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 - Rama Set

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 299  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 04:04:00 PM »
Actually if you watch the video I linked earlier Trump appears to agree with the host that there are risks with the vaccine, which is why he states young and healthy people should not take it.
Of course there are.
But only in the same way that there are risks taking aspirin, or virtually any medicine.
There are risks in driving.
Or crossing the street.
There is virtually no risk free activity in life.

Aside from driving, depending on age, none of those are things young and healthy people shouldn't do.

Quote
The ICU doctor I spoke to last summer

Considering that this is perhaps the fifth time you brought up your conversation with an ICU doctor you once had as your source of knowledge we can safely dismiss you.

Dismissing first hand accounts. Very Zetetic.

To sum up, Tom doesn’t believe the institutional data and, he doesn’t believe personal accounts unless it is the data and/or accounts that he presents, then “YOU’RE NOT A DOCTOR!” 

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: January 14, 2022, 11:53:16 PM »
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/14/politics/biden-approval-rating-polling-memo/index.html

Putting out a statement to make sure it's understood that a poll showing deep unpopularity for the president is not accurate seems so... Trumpy. She seems to have come just short of referring to the poll as fake news.

Ugh...
Why Biden why?
Is it because they put you lower than Trump at the same time?

Look, about 50% is gonna hate Biden.  Nothing he does is going to change that.  And honestly, he hasn'f done much.  He's a very low key president.  At least from what I've seen. 
Honestly, republicans seem to paint him as more active than he is.  So to me its hard to know if he's doing a good job or not.

He is averaging more EOs/year than Trump. Don’t let the quagmire of the Senate fool you.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: January 14, 2022, 04:10:14 PM »
^ This post illustrates my point exactly. You start from the own fantasy of your imagination and dismiss the case based on that. That’s how children act.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: January 14, 2022, 03:40:40 PM »
I am once again quite happy that you don’t get to decide anything for the public.
What a lousy rebuttal.

It’s all your worth.

EDIT: You should probably hear that it’s not your particular position that is shit, it’s the thought process (or lack thereof) you go through to arrive at it. Basically you make a cynical assumption, that she basically consented to this, and then use that to ignore all the other facts of the case. Facts I’m certain you are unaware of. It underlies a startlingly cruel and chauvinist mindset which you are frequently called out for and for which you have never made a proper accounting of.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 14, 2022, 03:40:22 PM »
Then they found out that he was a liar
The Australian government is claiming that Djokovic is a 'danger to the public'. This sounds to me like their government are the liars. How is he a danger? Your citizens can all have the jab. The jab protects you, not others. Djokovic also recently had covid, so his immunity trumps the shit out of the immunity that a vaccinated person who hasn't had covid has.

He's no danger to the public. But their entire reason for deporting him is the 'danger' he poses. That makes Australia the liars.

Yea Thork, we know you don’t care about COVID or other people. Australia has different standards than you and they made their decision based on their standards. You can in fact find and read the basis for the decision if you actually care about understanding the situation. I assume you’ll wait until the Wikipedia page is created.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: January 14, 2022, 03:36:40 PM »
I'm going to guess that Giuffre received a shit ton of cash to be in the company of these men. 'Trafficked' is a fairly uncharitable term for an ambitious young women who is earning a truck load of green. Her being under 18 is the only sticking point. And she wasn't much under 18. I'm guessing it would be very hard to prove that Andrew knew she was under age beyond reasonable doubt.

Also paedophile. Mmmm. In the UK, and in fact in most countries on earth, the age of consent is 16. Its hard to look at Giuffre and decide that she looks physically like a child, rather than a woman.

So trafficked is a technicality, and paedophile is a technicality. I mean, sure, he's a dirty old man who paid to screw a young girl but he'd hardly be unique from that perspective.

I'd argue this isn't really in the public interest to charge Andrew. He isn't predating on actual children, and again trafficking suggests someone is taken against their will ... and she just looks like every other thirsty Instagram girl to me.

So it's a civil case ... and I think Giuffre has already been paid twice. Once for the work and she also took a cash settlement from Epstein many years ago in exchange for the promise not to go after any of Epstein's friends. The settlement was to cover all of them.

So it seems mostly like a witch hunt. I don't see Bill gates or indeed any US citizen getting chased. Andrew is hardly Epstein's closest or most frequent customer. If the likes of Bill Gates were facing charges, I'd be a little more sympathetic to this circus.

The truth is that Andrew is a total cock. Filled with his own self importance and utterly entitled. And no one likes him. So there isn't anyone high up who has any interest in protecting him unlike Bill Gates.

But my feeling is that this shouldn't have come to court. Giuffre already has her damages money and its not in the public interest.

I am once again quite happy that you don’t get to decide anything for the public.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 14, 2022, 12:45:36 PM »
Holy shit, Australia, will you make your mind up?!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59991762

Well they had made up their mind, but due process being a thing they fucked up meant he couldn’t be kicked out. Then they found out that he was a liar and being a POS so the immigration minister used executive privilege to make it happen. There hasn’t been flip flopping at all, just some administrative incompetence.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 14, 2022, 04:13:13 AM »
Wow, you’re pretty scared to say what you think. Cool story.

I think that Covid is essentially just the flu, and that there are other ways to deal with the flu that makes the vaccine unnecessary. But the vaccine=irredeemable isn't really the anti-vax stance.

Dr. Robert Malone is a well known vaccine critic, and he recommends the vaccine for people over 65 with comorbidities. See the previous video @0:25:



Amazing that you’ve written so much but totally avoided the questions asked of you. I get it, it’s uncomfortable confronting conflicts in your internal belief systems.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 11:20:14 PM »
I dont care that Trump says some things in favor of the vaccine.
Why not?
You keep posting about how experimental it is, how dangerous it could be, how ineffective it is. And here’s Trump saying the vaccine is safe and effective and recommending people have it. Isn’t that dangerous advice? Or are you wrong?

Actually if you watch the video I linked earlier Trump appears to agree with the host that there are risks with the vaccine, which is why he states young and healthy people should not take it. It is incorrect that Trump thinks its entirely safe.

Ultimately it's down to you if you think that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Wow, you’re pretty scared to say what you think. Cool story.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 02:25:14 PM »
I dont care that Trump says some things in favor of the vaccine. You seem to think that I care about what you do with your body and what free choices you make.

I know you are fine with bodily autonomy. Are you ok with Trump very vocally recommending a vaccine that you consider to be potentially dangerous? Is that moral to you?

Quote
If I had to decide, however, I would suggest that you should take it too, and to keep getting the boosters. If it provides any benefit in immunity it will lower the risk of me getting covid, and also shoulders all of the health risks of the vaccine on to you.

Again a deflection. It’s tough for you to answer something like this isn’t it?

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 02:01:11 PM »
No one has disagreed with this

That's not the message by the leftist media. According to the leftist media:

We MUST be vaccinated

Everyone needs to be vaccinated, even the young and healthy

Get vaccinated or get fired.

Vaccinate the children too; vaccines now available to eight year olds

You may have a different stance, but the main message being put out is quite different to what Trump is saying.

You keep deflecting away from the conversation. We aren’t talking about left wing media, we are talking about Trump. Do you support him recommending a drug you consider to be experimental and potentially dangerous? Possibly in violation of the Nuremberg Codes, according to you?

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 01:42:12 PM »
Trump says to go get your shot [if you want to] [and dont do it if you're young and healthy]

The disclaimers there almost entirely nullifies the leftist message. Now we need to consider if we want to or if we're at risk. Trump may be recommending the vaccine, but not to everyone, and certainly doesn't want it mandated. It should be your choice if you want to take it or not, and if you think that you are in the risk category. Pretty much what many people on the right have been saying all along.

No one has disagreed with this, why the deflection? Are you ok with Trump recommending an “experimental drug” that might be “genetically manipulating” people (your words)?

I’m totally fine with Trump’s position. How about you?

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 12:46:02 PM »
Here you are peddling inaccurate information again. Actually, he also said that he was against vaccine mandates:

> "Trump tells Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene he’s ‘100%’ AGAINST’ COVID-19 vaccine mandates"

He also said that young and healthy people should not get the vaccine:

> @1:33 "I don't think young healthy people should take it."

Those two compared and he almost sounds reasonable about it. A lot of people think that vaccine mandates are reprehensible and only people who need it should take it.

Stack isn’t misrepresenting Trump, he is decidedly pro-vaccine and pro-choice about whether or not to get the vaccine. You have posted many memes about pro-vaccine people being less than human, have said the vaccine is experimental and potentially genetic manipulation and right here are implying that Trump’s beliefs aren’t reasonable. Do you still support Trump, even though he has been so vocal about the benefit of the vaccine and strongly recommends people take it?

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 03:05:29 AM »
Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016.
Hmm, were the numbers of Democrats that brought Trump's election into question actually comparable to what's happening now?

I don’t think it’s comparable. I bet you’d be hard pressed to find any election in any western democracy where 50% of the losers refuse to concede defeat two years later. It’s truly ominous.

Quote
I was under the impression that it was mostly a few desperate journos, the same type that made up batshit stories about his piss fetish or whatever. And now it's difficult to research the subject because anything to do with Trump and election legitimacy brings up the wrong election.

Anecdotally, most everyone I knew tossed out the word “collusion” at some point for a short time, but it died down pretty quick.

Quote
I'm curious and I'll keep digging, but in the meantime if you have any data, I'd love to see it.

I found which explores the “winner effect” and has links to some other sources.

Quote
Also, Republicans being sceptical wouldn't be too surprising. It's the fact that everyone but Democrats seems to score pretty low on confidence that makes it additionally interesting. The scores for independents and all respondents are quite low.

What confidence did independents have and what percentage of the population are they? In advance, I’ll declare that most American’s declaring themselves independent are usually just cloaking their true political allegiance in the same way that people claim they don’t have biases. I don’t buy that they aren’t just republicans who are afraid to own up to their beliefs. Regardless, I’m interested to know what they polled like.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 02:08:52 AM »

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.
Is it? Obviously I have a strong places-that-aren't-the-USA bias, but that seems largely unprecedented for western-style democracies. Do you have any examples of this happening elsewhere in similar systems?

Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016. 2020 feels extraordinary because unlike 2016, the suspicion hasn’t abated even with pretty thorough debunking of every claim of fraud.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 01:37:05 AM »
Most Republicans still believe that the election was stolen
What's more interesting is that the only group that's decidedly certain the election was not fraudulent is the group whose candidate won.

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 12, 2022, 07:24:27 PM »

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 12, 2022, 04:04:15 PM »
Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack
Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Actually, there were questions about how his words about china are dangerous and how he feels about that. His thoughts on freedom of speech and such prior to the Trump question. And if you think that's "background" then I guess the question about Trump that came later was background too.

His book was largely about China and not about Trump. It's not a book about Trump. Your assertion that discussion about Chinese authoritarianism is not about the background of his work falls flat.

Look at these ludicrous excuses you continue to generate. It is pretty pathetic that you cant come up with one excuse and need a continuous series of them. First it's because of this, then it's because of that, then another thing. Face plant fail.

He has been rehashing the same point over and over.  This clearly was not an entire interview designed to bash Trump, and Ai Wei Wei clearly said that Trump wasn't an authoritarian because he doesn't have systemic support.  I know you only comprehend a world of stark black and white, but that isn't what the world is actually like. 

Now perhaps we can turn away from your butthurt feelings on PBS and turn back to the topic of Trump?  Tell us what you think of Trump recommending vaccines?  Is he part of the sheep?  If not, why is his support different than others?  If yes, why are you comfortable supporting him in light of strident condemnation of the vaccine?

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 12, 2022, 03:05:53 PM »

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 11, 2022, 06:17:07 AM »
 >o<G
It would have been good for PBS if he had ranted about Trump like they wanted him too. Unfortunately that narrative was not expressed and it was an embarrassing fail for them.

It's also pretty embarrassing how there are a range of excuses here ranging from the length it was discussed to where it was discussed in the video, to maybe the video was manipulated by a republican.

Did you know Trump is a dyed in the wool vaccine advocate?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 299  Next >