Tom Palven
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2021
- Messages
- 204
I posted my opinion in my own words as AN ALTERNATE THEORY OF COVID-19 on Dec. 26,10:47 am, and I'm sure that nobody wants me to post it again.
Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV
- Thread starter AcesHigh
- Start date
- Status
I posted my opinion in my own words as AN ALTERNATE THEORY OF COVID-19 on Dec. 26,10:47 am, and I'm sure that nobody wants me to post it again.
Oh, yeah, that. Never mind.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
I'm reminded of something Richard Dawkins once said about creationist efforts to overthrow evolutionary biology - something about how if evolution by natural selection ever were to be disproved, it would be disproved by a biologist, not an idiot.
We've had lots of people with zero qualifications come along to this forum and explain how their own personal theory overturns some scientific consensus or another, and they always expect to be taken with such grave seriousness. I've got to go with provisionally accepting what the world's experts say with overwhelming agreement over the rambling and lies of unqualified narcissists on the internet.
We've had lots of people with zero qualifications come along to this forum and explain how their own personal theory overturns some scientific consensus or another, and they always expect to be taken with such grave seriousness. I've got to go with provisionally accepting what the world's experts say with overwhelming agreement over the rambling and lies of unqualified narcissists on the internet.
MBDK
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 678
I am willing to explain some of its fundamental faults, IF you are willing to be honest, and bring that honesty into the conversation. If so, we need to establish a couple of things. First, one item you have ignored up to this point, is your opinion of the scientific method. What is it? Secondly, do you recognize that logical fallacies are invalid arguments?
Tom Palven
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2021
- Messages
- 204
My own opinions are based on the opinions of people whose objectivity and critical thinking I respect, not on the political correctness of blithering idiots like Anthony Fauci; and I'm not interested in entering into some endless, nitpicking dialogue.
Call me cowardly, call me dishonest. Whatever. I'm not going to devote the time to it and make a hobby out of defending myself.
If you have some essential valid points that you think I haven't heard, then state them.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Essentially then, you believe those unevidenced *opinions* of those few who already agree with you regardless of overwhelming scientifically valid evidence that contradicts your beliefs. It seems you have more than adequately answered MBDK's question regarding your opinion of the scientific method - you reject it in favor of unvalidated opinions.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
Let's be clear, you mean "blithering idiots" like the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists who study infectious diseases, and the doctors and nurses who treat the victims of such diseases. You've been told multiple times that Anthony Fauci isn't the center of COVID-19 in the U.S., let alone the world, yet you persist in maintaining a simple-minded, provincial world view in which the spokesman you see on your local media must therefore be the spokesperson for the entire world. It makes it rather amusing to see you referring to a Ph.D. whose stated views are consistent with the rest of the medical field on a global scale a "blithering idiot".
You've made it clear that you aren't interested in maintaining any sort of dialogue. To do that, you'd have to address the points you're still running away from. You just came here to claim that you're smarter than the world's medical scientists so we could all be amazed at your intellectual prowess.
You are cowardly and dishonest.
Because you can't.
So you can ignore them as well?
Are all those scientists in the world evil, or just dumber than you?
Why are creationists wrong to reject scientific consensus, but you aren't?
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,282
A selection of today's offerings:
Defibrillators in schools are part of an evil plot to something something blood of our children.
https://off-guardian.org/2021/12/18/covid-and-the-law-of-karma/
.
Don't forget the "worldwide zombie apocalypse"
Done. Also too, a dangerous disinformationist.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The world's foremost virologist, a man who has dedicated his whole life to the study and understanding of viruses, is not a "blithering idiot", but those who attack and criticize him, such as Ron Paul et al, most certainly are.
If you wish to be taken seriously, then defending yourself against an examination of your theories and ideas is a fundamental first step.
For my degree in Aeronautical Engineering, I had to undergo the same rigorous oral and written questioning that all degree candidates must undergo - firstly, to ensure that my thesis was valid, and secondly, to demonstrate to my examiners that I had a thorough understanding of the engineering principles involved. This is what it means to base your ideas in science and fact. This is what it means to be taken seriously by your peers and in the field of your expertise.
If you are not willing to defend your theories and ideas, then you must, by default, be uncertain of their validity, and that means your ideas and theories are worthless.
Valid points have been stated repeatedly by several members here, and you have ignored them or hand-waved them away without addressing them.
The fact that you do this, and the fact that you refuse to answer questions, and refuse to defend your theories and ideas, tells us everything we need to know about them and you.
Your credibility here is ZERO.
Last edited:
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Hush you! That is the source of my super powers (and my brain the size of a planet). I don't want everyone else to know.
MBDK
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 678
Hmmmm.... First of all, you didn't answer either of my questions, but instead substituted an odd rant that actually summarizes a good deal of your behaviour in this thread. Let's inspect that.
From the examples you have provided in previous posts, those people are the antithesis to objective and critical thinking, which also ties into the fact that your own self-evaluation as a critical thinker is fundamentally flawed as the prerequisite to critical thinking is having the ability to think for oneself. Using others' opinions as your own without being able to express them in your own terms just shows that you do not utilize any such ability.
You have contradicted that as evidenced by your stream of pointless, wandering posts.
Then what DO you think you have been doing this whole time?
Just as you recycle garbage notions and opinions, honest critiques of them will tread on familiar territory. So, though you have probably heard this before, the facts remain that you show no legitimate support for your contentions, eschew rigorous and effective scientific analysis methods, and misconstrue basic elements of the logical thought process. Beyond that, you do not even have the integrity to admit your mistakes, or even the courtesy to provide meaningful replies to others, despite their concerted efforts to extend that courtesy to you.
So, I ask you - why ARE you here?
From the examples you have provided in previous posts, those people are the antithesis to objective and critical thinking, which also ties into the fact that your own self-evaluation as a critical thinker is fundamentally flawed as the prerequisite to critical thinking is having the ability to think for oneself. Using others' opinions as your own without being able to express them in your own terms just shows that you do not utilize any such ability.
You have contradicted that as evidenced by your stream of pointless, wandering posts.
Then what DO you think you have been doing this whole time?
Just as you recycle garbage notions and opinions, honest critiques of them will tread on familiar territory. So, though you have probably heard this before, the facts remain that you show no legitimate support for your contentions, eschew rigorous and effective scientific analysis methods, and misconstrue basic elements of the logical thought process. Beyond that, you do not even have the integrity to admit your mistakes, or even the courtesy to provide meaningful replies to others, despite their concerted efforts to extend that courtesy to you.
So, I ask you - why ARE you here?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I enjoyed some of the comments.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
The problem is not hearing but heeding. If I tell you five times that the sky is blue and you retort that it's green with black stripes, the problem is not an insufficiency of data.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You have a bright future taking guests to the bridge. Don't expect much job satisfaction though!
If defending yourself is such a burden, then quit spouting nonsense.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, your ideas are counterfactual and your concerns aren't important. We now have mandates that mean we don't need to be detained by your worries. It would be best if you stopped "participating" and just got vaccinated.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
It's hard to miss the fact that the people who say they want more information about COVID-19 or the vaccines clearly aren't smart enough to process the new information they want.
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
You did not mention that Kit Knightly writes for The Ron Paul Institute which claims Covid-19 is a hoax.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive...e-and-illogical-and-maybe-that-s-no-accident/
Indeed, Lew Rockwell, who wrote for Ron Paul's periodical, is a contributor to Russian Insider, where Kit Knightly works.
Are you not simply linking us to one propaganda sources, disguised under different names?
- Status