Kerry Kennedy and the Democrat party CULT

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

That is crazy. Whether you agree with an official narrative or not, people should be allowed to freely question it. No government entity should be trusted to arbitrate misinformation.

It is the JOB of EXPERTS working for the government to correct misinformation. 

10 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

In what way? What has gone wrong?

Your IGNORANCE for one thing. 

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

I wasn't fond of the Russia collusion people, either, but they have as much right to post online as anyone else.

Seriously, though, if the government regulates the internet it just gives them the monopoly on misinformation. Even the biggest kooks can say something valuable once in a while. It's not smart to silence people.

Kooks never say anything of value. Their IGNORANCE is what makes them and you kooks.

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

Did they collude with Trump?

They certainly HELPED Trump's campaign. And colluded with his campaign MANAGER to do that. 

How many times does the EVIDENCE have to be posted before kooks start to believe it? LMAO

10 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

And what exactly are you doing?

As far as science goes, consensus opinions are not always truth. Doctors and scientists who disagree should be able to make their arguments, whether they end up being true or not. You don't arrive at truth by banning unpopular opinions.

Real doctors and experts do make their arguments. Kooks just ignore them and believe every opinion is equally valid, when it's NOT.

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

Who does the allowing?

I think it's far better to allow open discussion and let people make up their own minds.

Uninformed lDIOTS are NOT qualified to make scientific judgements.

[CouchPotato]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

It is the JOB of EXPERTS working for the government to correct misinformation.

So you believe a bureaucracy of "experts" should be given the power to decide truth? You would change your tune quickly if the bureaucracy of "experts" were right-leaning.

Quote

Kooks never say anything of value.

Of course they do. Sometimes people who have been called kooks have later been vindicated and proven right.

Quote

Kooks just ignore them and believe every opinion is equally valid, when it's NOT.

Not all opinions are equally valid, but the way to quash them is by bringing them into the light of discussion, not by suppression. We often don't know until years later which opinions are more valid so it is important to allow discussion. Even "experts" can be wrong. This is easily evidenced by the fact that two "experts" can completely disagree on an issue.

Quote

Uninformed lDIOTS are NOT qualified to make scientific judgements.

Uninformed people making judgements for themselves on anything is what makes a society free and democratic.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

So you believe a bureaucracy of "experts" should be given the power to decide truth? 

Are you against that in principle, though ?  

This happens today in other domains of the Public Sphere.  I think that you have to rethink what it would mean to remove censorship entirely, not just in the realm of public health or whatever you are thinking.

[CouchPotato]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are you against that in principle, though ? 

Yes. Are you suggesting that a certain caste of people has the right to be exposed to certain views and decide for other adults whether or not they have the right to see them?

Edited August 27, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Uninformed lDIOTS are NOT qualified to make scientific judgements.

Again...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

There is a philosophical mountain of really really stupid people. You...robo-twit...are at the top of the heap of destructive, philosophical failures.

So conga-rats m0ron. You've finally made to the top of something.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

Yes. Are you suggesting that a certain caste of people has the right to be exposed to certain views and decide for other adults whether or not they have the right to see them?

I would not use the word caste.

The fact is that we have never had civilizations where freedoms of expression are 100% allowed.  I'm not saying the idea  of allowing it is terrible, but there are costs. 

 

I'm 100% against the idea that mitigating disinformation is a revolutionary idea. The fact is that there are benefits, which is why we have been doing it since forever. 

So you have an idea here that's worth considering. It's debatable. But your use of the word caste makes me wonder if you want to have an honest discussion, or if you're going to paint the idea of information control, and by that I mean Central information control as some kind of revolting new development. 

And, yes, privately... Twitter Facebook Fox News... CBC... Physical spaces, of course...

 

All of these things are governed by private management.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would not use the word caste.

The fact is that we have never had civilizations where freedoms of expression are 100% allowed.  I'm not saying the idea  of allowing it is terrible, but there are costs. 

 

I'm 100% against the idea that mitigating disinformation is a revolutionary idea. The fact is that there are benefits, which is why we have been doing it since forever. 

So you have an idea here that's worth considering. It's debatable. But your use of the word caste makes me wonder if you want to have an honest discussion, or if you're going to paint the idea of information control, and by that I mean Central information control as some kind of revolting new development. 

And, yes, privately... Twitter Facebook Fox News... CBC... Physical spaces, of course...

 

All of these things are governed by private management.

Are you seriously trying to excuse censorship? 

Ivermectin was known...by thousands of real doctors...to ease and aid with recovery and yes even prevention of The Rona. Yet the CDC and most other of those institutions you defend constantly, called claims of its efficacy..."disinformation" and had these privately managed businesses you speak of, actively censore any attempts to promote the use of the drug. That cost lives Mike.

Censorship may not be new. But when used as a political tool, it can kill...which it probably did. Yet you want to try and normalize it.

And again we see the Libbie sliderule of morality.

[CouchPotato]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm 100% against the idea that mitigating disinformation is a revolutionary idea. The fact is that there are benefits, which is why we have been doing it since forever.

Where did I say it was revolutionary? It is simply wrong. No man has the right to decide for another what views he can hear.

Quote

So you have an idea here that's worth considering.

I do? Why thank you, Mr. Hardner. It's sure swell that we have you to let us know what ideas are worthy of consideration.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

1. Are you seriously trying to excuse censorship? 

2. Ivermectin was known...by thousands of real doctors...to ease and aid with recovery and yes even prevention of The Rona. Yet the CDC and most other of those institutions you defend constantly, called claims of its efficacy..."disinformation" and had these privately managed businesses you speak of, actively censore any attempts to promote the use of the drug. That cost lives Mike.

3. Censorship may not be new. But when used as a political tool, it can kill...which it probably did. Yet you want to try and normalize it.

And again we see the Libbie sliderule of morality.

1. By your definition, I assume so.

2. The benefits haven't been sufficiently proven, so your last sentence must be taken as incorrect.  I went to my trusted sources for this.

3. It's not only new, it's useful.  Would you take that drug without consulting with your doctor?

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

1. Where did I say it was revolutionary?

2. It is simply wrong. No man has the right to decide for another what views he can hear.

3. I do? Why thank you, Mr. Hardner. It's sure swell that we have you to let us know what ideas are worthy of consideration.

1. You didn't.

2. And yet we've been doing this since forever without much opposition.

3. You are most welcome.

   The reason I pointed out that there's value in this discussion is that many on the board hate discussion to the point where they jump in and call you a name for considering abstract principles...

 

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. By your definition, I assume so.

2. The benefits haven't been sufficiently proven, so your last sentence must be taken as incorrect.  I went to my trusted sources for this.

3. It's not only new, it's useful.  Would you take that drug without consulting with your doctor?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Just stop Mike. It has been sufficiently proven.

I asked my Dr. about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. His response?

"I can't comment nor can I perscribe either for you and that's all I can say."

[Michael Hardner]

38 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Just stop Mike. It has been sufficiently proven.

2. I asked my Dr. about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. His response?

"I can't comment nor can I perscribe either for you and that's all I can say."

1. Yes, but they don't accept a single study as evidence.  And that one's a few years old.  I found studies that claimed the opposite so we're at a point when we're looking for consensus. 

I have zero stake in this issue either way, so save the name calling.  This small issue means way more to you than to me.

2. Well what did you think of that?  He didn't seem to agree that it's sufficiently proven.

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, but they don't accept a single study as evidence.  And that one's a few years old.  I found studies that claimed the opposite so we're at a point when we're looking for consensus. 

I have zero stake in this issue either way, so save the name calling.  This small issue means way more to you than to me.

2. Well what did you think of that?  He didn't seem to agree that it's sufficiently proven.

Ya know...I try...with you more than most...to be...less aggressive. But you consistently make dumb-ass statements. And when shown to be completely wrong, you attempt to sidestep your dumb-ass statements.

You're Gawd Damn right it means something to me!  That you can claim it means little to you, only exhibits how callous you will be when the choice is between life itself and Libbie lies.

Had my Dr. of over 30 years, whom I consider to be a friend as well, says he CANNOT advise, it means he'd suffer consequences from said advise. I knew that then and you know it now too. Yet you deny your nose to spite your face. 

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1.  That you can claim it means little to you, only exhibits how callous you will be when the choice is between life itself and Libbie lies.

2. Had my Dr. of over 30 years, whom I consider to be a friend as well, says he CANNOT advise, it means he'd suffer consequences from said advise. I knew that then and you know it now too. Yet you deny your nose to spite your face. 

1. Yeah but if it means nothing to me, how can you say I'm being callous? For example, blackbird flips out when people say they don't believe in God..... My truth is my own and likewise with you. I'm just telling you to keep a lid on it if you want to chat on this topic. 

Or don't I guess ...

2. Interesting interpretation.  Maybe that's true. Who knows.

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

 

2. Interesting interpretation.  Maybe that's true. Who knows.

If somebody asked me something and I say... Sorry, I can't say.... I would be surprised if they interpreted it as somebody preventing me from saying it. 

 

Just saying... 😉

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yeah but if it means nothing to me, how can you say I'm being callous? For example, blackbird flips out when people say they don't believe in God..... My truth is my own and likewise with you. I'm just telling you to keep a lid on it if you want to chat on this topic. 

Or don't I guess ...

2. Interesting interpretation.  Maybe that's true. Who knows.

The walls have ears. There's a super secret program to observe doctors in their offices and make sure they don't discuss the current state of medical research with their patients. And if they do, it's off to the gulag!

Or, maybe that's what a doctor says when they are freaking exhausted from explaining to debating with kooks why random "miracle drugs" should not be ingested. 

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yeah but if it means nothing to me, how can you say I'm being callous? For example, blackbird flips out when people say they don't believe in God..... My truth is my own and likewise with you. I'm just telling you to keep a lid on it if you want to chat on this topic. 

Or don't I guess ...

2. Interesting interpretation.  Maybe that's true. Who knows.

If somebody asked me something and I say... Sorry, I can't say.... I would be surprised if they interpreted it as somebody preventing me from saying it. 

 

Just saying... 😉

Quite easily. 

You're being callouse AND disingenuous. 

See how easy that was? And if anyone reads this exchange, they'll probably say/think the same.

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The walls have ears. There's a super secret program to observe doctors in their offices and make sure they don't discuss the current state of medical research with their patients. And if they do, it's off to the gulag!

Or, maybe that's what a doctor says when they are freaking exhausted from explaining to debating with kooks why random "miracle drugs" should not be ingested. 

Ur a m0ron...there's really no other way to describe you.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

You're being callouse AND disingenuous. 

See how easy that was? And if anyone reads this exchange, they'll probable say/think the same.

Ok, well they'll also see my response, which is: what are your reasons for saying that?

Callous means insensitive or uncaring.

Disingenuous means cagey or slightly dishonest.

The invectin thing is to be worked out by the doctors.  When yours says you can take it, I'll be happy for you.

 

[Nationalist]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, well they'll also see my response, which is: what are your reasons for saying that?

Callous means insensitive or uncaring.

Disingenuous means cagey or slightly dishonest.

The invectin thing is to be worked out by the doctors.  When yours says you can take it, I'll be happy for you.

 

Gotta go paint before new tenants move in. I'll be back.

[Black Dog]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Again...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Weird you keep posting this study led by a guy who had his work on the subject retracted for lying about data and has had his credentials revoked and not any of the 80 studies that have shown no evidence of a clinical benefit for ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. 

[WestCanMan]

18 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

That is the way it should be. Warts and all, the COVID vaccine reduced COVID fatalities by the hundreds of thousands..

In Canada it did nothing at all.

We vaxed 85% of our population and deaths went up by 30%, with 86% of the deaths occurring among the multi-vaxed.

Even if you could make the case that it helps a tiny bit:

1. young, healthy people never needed it
2. it didn't slow the spread at all
3. it grievously injured and even killed people who were at no risk from covid
4. for all the reasons above, there was never scientific, statistical or epidemiological evidence for forcing it on people.  

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

In Canada it did nothing at all.

We vaxed 85% of our population and deaths went up by 30%, with 86% of the deaths occurring among the multi-vaxed.

Even if you could make the case that it helps a tiny bit:

1. young, healthy people never needed it
2. it didn't slow the spread at all
3. it grievously injured and even killed people who were at no risk from covid
4. for all the reasons above, there was never scientific, statistical or epidemiological evidence for forcing it on people.  

Yeah, didn't do anything! 🤦‍♂️

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yeah, didn't do anything! 🤦‍♂️

That is the OG vax-apologist stat of all time.

The bottom line is that we had far more hospitalizations and deaths than ever before in 2022, period.

Several times the number of hospitalizations, 24% more deaths than even in 2020, end of story. 

Case counts is not a factor here. The vax was supposed to reduce transmission, remember? Not increase it drastically but only let deaths go up by 24% over 2020, and 30% over 2021.