Sometimes the goal is to take a post apart. Sometimes it's to focus on the building blocks as opposed to the structure.Yeah that is simpler than mine if you are taking the entire post apart for sure.
Sometimes the goal is to take a post apart. Sometimes it's to focus on the building blocks as opposed to the structure.Yeah that is simpler than mine if you are taking the entire post apart for sure.
Wow. We see the world so differently. We do not even agree on the problems, so it's no wonder that we are miles apart on the solutions. Sadly I do not have the amount of free time that you do to debate these issues, especially in a forum that has proven itself so unsatisfactory at bringing about worthwhile change. I do appreciate your willingness to be civil, though.When using Chrome on a PC, I just hit the enter key, and it creates a gap between the quotes automatically.
As I made clear in my dialogue over 10 or so pages, I would expect a vaccine company to test the virus as well as the drug, try and see what mutations it might assume, evaluate vaccine efficacy against these mutations, etc. That is responsible, future-oriented, and keeps an eye to future profits. While I don't trust Pfizer more than any other large corporation, in this particular regard I consider that good corporate citizenship.
There were several hypotheticals in the video that were discussed, and the interviewee was so inebriated that he didn't always make it clear he was discussing a hypothetical (like talking about hypothetical impacts to the endocrine system), but it was clear enough that he was not discussing actual effects.
Aside from those two points, I don't recall anything that SteakandEggs thought was problematic. Could you be more specific about the violations of trust? Or, if you were referring to one of the two points above, could you explain why it's more ethical to ignore future problem than prepare for them, or to speculate on potential bad outcomes?
I appreciate the opportunity.
Racism affects everyone, because we are all raised with it. As a human, I was influenced by my racist upbringing, and I struggle daily to be aware of its messages and sift them out from reality. Saying person A is feeding into the racism in society does not mean they are hateful, spiteful, or unusual in any way.
All people are racist, including black people, but some people (including some black people) buy more into the racist thought-lines of our society than others. Sometimes, we call these people "self-hating". A similar phenomenon happens to gay people, trans people, women, etc.
To focus on a couple more liberals, Warren Buffet supports politicians that claim they want to raise his taxes, but never seem to. He claims to be giving away all his money on his death, but most of that will go to a foundation that supports his views, and that his family will control and get money out of. Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard claims to be giving away his fortune to fight climate change, but again it's to charities that he controls. Do your billionaire clients act differently with their money?
Remember the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25, if you want to refresh). Much will be expected to whom much has been given. Even as an atheist, I find much value in that message.
It used to be that family fortunes would dissipate over generations. Instead, the billionaires find ways to conserve wealth and power over generations, gathering more and more for themselves. As much as anything else, that's what's undermining our country.
Has Soros killed anyone, to your knowledge? Do you have evidence he is a pedophile? A drug-lord? A wife abuser? His success seems to be based on a couple of successful prediction of financial bubbles and correctly managing his hedge fund. What has he actually done that earn him these names?
This is a flat out lie. I started fighting back after guys like you came in, added nothing but bullying, then like this you blame me. You literally added nothing but attacks. The rest of your post is a lie. I'd ask for examples of what I ignored but you won't be specific, you'll just lie again.Actually if you read through the threads of those conversations, this came out as frustration that he refused to acknowledge what was said, while demanding his every reply have a response or he would label everyone with vile insults, while he refused to respond to valid questions in kind. After enough of this, and his own devolution into insults and full-on ad hominem, it resulted in frustration and some, at first, legitimate questioning of if he was even understanding the conversation, then it might have crossed the line. Hence why I bowed out of the conversation, as it was going nowhere without a good faith back and forth.
Here's you claimimg a video was fake... I asked for evidence and you and your hero Thriller got vile, not me. See unlike you, I can back my **** up. You won't because you're a liar.Yes, no one on the Internet ever faked a video or any supporting information for personal gain. Never happened. Not even once.
Nailed it. @LogGrad98 is the one who’s got conspiracies.
Well done
Final tip: put away your phone/step away from your computer. Go outside. Maybe take a walk. Do some basic critical thinking. Either everyone else is wrong OR your source (that confirms your biases) that has a long history of lying, just got caught doing the same thing they’ve been doing for 15+ years now.
Why should they when they know it's garbage? Do you expect every organization to respond to every single whack job or fake attack hit on the Internet? Man you are naive. But you say WE gots conspiracies? Are you even reading what you are writing? You are defending the motherload of all virus conspiracies from a known bad actor, but when we ask for simple verifiable proof of simple existence, not even corroborating the actual story, just one thing that shows they guy is really a real person, you say WE "gots conspiracies". lol
I do understand why the video is concerning to some people. I think I just have a different "why" than you. From my perspective, the video feeds into the fear-mongering that so many people engaged when they were asked to change their routines for the sake of their neighbors. You can make a lot of money in this world by telling people what they want to hear. 100 years ago it was literal snake oil, in 2020 it was an anti-malarial (a bacterium) medicine against a coronavirus-induced disease.Wow. We see the world so differently. We do not even agree on the problems, so it's no wonder that we are miles apart on the solutions. Sadly I do not have the amount of free time that you do to debate these issues, especially in a forum that has proven itself so unsatisfactory at bringing about worthwhile change. I do appreciate your willingness to be civil, though.
I'm flabbergasted that you can't perceive why that video is so concerning to so many people. I think you must just enjoy being obtuse. I also can't imagine why you are okay with how non-transparent Pfizer has been in their response to it, other than that you believe their agenda is in alignment with yours and therefore you are willing to give them a pass. People will continue to be vaccine hesitant until companies like Pfizer (and government organizations as well) show them the respect they deserve by being transparent. It is blatantly obvious that these people are lying to us. Tell us the truth, and then allow us to make our own decisions based upon that information. That didn't used to be a hard concept to understand. It was one of the bedrocks of this country, in fact.
Your comments about racism highlight a much bigger obstacle to our communication. We don't agree on the problem. While I agree with you that racism cannot be tolerated I have a feeling that the people who I see as the heros of these various minority communities are the same people you would describe as the self-haters.
I think you are largely incorrect about some sort of change in the diminishment of family fortunes. If anything, the opposite of what you are suggesting is the case. We live in a world where massive fortunes are being made in very short timeframes, not one where royalty is generally protected by nothing other than birthright for generation after generation. Of course billionaires try to set their families up the best they possibly can. I do that too. I assume that you do it as well. I recently read Michelle Obama's biography. Her parents certainly did it. That should surprise no one. All good parents do.
To my knowledge Soros has not pulled the trigger, or raped a child, or tripped anyone's grandma, but what he has done is invest millions upon millions in electing criminal friendly District Attorneys who ignore legislation and disrespect law enforcement by unleashing the worst of the worst upon the streets where they, predictably, commit more crime. Those people do pull triggers and rape children and trip grandmas. It is a crime against all of us for Soros to circumvent our justice system by putting politicians in place who refuse to enforce the law. Why does he do iI? He is either nefarious (and likely benefiting financially from his society damaging actions, especially given his penchant for selling short) or incredibly callous to the fact that the real consequences of his soft-on-crime policies are vastly different than the theoretical imaginations of those who originally suggested their implementation.
This is a legit conspiracy. You were claiming this guy doesn't even exist. A guy on actual video is fake yet you started hating on me because i didn't fulfil your idiotic claim to prove Jordan Walker is a real human though he's literally on video. Common sense says that if he was fake, Pfizer would say so. How is that such a difficult concept?I didn't fabricate anything. I googled one thing, his name. Then I posted the things I found. You can do the same thing. Please do in fact. Clear this all up by showing he's a real person and who they claim he is. Simple right? See I even tried that and got nothing. Can you? Do you even dare to try?
Um, no, I simply googled the guy, then posted things from sources other than PV, NONE of which can verify the video. Then it opened up the door of the video might be fake. Any good cynic or simply thinking person will question the veracity of seemingly fantastic single-source "evidence". So then I found a really well-balanced snopes article where they just tried to find the guy and even admitted he might be who they say he is. Then I got curious and did my own search on LinkedIn. Found hundreds of execs at Pfizer, but not that guy. To be that casts doubt on the veracity of the evidence. Then take into account that PV is known for putting out evidence that has been trumped up or outright faked. All this together raises a reasonable doubt.
That a guy on video is not real when you have zero evidence, none, zip, nada, that he's not. That is something you guys fabricated out of thin air. That is a conspiracy.Does anyone know what the conspiracy is that some posters are said to be promoting? I see a great deal of skepticism. But skepticism isn’t conspiracy mongering. It’s really just healthy critical thinking.
I think some of the skepticism seems to be rooted in distrust of Project Veritas. Why this initial distrust? Apparently born of knowledge of PV’s prior history:
https://aftmichigan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/what-is-project-veritas12.pdf
Knowing this history, is it truly wrong, truly a misguided response, to immediately think something along the lines of “uh, oh, not those guys, not sure they have much integrity at all”? The video is obviously edited. Again, knowing the history of PV, is it truly wrong to conclude “I need to see the entirety of this video”?
I still am missing the part regarding a conspiracy theory promoted by LogGrad98 and others. What specific conspiracy was promoted? I see this:
I see nothing about that that strikes me as conspiracy mongering. I see someone looking for clarity.
The other thing I was more interested in than whether the whistleblower was who he said he was, (and I did think it odd that Pfizer didn’t not mention him one way or the other in their statement) was the Pfizer statement itself, and exactly why it was scaring people. I know somewhat, but I am not a virologist, I must depend on experts who can clarify that statement for me. I tried two things. Looking for expert guidance, I posted in this thread one doctor’s video analysis of Pfizer’s statement. He described it as scare mongering by “the usual crew”. And described why. I also asked ChatGTP to analyze the entire statement, looking for things stated that might seem to contradict other things the statement said. And I asked ChatGTP to analyze just portions of the statement. I got some results that said “gain of function”, and one analysis of the entire statement that said “not describing gain of function”.
My problem was not whether the whistleblower was “real”, but was the hysteria-like response justified. I would say now that it must depend on what one thinks is being described. By the whistleblower, and Pfizer. Some are alarmed by Pfizer’s statement, some, like the doctor I posted, not at all.
I’m not a virologist. Healthy skepticism is not conspiracy mongering. And I think labeling people who simply want confirmation of identity of the whistleblower, or see the unedited video, or not being sure if the Pfizer statement should gravely concern one, or not, as doing “nothing but crazy conspiracies” instead of what they are really doing, using their own mind and abilities to understand this, is misguided.
"Please do in fact. Clear this all up by showing he's a real person and who they claim he is. Simple right?"Asking a question is not the same as making a claim.
That's not just how English works, I'm pretty sure that's just how human language works.
Seems pretty obvious that he's insisting that a guy on video is fake. There is no question marks here. There is just conspiracy.Why should they when they know it's garbage? Do you expect every organization to respond to every single whack job or fake attack hit on the Internet? Man you are naive. But you say WE gots conspiracies? Are you even reading what you are writing? You are defending the motherload of all virus conspiracies from a known bad actor, but when we ask for simple verifiable proof of simple existence, not even corroborating the actual story, just one thing that shows they guy is really a real person, you say WE "gots conspiracies". lol
Scary **** guys and gals... One of the top guys at Pfizer admitting that there's a possibility of serious side effects down the road.
“I hope nobody is growing three legs or something like that, yeah, or the entire next generation is super f***** up. Could you imagine the scandal? Oh my God I would take Pfizer off my resume.”
"I hope we don’t discover something really bad down the line. I hope we don’t find out that somehow this mRNA lingers in the body, because it has to be affecting something hormonal to impact menstrual cycles.”
View: https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1621333409422315520?s=20&t=hDKzfS8XztKQ_DKIX9iq7w
You made an actual claim. One that the video was legit and should be considered as such in evaluating your arguments/"Please do in fact. Clear this all up by showing he's a real person and who they claim he is. Simple right?"
-log
That's not a question. That is literally log asking me to prove that the guy on video is real. He's literally insisting that I prove him wrong though he was the one who made the conspiracy that the guy on video fake. He even said it was possible CGI lolol
"You can't cgi? You can't have an actor play a role with a script? You can edit other videos together to make it say what you want? That isn't done literally every single day on the Internet? You are starting to sound more and more like some wild-eyed guy living under a bridge."
Seems pretty obvious that he's insisting that a guy on video is fake. There is no question marks here. There is just conspiracy.
At least stick to your guns for once. Now you are moving the goal post.
A main guy at Pfizer admitting that some of the worries people had about the vaccine could possibly be true?@Al-O-Meter @SteakNEggs @Joe Bagadonuts ,
I know it's fun complaining about your treatment from other posters (this applies much less to Joe Bagadonuts, for which I am grateful), but could someone take the time to point out why, assuming the video in the quote below is legitimate, that it is something to worry about?
There is video evidence dude... You said it was fake not me... That is on YOU not me. YOU brought up the conspiracy that it was fake, not me. A video is very very sufficient evidence imo.You made an actual claim. One that the video was legit and should be considered as such in evaluating your arguments/
When you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Log was asking for you to substantiate your claim.
You don't seem to understand these very basic distinctions. My comment you quoted was not intended to create a direct interaction between you and me. I see no real value in engaging with you. I made the comment for the benefit of anyone following along with this discussion.
Saying something "could possibly be true" is pretty close to saying nothing about it.A main guy at Pfizer admitting that some of the worries people had about the vaccine could possibly be true?
What is the admission? You think there is an actual chance of three legs?A head guy at Pfizer literally admitting and I quote “I hope nobody is growing three legs or something like that, yeah, or the entire next generation is super f***** up. Could you imagine the scandal? Oh my God I would take Pfizer off my resume.”
Right. It's "would be" and "would take", not 'is' and 'did take'. He's engaging in far-reaching hypotheticals. Hypothetically, India could launch a nuclear assault on the US; I don't spend all day in a bomb shelter based on that hypothetical.Why would he "take Pfizer off my resume"? Lol he even calls it a scandal if true. I really don't understand your question as even the guy is admitting in the quote it would be a scandal and that he would take pfizer off of hi resume.
Not one US person was forced to get a vaccine, there is no "forced vax crowd".Right?
As one of those people who questioned the vaccine, that is extremely important. Especially with how terrible the force vax crowd was.
I DID NOT SAY IT WAS FAKEThere is video evidence dude... You said it was fake not me... That is on YOU not me. YOU brought up the conspiracy that it was fake, not me. A video is very very sufficient evidence imo.
I have no reason to prove to you that you think the video is fake. That is your accusation not mine.
So we agree, it's not fake?I DID NOT SAY IT WAS FAKE
You damn clown
SNE on my ever growing ignore list. I should probably just stop coming to jazzfanz
No, I'm afraid that the vaccine as admitted by one of the main guys that helped create it can have severe side effects. This has been a worry since it first came out and now having one of the main guys that helped with the vaccine admit that there could be side effects puts some vindication on what we were common sensically worried about.Saying something "could possibly be true" is pretty close to saying nothing about it.
What is the admission? You think there is an actual chance of three legs?
Right. It's "would be" and "would take", not 'is' and 'did take'. He's engaging in far-reaching hypotheticals. Hypothetically, India could launch a nuclear assault on the US; I don't spend all day in a bomb shelter based on that hypothetical.
Not one US person was forced to get a vaccine, there is no "forced vax crowd".
Basically, you are saying you are scared of shadows, and that this fear is legitimate. I not going to live my life in fear of shadows.
All medications have side effects. The side effects for the Pfizer vaccine are standard, and rarely severe. Unless you are allergic to its contents, you are better off getting the vaccine than catching covid while unvaccinated.No, I'm afraid that the vaccine as admitted by one of the main guys that helped create it can have severe side effects.
The actual side effects have always been publicly acknowledged.This has been a worry since it first came out and now having one of the main guys that helped with the vaccine admit that there could be side effects puts some vindication on what we were common sensically worried about.
How do you "make acknowledgement" of a hypothetical? Your turning a hypothetical into a concern is creating something out of nothing.When I say admit I'm using it as "to make acknowledgment" not admit as fact. Stop creating something out of nothing...
You can only "acknowledge" something that is true. Your use of it would be every bit as deceitful as "admit".I'll start using "acknowledge" though you'll still find a way to start an argument.
Which part do you think factual, as opposed to hypothetical, and why?I've never claimed what he said was factual (though I personally think he's spot on) I've said he said what he said.
The possibility of side effects has always been communicated. There's an ongoing system to track side effects. Until actual side effects show up, there are only possibilities. It's possible that, the next time you go out to eat, the waiter/server will poison you with ricin. I doubt that will stop you from ever eating out.He admitted (acknowledged) that there could be severe side effects. He didn't say it's factual he said it's a possibility. To me that is a huge "acknowledgement" for someone on his position.