|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 15:07:18 GMT -5
yeeaaahhh sorry. its not even anything personal its just how these things tend to go and the same reason i bailed on that gg discussion again. Its a glorified game if posting shit and yelling WHAT ABOUT THIS. and it takes so much time to check the validity and quality of shit that i just cant keep my patience. If i really wanted to take the time to sift through it all then id be looking at them on my own time anyway (i dont even follow forums for stuff i align with either because its subject to the same problems; reddit and most social media has a huge problem where a lot of attention is granted to something just because it's easy to chew and it can actually take quite a bit of effort to validate them). Im not even saying i handle it particularly well either but thats all the more reason to not get started in the first place. theres not enough time in life to entertain everything i come across so when something repeatedly drives me up the wall then im not going to keep giving it chances. Thanks. I forgot this. I checked the link. Not very convincing, especially because many of then had nothing to do with vaccines or autism. ??? Reading many of abstracts and looking up the scientists leads me to the opposite conclusion. Your word against mine? We see what we want to see? Even if many of the papers don't support it directly, many do, it should go to show that the issue is far more complex and in dispute than the mainstream would suggest. At the very least, I think we can agree that issues like this are highly politicized and have financial interest groups involved. Bernie deserved that win. Lolololol Isn't that from The Big Question where this fitness guy looks at that fat lady with "r u srs m8"? Well--when I say deserved, I mean as much as a democracy can make someone deserve to tyrannize the minority. Friends, why is it that, the more I find out the more radical, extreme, and tubular I become? Perhaps it's a blind trust in what information I find? Perhaps I have some disorder which makes me want to be special or different or noticed? Perhaps I want to feel smarter than everyone else? Perhaps I'm honest in my desire to know the truth, and what I know is true? Perhaps I'm just a foxtrotting idiot? Why do the most 'radical' politicians (Bernie, Ron) seem to be the most genuine about their beliefs? Is it just the nature of 'moderate' beliefs to make their representatives seem middling? I'd advance because most people hide behind some degree of falsehood, and they can't shake the cognitive dissonance with reality, or reality opposes them in some way. The more consistent someone seems in their beliefs, the more harmony and honesty of the mind and character they seem to have. Either way, I think we need more "idealists" and less "pragmatists" (who are just idealists of the utilitarian bent).
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 4, 2016 15:53:12 GMT -5
It should go to show that the issue is far more complex and in dispute than the mainstream would suggest. No.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 22:22:47 GMT -5
But, this is a different issue. One that I will concede.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Feb 4, 2016 22:42:57 GMT -5
Penn Jillette is my hero. I'm the one on the left
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 23:32:08 GMT -5
Penn Jillette is my hero. I'm the one on the left But Penn is 6'6"...
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Feb 5, 2016 0:07:01 GMT -5
From a logic standpoint, having stacks of research papers that all suggest a correlation is not the equivalent of proof. Science doesn't work like that. Generally, the more accurate the research is, the fewer times it needs to be done because it is repeatable and will be verified by the greater scientific community. Einstein didn't need to publish 124 theories of relativity for his theory to be taken seriously. Having said that, I understand this tends to work differently now because there are fewer "right" answers and a lot that is hard to prove, and even more that is hard to verify and repeat (something that applies more so to medicine in particular). Even so, you could show me 1000 research papers that suggest a correlation between infant vaccines and autism and you could still be wrong. If it were commonly understood in any circle that vaccines cause autism, anyone aware of that fact would be actively trying to identify what specific vaccine was causing it, followed by what component in that vaccine was the culprit. Now since you decided to post actual scientific research instead of a captioned photo with a blurb underneath it you deserve more of an answer than Penn and Teller can provide. I've been out of school for a few years, but when I went through, it was generally understood that there are quite literally a thousand things that could be causing our autism epidemic and we have no idea which one it is, or if it's a combination, or if it's none of them and is something we don't know about yet. Literally everything from air pollution, to ground water pollution, to the radioactivity from electronic devices, to baby formula, to chemicals leaching from all of the plastics we use, to brominated flame retardants that are used in probably every mattress you've ever slept on or sofa you've ever sat in. On this list could potentially be vaccines. I don't know anyone who really thinks it is vaccines but it is a possibility that chemicals used in vaccines could be causing autism. It is not unheard of for people to have negative neurological reactions to vaccinations although generally these tend to be localized to the area of the vaccination and tend not to become systemic neurological problems. However, the likelihood of vaccinations being the sole cause in our autism epidemic is what you might call astronomically small. Moreover, if there is a chemical used in one of these vaccines that increases the chances of autism, that is not a side-effect that is known to the medical community. There is not some conspiracy to cover up the fact that one chemical in one vaccine causes literally 100% of the autism we see. As for whether or not we should stop vaccinating our kids because there might possibly be a less than one percent chance that the vaccine could give them autism, Penn and Teller actually do provide a pretty good answer to that.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Feb 5, 2016 1:22:31 GMT -5
From a logic standpoint, having stacks of research papers that all suggest a correlation is not the equivalent of proof. Science doesn't work like that. But that is how science is done these days. Apparently having 41 out of 11,944 papers vaguely mention the same theory means that theory is an indisputable fact, and there is a 97% consensus among all scientists that we're all doomed (RE: catastrophic anthropogenic global warming)
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Feb 5, 2016 1:48:07 GMT -5
its how science is spit out for internet arguments and shitty news articles but they dont have particularly high standard when it comes to that sort of thing and i mean its not like medical research typically has totally unanimous results anyway if just for ethical reasons. like what do you do, get a bunch of twin babies and vaccinate half of them? Climate science does though. That sh it is actually happening.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 5, 2016 11:44:51 GMT -5
Which is exactly what much of those research papers say. Which was my original point. A lot of those research papers were talking about the environmental exposure to heavy metals and the genetic element of autism. Such as boys are more likely than girls to get it, that sensitivity to mercury can be passed to offspring. Then the few that were directly about vaccines had much to do with Thimerosal, which was phased out almost entirely in 1999, after some of these papers were done. I just love the Penn & Teller clip because medicine isn't without side effects, but when the choice is between permanent disfigurement or death, and autism well I know what I'd rather have.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Feb 12, 2016 15:37:35 GMT -5
|
|
Slick
True Bro
Taking the piss
Posts: 1,015
|
Post by Slick on Feb 12, 2016 16:42:25 GMT -5
Simple formulas don't answer complicated questions very well. An individual wouldn't be able to test if they're being spied on by the government with any certainty or effectiveness, yet we know we are because of the Edward Snowden leaks.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Feb 12, 2016 17:34:12 GMT -5
This really isn't a very complete explanation of how science works. The thought process behind "If it can't be scientifically proven it must be bullshit" isn't very sound. Quite literally a few days ago the scientific community finally tested and confirmed something suggested by Einstein's theory of relativity 100 years ago. Have they waited until now to endorse the theory? No, they haven't, because it explained so much that we didn't understand and couldn't test. Just because we can't confirm it doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's right either, it just means we don't know. Science allows for significantly more leeway than this guy is suggesting. His scientific method would very quickly prove there is no god and that nothing outside of your observable world can exist because you haven't seen it. Entire fields of study wouldn't be possible under this guy's understanding of the scientific method.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 20:34:12 GMT -5
This really isn't a very complete explanation of how science works. The thought process behind "If it can't be scientifically proven it must be bullshit" isn't very sound. Quite literally a few days ago the scientific community finally tested and confirmed something suggested by Einstein's theory of relativity 100 years ago. Have they waited until now to endorse the theory? No, they haven't, because it explained so much that we didn't understand and couldn't test. Just because we can't confirm it doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's right either, it just means we don't know. Science allows for significantly more leeway than this guy is suggesting. His scientific method would very quickly prove there is no god and that nothing outside of your observable world can exist because you haven't seen it. Entire fields of study wouldn't be possible under this guy's understanding of the scientific method. The search for truth is often a dull and complicated thing. The nature of mainstream YouTube is almost always neither, and Maddox is no exception.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 13, 2016 0:08:29 GMT -5
Predictions.
Economic disaster soon. Federal Reserve will cut rates, launch Quantitative Easing 4. Regardless of what they do, it'll still be a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 13, 2016 9:27:21 GMT -5
Predictions. If I have to hear about Hillary Clinton being a woman one more time I will lose my mind.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 13, 2016 20:01:22 GMT -5
Predictions. If I have to hear about Hillary Clinton being a woman one more time I will lose my mind. If I have to hear about how the people bringing up the people bringing up Hillary's womanhood are misogynists one more time, I'm going to lose someone my pachiderm 's mind.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 13, 2016 23:05:36 GMT -5
Here's a joke from Walter Block. There were three prisoners in the Soviet Union's gulag, and, as prisoners are wont to do, they compared notices as to why they're there. The first guy said "I got to work early and they accused me of brown-nosing." The other guy said "I got to work late and they accused me of cheating the state out of my labour services." The third guy said "I got to work every day exactly on time and they accused me of owning a western wristwatch." Walter: I once told this to a bunch of anti-trust lawyers and economists and got uproarious laughter. Now I told the second part of the joke, and I said: There were three people in jail for anti-trust violations, and, like prisoners do, they compared notes. The one guy said "I charged too high a price and they accused me of profiteering." The second guy said "I charged too low a price and they accused me of cutthroat competition." And the third guy said "I charged the same price as everyone else, and they accused me of collusion." Walter: Dead silence, nobody was laughing.
In other news, Burns, Oregon is under de facto martial law, and there's mercenaries and paramilitary swarming the place.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 14, 2016 9:28:30 GMT -5
Both of those jokes sucked, I doubt anyone laughed at either.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Feb 14, 2016 9:59:50 GMT -5
It's important to keep mentioning Hilarys gender because it's historic. I think I remember hearing something about Obama being black eight years ago
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 14, 2016 10:38:00 GMT -5
And it was just as stupid back then. At least Obama had some charisma and didn't have anywhere near as much baggage. Hillary is one of the fakest emotionally lacking politicians out there.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Feb 14, 2016 10:52:20 GMT -5
Somehow I'm not surprised that Jaedrik is now defending a militia that illegally occupied a federal building for nearly a month, kept threatening violence while doing so (and made those threats while armed) and kept harassing locals when the law enforcement wouldn't do jack to deter their occupation, all over some inconvenient grazing regulations.
I wonder what Jaedrik would be saying if it were BLM activists occupying the building?
Yeah, Hillary is definitely not the most charismatic politician, but the election is not going to be about who people vote for as much as who they vote against, and it's starting to shape up to be republicans giving people a big reason to vote against them by saying they refuse to allow the senate to do its job in confirming a new justice. It's one thing to say you won't vote for a justice that seems not fit for the job and another to suggest that you will delay the process for nearly an entire year.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 14, 2016 13:13:05 GMT -5
ITT: political
OPINIONS
P
I
N
I
O
N
S
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 14, 2016 14:30:43 GMT -5
Somehow I'm not surprised that Jaedrik is now defending a militia that illegally occupied a federal building for nearly a month, kept threatening violence while doing so (and made those threats while armed) and kept harassing locals when the law enforcement wouldn't do jack to deter their occupation, all over some inconvenient grazing regulations. I wonder what Jaedrik would be saying if it were BLM activists occupying the building? Defending ??? Please review the text of my post. And, sir, you'll find that I'd be totally consistent, without double standard, in my opinions and presentation if BLM activists were occupying a building. Attacking me avails you nothing. You assume much and know little.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Feb 14, 2016 15:39:25 GMT -5
Somehow I'm not surprised that Jaedrik is now defending a militia that illegally occupied a federal building for nearly a month, kept threatening violence while doing so (and made those threats while armed) and kept harassing locals when the law enforcement wouldn't do jack to deter their occupation, all over some inconvenient grazing regulations. I wonder what Jaedrik would be saying if it were BLM activists occupying the building? Defending Please review the text of my post. And, sir, you'll find that I'd be totally consistent, without double standard, in my opinions and presentation if BLM activists were occupying a building. Attacking me avails you nothing. You assume much and know little. You claimed that Burns, Oregon is now under martial law because the federal government has finally stepped in and done something about the Bundy's and their miltia. A quick search shows that the only sources saying such a thing are right wing sources that would rather defend the militia than approve of the federal government doing its job.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 14, 2016 16:58:52 GMT -5
Yeah, what's happening in Oregon is not "Martial Law" by any definition. The government is raiding it's own building because a group of radicals took it over and threatened violence.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Feb 15, 2016 11:25:20 GMT -5
Somehow I'm not surprised that Jaedrik is now defending a militia that illegally occupied a federal building for nearly a month, kept threatening violence while doing so (and made those threats while armed) and kept harassing locals when the law enforcement wouldn't do jack to deter their occupation, all over some inconvenient grazing regulations. I wonder what Jaedrik would be saying if it were BLM activists occupying the building? Defending Please review the text of my post. And, sir, you'll find that I'd be totally consistent, without double standard, in my opinions and presentation if BLM activists were occupying a building. Attacking me avails you nothing. You assume much and know little. "I assure you I would support the right of the Bureau of Land Management to forcibly occupy its own building." What?
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 15, 2016 11:59:34 GMT -5
Defending ??? Please review the text of my post. And, sir, you'll find that I'd be totally consistent, without double standard, in my opinions and presentation if BLM activists were occupying a building. Attacking me avails you nothing. You assume much and know little. You claimed that Burns, Oregon is now under martial law because the federal government has finally stepped in and done something about the Bundy's and their miltia. A quick search shows that the only sources saying such a thing are right wing sources that would rather defend the militia than approve of the federal government doing its job. De FactoMartial Law The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Put your bias aside and look at the facts. This means ignoring the 'right-leaning' (I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by this label. We probably mean different definitions of 'right wing'.) rhetoric that often accompanies the only publications willing to talk about witness reports and investigative journalism. But, let me ask you this, what sort of evidence would you accept? Does it have to be video or photographic? How about multiple accounts by independent journalists or eye witnesses all attesting to the same thing?
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Feb 15, 2016 13:12:59 GMT -5
You claimed that Burns, Oregon is now under martial law because the federal government has finally stepped in and done something about the Bundy's and their miltia. A quick search shows that the only sources saying such a thing are right wing sources that would rather defend the militia than approve of the federal government doing its job. De FactoMartial Law The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Put your bias aside and look at the facts. This means ignoring the 'right-leaning' (I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by this label. We probably mean different definitions of 'right wing'.) rhetoric that often accompanies the only publications willing to talk about witness reports and investigative journalism. But, let me ask you this, what sort of evidence would you accept? Does it have to be video or photographic? How about multiple accounts by independent journalists or eye witnesses all attesting to the same thing? Of course your definition of a "right wing publication" is different because even if it is blatantly defending a right wing violent militia you don't call it right wing. You proved your flawed idea of what's an acceptable publication from the sources you have provided in your previous posts. Show me a real source (as in the kind of source that at the very least has the decency to correct itself when it publishes incorrect info) saying that Burns Oregon is now under martial law. All the sources I found were the kind that say stuff like "I wouldn't do what Bundy's group did because I'm not as brave as Bundy". There is no "martial law" going on in the case of Burns Oregon. There is just a government rightfully taking back what was their property in the first place and arresting violent militiamen who have broken the law. Someone earlier in the thread provided a good example of corrupt, overreaching US government with the passing of CISA and they provided a real source. If I wanted to look up about Edward Snowden's leaks I could easily find numerous real sources that explain the leaks. Don't pretend I have no idea what a real source is.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 16, 2016 10:28:35 GMT -5
You claimed that Burns, Oregon is now under martial law because the federal government has finally stepped in and done something about the Bundy's and their miltia. A quick search shows that the only sources saying such a thing are right wing sources that would rather defend the militia than approve of the federal government doing its job. De FactoMartial Law The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Put your bias aside and look at the facts. This means ignoring the 'right-leaning' (I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by this label. We probably mean different definitions of 'right wing'.) rhetoric that often accompanies the only publications willing to talk about witness reports and investigative journalism. But, let me ask you this, what sort of evidence would you accept? Does it have to be video or photographic? How about multiple accounts by independent journalists or eye witnesses all attesting to the same thing? Even by that definition, it's still not martial law. The FBI isn't part of the military and it was federal land. They also weren't exercising control, they were cooperating with local police forces, because everyone was trying to prevent Waco 2.0
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 17, 2016 11:49:45 GMT -5
De FactoMartial Law The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Put your bias aside and look at the facts. This means ignoring the 'right-leaning' (I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by this label. We probably mean different definitions of 'right wing'.) rhetoric that often accompanies the only publications willing to talk about witness reports and investigative journalism. But, let me ask you this, what sort of evidence would you accept? Does it have to be video or photographic? How about multiple accounts by independent journalists or eye witnesses all attesting to the same thing? Of course your definition of a "right wing publication" is different because even if it is blatantly defending a right wing violent militia you don't call it right wing. You proved your flawed idea of what's an acceptable publication from the sources you have provided in your previous posts. Show me a real source (as in the kind of source that at the very least has the decency to correct itself when it publishes incorrect info) saying that Burns Oregon is now under martial law. All the sources I found were the kind that say stuff like "I wouldn't do what Bundy's group did because I'm not as brave as Bundy". There is no "martial law" going on in the case of Burns Oregon. There is just a government rightfully taking back what was their property in the first place and arresting violent militiamen who have broken the law. Someone earlier in the thread provided a good example of corrupt, overreaching US government with the passing of CISA and they provided a real source. If I wanted to look up about Edward Snowden's leaks I could easily find numerous real sources that explain the leaks. Don't pretend I have no idea what a real source is. You've misunderstood me, sir, and you conduct this argument without the good faith I'm according to you. I was being entirely serious and concealing no intention when I asked my question. I mean it when I asked you what sort of evidence would convince you, what authorities you put your faith in, and so on. I'll post where I got the information from now, but, please answer that part irrespective of particular objections (preferably before you read the links) to the articles. I'd like your general policy on the thing. Then, if you have the will / time, demonstrate how the publications I point out do not fit into the categories that befit honest journalism. dianersite.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/theres-something-strange-happening-here/www.intellihub.com/massive-number-heavily-armed-paramilitary-forces-operating-in-and-around-burns-oregon/www.intellihub.com/martial-law-burns-oregon-feds-terrorize-local-citizens-check-points-random-searches-guns-head/video.beforeitsnews.com/mercenaries-in-burns-declare-martial-law_e9a2d6aed.htmlworld-war.beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/02/martial-law-in-burns-oregon-3302652.htmlKeep in mind that I might not believe every detail of these links, nor did I thoroughly check them all, just corroborating things. If I'm not mistaken, they all typically site a few YT videos, that one blogging journalist, intellihub, and eyewitness reports. I usually define 'right wing' as establishment neoconservatism and 'left wing' as establishment progressivism. If I say we mean different things, I try to invite you to explain what you mean by it, but you seem to be more interested in slamming me. I also believe you're brandishing labels in a manner that distracts from critical analysis and encourages thinking in buzzwords, pre-established paradigms, basically discouraging critical thought, and demonstrates an unwillingness to change one's views. Under my definition of 'right wing,' however, it's readily seen that they would hate and revile militias and rebels just as much as the 'left wing.' De FactoMartial Law The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Put your bias aside and look at the facts. This means ignoring the 'right-leaning' (I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by this label. We probably mean different definitions of 'right wing'.) rhetoric that often accompanies the only publications willing to talk about witness reports and investigative journalism. But, let me ask you this, what sort of evidence would you accept? Does it have to be video or photographic? How about multiple accounts by independent journalists or eye witnesses all attesting to the same thing? Even by that definition, it's still not martial law. The FBI isn't part of the military and it was federal land. They also weren't exercising control, they were cooperating with local police forces, because everyone was trying to prevent Waco 2.0 I think the first part of your post is a little bit of equivocation and word games. While I agree that it is not officially the military (lots of the paramilitary forces weren't even marked), the organizations / people exercising control seem to be exercising it in a fashion which denotes military-level authority.
|
|