Time to Declare Endemic

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

You're starting to sound desperate their, Bud. "They" won't like that.

I'm simply pursuing your logic but you're sounding evasive again. Clearly you realize twisting only deepens the hole you keep digging but you keep returning to it like a dog does to it's own vomit.

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Free choice supports humanity, equity boy.

Free choice is at the heart of a free society.  

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm simply pursuing your logic but you're sounding evasive again. Clearly you realize twisting only deepens the hole you keep digging but you keep returning to it like a dog does to it's own vomit.

Evading what? Go ahead hotshot. I'm your huckleberry. Tell me specifically what this is you're so smug about, thinking others fear to face.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

Personally I think it's more just another case of Prog projection. Everywhere you try to run you get smacked down at the ears.

Now you want to whine about it yet try to make yourself seem heroic.

'Mommy, Dog is chasing me.'

'Stop being such a baby."

'Er...I mean running from me.'

Edited January 17, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Moonbox]

10 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Evading what? Go ahead hotshot. I'm your huckleberry. Tell me specifically what this is you're so smug about, thinking others fear to face.

It's the way you default your argument back to the vapid "that's what they want you to think"  to answer what doesn't fit your world-view.  As soon as you evoke that line of reasoning, your argument is dead. You no doubt can't see it that way, but that's normal.  I'm sure you think you're a red-pilled crusader for freedom or...something.  The "DeEp StaTe Globalist MEdiA" is amazing copium.  

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Evading what? Go ahead hotshot. I'm your huckleberry. Tell me specifically what this is you're so smug about, thinking others fear to face.

Moonbox pretty much nailed it.  I'm just curious how this defaulting came to be so normal as to be automatic in so many of you.  It seems you do see, however dimly, that it's just mindless hyperbole but the frequency with which you say it and in a forum of others of similar mind all saying the same thing...it all starts to feel like a cult chanting or a herd baaaaing.

Its so weird coming from a group that swears it's everyone else who's thinking like one.

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's the way you default your argument back to the vapid "that's what they want you to think"  to answer what doesn't fit your world-view.  As soon as you evoke that line of reasoning, your argument is dead. You no doubt can't see it that way, but that's normal.  I'm sure you think you're a red-pilled crusader for freedom or...something.  The "DeEp StaTe Globalist MEdiA" is amazing copium.  

 

[Zeitgeist]

But we already live in a world led by your position, Eye.  You seem quite satisfied with dragging out this hypochondriac limbo we’re living in.  Well we’re dragging it out with no end in sight.  You should be happy.  

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.But we already live in a world led by your position, Eye.

2.You seem quite satisfied with dragging out this hypochondriac limbo we’re living in.

3.Well we’re dragging it out with no end in sight.

4.You should be happy.  

1. Okay if by that you mean a precautionary approach.

2. If I really wanted to drag it out I'd advocate against vaccines and other measures.

3. Apparently we're passing the omicron peak in BC as we speak.

4. I'm certainly not in the depths of utter bleak hopelessness. Sorry. 

[Infidel Dog]

OK Moonbox, so you two want to speak in generalities and think you've won on some specific point you don't specifically identify. You haven't.

Let's get into specifics.

The specific debate, at it's core was Eyeball believes if he can google and find somebody from the left to discredit a general website on the grounds it's from the right then anything inside is automatically false regardless of how many mainstream, scientific or first sources it supports itself with.

I showed you both a site that did that. At that point the argument should have been over and you lost.

But Eyeball tells me no, every scientific paper from every university and medical journal archived in the piece is now worthless because the intro contained a metaphor about lab rats and he's not a rat. Then you tell me some gobbledygook about how what I'm really saying is  "that's what they want you to think."

A rat being put in a maze to find the cheese can be seen as being like getting mandated into segregation and deprivation until you get the vax in that neither operation really offers a choice. That's what I actually said and you 2 want to hyperventilate about use of the word "they."

See how that conversation wanders away from the actual topic though? See who's actually initiating the evasion from the premise.

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Let's get into specifics.

The specific debate, at it's core was Eyeball believes if he can google and find somebody from the left to discredit a general website on the grounds it's from the right then anything inside is automatically false regardless of how many mainstream, scientific or first sources it supports itself with.

That's crap. Your source was cited as being unreliable on the grounds that it publishes misinformation, especially as it relates to COVID.  That's it's also right-wing is simply an unsurprising coincidence - even less so given the fact you've just published a pile of misinformation as it relates to this thread and of course COVID.

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by eyeball

[eyeball]

On 1/15/2022 at 9:40 PM, Infidel Dog said:

Well if you're relying on the leftist Mediabiasfactcheck you need to take your own advice.

To repeat...you need to come up with a better reason for declaring Mediabiasfactcheck as unreliable simply because you say it's leftist.  I mean you say that about everything.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

What's your methodology? 

[Infidel Dog]

Citing a leftist source that expresses an opinion they don't like a right wing source is nonsense. It's blatantly erroneous in this case because multiple evidences from mainstream articles, universities and medical journals were cited in embedded links.

It doesn't even matter though because there's a basic fact that's undeniable by any means other than distraction. The reason we know lockdowns don't work is because they didn't.

[Infidel Dog]

Mediabiasfactcheck expresses an opinion on whether sites skew left or right. My opinion is their opinion too often skews left. Their language doesn't just suggest right wing thought is present. It tells you there's something wrong with that. They have less of a problem with a site that skews left. 

In any case, so what. They have an opinion they don't like right wing sites and I have an opinion I don't care what a Prog thinks of me or mine.

And when undeniable facts are cited as evidence within a piece, a prog's opinion on the site where it's found is just piss in the wind.

[Moonbox]

8 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

I showed you both a site that did that. At that point the argument should have been over and you lost.

But Eyeball tells me no, every scientific paper from every university and medical journal archived in the piece is now worthless because the intro contained a metaphor about lab rats and he's not a rat. Then you tell me some gobbledygook about how what I'm really saying is  "that's what they want you to think."

A rat being put in a maze to find the cheese can be seen as being like getting mandated into segregation and deprivation until you get the vax in that neither operation really offers a choice. That's what I actually said and you 2 want to hyperventilate about use of the word "they."

See how that conversation wanders away from the actual topic though? See who's actually initiating the evasion from the premise.

 

You showed nothing.  You linked a garbage article from a libertarian think-tank that did little more than post a bunch of links to other articles along with a limp claim that "lockdowns don't work".  

Whether or not the metaphor you guys are nattering about is apt or not is irrelevant.  What's remarkable about this discussion is that of all the medical/epidemiology literature out there, you chose the American Institute for Economic Research as your most authoritative source on viruses and how they spread.  That speaks volumes.  

The AIER's publications are excellent fuel for the screeching monkeys on 4dchan and reddit to LARP that they have "facts" and advanced critical thinking skills, but it's not good for much else.  Nobody even takes what AEIR has to say seriously on the actual economic issues on which they presume to be experts.   

This goes back to my original point:  You'll take a fringe claim/article/opinion as iron-clad fact as soon as it even marginally supports your world-view, but revert by reflex to "that's what they want you to think, man" as soon as you're presented with anything that contradicts it (including an overwhelming body of worldwide evidence).

 

 

 

[Infidel Dog]

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You showed nothing.  You linked a garbage article from a libertarian think-tank that did little more than post a bunch of links to other articles along with a limp claim that "lockdowns don't work".  

You two progressives seem to be having trouble making a fact based argument. If all you have is disparaging remarks against political ideologies you don't agree with you don't actually have much.

I'm starting to feel a little sympathy for you both so I'm going to help you. If you hadn't been so restricted by your inability to consider anything beyond your given narrative you would have discovered there actually is an opening for an argument within the offered science in the embedded links.

Here's a quote from an abstract in the first paper:

Quote

Background: A country level exploratory analysis was conducted to assess the impact of timing and type of national health policy/actions undertaken towards COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes. Methods: Information on COVID-19 policies and health outcomes were extracted from websites and country specific sources. Data collection included the government’s action, level of national preparedness, and country specific socioeconomic factors. Data was collected from the top 50 countries ranked by number of cases. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes. Findings: Increasing COVID-19 caseloads were associated with countries with higher obesity (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.06; 95%CI: 1.011.11), median population age (RR=1.10; 95%CI: 1.051.15) and longer time to border closures from the first reported case (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.011.08). Increased mortality per million was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence (RR=1.12; 95%CI: 1.061.19) and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (RR=1.03; 95%CI: 1.001.06). Reduced income dispersion reduced mortality (RR=0.88; 95%CI: 0.830.93) and the number of critical cases (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.870.97). Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.085.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.132.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

There you go, try that. See if it can help you avoid looking so lame.

[Moonbox]

48 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You two progressives seem to be having trouble making a fact based argument. If all you have is disparaging remarks against political ideologies you don't agree with you don't actually have much.

I'm starting to feel a little sympathy for you both so I'm going to help you. If you hadn't been so restricted by your inability to consider anything beyond your given narrative you would have discovered there actually is an opening for an argument within the offered science in the embedded links.

Here's a quote from an abstract in the first paper:

There you go, try that. See if it can help you avoid looking so lame.

Don't worry about us bud.  We're not the ones clinging to the American Institute for Economic Research as a life-raft of truthiness in an ocean of scientific evidence and research that disagrees with you.  

The AEIR's Great Barrington Declaration on COVID was already widely discredited and ridiculed by the scientific and medical community around the world, so for them to write a half-page saying "lockdowns kill freedom and don't save people - here's 35 articles proving it" with no synthesis or explanation is a farce.  It's a giant info-dump than none of you will actually read and is far more limited in scope and definitive conclusions than you think.  You like the headline and the pretense of scientific conclusions, however, so as far as you're concerned it's gospel. 

The funniest part about all this though is how quick you're on-board the "science" bus when you think it's supporting you, contrasted by how dismissive you usually are of the scientist and expert consensus.  To call it cherry-picking would be an understatement of grand proportion. 

Just on a lark, I decided to scan through some of the AIER's publications.  I think I'll start another thread on this board highlighting how little credibility it has and how the standard conspiracy theorist buffoonery spreads misinformation. 

 

 

[Infidel Dog]

I've always been on the "science" bus. Just not your "science" bus. Not necessarily the politically endorsed one.

Mine is the examine the evidence through scientific method one.

You seem to think it's good policy to ignore one and brag about the other. I guess we have kind of the same policy just different buses. Although that's not fair to me. I will check yours out. I just won't necessarily agree with what's in it once I have though. Believe it or not you're allowed to do that in real science with fact or reason based critique.

The embedded links in those three sources I gave are decent science or reason based argument. Your science denying refusal to check out evidence contrary to the Progressive Socialist narrative is meaningless.

[Infidel Dog]

Lockdowns didn't work. To say otherwise is to say 'Don't believe your lying eyes."

[Moonbox]

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I've always been on the "science" bus. Just not your "science" bus. Not necessarily the politically endorsed one.

Mine is the examine the evidence through scientific method one.

You seem to think it's good policy to ignore one and brag about the other. I guess we have kind of the same policy just different buses. Although that's not fair to me. I will check yours out. I just won't necessarily agree with what's in it once I have though. Believe it or not you're allowed to do that in real science with fact or reason based critique.

The embedded links in those three sources I gave are decent science or reason based argument. Your science denying refusal to check out evidence contrary to the Progressive Socialist narrative is meaningless.

You could basically condense your post down to "NO YOU!"

Here's the problem with your argument:  

The scientific and medical community consensus contradicts your viewpoint.  For your "sources" to have standing, you have to determine that the prevailing medical/scientific consensus is the product of a global conspiracy among doctors/scientists and the media/corporations/governments with a nefarious agenda all working together to control/fool you.  Once you've convinced yourself that's the case, the science becomes irrelevant.  

Any evidence/research that contradicts your viewpoint can be handled by a perfunctory "NOPE!  It's a lie/conspiracy".  Once you jump down that rabbit hole, reasonable debate is almost impossible, because the ease at which you revert back to "NOPE! That's what they want you to think" is the catch-all crutch you'll constantly revert to when presented with conflicting information.  

The fact that you've referenced the AIER at all is a testament to how little consideration you give to your "sources".  It's a clown show organization with no standing whatsoever either in the economic or the scientific community.  

[Winston]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The fact that you've referenced the AIER at all is a testament to how little consideration you give to your "sources".  It's a clown show organization with no standing whatsoever either in the economic or the scientific community.  

This statement can be countered with your previous statement:

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Any evidence/research that contradicts your viewpoint can be handled by a perfunctory "NOPE!  It's a lie/conspiracy".  Once you jump down that rabbit hole, reasonable debate is almost impossible, because the ease at which you revert back to "NOPE! That's what they want you to think" is the catch-all crutch you'll constantly revert to when presented with conflicting information.

[Infidel Dog]

Also Moonbox, if you want get fixated on consensus you don't actually know what science is.

If you're dismissing Universities, medical journals and peer reviewed studies (and you are) because they don't confirm to what you want to believe is a consensus you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

[Infidel Dog]

And one more time. Lockdowns don't work because they didn't.

[Infidel Dog]

BTW Moonbox, didn't Fauci order you 'consensus of the narrative' guys to take the CDC as your lord and master?

Did you not hear what one of their studies more or less said?

Mask Mandates are pretty much useless at slowing the spread too.

CDC: 85% of COVID-19 patients report ‘always’ or ‘often’ wearing a mask

Pretty sure it would be a higher percentage than that in Canada.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Moonbox]

25 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Also Moonbox, if you want get fixated on consensus you don't actually know what science is.

If you're dismissing Universities, medical journals and peer reviewed studies (and you are) because they don't confirm to what you want to believe is a consensus you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I'm not dismissing universities.  I'm dismissing the conclusions the AIER draws from the papers they refer to and whether they even support what what the AIER is saying.  That's an info-dump of 35 different publications that neither you nor I are qualified to review.  We both know that you didn't read all 35 of them, nor did 99.9% of the people who ever looked at that article. 

Given that the AIER is a rabidly political, libertarian ECONOMIC think-tank who have already been mocked and ridiculed by the scientific community at large for their resoundingly discredited Great Barrington Declaration, in what bizarre fantasy world do you conclude that they're your best aggregator of scientific and medical research?!?

What mental gymnastics does it take to conclude that of all the scientists and doctors in the world, with all of the various international, sovereign and local health organizations, it's ONLY the scientists carefully curated by a conspiracy pandering think-tank that are worth listening to?  ?

[Winston]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I'm dismissing the conclusions the AIER draws from the papers they refer to and whether they even support what what the AIER is saying. 

From a methodology perspective, how did you come to the "dismissing" conclusion without reviewing the 35 publications?

You may be right, I do not know either. Logically making a conclusion without reviewing the publications seems a bit biased.