Worldwide Genocide Continues: 13,867 DEAD from COVID-19 Shots

[Ron Mexico]

articles from the washington post aka the toilet paper of record, yea there is no bias or conflict of interest from media owned by jeff bozos

Wait?!! You're making fun of sources of news?!

Let's here from you what good sources of news are, this should be entertaining. Also what country are you from? You never answered why you post pro communist sources of news...

 

[Miggs]

what are you even trying to say?

His dick is 0.7 inches.

 

[Red]

One of my huge pet peeves is anyone who says "science has to guide us" or we have to "follow the science". Science isn't a deity. You don't follow it. You don't worship it. It doesn't command you to do anything. Science is the method by which information is gained and it is the collection of knowledge that has been gained via the scientific process.

My favorite quote on this comes from the brilliant PhD theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder who put it as "Science does not say you shouldn't pee on high voltage lines. Science says urine is an excellent conductor".


Anyone who say you must follow, be guided by, or submit because their authority comes from science is someone you should distrust. That is not to say they are wrong, but you need to find another reputable source.

I’m not a fan of scientism. I’m also not a fan of scientific materialism. And could go on all day on that subject. (But won’t, ever, on this forum, lol). Still, I don’t think my philosophy on that subject is relevant here, I am no enemy of the scientific method as a tool, and I think the Surgeon General is offering good advice in his address yesterday, so am not letting my personal attitude toward science as a sacred cow get in the way. I don’t think the misinformation/disinformation regarding vaccines is helping at all. But if you were to prefer to trust the anti-vaccine information(not suggesting you are), that’s your business. I think what he’s saying is simply an attitude that many “men of science” would have; I mean if it’s just an appeal from authority, I still do trust his info more than the anti-vaccine crowd. And I can still retain my anti-scientism frame of mind, while accepting that speaking out against anti-vaccine disinfo is a good thing. I do realize you and I are speaking of different things here, in actuality, and getting into it would not be relevant to the subject of vaccine disinfo…..

But, briefly, and as an aside, I really have always interpreted the dictum “follow the science” as shorthand for “apply the scientific method and allow the facts to lead the way to an answer”. I really have never interpreted it to mean “worship the science”. So I guess we disagree there as well, you seem to be actually using an innocent saying that simply is shorthand for “follow the facts, follow the evidence where it leads” to a place it simply does not usually lead. “Follow the science”=“Treat Science as a deity” is not the first equation that comes to mind. On the one hand, I know what you are cautioning against, but in this instance it actually seems silly, IMHO, it likely does not even apply in the sense you suggest, and just shows that your mind works different. At least different than my mind. Nothing wrong with that, but makes it difficult to connect with you at times, and I can understand why The Thriller would give up trying…..

 

[Miggs]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-covid-anti-vaxxers-increase-american-deaths/

Here is perhaps the most important medical and political fact of our time: 99.5 percent of all covid-19-related deaths in the United States occur among unvaccinated people; 0.5 percent of covid deaths occur among vaccinated people. If you tell people not to be vaccinated, you add to the former category.

In this light, the recent outbreak of applause at the Conservative Political Action Conference for the United States’ failure to meet its vaccination target was macabre. Here were political activists — many of whom would call themselves “pro-life” — cheering for the advance of death.….

In the case of Fox News celebrities in particular, they must know that discouraging vaccination — by exaggerating risks, highlighting unproven alternative therapies and normalizing anti-vaccine voices — will result in additional, unnecessary deaths. This is hard to get my head around. If someone were to pay me as a columnist to argue that cigarette smoking is healthy for children, or to encourage teenagers to take naps on railroad tracks after underage drinking, I don’t think I could make an ethical case for accepting the deal.….

Fox News’s conservative anti-vaxxers gain advantages — in viewers and influence — by feeding conspiratorial fears that can kill their viewers. Standing outside politics for a moment, is this really the sum of their ambitions? Is this a reason to get out of bed in the morning? How does someone look in the mirror and say: Today, I will purposely misinform people in ways that increase their risk of hospitalization and death?….

No one has forced Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), or Ted Cruz (Tex.), Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) or Madison Cawthorn (N.C.), or many of their Republican peers to encourage vaccine skepticism, or to slander vaccine promotion as oppression, or to make selfish, destructive health decisions into a new civic rights cause. Yet they have. They are not proposing a realistic, alternative way to defeat a pandemic. They are undermining the only way to defeat a pandemic, because it will endear them to Trump stalwarts.…

And of that 0.5%, like 90% of those are elderly. In other words, old people die. Shocker.

 

[fishonjazz]

I’m not a fan of scientism. I’m also not a fan of scientific materialism. And could go on all day on that subject. (But won’t, ever, on this forum, lol). Still, I don’t think my philosophy on that subject is relevant here, I am no enemy of the scientific method as a tool, and I think the Surgeon General is offering good advice in his address yesterday, so am not letting my personal attitude toward science as a sacred cow get in the way. I don’t think the misinformation/disinformation regarding vaccines is helping at all. But if you were to prefer to trust the anti-vaccine information(not suggesting you are), that’s your business. I think what he’s saying is simply an attitude that many “men of science” would have; I mean if it’s just an appeal from authority, I still do trust his info more than the anti-vaccine crowd. And I can still retain my anti-scientism frame of mind, while accepting that speaking out against anti-vaccine disinfo is a good thing. I do realize you and I are speaking of different things here, in actuality, and getting into it would not be relevant to the subject of vaccine disinfo…..

But, briefly, and as an aside, I really have always interpreted the dictum “follow the science” as shorthand for “apply the scientific method and allow the facts to lead the way to an answer”. I really have never interpreted it to mean “worship the science”. So I guess we disagree there as well, you seem to be actually using an innocent saying that simply is shorthand for “follow the facts, follow the evidence where it leads” to a place it simply does not usually lead. “Follow the science”=“Treat Science as a deity” is not the first equation that comes to mind. On the one hand, I know what you are cautioning against, but in this instance it actually seems silly, IMHO, it likely does not even apply in the sense you suggest, and just shows that your mind works different. At least different than my mind. Nothing wrong with that, but makes it difficult to connect with you at times, and I can understand why The Thriller would give up trying…..

Good post Wes

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

No you are posting links from npr which is funded by the gates foundation and big pharm foh.

NPR keeps policies in place that separate marketing from the news division. By contrast, you are spreading the lies of grifters (Bigtree, Mercola, etc.) that profit directly from the disinformation they provide you.

 

[One Brow]

One of my huge pet peeves is anyone who says "science has to guide us" or we have to "follow the science". Science isn't a deity. You don't follow it. You don't worship it. It doesn't command you to do anything. Science is the method by which information is gained and it is the collection of knowledge that has been gained via the scientific process.

Some values are considered so universal and so basic that they are not mentioned in the conversation. When someone says "follow the science" in this type of context, they mean 'follow what the science says we need to do to support our values'. I'm surprised this would need to be explained.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

the science says we need to do

That is EXACTLY my point. Science does not say we need to do. Science isn't prescriptive.

What we need to do is an opinion. Science is made up of facts. Facts and opinions aren't the same thing. People using that phrase are dressing their opinions up as facts to give their opinions more authority. I believe that people pretending facts are opinions and opinions are facts is a big part of why we are having so many problems communicating. It doesn't sit well with me when people do it.

 

[One Brow]

That is EXACTLY my point. Science does not say we need to do. Science isn't prescriptive.

No, but our values are, hence my emphasis on the combination of science and our values. The values describe a goal, science tells us how to get there.

What we need to do is an opinion. Science is made up of facts. Facts and opinions aren't the same thing. People using that phrase are dressing their opinions up as facts to give their opinions more authority. I believe that people pretending facts are opinions and opinions are facts is a big part of why we are having so many problems communicating. It doesn't sit well with me when people do it.

I think you are missing a big part of the context of such discussions, such as here, when you literally snapped a small phrase out of it's context. Do you even disagree with the point I was making?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

No, but our values are, hence my emphasis on the combination of science and our values. The values describe a goal, science tells us how to get there.


I think you are missing a big part of the context of such discussions, such as here, when you literally snapped a small phrase out of it's context. Do you even disagree with the point I was making?

What I agree with, and effectively what I think you were saying is that our opinions should be informed by facts. Opinions aren't facts and facts aren't opinions, but opinions should be informed by facts. The path we choose to take should be informed by the facts we get from science. That is the concept we agree on, correct?

 

[One Brow]

What I agree with, and effectively what I think you were saying is that our opinions should be informed by facts. Opinions aren't facts and facts aren't opinions, but opinions should be informed by facts. The path we choose to take should be informed by the facts we get from science. That is the concept we agree on, correct?

Do you think values are opinions? I see them as distinct things.

However, that's closer.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Do you think values are opinions? I see them as distinct things.

However, that's closer.

Unless you are talking numeric values, yes. Moral values are opinions. They cannot be falsified.

 

[Miggs]

Good post Wes

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Wasn’t me homie.

 

[One Brow]

Unless you are talking numeric values, yes. Moral values are opinions. They cannot be falsified.

Well, since you seem to use definitions prescriptively,

o·pin·ion
/əˈpinyən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Not all facts can be potentially falsified. Not all knowledge can be potentially falsified.

Simple categorizations pretty much always fail.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Not all facts can be potentially falsified.

Now find a definition of 'fact'. Also suggest finding an authoritative source on the difference between fact and opinion.

A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Facts: Statements that can be verified. They can be proven true or false. | Opinions: Statements that express a writer’s feelings, attitudes, or beliefs. They are neither true nor false.
MONTGOMERY COLLEGE

A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false through objective evidence. | An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. It is a statement that is neither true nor false.
PALM BEACH STATE

I just went down the list of results in a google search of 'fact vs opinion'. The last one even included 'value' right in their definition for opinion. I think you'll have a hard time finding a resource to back your claim of facts not being falsifiable. It is the thing that makes a fact a fact.

 

[carey-scurry fan]

NPR keeps policies in place that separate marketing from the news division. By contrast, you are spreading the lies of grifters (Bigtree, Mercola, etc.) that profit directly from the disinformation they provide you.

Every source and article you have posted is big pharm funded or the bill & melinda gates foundation. These are criminal cartels and mafias. Just accept the fact you have been duped played and tricked. The only disinformation in this thread has been blindly parroted by yes men like you. Sellouts enemy to the people. Murderous criminal machine supporters.

 

[carey-scurry fan]

Search Results from the VAERS Database

 

[carey-scurry fan]

 

[One Brow]

Now find a definition of 'fact'. Also suggest finding an authoritative source on the difference between fact and opinion.

fact
/fakt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts"

Known or proved, not known and proved.

What would you consider an authoritative source? Philosophers of science?

I think you'll have a hard time finding a resource to back your claim of facts not being falsifiable. It is the thing that makes a fact a fact.

Find a experiment that could falsify 1 + 1 = 2. Even Popper made exceptions for the inability to falsify mathematical statements.

Again, you're allowing definitions to control your perception of reality, rather than the other way around.

 

[One Brow]

Every source and article you have posted is big pharm funded or the bill & melinda gates foundation. These are criminal cartels and mafias. Just accept the fact you have been duped played and tricked. The only disinformation in this thread has been blindly parroted by yes men like you. Sellouts enemy to the people. Murderous criminal machine supporters.

The VAERS database you just linked to is funded by taxes on the pharmacological companies and run the government you claim is keeping things secret.

You have nothing but slander and disinformation, stacked up by trying to prey on people's ignorance. We're all onto the game here. You haven't uncovered some secret cabal, you're not part of the chosen. you've been manipulated into feeling an exaggerated sense of importance.

Go do something that really matters. Give money to a homeless person, tell someone you love them, teach a child something new. You can really be important doing these things. Spreading the lies of the quacks and charlatans of the world only diminishes you.