Pandemic 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Well, well, well.. What do you know.. Pfizer never tested their vax's effectiveness in reducing transmission of covid. Why am I not surprised?

apnews.com

Posts mislead on Pfizer COVID vaccine’s impact on transmission

After Small testified before the European Parliament’s Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, misleading claims about whether Pfizer knew the impact of its COVID-19 vaccine on preventing transmission spread widely on social media.
apnews.com apnews.com

Screenshot 2022-10-14 12.01.39 PM.png
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
Well, well, well.. What do you know.. Pfizer never tested their vax's effectiveness in reducing transmission of covid. Why am I not surprised?

apnews.com

Posts mislead on Pfizer COVID vaccine’s impact on transmission

After Small testified before the European Parliament’s Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, misleading claims about whether Pfizer knew the impact of its COVID-19 vaccine on preventing transmission spread widely on social media.
apnews.com apnews.com

View attachment 5212559
Click to expand...
lmao are so in need of a win that a vaccine that is currently saving people from getting severely sick from this virus was not tested at its benefit on transmitting the deadly virus does it for you?

I would say 'your not surprised', because nobody is. You have been arguing with yourself the entire time to keep yourself convinced that the Death Cult logic is not making you and everyone around you less safe than you otherwise would be if you all just sucked it up and joined with all the doctors and scientists that have done little things like doubling the average lifespan of humans in the last hundred years (give or take) using science.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
hanimmal said:
lmao are so in need of a win that a vaccine that is currently saving people from getting severely sick from this virus was not tested at its benefit on transmitting the deadly virus does it for you?

I would say 'your not surprised', because nobody is. You have been arguing with yourself the entire time to keep yourself convinced that the Death Cult logic is not making you and everyone around you less safe than you otherwise would be if you all just sucked it up and joined with all the doctors and scientists that have done little things like doubling the average lifespan of humans in the last hundred years (give or take) using science.
Click to expand...
He’s been hammering the vaccine using his signature faulty logic from day one. He got so annoyed with my calling him on fallacy after fallacy that he ragequit me into ignore. It’s less fun being on ignore, so I’m not pointing out each current instance.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
He’s been hammering the vaccine using his signature faulty logic from day one. He got so annoyed with my calling him on fallacy after fallacy that he ragequit me into ignore. It’s less fun being on ignore, so I’m not pointing out each current instance.
Click to expand...
I figure if someone is so triggered by having their stupid propaganda narratives exposed that they ignore me, it's no big deal since they are likely able to read my responses on a different sock puppet.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
hanimmal said:
I figure if someone is so triggered by having their stupid propaganda narratives exposed that they ignore me, it's no big deal since they are likely able to read my responses on a different sock puppet.
Click to expand...
Being on ignore has one specific disadvantage: it removes my ability to challenge user. As talking about user when I cannot be “in his face” says more about my honor than user’s, it is a significant handicap.

That said, if user places me back on ignore, that stricture does not apply, now that I have disclosed this policy and this exemption to it. Then I will relentlessly and with a certain joyous malice specify and describe each and every instance of straw man argument, cherry-picking, data distortion and the other customary vehicles of intellectual dishonesty routinely employed by user.

Thus it is in user’s interest not to invoke either the ignore feature or challenges to my rational critique.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Being on ignore has one specific disadvantage: it removes my ability to challenge user. As talking about user when I cannot be “in his face” says more about my honor than user’s, it is a significant handicap.

That said, if user places me back on ignore, that stricture does not apply, now that I have disclosed this policy and this exemption to it. Then I will relentlessly and with a certain joyous malice specify and describe each and every instance of straw man argument, cherry-picking, data distortion and the other customary vehicles of intellectual dishonesty routinely employed by user.

Thus it is in user’s interest not to invoke either the ignore feature or challenges to my rational critique.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Your premise seems to rely on them not being utterly full of shit and ignoring us because they got to the end of their troll talking points and hurt their cult more often than not when they tried to make shit up. Because while lies are free, facts are stubborn things.

I would rather just cut to the chase and not deal with 6 posts in a row of moving the goalposts.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
hanimmal said:
I disagree. Your premise seems to rely on them not being utterly full of shit and ignoring us because they got to the end of their troll talking points and hurt their cult more often than not when they tried to make shit up. Because while lies are free, facts are stubborn things.

I would rather just cut to the chase and not deal with 6 posts in a row of moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...
It is my choice. I do not hold others to it, but I prefer to address my disagreements to user.

That said, once taken off the initial ignore, I will follow the guidelines I laid out above. Being put back on ignore carries relaxed ethics for me.

Some users are obvious and inarticulate trolls. I sense more danger from articulate trolls who can do a better job of candy-coating the toxic content. Those are more likely to receive the benefit of my gentle ministrations.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
He’s been hammering the vaccine using his signature faulty logic from day one. He got so annoyed with my calling him on fallacy after fallacy that he ragequit me into ignore. It’s less fun being on ignore, so I’m not pointing out each current instance.
Click to expand...
Naw, what caused me to put you on ignore was your pattern of backing away from debates by claiming "strawman" or "anecdote" whenever the going got tuff for you, which is just plain weak. Outside of that I tend to enjoy debating with you, and you do make some good points, which is why I took you off of ignore. I still have those other trolls on ignore however, including the person you you are replying to in your post.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
I wonder why they had to sue the government to get this data. Wasn't one of Biden's campaign promises to “bring transparency and truth back to government”? If that's the case why does it take two separate lawsuits to get the data?
www.reuters.com

New data is out on COVID vaccine injury claims. What's to make of it?

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, facing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking a vast trove of data about the safety and side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccines, made a pledge in August.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
PJ Diaz said:
Naw, what caused me to put you on ignore was your pattern of backing away from debates by claiming "strawman" or "anecdote" whenever the going got tuff for you, which is just plain weak. Outside of that I tend to enjoy debating with you, and you do make some good points, which is why I took you off of ignore. I still have those other trolls on ignore however, including the person you you are replying to in your post.
Click to expand...
Each time I did it, I was correct. Call that weak if you like.
The rest of the time, I do read your posts with interest.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Each time I did it, I was correct. Call that weak if you like.
The rest of the time, I do read your posts with interest.
Click to expand...
Hey bro, it's cool if those are the tactics that you want to pursue with the arguments get tuff for you, but don't expect me to engage with you when you continue with that sort of methodology. It is weak sauce, so yeah.. I'll call it like I see it. Frankly many of your posts are also straw man or anecdotal, and you know it. There's just not some hall monitor there to call you on it every time.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
PJ Diaz said:
Hey bro, it's cool if those are the tactics that you want to pursue with the arguments get tuff for you, but don't expect me to engage with you when you continue with that sort of methodology. It is weak sauce, so yeah.. I'll call it like I see it. Frankly many of your posts are also straw man or anecdotal, and you know it. There's just not some hall monitor there to call you on it every time.
Click to expand...
So will I.

But not every time, especially when the above is the quality of the pushback you present. It would be tiring.

I would like you to show me one (1) unambiguous straw man argument I have deployed against you in the last 12 months. You either cannot, or (likely) you will call something a straw man when it does not conform to the definition. You have done that before without posting the step-by-step derivation, which would reveal the sleight of hand concealed in the claim.

For clarity, a straw man argument is arguing either with a fabrication or a significant distortion of what I actually claimed.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
So will I.

But not every time, especially when the above is the quality of the pushback you present. It would be tiring.

I would like you to show me one (1) unambiguous straw man argument I have deployed against you in the last 12 months. You either cannot, or (likely) you will call something a straw man when it does not conform to the definition. You have done that before without posting the step-by-step derivation, which would reveal the sleight of hand concealed in the claim.

For clarity, a straw man argument is arguing either with a fabrication or a significant distortion of what I actually claimed.
Click to expand...
I won't engage with you here in that challenge as it's way off topic, and I don't feel the need to prove my point.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Well I've been here at the emergency room waiting for my daughter who we had to rush in because she lost consciousness briefly, seemingly related to a mild brain concussion that she got from getting hit in the head by a ball. A doctor diagnosed her with the concussion this morning, but now the ER people don't think that's the case. So what is their answer? Give her a covid test, which turned out negative. So what's their next step? Test her for covid again, I shit you not. She doesn't fucking have covid, she has a concussion for fuck sake. I swear these ER doctors are fucking idiots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top