Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve said:
Some few oddballs may think that. Most people are a lot more sensible.
Click to expand...

The great majority of people in the West are Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

They are sensible and wouldn't believe anything that's not scientifically proven, or would they?
 
Last edited:
Tom Palven said:
The great majority of people in the West are Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

They are sensible and wouldn't believe anything that's not scientifically proven, or would they?
Click to expand...

The majority of people in the west, regardless of religious views, are vaccinated against COVID 19. Some few posters in this thread appear to not understand the science behind the COVID 19 vaccinations and attempt to deflect their ignorance with irrelevant links.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Which tells us you really don't understand the analogy at all. It also further supports my suspicion that your rejection of religion........
Click to expand...

I do not believe Tom Palven has stated he rejects religion at all. He is asking us to compare things to those with "biblical proportions" suggesting the opposite and that he is a religious believer.

Let us ask him.

Tom Palven? Do you belong to a church that accepts "biblical proportions" as something real?
 
Steve said:
The majority of people in the west, regardless of religious views, are vaccinated against COVID 19..
Click to expand...

Are they critical thinkers?

Why should I try to emulate them?

Sorry, but I truly believe that Kit Knightly is a critical thinker, regardless of what the conventional wisdom is.
 
Tom Palven said:
You can think what you want to, but I'd rather that you don't make this personal.

The allegedly colossal Covid pandemic, (of less than Biblical proportions, apparently), seems to have a lot in common with religions and other mass movements described by Eric Hoffer 70 years ago.
https://www.amazon.com/True-Believe...4809&sprefix=the+true+believer,aps,643&sr=8-1
Click to expand...
I do remember reading Hoffer many years ago, and finding him quite interesting, but I don't recall that he ever suggested that belief in reality is delusional.

Belief in truth and belief in lies have a great resemblance to each other if all you look at is the intensity of the belief.

As I said, it's been a long time since I read Hoffer, but I suspect if I were to reread him I'd find beliefs such as yours, unencumbered by fact and honesty, adhered to with dogged insistence in the face of substantial correction, to be more his subject of choice than the adherence to scientific consensus.
 
This forum should be about subject matter and not personalities, but if anyone wants to know my opinion of Ellard, go to Skeptic.com, scroll down to General Subjects and down to Economics and then to the Nord Stream Sanctions thread, Friday Nov.06, 7:29 am.

I would just like to nip this in the bud and not have constant ad hominem nonsense here instead of discussing issues.
 
Last edited:
Tom Palven said:
This forum should be about subject matter and not personalities, but if anyone wants to know my opinion of Ellard, go to Skeptic.com, scroll down to General Subjects and down to Economics and then to the Nord Stream Sanctions thread, Friday Nov.06, 7:29 am.

I would just like to nip this in the bud and not have constant ad hominem nonsense here instead of discussing issues.
Click to expand...
The fact is the debunked propaganda you consume and regurgitate here is an issue. It is not the fault of your interlocutors that you consume it and are gulled by it sufficiently to keep reposting it.
 
Tom Palven said:
Are they critical thinkers?
Click to expand...
Some of them. But the important thing is that the scientists saying they should get vaccinated most definitely are critical thinkers. That's what science is, Tom - a methodology for critical thinking. You don't have to be an oncologist to justify quitting smoking, and you don't need to be a virologist to justify getting vaccinated. You just have to be educated enough not to throw perfectly good virgins into volcanos to appease the gods because you understand the function and reliability of the scientific method.

Why should I try to emulate them?
Click to expand...
Because they aren't stupidly rejecting scientific consensus.

Sorry, but I truly believe that Kit Knightly is a critical thinker, regardless of what the conventional wisdom is.
Click to expand...
You also, apparently, believe that he was an investigative journalist employed by The Guardian. He's not a critical thinker. He's a ******* moron contradicting an entire field of science. He's as big a ******* moron as Ken Ham or Bart Sibrel.
 
Tom Palven said:
The great majority of people in the West are Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

They are sensible and wouldn't believe anything that's not scientifically proven, or would they?
Click to expand...

So if the majority of them also believe that the earth is spherical and not flat, we should question that cosmology because people who hold false beliefs about supernatural agencies must be wrong about everything.

That's what you're arguing, and it's one of the most ridiculously fallacious arguments I've ever seen. And I've seen the likes of Yrreg and Time Cube.

And it doesn't matter what the majority of people believe. What matters is what scientists have to say about it. Just because someone believes the world is round doesn't mean that they are capable of offering a good argument to support that belief. That's why science doesn't operate on argumentum ad populum.
 
Tom Palven said:
I would just like to nip this in the bud and not have constant ad hominem nonsense here instead of discussing issues.
Click to expand...

Asking you a question is not an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that something you said is demonstrably untrue, and therefore a lie, is not an ad hominem attack.
 
Tom Palven said:
This forum should be about subject matter and not personalities, but if anyone wants to know my opinion of Ellard, go to Skeptic.com, scroll down to General Subjects and down to Economics and then to the Nord Stream Sanctions thread, Friday Nov.06, 7:29 am.

I would just like to nip this in the bud and not have constant ad hominem nonsense here instead of discussing issues.
Click to expand...

This is actually quite funny, and worth a read if anyone has a few spare minutes.
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=32955&start=200

In a nutshell, Tom Palven spends page after page screaming that Matthew Ellard is a lying scumbag, hurls the same insults at another member, and gets himself suspended for it. :D

Tom Palven: if you don't like ad hominem attacks, why do you spend so much time doing this yourself?
 
Tom Palven said:
Sorry, but I truly believe that Kit Knightly is a critical thinker, regardless of what the conventional wisdom is.
Click to expand...

If that is true, then perhaps you could link to any occasion in which Knightly has admitted he was wrong?
After all, no-one is correct 100% of the time, and any critical thinker worth their salt would be constantly examining their own beliefs, and altering them in the light of new evidence.
Some evidence that Knightly is capable of this kind of critical self-reflection would be useful at this juncture, I think.
 
Foster Zygote said:
...it doesn't matter what the majority of people believe. What matters is what scientists have to say about it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement of yours, and we should not pretend that all competent scientists are in lockstep with America's Tony Fauci.

Sunetra Gupta, Martin Kulldorff, and Jay Bhattacharya are among the many scientists who believe that some of the FDA and CDC "cures" are worse than the disease.

Sunetra Gupta is a Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor at Stanford, and Martin Kulldorff is a Harvard professor of medicine.

Those particular scientists have credentials as long as your arm, but there are many many other scientists who disagree with Fauci and Big Pharma who should not simply be dismissed as quacks.
 
Focusing on Fauci is a dead giveaway that a quack quack argument is coming.

No, Tommy, it's not a "1 Fauci against 2 other scientists" situation, and it's a cheap rhetorical trick to make it look that way.

We have a global medical and scientific community in broad agreement, and a few outliers.
It's the Global Warming "debate" all over again.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
If that is true, then perhaps you could link to any occasion in which Knightly has admitted he was wrong?
After all, no-one is correct 100% of the time, and any critical thinker worth their salt would be constantly examining their own beliefs, and altering them in the light of new evidence.
Some evidence that Knightly is capable of this kind of critical self-reflection would be useful at this juncture, I think.
Click to expand...

Will you link to a place where you admitted you were wrong?

Some kind of critical self-reflection would be useful at this juncture.:D
 
Tom Palven said:
Are they critical thinkers?

Why should I try to emulate them?

Sorry, but I truly believe that Kit Knightly is a critical thinker, regardless of what the conventional wisdom is.
Click to expand...

And yet you still refuse to address the takedowns of what "Never remotely a Guardian journalist" Knightly claims about Covid...

Why is that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom