Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 454  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: June 25, 2022, 07:58:12 PM »







2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: June 24, 2022, 11:16:53 PM »







3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: June 24, 2022, 09:17:44 PM »

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 24, 2022, 08:39:52 PM »
Mission: Success


5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 24, 2022, 05:57:09 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Alternatively, they are not the extremists. You are the extremist.

I’ve thought about that. It’s not true. You can tell by how philisophically inconsistent their platform document is. They claim to want to reduce government interference then proceed to describe how they wish to insert themselves square in the middle of education, healthcare, business and interpersonal relationships. They declare that they want to represent the best interests of the people but then tell us how helping people is by reducing checks on the rich, increasing environmental pollution and stifling education. The cynicism it takes to present this platform as an actually consistent ideology rises to the level of malice.

Feel free to quote them directly from the document rather than giving your hot take that they want to destroy the country. I simply do not believe you.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 24, 2022, 05:47:30 PM »
Le epic triple post.

Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!

This but unironically. If a 'crazy' politician sees a wide base of support, then you don't just have a 'crazy' politician, you have a 'crazy' population.

You are mostly right except having a crazy population isn’t a non-issue. People have to share the world with Texas.

Alternatively, they are not the extremists. You are the extremist.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 24, 2022, 04:39:26 PM »
Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!

Correct. Look up the process of democracy.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: June 24, 2022, 04:25:08 PM »

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 24, 2022, 04:09:40 PM »
Unless there's more millions who do not.

If that were the case then it would fail and Rama Set would have nothing to be "scared" about.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 24, 2022, 04:02:53 PM »
Because they are actively seeking to roll back civil rights protections, undermine the democratic process, foster ignorance and widen the gap between the rich and poor even further.  This is how you tear down a society and even worse, millions of people will welcome their new overlords.

You are contradicting yourself. If million of people in Texas are welcoming it then it is democracy and the democratic process.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 24, 2022, 02:17:25 PM »
If it wasn’t so scary

Can you explain to us why you are so scared?

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 24, 2022, 01:24:18 PM »
"That said no vaccines have been found to have an unexpected long-term safety problem, that was only found years or decades after introduction"

You do realize that you have spent this entire thread denying early negative results from the Covid vaccine, right? This is simply inapplicable, because people are claiming a whole host of negative side effects, which you are currently denying. There is data from VAERS showing that this vaccine is much more dangerous than other vaccines, which you are denying. There is data suggesting significant risk for pregnant women, which you are denying. There are a number of doctors shouting danger, claiming that the vaccine is harmful, which you are denying. Athletes were mysteriously going down by the hundreds, increasing in number over the same months as the vaccines were rolled out, which you are denying. The sentence above implies there is no negative data, but there is.

When early Cigarette data came out people also spent a long time denying it and refused to believe that they were killing themselves. It is sad, but true.

Also, as previously mentioned, the Covid vaccine is much different than most other previously licensed vaccines. Most other vaccines do not involve genetic manipulation and do not require boosters every six months. It's not the same mechanism. This is just a hope based on a leap of logic that it is going to turn out like other vaccines, and assumes that there is no current negative data. This is not knowledge that the vaccine is safe long term. They admit directly that the long term safety is "impossible to know". If it was possible to know based on the logic you gave then it would be possible to know, which they specifically did not state. What was given was a fig leaf to hedge your hopes on.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 24, 2022, 04:02:27 AM »
Quote from: Rama Set
In regards to safety, you can easily find an extremely large number of institutions and professionals vouching for the safety of the vaccine.

And if you ask them they will tell you that the long term safety is unknown.

An "extremely large number of institutions and professionals" also once vouched for cigarettes. They didn't know the long term health implications, but vouched for it nonetheless.



People also used to think that sugar was good for you:



Children were allowed to play with X-Ray machines in shoe stores

Coca-Cola had cocaine in it

Heroin was legal

Over 10,000 FDA approved drugs have been recalled in just the last ten years -

https://www.maylightfootlaw.com/blogs/fda-drug-recall-statistics/



History is replete with one mistake after the next. In FDA's case, thousands of mistakes after the next.

Doctors acknowledge that it can take a significantly long amount of time before we have knowledge of safety:

https://www.natap.org/2007/HIV/052507_01.htm

"Drs George Sawaya and Karen Smith-McCune of the University of California, San Francisco, said that while Gardasil appears to be safe and effective, "a cautious approach may be warranted" because of questions that still remain about the drug's long-term effectiveness and potential for adverse effects that could emerge over time. "Until we have the data, I view the situation as an ongoing experimental trial. The ultimate safety of the vaccine is unknown and it's going to be decades before we know anything,'' wrote the doctors.

If you don't have the data then you just have an opinion.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 24, 2022, 02:34:00 AM »
Apparently the FDA also thinks the safety is unknown and thinks children would make the perfect experimental base to test this.

https://sboh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Tab05a-PublicComment-Packet-Final.pdf?ver=2021-10-08-155349-087


15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 24, 2022, 02:14:27 AM »
You are being dishonest of course. You are implying there is a serious risk associated with potentially unknown side effects when the prevailing opinion based on a vast body of knowledge is that unknown side effects are almost certainly not going to present themselves in a long time frame but instead present acutely. The prevailing medical opinion is that the vaccines are VERY safe.

No. Unknown most certainly does not mean "VERY safe". Unknown means unknown. You might be able to find a doctor telling you that they think it's safe, or that it is safe as far as they know, but the official consensus is that it is unknown.

https://www.umc.edu/CoronaVirus/Vaccinations/FAQs.html#long-term



The vaccine might harm you, and it might not. Unknown is unknown. This is the risk of signing up for a novel genetic manipulation experiment. You are in fear of your life because of muh Covid and are choosing to gamble your health against the fallacy of man.

aap.org reiterates the official position in advising parents on vaccinating their children:

https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/covid-19-vaccine-for-children/about-the-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions/



The official position is that it is impossible to know.

You have to weigh the hope that it doesn't happen because it hasn't happened before with the fact that the mechanism of this licensed vaccine is unlike the mechanism of other licensed vaccines. Most other licensed vaccines do not involve genetic manipulation, and do not require boosters every six months. If it is "impossible to know" then any sentiment to the positive is just a hope that it is safe. It is not knowledge that it is safe. The knowledge that it is safe is unknown.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 23, 2022, 10:37:17 PM »
Yep. Of the million medical doctors in the US you found one who says something which fits your agenda.
You can keep ignoring this if you like but is your doctor's view the prevailing one? If it isn't then you're just cherry picking. Again.

Actually it's not cherry picking at all. The prevailing view is that it is unknown if the vaccine is safe long term.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And of course the long term effects of something new is unknown, by definition.

Yes, and that is exactly the message given by the previous doctor I cited on this. Due diligence is required because "safe" drugs have turned out to be unsafe.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: June 23, 2022, 08:40:32 AM »
The basis of the MythBusters argument is that a wire rig only simulated the 1/6th gravity in a vertical direction. On a horizontal direction it does not simulate 1/6th gravity. This is a curious argument, because why should horizontal movements be slowed on the Moon? If you throw a punch why should it be slower on the Moon's surface?

I do think it's possible to slow movement on a horizontal plane, such as with a wire rig that moves with the actor (as opposed to the actor pulling the rig) or with slow motion, but the premise of why the Moon should act to slow horizontal movement needs some explaining.

If Myth Busters was able to use a wire rig to slow vertical movement to 1/6th gravity and found that it was incompatible with the Moon Landing footage because the astronauts also moved slow in their horizontal movements then they clearly negated the validity of the Moon Landing, as opposed to their declaration that the Moon mission must have been real because of the incompatibility.

The fact that this was filmed on a US Naval base and there are American flags everywhere also works against their credibility. One will notice that they tried the wire rig and the slow motion tests separately, declaring that they don't look right, but didn't combine the methods. This was an obvious slip up, and it is clear that they didn't combine the methods for the obvious reasons that slow motion would successfully simulate slow horizontal motion and the wire rig would successfully simulate vertical low gravity.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: June 21, 2022, 11:21:11 PM »
Yes, the tweet clearly states that it is at the 571 mark. The graph shows that his popularity has been dropping to the point that he is now the most unpopular president at this point in his presidency in recorded US History.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 21, 2022, 11:07:23 PM »
Quote from: stack
Professor Peter Openshaw, professor of Experimental Medicine at Imperial College London, told Full Fact: “There is absolutely no reason to draw parallels with thalidomide: vaccines are not drugs, and the whole system of licencing has been completely reformed since that era.

“There has never been as much research on which to base vaccine licensure - it was done very fast because we face a global emergency and almost unlimited resources were put into the studies.”

Here's his bio: Peter Openshaw is a respiratory physician and mucosal immunologist, studying how the immune system both protects against viral infection but also causes disease.

Actually he cites no experiments or examples. He is merely citing trust that things are better and that the FDA can now determine long-term effects on novel genetic manipulation mechanisms in record time. "Trust them" is not part of the scientific method.

Quote from: stack
And a sentence later in your citation:

"Serious adverse effects after any vaccination usually occur within six weeks of administration. No serious side effects have been reported within six weeks of the receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine."

Yes, because if it's safe for six weeks it means that it's safe forever and won't ever result in cancer no matter how many boosters you take.  ::)

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 21, 2022, 10:43:57 PM »
Your link says that they are still monitoring for safety: "This review process continues to monitor vaccine safety."

If they still need to study it, then it means that they don't know. They are not performing much study of the safety of orange juice, for example.

The website continues:

"Continuous monitoring for problems and side effects. Once a vaccine gets an EUA and is being given to people, the FDA and the CDC continue to watch carefully in case problems arise. Data on the vaccine’s safety record accumulates over time, as more and more people who receive it report on their experience and any side effects. One important way to report adverse events after vaccination is through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System."

Oh, but you guys don't want us to talk about VAERS because you don't like what it says and the US government's only vaccine reporting mechanism could be wrong.  ::)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 454  Next >