Comment As You Like

[The Hammer2021]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Hitler was elected, how well did that go?

Such rubbish! He was not elected democratically any more than Hoffa was democratically elected yo represent American workers. The 'Hitler was elected' argument is the rhetoric of the teenage sm@rt@rse conveniently overlooking historical  reality.He was made Chancellor through democratic means, but then staged a coup. He then stacked the Supreme Court with his nazi sympathisers, who ruled that his illegal coup was legal. He actually lost the presidential  election of 32...Hitler and the nazis perverted the democratic system through violence and intimidation and rose to power by subverting democracy not by being democratically elected in any meaningful sense.

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

Such rubbish! He was not elected democratically any more than Hoffa was democratically elected yo represent American workers. The 'Hitler was elected' argument is the rhetoric of the teenage sm@rt@rse conveniently overlooking historical  reality.He was made Chancellor through democratic means, but then staged a coup. He then stacked the Supreme Court with his nazi sympathisers, who ruled that his illegal coup was legal. He actually lost the presidential  election of 32...Hitler and the nazis perverted the democratic system through violence and intimidation and rose to power by subverting democracy not by being democratically elected in any meaningful sense.

Got a familiar ring to it.  After a coup, then have your cohorts appoint half the Senate, then your party still has a hard time getting a majority of the votes, squeezing out a coalition gov't and getting appointed leader.

[scubascuba3]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Is that the reason you give for dismissing excellent and important points out of hand?  It does excuse you for having to actually address and debate what he says on their merits.  The easy way out?

He's too annoying to listen to so i have no idea what his points are. If he cut his hair, cut the amount he waffles, drops the exaggerated accent i might bother to listen to him one day

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks, Fat is a type of crazy, as your post leads me to make an extremely important point which explains much in the way of the unreconcilable differences of certain opinions.  What is crucial in understanding this point I'm about to make has everything to do with perspective.

Now here's what you wrote in your first post:

 

"I just get sick of people extrapolating beyond what they know."

 

And I replied to you with (to which you never answered):

 

"Is it a question of someone not knowing or is it a question of someone with a different point of view who then gets smeared as someone who is out of their league?  Which one is it?"

 

From your perspective, and in our present case, someone with an opposing point of view is considered to be speaking beyond what they know.  They may full well know what they speak of and be spot on in their knowledge.  Yet it is precisely because your view point is different (and usually that means opposite) that your perspective then leads you to believe that this someone knows not what they are speaking of.  It's contrarian.

Now, the exact same happens when we, or anyone, talk about conspiracy theory.  And I'll quote from your post (in which, coincidentally, you now accuse me of "extrapolating beyond what you know," LOL):

"Scientists and businesses around the world would like to become famous and or make money from a treatment be it vaccine or therapeutic. You imply there is some conspiracy. Implications but no evidence. Scientists have evidence for what they do by definition."

You have your worldview operating here, your perspective, in which scientists and businesses attempt to profit, in this case off of a "treatment be it vaccine or therapeutic."  I think I can safely say that you have an implied, yet unspoken, assumption operating that this activity is based in pure innocence.  That there is nothing at all nefarious going on.  That is your view, your belief, your perspective.

Now let's assume for a moment that others see what you do not see.  And what they see leads them to question.  Since your perspective assumes all is done in innocence and purity then any questioning is naturally  and automatically seen as an attempt to read into something something which is not there.  Under this perspective, and precisely due to this perspective, any evidence offered that all is not above board is in one way or another rejected.  Either by discounting it, distorting it, recontextualising it, minimising it, or outright ignoring it.

And so this then allows for your conclusion, made with absolute righteousness, of "implications but no evidence."  The evidence can be smack in your face but, as explained, you will reject it in one way or another using one of the means described above.

 

This entire idiocy of immediately claiming "conspiracy theory" at the slightest hint of someone's doubt or questioning, due merely to one's perspective, is the worst type of canard.  It is an entirely disingenuous practice and is purposed to dismiss out of hand any countering viewpoints, bona fide or not.  And to disparage and discredit the character of those who question.

It is a practice, in essence, of a self adopted closemindedness to the existence of any other possibilities other than your own.  Which, again, is disingenuous at it's core.

I'll remind you that at one time the mere mention that the UK was to adopt vaccine passports was dismissed as conspiracy theory.  It would never happen.  Does that not prove my point?

I have a theory that birds fly, eat and take care of their young. It is based on observation and reliable sources including the media. A different person thinks the birds are working together to take control. It's backed by some internet sources.

Now a less extreme example. My observations indicate scientists are not likely to act as one amalgam manipulated by some force. Further, evidence does not indicate the government, corporations and others including scientists,  have a long term plan to control us all, during this pandemic.

Those who believe in the alternate opinion are believing a conspiracy theory by definition. 

The alternate position is  not impossible but, for example, my claim that scientists and others have similar motivations to you and me , and are not acting as an amalgam, I think is more defendable. There are of course exceptions. There are bad people.

Similarly, my theory that governments have made their mistakes, but seem to generally be taking actions that attempt to balance freedoms and deaths and to end the pandemic, I think is borne out by the reality that lockdowns end, businesses open, and freedoms come back. 

 

Alternate theories may not be as extreme as the bird example but for me they are not consistent with observable reality and therefore require stronger evidence. 

In conclusion, I see a difference between my theories, possibly a tad idealistic but fairly consistent with observable reality, and yours, requiring a wholesale rethinking of how the world works. 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Delete

Edited January 18, 2022 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

He's too annoying to listen to so i have no idea what his points are. If he cut his hair, cut the amount he waffles, drops the exaggerated accent i might bother to listen to him one day

Form over substance?  Excellent set of priorities.  LOL

[seedy]

1 hour ago, The Hammer2021 said:

Hitler and the nazis perverted the democratic system through violence and intimidation and rose to power by subverting democracy not by being democratically elected in any meaningful sense.

Like many nations in the world then, before and since.

Find me one TRUE democracy - not the corporatocracy that prevails now.

 

[The Hammer2021]

2 minutes ago, seedy said:

Like many nations in the world then, before and since.

Find me one TRUE democracy - not the corporatocracy that prevails now.

 

Find your own or otherwise. Believe what you want or otherwise. My knowledge of history is irrelevant to  jaded idealism manifested as informed cynicism. 

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I have a theory that birds fly, eat and take care of their young. It is based on observation and reliable sources including the media. A different person thinks the birds are working together to take control. It's backed by some internet sources.

Now a less extreme example. My observations indicate scientists are not likely to act as one amalgam manipulated by some force. Further, evidence does not indicate the government, corporations and others including scientists,  have a long term plan to control us all, during this pandemic.

Those who believe in the alternate opinion are believing a conspiracy theory by definition. 

The alternate position is  not impossible but, for example, my claim that scientists and others have similar motivations to you and me , and are not acting as an amalgam, I think is more defendable. There are of course exceptions. There are bad people.

Similarly, my theory that governments have made their mistakes, but seem to generally be taking actions that attempt to balance freedoms and deaths and to end the pandemic, I think is borne out by the reality that lockdowns end, businesses open, and freedoms come back. 

 

Alternate theories may not be as extreme as the bird example but for me they are not consistent with observable reality and therefore require stronger evidence. 

In conclusion, I see a difference between my theories, possibly a tad idealistic but fairly consistent with observable reality, and yours, requiring a wholesale rethinking of how the world works. 

LOL.  The bird analogy isn't as extreme as it is bizarre.  It doesn't fit at all and so makes for a terrible analogy.

 

Following is one of many flaws with your logic.  "It is based on observation and reliable sources including the media."  Since you are not omnipotent then it logically follows that your observations aren't all encompassing.  It is simply not possible for you to see all there is to see.  When I wrote, "Now let's assume for a moment that others see what you do not see," you completely exclude that possibility from your theory.

 

It doesn't escape my observation either that in your inappropriate analogy your theory is based on "observation and reliable sources."  But when you talk of the "different person" you ascribe to them no such observation taking place in their determination of their theory.  For them it's only what they "think."  LOL  Why didn't you just say what you probably truly think, "A different person" imagines "the birds are working together to take control."

Here's another little subtlety of logical fallacy in how you frame this abysmal analogy.  Again, your theory is based on "observation and reliable sources."  This different person, though, bases his theory on "some Internet sources."  Do you see what you're doing here?  I see it.  It's impossible to miss.

 

Your theory is based on "reliable sources" whereas the other person's theory is based on "some Internet sources."  You suggest that what you call reliable, which is is not only extremely subjective and includes your biases and isn't at all necessarily true, is infallible.  You also pretend to assume to know that the other person's sources are indeed "some Internet sources," which you don't and can't know.  You purposely give your sources an air of respectability and trustworthiness while colouring the other person's sources as dubious and shady.

Now when it comes to your sources you describe them as reliable.  And your sources are, I would assume you to assume, above reproach.  Then please explain how two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, the New England Medical Journal and the Lancet were forced to retract bogus studies that undercut the idea of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19?  The studies were published on May 1, 2020 and May 22, 2020.  Less that two weeks later three authors of the large observational analysis had retracted the papers for both studies.

I don't know whether or not those important incidences had fallen into your observable universe but it has been opined by some in the medical profession that the chances of an error of that magnitude happening to one journal, let alone two, given the absolute rigorous editing processes, are slim to none.  But it was enough to kill hydroxychloroquine in the crib as a viable therapeutic.

The above two instances unquestionably prove that what you consider reliable may in fact be unreliable, even in highly important life and death matters.  And may in fact even be exposed to corruption.  So your stance of "reliable sources" as impeccable is logically and provably false.  So too would be any assumptions you may be tempted to pass off as fact about the reliability and credibility of those other Internet sources which fall off of your personal list of quality sources.

Once all of your devices are exposed do you at all understand how your analogy grossly twists logic in order to make an extremely leading and invalid point?

 

Now I would love to take the rest of your post apart, line by line, to point out other logical fallacies contained within but this reply has grown long enough and it should serve well enough for you to reconsider some of your thinking.  If you are so inclined.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

40 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  The bird analogy isn't as extreme as it is bizarre.  It doesn't fit at all and so makes for a terrible analogy.

 

Following is one of many flaws with your logic.  "It is based on observation and reliable sources including the media."  Since you are not omnipotent then it logically follows that your observations aren't all encompassing.  It is simply not possible for you to see all there is to see.  When I wrote, "Now let's assume for a moment that others see what you do not see," you completely exclude that possibility from your theory.

 

It doesn't escape my observation either that in your inappropriate analogy your theory is based on "observation and reliable sources."  But when you talk of the "different person" you ascribe to them no such observation taking place in their determination of their theory.  For them it's only what they "think."  LOL  Why didn't you just say what you probably truly think, "A different person" imagines "the birds are working together to take control."

Here's another little subtlety of logical fallacy in how you frame this abysmal analogy.  Again, your theory is based on "observation and reliable sources."  This different person, though, bases his theory on "some Internet sources."  Do you see what you're doing here?  I see it.  It's impossible to miss.

 

Your theory is based on "reliable sources" whereas the other person's theory is based on "some Internet sources."  You suggest that what you call reliable, which is is not only extremely subjective and includes your biases and isn't at all necessarily true, is infallible.  You also pretend to assume to know that the other person's sources are indeed "some Internet sources," which you don't and can't know.  You purposely give your sources an air of respectability and trustworthiness while colouring the other person's sources as dubious and shady.

Now when it comes to your sources you describe them as reliable.  And your sources are, I would assume you to assume, above reproach.  Then please explain how two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, the New England Medical Journal and the Lancet were forced to retract bogus studies that undercut the idea of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19?  The studies were published on May 1, 2020 and May 22, 2020.  Less that two weeks later three authors of the large observational analysis had retracted the papers for both studies.

I don't know whether or not those important incidences had fallen into your observable universe but it has been opined by some in the medical profession that the chances of an error of that magnitude happening to one journal, let alone two, given the absolute rigorous editing processes, are slim to none.  But it was enough to kill hydroxychloroquine in the crib as a viable therapeutic.

The above two instances unquestionably prove that what you consider reliable may in fact be unreliable, even in highly important life and death matters.  And may in fact even be exposed to corruption.  So your stance of "reliable sources" as impeccable is logically and provably false.  So too would be any assumptions you may be tempted to pass off as fact about the reliability and credibility of those other Internet sources which fall off of your personal list of quality sources.

Once all of your devices are exposed do you at all understand how your analogy grossly twists logic in order to make an extremely leading and invalid point?

 

Now I would love to take the rest of your post apart, line by line, to point out other logical fallacies contained within but this reply has grown long enough and it should serve well enough for you to reconsider some of your thinking.  If you are so inclined.

I think the point you miss is that I am talking about two different shades. It's a comparative discussion. I don't suggest my arguments are infallible, facts, or that reliable sources are beyond approach. We are all a bit subjective and I don't suggest otherwise. You and your penchant to extrapolate beyond what is there. 

I do though think my observations have a basis in fairly reliable consistent evidence based  reporting. I don't see that reporting backing theories such as yours and I look at a range of sources. 

I am saying my arguments have a lot better evidence to back them up than yours. No absolutes. No definitive right and wrong.

The bird example is an extreme version, and the fact it seems you can't back up the arguments you make, is similar in my opinion. Just be humble. You may have good or interesting ideas. They may seem instinctively true. They may be true.  

But be humble and accept your opinions, based on the available information to the average person, are a bit out there. Don't let the fact that you get a love heart or a trophy from other outliers on this site let you forget that. Just be ready that if you have unusual ideas people are going to push back. Like the bird guy you seem to have little evidence. Maybe something here and there but not something you can put together to make a compelling case. 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Fat is a type of crazy

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, HAPPYNUFF said:

Not being from the northern hemisphere, I have never heard, before, of Neil Oliver,  and make no comment  on his   broadcast.   However,    he does talk of trust,, I  would  assume  he also means respect, and  o n those  points  I would  just say,   who now, in  these troubled times, can we look to, to respect and trust.    Religion, of   nearly all denominations,, have failed and  are hardly to be looked upon favourably.  Politcians,,, what can one say about the  greater majority of them, self serving power hungry  individuals, only concerned about  getting re elected next time around.   For the British Commonwealth people,  their monarchy  is  going through  turmoil and embarrasment due to the antics of some of their members.  Polls taken show  doctors, and medical    peoples are   amongst  the few to whom people look up to these days..That  is individuals,   it should be  institutions  as well that   have  our trust and respect.   It is sad, as I believe  we need someone, or something, in our life  to look up to, respect and trust, otherwise   it  quite dispiriting.

The Church used to provide a center to society, to which people would look for hope. Since that has been lost, humans, at least in the West, IMO, have lost hope , lost faith in fellow man, lost their way to greed, drugs, alcohol, debauchery etc.

I see nothing to hope for in whatever future I have left in this life.

I despair for humanity.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I have a theory that birds fly, eat and take care of their young. It is based on observation and reliable sources including the media. A different person thinks the birds are working together to take control. It's backed by some internet sources.

Now a less extreme example. My observations indicate scientists are not likely to act as one amalgam manipulated by some force. Further, evidence does not indicate the government, corporations and others including scientists,  have a long term plan to control us all, during this pandemic.

Those who believe in the alternate opinion are believing a conspiracy theory by definition. 

The alternate position is  not impossible but, for example, my claim that scientists and others have similar motivations to you and me , and are not acting as an amalgam, I think is more defendable. There are of course exceptions. There are bad people.

Similarly, my theory that governments have made their mistakes, but seem to generally be taking actions that attempt to balance freedoms and deaths and to end the pandemic, I think is borne out by the reality that lockdowns end, businesses open, and freedoms come back. 

 

Alternate theories may not be as extreme as the bird example but for me they are not consistent with observable reality and therefore require stronger evidence. 

In conclusion, I see a difference between my theories, possibly a tad idealistic but fairly consistent with observable reality, and yours, requiring a wholesale rethinking of how the world works. 

Follow the money. It's always about the money these days, IMO.

If we know who pays the scientists we know what slant they likely will put on their research, etc etc etc.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/18/2022 at 2:33 PM, Kwasaki said:

They have been elected of course it's not dictatorship you are a example of how things get put out of context by people.              Media frienzy encluded. 

 

????????????????? If they can do whatever they like, then they are dictators. Can't have it both ways.

[Kwasaki]

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

????????????????? If they can do whatever they like, then they are dictators. Can't have it both ways.

As many you miss the wider picture.