	-33%	505	136	206	-34%	13	10,374,487
14	Portugal	5,038	3,941	+28%	495	11	11	0%	1	10,168,359
15	Sweden	2,744	7,700	-64%	270	3	24	-88%	0.3	10,159,183
16	Hungary	956	1,551	-38%	99	59	133	-56%	6	9,636,963
17	Belarus	5,938	5,983	-0.8%	629	68	68	0%	7	9,446,361
18	Austria	1,653	2,264	-27%	183	22	37	-41%	2	9,055,300
19	Switzerland	2,366	3,629	-35%	271	20	31	-35%	2	8,714,827
20	Serbia	1,175	1,368	-14%	135	46	59	-22%	5	8,703,804
21	Bulgaria	812	1,104	-26%	118	61	154	-60%	9	6,898,520
22	Denmark	3,163	5,721	-45%	544	6	4	+50%	1	5,811,623
23	Finland	569	793	-28%	103	5	3	+67%	0.9	5,548,919
24	Slovakia	587	730	-20%	107	27	71	-62%	5	5,462,162
25	Norway	1,211	1,950	-38%	222	5	1	+400%	0.9	5,461,559
26	Ireland	2,235	2,844	-21%	448	0	0	0%	0	4,990,198
27	Croatia	973	1,427	-32%	238	61	65	-6%	15	4,081,110
28	Moldova	329	315	+4%	82	17	30	-43%	4	4,025,024
29	Bosnia and Herzegovina	258	398	-35%	79	84	158	-47%	26	3,261,346
30	Albania	77	69	+12%	27	1	1	0%	0.3	2,874,802
31	Lithuania	1,268	2,143	-41%	472	32	40	-20%	12	2,685,987
32	North Macedonia	122	151	-19%	59	14	45	-69%	7	2,083,292
33	Slovenia	1,035	1,710	-39%	498	16	15	+7%	8	2,079,210
34	Latvia	1,216	1,689	-28%	652	43	37	+16%	23	1,866,280
35	Estonia	382	613	-38%	288	2	12	-83%	2	1,327,385
36	Luxembourg	189	324	-42%	297	0	3	-100%	0	635,641
37	Montenegro	130	211	-38%	207	8	10	-20%	13	628,142
38	Malta	11	36	-69%	25	0	0	0%	0	442,663
39	Iceland	9	26	-65%	26	0	0	0%	0	343,350

 

[BouncyFrag]

Fellow posters, can we focus on having civil discourse and not on our differences. We were all forced to deal with a pretty brutal year that reset our planet. We should be uniting together, focused on our commonalities.

Don’t read the comments:

 

[betrayal]

Vaccines incredibly effective against new Indian variant :




Get. Your. Bloody. Vaccine. Please.

I am absolutely in favor of vaccination, but these numbers are absolutely meaningless without context. You could also write "96% of all vaccinated people will drink or eat something that they like during the next 3 days.". That would have a similar amount of meaningfulness.

The U.S. had the highest number of infected people on Jan. 24, with ~9 million active cases. Hospitalizations on January 24, including the previous four weeks, totaled around ~430,000. This means that the hospitalization rate was 4.8%. This is a simplified calculation, but even if you add one or two percent and exaggerate, take other time periods or so, it doesn't really change much. The figures are available for everyone to see. Anyone can check them (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#hospitalizations or https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ ...and a lot more).

Of course, vaccination also protects against infection per se and it's only about the delta variant, but hospitalizations are certainly anything but a good benchmark...without any meaningful context.

 

[Birdo]

We should be uniting together, focused on our commonalities.

Impossible now. We are segregated by vaccinated and un-vaccinated, narrative believers and un-believers, authoritative people and anti-authoritative people.

The pandemic is dividing people like nothing in the world has ever done before. And it's only going to get worse.

 

[SF Kosmo]

South Africa. We're busy with wave 3 atm.

Oh yeah, poor South Africa is getting lit up right now. Most of South America too.

It also looks like every country that used SinoVac is getting fucked up right now, like that shit doesn't seem to work AT ALL or at least not on new strains.

Except for China, which hasn't reported any Covid deaths in like a year. I guess it only works when combined with the benevolent love of eternal President Xi.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I am absolutely in favor of vaccination, but these numbers are absolutely meaningless without context. You could also write "96% of all vaccinated people will drink or eat something that they like during the next 3 days.". That would have a similar amount of meaningfulness.

The U.S. had the highest number of infected people on Jan. 24, with ~9 million active cases. Hospitalizations on January 24, including the previous four weeks, totaled around ~430,000. This means that the hospitalization rate was 4.8%. This is a simplified calculation, but even if you add one or two percent and exaggerate, take other time periods or so, it doesn't really change much. The figures are available for everyone to see. Anyone can check them (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#hospitalizations or https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ ...and a lot more).

Of course, vaccination also protects against infection per se and it's only about the delta variant, but hospitalizations are certainly anything but a good benchmark...without any meaningful context.

When they say the vaccine is 96% effective they mean compared to the unvaccinated group.

They don't just mean only 4% of that group's infected is hospitalized they mean that group is 96% less likely to be hospitalized compared to the control group. You're totally misunderstanding these figures.

 

[betrayal]

When they say the vaccine is 96% effective they mean compared to the unvaccinated group.

They don't just mean only 4% of that group's infected is hospitalized they mean that group is 96% less likely to be hospitalized compared to the control group. You're totally misunderstanding these figures.

Ah ok, my bad then. I've just read the tweet and nothing else.

Thanks for clarification!

 

[INC]

So UK still on lockdown, boris admits it was their fault for not closing the airports and allowing people from Indian to continue to land, even tho they were a RED Country, but AMBER countries like Portugal were banned, but still let Indian planes land for another 14 days

Odd that a UK and India trade was at the same time........

So he admits it was their fault, but refuses to help clubs and nightclubs, and prolong furlough for those industries

How this cunt and his party are still in power is beyond me, but at least his house was redecorated, and sheep keep saying he's doing his best..........well his best is fucking awful. They all need sacking

 

[INC]

Good to see social distancing and leading by example at g7

 

[llien]

Wow, could not help (a bit of fun):



Please don't turn this into Faucci bashing.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Wow, could not help (a bit of fun):



Please don't turn this into Faucci bashing.

Man. Who knew Jon Stewart was a conspiracy theorist? I was just scolded the other day because pointing out something that fucking obvious like this is toxic.

As Gobbie pointed out, this is why such talk is toxic.

There are over 50 such labs in the world that research viruses at this level.

We don't know if it came from bats yet. We don't know if it was modified. You're suggesting that this is some kind of radically new virus when it's not, it's just another coronavirus that happened to be highly contagious and dangerous.

You've fallen into the typical conspiracy theorist hole of ignorance and don't even realize it. Please stop with this shit in this new thread so we can discuss actual news and science. Pretty please.

Good for Jon. I would disagree with him about a lot of things. But he’s got courage.

 

[keraj37]

Is this a bad soup?
Yes, it is a bat soup.
Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Wow, could not help (a bit of fun):

That's some good ol' Daily Show Jon Stewart right there.

 

[Chaplain]

"Terry Moran reports on what lead researchers are learning about COVID-19 while studying inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology." (Good Morning America, Jun 14, 2021)

 

[Shai-Tan]

Man. Who knew Jon Stewart was a conspiracy theorist? I was just scolded the other day because pointing out something that fucking obvious like this is toxic.



Good for Jon. I would disagree with him about a lot of things. But he’s got courage.

I'm pretty sure he has no direct knowledge or talked to anyone who has expertise understanding the indirect evidence about the nature of the virus. As in, he's talking out of his ass. I don't see why having unwarranted confidence would be worth praising. Quality of evidence matters.

 

[DeepBreath87]

I'm pretty sure he has no direct knowledge or talked to anyone who has expertise understanding the indirect evidence about the nature of the virus. As in, he's talking out of his ass. I don't see why having unwarranted confidence would be worth praising. Quality of evidence matters.

Again, using common sense doesn’t require expertise. If people started dying from radiation poisoning down the street from the nuclear power plant, I don’t have to get a degree is nuclear physics to figure out where it probably came from.

 

[Shai-Tan]

Again, using common sense doesn’t require expertise. If people started dying from radiation poisoning down the street from the nuclear power plant, I don’t have to get a degree is nuclear physics to figure out where it probably came from.

people who leap to conclusions often have unwarranted confidence in their beliefs, thinking it's "common sense". there's a fetishization in here of the self as a source of knowledge that puts speculation on par with more reliable sources of information. like literally someone liked your comment here who on this page made the absurd argument that "We've just agreed that we are extrapolating/speculating. That doesn't need to be justified by evidence."

 

[QSD]

people who leap to conclusions often have unwarranted confidence in their beliefs, thinking it's "common sense". there's a fetishization in here of the self as a source of knowledge that puts speculation on par with more reliable sources of information. like literally someone liked your comment here who on this page made the absurd argument that "We've just agreed that we are extrapolating/speculating. That doesn't need to be justified by evidence."

Call me by my name if you want to talk shit about me.
If you're writing a scientific paper, you've made certain findings, you write your discussion outlining the findings and then you can speculate about what further avenues of research could be warranted/fruitful. You're free to do that, you don't have to do the research prior to speculating.

 

[Chaplain]

"A new study has found that people who are worried about catching Covid-19 are more likely to judge others harshly for 'moral transgressions'. The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge, found that people who were most afraid of catching Covid-19 were also more likely to look down on others if they broke social rules by, for example, accepting a job with a rival company or bribing a landlord to get their house painted first." (6/14/21)

 

[Shai-Tan]

Call me by my name if you want to talk shit about me.
If you're writing a scientific paper, you've made certain findings, you write your discussion outlining the findings and then you can speculate about what further avenues of research could be warranted/fruitful. You're free to do that, you don't have to do the research prior to speculating.

Rationality doesn't begin and end in a formal procedure. The funny paradox of people elevating their ability to read between the lines is that the discernment they think they have is coupled with attitudes that actively get in the way of dissonant information. Why look into what experts think is most likely and take on board their reasoning when you can spin a plausible sounding story free of any cognitive dissonance?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

people who leap to conclusions often have unwarranted confidence in their beliefs, thinking it's "common sense". there's a fetishization in here of the self as a source of knowledge that puts speculation on par with more reliable sources of information. like literally someone liked your comment here who on this page made the absurd argument that "We've just agreed that we are extrapolating/speculating. That doesn't need to be justified by evidence."

The fetishization of expertise and seeming belief that only those who are anointed experts in their narrowly focused fields should be able to speak or even speculate on related topics is far more troubling to me.

I believe most of us live in representative Democracies that ostensibly value freedom of speech and open discussion. A Technocracy that demands you do not trust what you see until you are given direction on how to interpret it from your betters is not something I would ever want to live under.

 

[Raven117]

Wow, could not help (a bit of fun):



Please don't turn this into Faucci bashing.

LOL. You mean, the main person who helped craft the early narrative that the virus could not plausibly come from the Wuhan lab? What a joke of a post.

Damn, miss Stewart. (Not saying he is right, but common sense does indicate that this was POSSIBLE all along).

I am absolutely shocked by this. Truly shocked. I can't believe it.

 

[Raven117]

people who leap to conclusions often have unwarranted confidence in their beliefs, thinking it's "common sense". there's a fetishization in here of the self as a source of knowledge that puts speculation on par with more reliable sources of information. like literally someone liked your comment here who on this page made the absurd argument that "We've just agreed that we are extrapolating/speculating. That doesn't need to be justified by evidence."

Nobody is saying it is evidence of anything. Its not. It does, however, put forth a plausible hypothesis based on observable factors (ie...one of the few labs in the world researching coronavirus, has an outbreak in coronavirus in the city it resides....nope...couldn't have escaped from the lab....nope nope....Can't even figure out if a cloth mask works or doesn't, but damn, we are sure that the virus couldn't have come from that lab).

Observable factors and a hypothesis drawn.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[DeepBreath87]

people who leap to conclusions often have unwarranted confidence in their beliefs, thinking it's "common sense". there's a fetishization in here of the self as a source of knowledge that puts speculation on par with more reliable sources of information. like literally someone liked your comment here who on this page made the absurd argument that "We've just agreed that we are extrapolating/speculating. That doesn't need to be justified by evidence."

You’re free to outsource your own rational thinking. But it doesn’t elevate you. It makes you look foolish. The virus’ origins have not been explained. We have not found an natural animal pathway to human infection. With SARS and MERS we had already determined the animal origins of the virus inside the first year after discovering the viruses. Here we are 18 months later and we cannot do the same with the most consequential virus of our lifetimes.

And all the while, a perfectly rational explanation stares everyone in the face, literally a couple of blocks away from the original epicenter of the outbreak of an apparent bat coronavirus that can infect humans. One of three labs on the planet doing gain of function research on bat coronaviruses just happens to be within walking distance.

The odds of that being a coincidence are so astronomical, that pretending it isn’t the most likely source makes you look like a flat earther. Unless you have actual evidence of a natural origin that doesn’t require speculation on your part, which you don’t, you’re denying the most rational explanation. Appealing to authority doesn’t fix that.

I’m not saying there’s no way the virus couldn’t have originated natural. It’s certainly a remote possibility. But at this point, by far the most likely source is the WIV.

 

[vpance]

Getting too serious and pedantic in here. Time for a scary video

Oil & Gas Industry Planning To Replace Vaccinated Personnel

Whistle blower claims in viral video

freeworldnews.tv

 

[Shai-Tan]

The fetishization of expertise and seeming belief that only those who are anointed experts in their narrowly focused fields should be able to speak or even speculate on related topics is far more troubling to me.

I believe most of us live in representative Democracies that ostensibly value freedom of speech and open discussion. A Technocracy is not something I would ever want to live under.

there is no "they" here. when you say things other people aren't obliged to agree with you uncritically and part of that process is assessing credibility. this isn't a safe space or echo chamber built for you

 

[Deleted member 17706]

there is no "they" here. when you say things other people aren't obliged to agree with you uncritically and part of that process is assessing credibility. this isn't a safe space or echo chamber built for you

I don't believe I wrote "they" in the post I quoted, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I also have zero clue why you got the impression that I think people are obliged to agree uncritically with anything I post. I certainly do not, nor would ever want such a situation. I am not approaching these discussions as if I am the only one who has the "right" answers. Nor am I trying to establish discussion guidelines that suit my personal beliefs or prevent other people from being able to participate in the manner they see fit.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Getting too serious and pedantic in here. Time for a scary video

Oil & Gas Industry Planning To Replace Vaccinated Personnel

Whistle blower claims in viral video

freeworldnews.tv

Gotta love how the guy is hawking "immunity pills" from InfoWars in his video description

I will say, that Colbert clip shared in the video was extremely disturbing. This is seriously the kind of shit he plays on his show?

 

[The Pleasure]

These were not some random conspiracy nuts, but actual doctors....

You know the doctor from The Hangover isn't a real doctor right?

 

[Shai-Tan]

You’re free to outsource your own rational thinking. But it doesn’t elevate you. It makes you look foolish. The virus’ origins have not been explained. We have not found an natural animal pathway to human infection. With SARS and MERS we had already determined the animal origins of the virus inside the first year after discovering the viruses. Here we are 18 months later and we cannot do the same with the most consequential virus of our lifetimes.

And all the while, a perfectly rational explanation stares everyone in the face, literally a couple of blocks away from the original epicenter of the outbreak of an apparent bat coronavirus that can infect humans. One of three labs on the planet doing gain of function research on bat coronaviruses just happens to be within walking distance.

The odds of that being a coincidence are so astronomical, that pretending it isn’t the most likely source makes you look like a flat earther. Unless you have actual evidence of a natural origin that doesn’t require speculation on your part, which you don’t, you’re denying the most rational explanation. Appealing to authority doesn’t fix that.

I’m not saying there’s no way the virus couldn’t have originated natural. It’s certainly a remote possibility. But at this point, by far the most likely source is the WIV.

Have you actively sought out information that would disconfirm your belief about this, like what virologists have said about likelihood of natural origin? If you did you would hear other plausible explanations that might undermine your high level of confidence (that not even most lab leak proponents would agree with). Because something seems palpable in your mind doesn't make it true

 

[infinitys_7th]

people who leap to conclusions often have unwarranted confidence in their beliefs, thinking it's "common sense". there's a fetishization in here of the self as a source of knowledge that puts speculation on par with more reliable sources of information. like literally someone liked your comment here who on this page made the absurd argument that "We've just agreed that we are extrapolating/speculating. That doesn't need to be justified by evidence."

Some scientists say it came from a lab, some say it didn't. There is no 100% evidence either way, especially as the full infection route for the natural path is not clear.

With that context, using deductive reasoning off of other facts (came from China, literally came from a block away from a coronavirus research lab apparently doing gain of function research, covered up by the CCP) is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Airola]

people who leap to conclusions often have unwarranted confidence in their beliefs, thinking it's "common sense". there's a fetishization in here of the self as a source of knowledge that puts speculation on par with more reliable sources of information. like literally someone liked your comment here who on this page made the absurd argument that "We've just agreed that we are extrapolating/speculating. That doesn't need to be justified by evidence."

Hypotheses are important part of science.

It does no good when certain hypotheses and theories are suppressed and even censored. People seemed to have zero issue to take the claims of the virus coming from wet market at face value. We still have ZERO evidence of it coming from that market. ZERO. Yet people seem to think that's the better option to look at and willing to give an aura of "conspiracy speculation" to any lab leak theories.

We have to be careful of how we treat theories and hypotheses, as one of the best ways to go against science is to attack the hypothesis and not allow it even be tested.

 

[ManaByte]

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Because something seems palpable in your mind doesn't make it true

Nor did he say it did, but for whatever reason you and a few others seem to think that speculation and hypothesis are the same as claiming something is an iron-clad fact with no room for further discussion.

 

[QSD]

Rationality doesn't begin and end in a formal procedure. The funny paradox of people elevating their ability to read between the lines is that the discernment they think they have is coupled with attitudes that actively get in the way of dissonant information. Why look into what experts think is most likely and take on board their reasoning when you can spin a plausible sounding story free of any cognitive dissonance?

The problem with the lab leak story, specifically, is what I outlined before. Experts can be experts in virology but if China withholds access they have to make due with what is most likely incomplete information, which makes their conclusions questionable. The most scientific thing to do would be to suspend judgement and keep asking for the missing information, but they are probably not completely free to do so (as saying the info/access is incomplete would publicly cast aspersions on China) So the problem is multi-faceted, the political component overshadows the scientific one, which is why "listen to the experts" is an unwarranted reduction of the problem.

other than that I agree with what @Zefah and I infinitys_7th have said about freedom to discuss this and not wanting some kind of technocracy

 

[segasonic]