kwilco

so you are saying Thai drivers are inherently more stupid than other countries?

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” ― Thomas Jefferson

in your initial comment you are referring to the Swedish driver and human error, you now seem to have changed your tune - I have already explained how blaming the driver is pointless. So who are you referring to now and why?

Remember polio?- Neither do I - thanks science!

It’s important to recognize the evolution of virology and medicine. The first discovery of viruses dates back to the late 19th century, when scientists like Dmitri Ivanovsky and Martinus Beijerinck identified the tobacco mosaic virus, marking the beginning of viral research. Since then, viruses have been isolated, sequenced, and studied in detail, which has led to the development of vaccines and antiviral drugs. Claims that viruses have never been isolated ignore the wealth of evidence from decades of research. Vaccines, which save millions of lives, undergo extensive testing for safety and efficacy, and antiviral drugs, like Tamiflu for influenza, are proven to reduce the severity of infections. Dismissing these advancements disregards the substantial progress made in combating diseases. Finally, the flu is far from a "natural body function." It’s a serious viral infection that can lead to severe health complications, which is why public health measures like vaccines are necessary. PS - How do you define a "natural body function"?? If you want to isolate which flu virus you have read this....https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5619698/

Pseudo-science pretends to be legitimate science, but it lacks key elements like testable hypotheses, peer review, and reproducibility. Common signs include reliance on anecdotes, cherry-picking data, rejection of established science, and using jargon to sound credible – actually in some of the posts here it is just risible due to the posters total ignorance of the appropriate vocabulary. It thrives because it offers simple answers, plays on emotions, and exploits mistrust in authority. While it may feel empowering, pseudo-science is dangerous—it undermines trust in real science, leads to harmful health choices, and often preys on vulnerable people. Recognizing the red flags is key to stopping its spread.

This combination of "smart" and critical thinker would indicate tht you don't undrstand what ritical thinkng is and use of "smart" as a concept suggests the opposite.

Calling 150+ years of virology and medicine "compromised quackery" while simultaneously referencing practices that were abandoned over a century ago doesn’t make you look like a truth-seeker—it makes you look like you’re desperately trying to find reasons to reject everything modern science has accomplished. Yes, medicine used to include things like lobotomies and blood-letting—but guess what? We learned from those mistakes. That’s called progress, and it’s why we have actual treatments and cures today. As for your claim that viruses have "never been isolated"—that’s pure ignorance. Viruses have been isolated, studied, and sequenced in precise detail. The very reason we have vaccines and antiviral drugs is because of the foundational work done in virology. You’re not uncovering a hidden truth, you’re just cherry-picking outdated or irrelevant examples to dismiss real science. It’s not critical thinking; it’s a refusal to understand basic biology and the scientific method A key difference between science and pseudoscience is that scientific understanding evolves and adapts as new evidence emerges, while pseudoscientific claims often remain unchanged despite contradictory evidence. Science embraces the idea that theories can be revised or replaced as knowledge advances, while pseudoscience tends to resist such changes and may cling to outdated or falsified ideas.

This video presents typical flat Earth arguments, but they're based on misunderstandings of physics and observation. Earth's curvature can be measured (e.g., via high-altitude footage and ship visibility), and apparent anomalies like distant visibility are explained by atmospheric refraction. Flight paths follow great circles on a globe, and satellite data from multiple countries shows Earth is round. Gravity naturally forms large bodies into spheres, and circumnavigation/time zones only make sense on a globe. These claims have been debunked many times by science and direct observation.

So what do you think causes flu?

So who is "them" in your mind?

I think some pople need to watch this video on the Dunning Kruger effect - unfortunately, for may it is a self defeating task

I think you nee to review you beliefs - Let's see how deeply flawed they are.... Claim: - “Pathogenic viruses do not exist IMO.” Your opinion doesn’t override 150+ years of virology, medicine, and molecular biology. Pathogenic viruses have been observed, isolated, sequenced, and studied in extreme detail—by countless independent labs worldwide. Claim: - “Viruses - any viruses - have never been isolated...” Completely false. Viruses have been isolated countless times using well-established lab methods: filtration, centrifugation, electron microscopy, and genetic sequencing. SARS-CoV-2, for instance, has been isolated and sequenced repeatedly by labs across the globe—you can even view the genetic code online. Claim: - “...and accordingly, never been shown to cause any transmission of sickness from one to another.” This is demonstrably wrong. Viral transmission has been shown in controlled laboratory studies, clinical data, and real-world epidemiology. That’s how vaccines and antivirals are even possible—they target the actual causative agent. Claim: - “No good burying yer head in the sand. The truth don't need any embellishment.” Agreed—the truth doesn’t need embellishment. That’s why we rely on replicable experiments, peer-reviewed research, and observable evidence. Your argument, meanwhile, needs denial, cherry-picking, and a total misunderstanding of basic science.

“Viruses don’t exist” is a bold take from someone who’s clearly never opened a biology textbook. Belief doesn’t override decades of actual science.

Seriously?? - after all that's been said???? - do you not realise that this has already been discussed at length, and frankly, your take shows you're completely out of touch with decades of road safety science. Countries with lower fatality rates don’t have “smarter” people — they have better road design, enforcement, infrastructure, and policies. It’s not about opinions or blaming individuals. It’s about who actually gives a damn and builds systems that protect people. Catch up.

...and this is because you re such a superb driver?

Guess you're stuffed then.

Your comment dismissing human error as merely "a milder expression of stupidity" is not just insensitive but dangerously misinformed. Human error in road safety isn't about coddling people or avoiding “harsh realities” — it's about acknowledging the complexities of human behaviour and it’s universality in humans all over the world – Yes – that includes you. It than follows that it’s about designing systems that account for them and mitigate the results. Every major transportation safety authority in the world, from the World Health Organization to national road safety boards, recognizes that people make mistakes. That doesn’t make them stupid — it makes them human. Fatigue, distraction, momentary lapses in judgment, or even poorly designed infrastructure can lead to catastrophic outcomes. The goal of modern road safety isn't to pretend these don't happen; it's to reduce the harm when they do. Calling that "a sheltered world" is missing the point entirely. It's not about sheltering people from reality — it's about responding to reality with empathy, responsibility, and smart policy. The real stupidity lies in refusing to address preventable deaths and injuries because of a misguided belief that only the flawless deserve protection. If you have any doubts, then check out the countries employing the “Safe System” and variants for road safety. BTW – just because you don’t know about it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist

how is it that racists spend so much time arguing that something isn't racist?

How can it be racist? "They all look the same, don't they"????

Unfortunately conspiracy theorists make the mistake of equating thinking differently with being right. (they even don't know what "thinking" involves.

It sounds like your sole source of information is the internet. I think people should try to learn better research skills

Most people don't know what "critical thinking is' they dismiss it as "just arguing" when in fact it is a definite methodology and a learned skill - Critical thinking is the ability to objectively analyse and evaluate information or arguments in order to form a reasoned judgment. Here is a link to an introduction to critical thinking - if you understand this, you will post less nonsense on forums , understand a lot more and won't get sucked in to conspiracy theories like a putz - You'll even understand why common sense isn't all that you crack it up to be!

and tht is precisely the problem when they vote