Covid censorship

[Robert Paulson]

Since covid began I’ve noticed the people who push the covid / lockdown / get vaccinated narrative are NEVER concerned about censorship of the other side of their argument. I’d like to point out why this is such an obvious tell tale sign of being incorrect in a debate. And since I have never seen one person on that side of the argument who oppose censorship, the argument becomes even stronger. 

 

If you are correct, why on earth do you need to censor people?! Are you presuming everyone is so stupid and can’t look at the facts and decide for themselves? It’s a no win argument. You’ve backed yourself into a corner if this is your position. There’s simply no logical way to defend your position. 

 

Another way to look at it is, if you have nothing left, what do you do? You censor. Because you see the facts piling up against you and you’ve nothing to do except shut the other side up.

 

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk on how you can’t want to censor and be correct simultaneously. 

[Yellowtail]

Dissent must be crushed 

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

 

Since covid began I’ve noticed the people who push the covid / lockdown / get vaccinated narrative are NEVER concerned about censorship of the other side of their argument. I’d like to point out why this is such an obvious tell tale sign of being incorrect in a debate. And since I have never seen one person on that side of the argument who oppose censorship, the argument becomes even stronger. 

 

If you are correct, why on earth do you need to censor people?! Are you presuming everyone is so stupid and can’t look at the facts and decide for themselves? It’s a no win argument. You’ve backed yourself into a corner if this is your position. There’s simply no logical way to defend your position. 

 

Another way to look at it is, if you have nothing left, what do you do? You censor. Because you see the facts piling up against you and you’ve nothing to do except shut the other side up.

 

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk on how you can’t want to censor and be correct simultaneously. 

One side posts facts backed by science, the other side does not 

[0james0]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

One side posts facts backed by science, the other side does not 

You mean whoever has the loudest voice wins. Correct? Most here are washed up in propaganda blindly following. Complete stupidity prevails.

[Red Phoenix]

     Facts don't Matter

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, 0james0 said:

You mean whoever has the loudest voice wins. Correct? Most here are washed up in propaganda blindly following. Complete stupidity prevails.

A pity you don't understand 'facts backed by science '.

[stoner]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A pity you don't understand 'facts backed by science '.

 

i totally trust a system where professionals frequently jump from one side of the equation to the other. like when the guy who approved oxy then went and worked for purdue. 

 

there will always be human corruption within that fact based system. yes i understand scientific papers and research however i do point to my previous scenario where the fda approved oxy on very very questionable grounds. claiming to be backed by science. 

 

this decision resulted in the deaths of a lot of people. 

[KhunLA]

43 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A pity you don't understand 'facts backed by science '.

Unfortunately, you can't trust the science now, and TBH, not sure if you ever could.  Covid has proved that, and censoring counter information, only enforced the idea that the science has been corrupted.

 

The truth usually comes out, as it is now, but simply isn't allowed and censored many place for a long time, inclusive.

Edited Thursday at 12:27 AM by KhunLA

[novacova]

30 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A pity you don't understand 'facts backed by science '.

It’s highly doubtful that the above poster really understands what the actual data facts are.

 

19 minutes ago, stoner said:

i totally trust a system where professionals frequently jump from one side of the equation to the other.

Everything should be approached with stern skepticism. The rest is for the gullible and naive.

 

26 minutes ago, stoner said:

 scientific papers and research

Is a process of discovery. Peer reviewed studies are nothing more than a reinforcement of a study. Though many, especially the media correlates research and studies as facts. It’s quite remarkable that people who don’t understand the process and state their opinions as fact, naive and ignorant. Science is a perpetual process of learning and discovery. 

[impulse]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

A pity you don't understand 'facts backed by science '.

 

Is that the same science that proved for decades that smoking is not harmful?

 

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Is that the same science that proved for decades that smoking is not harmful?

 

That's the science from the scientists, not the science you rely on: laymen interpreting real science.

[Robert Paulson]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That's the science from the scientists, not the science you rely on: laymen interpreting real science.

So, the same science that said smoking was ok. Alright. Got it. 
 

If anyone here used to watch reruns of the fugitive with David Jansen, you’ll remember he was a doctor and he smoked in the show. So quite literally society believed smoking was ok… the way tv worked back then was they would not have a doctor smoke on a show if they theough it was bad for everyone. 
 

So “science” did its job and hoodwinked everyone into believing smoking was ok. Do you really think these people didn’t know smoking was bad for us? lol

 

It’s the same story with plastics by the way. They always know beforehand. It’s the same story over and over again… yet I know you’ll never get it no matter how many times the story is told. 

[Robert Paulson]

I find it rather telling none of the vaccine enthusiasts even care to defend themselves: “no sir, I don’t want to censor other people”. Haha. They cannot even bring themselves to a given. It’s beyond comprehension. It’s like losing a game by 2 touch downs and thinking you’ve won by 2 touchdowns instead. It’s quite obtuse and I hope you can wake up before making it off the field because you look very silly. 

[Robert Paulson]

I feel the need to speak using analogies because people don’t seem to understand the real world…

 

Imagine you show up to your kids high school debate. One side presents their arguments. And now it’s your kid’s turn. But wait, something happens. The other side says that you can’t speak. That they have presented their arguments, that is the truth, and there is no need to go further. They want to censor you.
 

You really cannot see and understand that the people censoring are the immediate losers?  Because they can’t even stand the thought of their ideas being challenged because they are apparently so weak. What other reason would there be for censoring. 
 

But I guess this just all flies over your head if you’re a spoon fed vax head waiting to schedule his literal 10th booster.

Edited Thursday at 11:27 AM by Robert Paulson

[G_Money]

It’s been over three years now.

 

Shouldn’t the unvaccinated be dead by now?

[Robert Paulson]

7 minutes ago, G_Money said:

It’s been over three years now.

 

Shouldn’t the unvaccinated be dead by now?

Basically everyone got covid. I don’t understand how the unvaccinated survived the “severe winter of death”. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Robert Paulson said:

So, the same science that said smoking was ok. Alright. Got it. 
 

If anyone here used to watch reruns of the fugitive with David Jansen, you’ll remember he was a doctor and he smoked in the show. So quite literally society believed smoking was ok… the way tv worked back then was they would not have a doctor smoke on a show if they theough it was bad for everyone. 
 

So “science” did its job and hoodwinked everyone into believing smoking was ok. Do you really think these people didn’t know smoking was bad for us? lol

 

It’s the same story with plastics by the way. They always know beforehand. It’s the same story over and over again… yet I know you’ll never get it no matter how many times the story is told. 

Heartland Institute, which is now at the lead of climate change denialism, for years took money from the tobacco industry to deny the ill effects of second hand smoke.

"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.[2]

Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.[3]: 233–234 [4] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.[5][6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

[Robert Paulson]

I know I get “repeaty” but it just amazes me people can’t understand this. It’s so simple and clear. Nothing could be clearer. 
 

If two people are arguing over whether the sun comes up tomorrow, guess what, the guy who is arguing that it will come up will never want to censor the other guy. Why can people not understand this?

 

On the contrary, the only way the “sun wont come up tomorrow” guy has a chance is if he censors his opponent and does not allow a discussion to take place and doesn’t allow people to decipher and see the data for themselves. 
 

It is so blatantly clear not only through all of history, but in any example you can think of, the people doing the censoring are always wrong. Always. There are no exceptions. It proven both in the real world and theoretically eg above. You could come up with dozens of examples. Anyone who needs to censor the other side is obviously in need of obscuring the truth because if they weren’t their own arguments would be enough to defeat them. 
 

But, keep doing your thing I guess. Keep those heads firmly lodged.

[farang51]

40 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

Anyone who needs to censor the other side is obviously in need of obscuring the truth because if they weren’t their own arguments would be enough to defeat them. 

 

Or, they want to prevent misinformation that can have serious health implications.

 

Your example with the sun would be more fitting like this:

 

One guy says it is dangerous to look directly at the sun. If you want to look at the sun, for instance during a solar eclipse, you should use special glasses to avoid the risk of going blind.

 

The other guy says it is perfectly safe to look directly at the sun. Everybody should do it as often as possible.

 

In my world, serious platforms, and even Facebook and X, should stop the second guy from spreading dangerous misinformation. This is actually not censoring, it is the platforms deciding which information they will allow.

[stats]

An off-topic post and ensuing reply have been removed.

 

[impulse]

10 hours ago, farang51 said:

In my world, serious platforms, and even Facebook and X, should stop the second guy from spreading dangerous misinformation. This is actually not censoring, it is the platforms deciding which information they will allow.

 

You mean they should censor misinformation like "smoking causes cancer"? 

 

Because for decades, that was contrary to the (bought and paid for) "science".

 

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You mean they should censor misinformation like "smoking causes cancer"? 

 

Because for decades, that was contrary to the (bought and paid for) "science".

 

Reputable research didn't claim that, only tobacco industry research made that clam 

 

https://www.rgare.com/knowledge-center/article/smoking-a-100-year-story-that-doesn-t-end-here#:~:text=Some companies paid doctors to,smoking was more than damning.

[jaywalker2]

On 6/26/2024 at 9:33 PM, Robert Paulson said:

 

Since covid began I’ve noticed the people who push the covid / lockdown / get vaccinated narrative are NEVER concerned about censorship of the other side of their argument. I’d like to point out why this is such an obvious tell tale sign of being incorrect in a debate. And since I have never seen one person on that side of the argument who oppose censorship, the argument becomes even stronger. 

 

If you are correct, why on earth do you need to censor people?! Are you presuming everyone is so stupid and can’t look at the facts and decide for themselves? It’s a no win argument. You’ve backed yourself into a corner if this is your position. There’s simply no logical way to defend your position. 

 

Another way to look at it is, if you have nothing left, what do you do? You censor. Because you see the facts piling up against you and you’ve nothing to do except shut the other side up.

 

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk on how you can’t want to censor and be correct simultaneously. 

The justification for the censorship was that in a pandemic malicious misinformation spewed over and over again from a variety of sources has a real-world effect on everyone. It endangers even the people who don't believe it.

 

Whether that justification is valid can be debated but there never was any real global censorship. All of the anti-vaccines quacks -- Peter McCullough, Pierre Kory, Robert Malone, Jay Bhattacharya, etc. -- had numerous platforms through which they could disseminate their views. And many of them got rich doing so. All during the pandemic I never had any trouble accessing what these people were saying and I'm sure you didn't either which is why you're making these claims. If there was real censorship you wouldn't even know what their views were.

 

The truth is that the most malign anti-vaxxers don't care about the science. They quote spurious studies or offer unverifiable anedotes. They have no real evidence. I've seen the most outlandish claims -- vaccine "shedding", that the vaccines caused 17 million deaths, that they were responsible for an ungodly number of side effects ranging from infertility to turbo cancer.  This in turn has led to large numbers believing that the vaccines were a bioweapon, that they were engineered under the direction of Bill Gates to depopulate the world, that they contain nanochips to control human behavior, or even that viruses don't exist and the entire pandemic was a scam (just like the moon landing)

 

It should be obvious the dangers inherent in such thinking.

[Mark Nothing]

Censorship is required when false theories are peddled on us.  I do not trust science anymore.

 

But interestingly enough the right answers result from this process.

[farang51]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

You mean they should censor misinformation like "smoking causes cancer"? 

 

1. Saying "smoking causes cancer" doesn't cause people to be sick or die, on the contrary. At worst, it will make the tobacco industry earn less.

2. As I said, it is not censoring when a platform decides it does not want certain content. Be it misleading health information, naked ladies or foul language. Other platforms will allow that kind of content. As jaywalker2 points out, the anti-vaccines quacks has plenty of platforms where they can spread their lies. Even in this forum.

 

6 hours ago, impulse said:

Because for decades, that was contrary to the (bought and paid for) "science".

stevenl answered that one.

[stats]

A flame post with an unsourced/unsubstantiated claim has been removed, along with an ensuing reply.

 

[Yellowtail]

On 6/28/2024 at 3:02 PM, farang51 said:

 

1. Saying "smoking causes cancer" doesn't cause people to be sick or die, on the contrary. At worst, it will make the tobacco industry earn less.

2. As I said, it is not censoring when a platform decides it does not want certain content. Be it misleading health information, naked ladies or foul language. Other platforms will allow that kind of content. As jaywalker2 points out, the anti-vaccines quacks has plenty of platforms where they can spread their lies. Even in this forum.

 

stevenl answered that one.

The concern is places that enjoy privileges as "public" forums, like protection from lawsuits for what people post, Once you start saying who can and can't be said, that should be out the window.

 

The government colluding with them is not a good look either. 

 

 

[farang51]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The concern is places that enjoy privileges as "public" forums, like protection from lawsuits for what people post, Once you start saying who can and can't be said, that should be out the window.

That's a different topic. Almost every forum/platform have regulations, if that protection is lost the internet will look very different.

 

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The government colluding with them is not a good look either. 

It wasn't really colluding, the platforms could choose not to listen or they could ignore the advice. I am sure the new owner of Twitter X would have chosen a different path, which he would have been free to do.

[Yellowtail]

16 minutes ago, farang51 said:

That's a different topic. Almost every forum/platform have regulations, if that protection is lost the internet will look very different.

They do not all enjoy that protection. 

16 minutes ago, farang51 said:

 

It wasn't really colluding, the platforms could choose not to listen or they could ignore the advice. I am sure the new owner of Twitter X would have chosen a different path, which he would have been free to do.

Right. 

[stats]

A post with an off-topic trolling comment has been removed.