[jimster]

The Wisconsin pharmacist who intentionally sabotaged hundreds of doses of the Moderna coronavirus vaccine because he thought COVID-19 was a hoax, also believes the earth is flat and the sky is actually a “shield put up by the Government to prevent individuals from seeing God.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wisconsin-vaccine-saboteur-steven-brandenburg-is-a-flat-earther-fbi-document-reveals

Is this a real flat earth official idea, or is he just making stuff up?

If the Bible says God made the sky, and he says govt made it, is he a blasphemer, or just incorrect belief?

Does FE endorse sabotaging the vaccine (which was given to people)?

After reading the entire story, is he a good representative of FE thought and behavior? I think he is an archetype.

[Clyde Frog]

Why would "FE" endorse sabotaging the vaccine? Those are two completely unrelated issues. And that's to say nothing of the fact that FE is more of a concept than a construct. There's no all-encompassing set of beliefs, they don't have a Watchtower periodical to rally people around or an FE Pope to say what the direction of the movement should be or an FE President to set a governing agenda. Some crazy person acted like a crazy person. Lo and behold, said crazy person has more than just one untraditional idea rattling around in his head. It's silly to suggest is anything bigger than that.

[JSS]

Why would "FE" endorse sabotaging the vaccine? Those are two completely unrelated issues. And that's to say nothing of the fact that FE is more of a concept than a construct. There's no all-encompassing set of beliefs, they don't have a Watchtower periodical to rally people around or an FE Pope to say what the direction of the movement should be or an FE President to set a governing agenda. Some crazy person acted like a crazy person. Lo and behold, said crazy person has more than just one untraditional idea rattling around in his head. It's silly to suggest is anything bigger than that.

You answered your own question here.  They are not unrelated issues, but are related just as you stated, "said crazy person has more than just one untraditional idea rattling around in his head".

[Clyde Frog]

Why would "FE" endorse sabotaging the vaccine? Those are two completely unrelated issues. And that's to say nothing of the fact that FE is more of a concept than a construct. There's no all-encompassing set of beliefs, they don't have a Watchtower periodical to rally people around or an FE Pope to say what the direction of the movement should be or an FE President to set a governing agenda. Some crazy person acted like a crazy person. Lo and behold, said crazy person has more than just one untraditional idea rattling around in his head. It's silly to suggest is anything bigger than that.

You answered your own question here.  They are not unrelated issues, but are related just as you stated, "said crazy person has more than just one untraditional idea rattling around in his head".

No. That doesn't in any way mean that "FE" would endorse that kind of thing. You're reframing things.

[Clyde Frog]

Just for fun, try turning the argument around. There are also people that are RE that are all for keeping the vaccine out of people's veins, saying wild things like it's got 5G communication abilities and will control your mind, and putting up circuit diagrams of what they think the 5G modem design is in the vaccine, and it's really a circuit diagram of a guitar effects pedal. It would be equally unreasonable and dishonest to suggest that Big RE^TM endorses that kind of mentality.

[Iceman]

Just for fun, try turning the argument around. There are also people that are RE that are all for keeping the vaccine out of people's veins, saying wild things like it's got 5G communication abilities and will control your mind, and putting up circuit diagrams of what they think the 5G modem design is in the vaccine, and it's really a circuit diagram of a guitar effects pedal. It would be equally unreasonable and dishonest to suggest that Big RE^TM endorses that kind of mentality.

Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Paul Bernardo, presumably the zodiac killer, OJ Simpson.... all REers.

[Clyde Frog]

It's almost as though... any subset of a given population may have fringe elements... CRIKEY!

[Pete Svarrior]

Just for fun, try turning the argument around. There are also people that are RE that are all for keeping the vaccine out of people's veins, saying wild things like it's got 5G communication abilities and will control your mind, and putting up circuit diagrams of what they think the 5G modem design is in the vaccine, and it's really a circuit diagram of a guitar effects pedal. It would be equally unreasonable and dishonest to suggest that Big RE^TM endorses that kind of mentality.

Let's not forget Christians. Christians believe all kinds of crazy things, and JSS just happens to think that Christianity should be exempt from critical evaluation, because he likes it.

I wonder if the American in question in the OP was Christian. Statistically, that seems likely, and he does make loud exclamations about God and Judgement Day - both parts of the Christian mythology which would normally be phrased differently in other mythologies. It seems reasonable to conclude that Christianity and vaccine sabotage are therefore related, and we should probably ask the Pope whether or not he supports it. Or at least JSS's local pastor, who may or may not have opinions about the Pope. Whichever of the two gives us the worse answer, we'll just assume that they're the true representative.

In fact, we can jump on the critical bus and ride it all the way to Vegas™. We should probably wonder whether this American's nationality is related to his actions, and ask the House of Representatives whether they endorse his actions. After all, being American (<5% of the world's population) is much more unorthodox than being a FE'er (7%-10% depending on your preferred source). It's not surprising that such a tiny minority would hold some insane views.

In case this wasn't clear yet: JSS's take is terrible, and now would be a good time to withdraw it. Of course, we know he won't do that. What he will do is either ignore this post, or explain in great detail why the minorities he likes should be exempt from the logic he uses against the minorities he dislikes.

What is particularly despicable here is the RE brigade taking the tragic effects of someone's life collapsing in front of their eyes (read Brandenburg's statement explaining his circumstances; it does not make his actions justifiable, but it does provide context) and turning it into a political subject. Truly the sign of those who ran out of legitimate arguments for their cause.

[JSS]

Let's not forget Christians. Christians believe all kinds of crazy things, and JSS just happens to think that Christianity should be exempt from critical evaluation, because he likes it.

If you are going to accuse me, please quote where I said that. Where have I stated that Christianity should have special exemptions that other religions don't? What 'critical evaluations' are you talking about? You are massively distorting what I have said, again.

In case this wasn't clear yet: JSS's take is terrible, and now would be a good time to withdraw it. Of course, we know he won't do that. What he will do is either ignore this post, or explain in great detail why the minorities he likes should be exempt from the logic he uses against the minorities he dislikes.

I will not do either as what you are saying isn't true.  What I will do is remind you, that you need to quote me saying these things if you're going to tell everyone how terrible I am.  Citation needed.

How do you expect anyone to defend against your accusations if you don't provide the quotes that show I did indeed say them?

But this is a common problem with you, as you still refuse to show where I claimed to have written RFC 1855 as yet another example, as you know I never said that.

[Clyde Frog]

You don't think your response to what I actually said was poorly informed? Ok. Noted. But it was still a very poor take, despite whatever other personal drama you have with Pete.

[JSS]

You don't think your response to what I actually said was poorly informed? Ok. Noted. But it was still a very poor take, despite whatever other personal drama you have with Pete.

Pete's reply wasn't responding to anything I said in this thread as far as I can see.

All I said before Pete jumped in was two sentences, neither of which mentioned Christianity or minorities I like or dislike or who can and can't be 'critically evaluated' whatever that means.

My response is simply that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are likely to believe in others.  As you yourself stated, people tend to not limit themselves to one crazy idea at a time.  Am I wrong?

[Clyde Frog]

You don't think your response to what I actually said was poorly informed? Ok. Noted. But it was still a very poor take, despite whatever other personal drama you have with Pete.

Pete's reply wasn't responding to anything I said in this thread as far as I can see.

All I said before Pete jumped in was two sentences, neither of which mentioned Christianity or minorities I like or dislike or who can and can't be 'critically evaluated' whatever that means.

My response is simply that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are likely to believe in others.  As you yourself stated, people tend to not limit themselves to one crazy idea at a time.  Am I wrong?

Why are you refusing to deal with the content of what I said and trying to reframe the argument still?

Edit to add: Pete's reply was just an extension of your own logic that you exercised against my post. Yet for some reason you don't think it was fair. Isn't that a little odd? Maybe try dealing with the content instead of trying to build a different position to argue against. You opposed my response, essentially saying my reply demonstrated that FE should take ownership of whatever crazy thing anyone says who also happens to believe in FE. But when that logic is turned around, you seem to need to deflect and avoid. Why is that?

[JSS]

You don't think your response to what I actually said was poorly informed? Ok. Noted. But it was still a very poor take, despite whatever other personal drama you have with Pete.

Pete's reply wasn't responding to anything I said in this thread as far as I can see.

All I said before Pete jumped in was two sentences, neither of which mentioned Christianity or minorities I like or dislike or who can and can't be 'critically evaluated' whatever that means.

My response is simply that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are likely to believe in others.  As you yourself stated, people tend to not limit themselves to one crazy idea at a time.  Am I wrong?

Why are you refusing to deal with the content of what I said and trying to reframe the argument still?

Edit to add: Pete's reply was just an extension of your own logic that you exercised against my post. Yet for some reason you don't think it was fair. Isn't that a little odd? Maybe try dealing with the content instead of trying to build a different position to argue against. You opposed my response, essentially saying my reply demonstrated that FE should take ownership of whatever crazy thing anyone says who also happens to believe in FE. But when that logic is turned around, you seem to need to deflect and avoid. Why is that?

I don't think it's fair because Pete didn't 'extend logic' or ponder what I might have meant.  He stated, very clearly and definitively that I said those things. Where did I say what minorities I liked or didn't?  Nothing in his reply had anything to do with what I said here.

To be clear, I don't think there is a FE Pope or FE President, I don't think you all want to destroy the COVID vaccine. 

I am stating a simple fact that people who have one conspiracy theory they follow usually have more.  I opposed your response because I disagree that someone believing in one conspiracy has nothing to do with them believing in another.  That him being a Flat Earther was a complete coincidence, and not because it's common for people to follow multiple conspiracies.

[Pete Svarrior]

If you are going to accuse me, please quote where I said that. Where have I stated that Christianity should have special exemptions that other religions don't?

Nice dodge. In the past, you wanted for all religions to be exempt from the same standard of critical evaluation as other worldviews. It just so happens that mentioning Christianity is an easy way to throw you on the defensive on that subject, because your sympathies overshadow your judgement. But the reframing here is fascinating - if you extend your special exemption to all religions, you can pretend that it's no longer a special exemption!

But this is a common problem with you, as you still refuse to show where I claimed to have written RFC 1855 as yet another example, as you know I never said that.

Another great dodge! After all, you only claimed to have helped to write it, and I quoted you on it time and time again. By repeatedly demanding that I illustrate something else, you can fool yourself into thinking that you hadn't lied. Imagine how much simpler it would have been to just take that claim back.

I am stating a simple fact that people who have one conspiracy theory they follow usually have more.

This "simple fact" is currently being contested, as is the fact that you provided it as an answer to the question of "Why would FE endorse these actions?"

(It's also something that you will deny having had said in a year's time, once you've realised what a shitty take that was. You will then insist that I quote you on it monthly, while denying that you've already been quoted on it.)

After all, there is a smaller, and therefore more statistically significant, minority (Americans) that correlates more tightly with the group of people who sabotaged the vaccine. There is also a very well-known group of belief systems (Christianity) that frequently correlates with such harmful actions, but somehow you're not ready to say those two are "related" in the context of endorsement.

You are trying to mask your preferences under the guise of "it's not reprehensible if I think it's true", and it's not working. Shame on you, by the way.

[JSS]

If you are going to accuse me, please quote where I said that. Where have I stated that Christianity should have special exemptions that other religions don't?

Nice dodge. In the past, you wanted for all religions to be exempt from the same standard of critical evaluation as other worldviews. It just so happens that mentioning Christianity is an easy way to throw you on the defensive on that subject, because your sympathies overshadow your judgement. But the reframing here is fascinating - if you extend your special exemption to all religions, you can pretend that it's no longer a special exemption!

Please quote what I wrote that supports your claims that you are making here.

But this is a common problem with you, as you still refuse to show where I claimed to have written RFC 1855 as yet another example, as you know I never said that.

Another great dodge! After all, you only claimed to have helped to write it, and I quoted you on it time and time again. By repeatedly demanding that I illustrate something else, you can fool yourself into thinking that you hadn't lied. Imagine how much simpler it would have been to just take that claim back.

Once again, when asked you refuse to provide a quote. Where did I 'claimed to have helped to write' RFC 1855. You have never quoted me because I have never said that.

[AATW]

After all, being American (<5% of the world's population) is much more unorthodox than being a FE'er (7%-10% depending on your preferred source).

There is absolutely no way that anywhere near that percentage of the world's population believe in FE.
Even if we say it's 5%, lower than your range, that's 1 in 20 people.
I've literally never met anyone in real life who has expressed the view that the earth is flat. I've known a few people who are conspiracy theorists, some deeper down the rabbit hole than others, but not one has even mentioned this one.
My initial reaction when I stumbled across this place is "Really? That's a thing?"
I'm not denying that you've seen an increase in popularity but 5%? Never. Not round my way anyway.
How many people do you know in real life who are FErs? Probably more than me I suspect because of this place and you've got to know people from it. But I'd be amazed if you can seriously claim that 5% of the people you know are FE believers.

[Pete Svarrior]

Please quote what I wrote that supports your claims that you are making here.

Here we go with the endless quote requests.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16365.msg219643#msg219643

Please, could you stop using other members of the forum as a way to remember things you've said before? You supposedly know how to use the Web. Perhaps you could start using it instead of asking others to do it for you?

Once again, when asked you refuse to provide a quote. Where did I 'claimed to have helped to write' RFC 1855. You have never quoted me because I have never said that.

Did I, though? Or are you lying again, misrepresenting you not liking the quote as me refusing to provide it? There's an easy way to find out.

Here's the quote again for your benefit:

Yeah, and I was there helping write it long before you ever touched a keyboard.

Now, take a deep breath, focus... breathe in again... and out... Now, think very hard: how many times have I provided you with this quote by now? You're allowed to use the search function to help your process.

Now, don't think that your past lies will become the primary subject of this thread - there's so much of the present to make fun of you for instead, your past reputation is just delicious context! I'd be very excited to hear your next dodge on the actual issue with your post, which you ignored.

I am stating a simple fact that people who have one conspiracy theory they follow usually have more.

This "simple fact" is currently being contested, as is the fact that you provided it as an answer to the question of "Why would FE endorse these actions?"

(It's also something that you will deny having had said in a year's time, once you've realised what a shitty take that was. You will then insist that I quote you on it monthly, while denying that you've already been quoted on it.)

After all, there is a smaller, and therefore more statistically significant, minority (Americans) that correlates more tightly with the group of people who sabotaged the vaccine. There is also a very well-known group of belief systems (Christianity) that frequently correlates with such harmful actions, but somehow you're not ready to say those two are "related" in the context of endorsement.

You are trying to mask your preferences under the guise of "it's not reprehensible if I think it's true", and it's not working. Shame on you, by the way.

There is absolutely no way that anywhere near that percentage of the world's population believe in FE.

You keep saying that. Pollsters and social scientists keep disagreeing with you. Your personal incredulity is not relevant to this discussion.

That said, if you think they're all lying to you, then you're a conspiracy theorist, and by JSS's enlightened logic, you're therefore likely to go sabotaging COVID vaccines. Careful, now, he might be a Fed for all we know.

But I'd be amazed if you can seriously claim that 5% of the people you know are FE believers.

Probably a solid 20%. 5% would be hollow earthers. These numbers were higher before most of my friendship circles were replaced with academia.

Sampling bias is a bitch. You've never met many FE'ers, and you probably never met many homeless people, or many people from Brazil. Supposedly, 18.47% of the world's population are Chinese, and yet I personally only know a handful of Chinese people. This might mean that the population of China is a conspiracy, but it probably doesn't. The logic of "I don't know many <x>, therefore not many <x> exist!" is deeply flawed, if intuitively tempting.

[Action80]

The Wisconsin pharmacist who intentionally sabotaged hundreds of doses of the Moderna coronavirus vaccine because he thought COVID-19 was a hoax, also believes the earth is flat and the sky is actually a “shield put up by the Government to prevent individuals from seeing God.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wisconsin-vaccine-saboteur-steven-brandenburg-is-a-flat-earther-fbi-document-reveals

Is this a real flat earth official idea, or is he just making stuff up?

Are you referring to the idea of the vaccine being sabotaged due to Covid-19 being a hoax?

Or are you referring to the idea of the sky being a shield?

If the Bible says God made the sky, and he says govt made it, is he a blasphemer, or just incorrect belief?

Aside from the fact (according to the Bible) things are not now as God created them, what is the issue?

Does FE endorse sabotaging the vaccine (which was given to people)?

I wouldn't endorse sabotage.

After reading the entire story, is he a good representative of FE thought and behavior? I think he is an archetype.

He could be representative of any school of thought, RE or FE.

[Clyde Frog]

I don't think it's fair because Pete didn't 'extend logic' or ponder what I might have meant.  He stated, very clearly and definitively that I said those things. Where did I say what minorities I liked or didn't?  Nothing in his reply had anything to do with what I said here.

To be clear, I don't think there is a FE Pope or FE President, I don't think you all want to destroy the COVID vaccine. 

I am stating a simple fact that people who have one conspiracy theory they follow usually have more.  I opposed your response because I disagree that someone believing in one conspiracy has nothing to do with them believing in another.  That him being a Flat Earther was a complete coincidence, and not because it's common for people to follow multiple conspiracies.

This is ridiculous. Why can't you actually respond to what I said? Why do you insist on reinterpreting and then responding to your own reinterpretation? What I clearly was pointing out was that just because someone believes in one conspiracy, that doesn't mean that the membership of said conspiracy should be assumed to automatically endorse every other conspiracy that person also believes in, because those two things are not logically linked in that way. You are twisting things, and at this point it's hard to see it as anything other than intentional because this has already been pointed out to you.