Conspiracy Theory Mandates, Lockdowns, Covid-19, SARS-Cov-2 Thread - Get vaccinated.

[yebiga]

She's providing an opinion on Fauci. Discussion of her bona fides is very much on topic.

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.Wikipedia

1. It Can Make You Look Unintelligent​

Smart people use ad hominem arguments, it’s true. But ad hominem attacks are generally viewed as a sign of low intelligence. Even Urban Dictionary—hardly a forum for high brows—recognizes that ad hominem arguments are generally used “by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.”

There’s no doubt that some ad hominem attacks can be clever. But to be viewed as a person of intelligence, one must learn to counter and debunk arguments, not simply deride or smear people.

2. It Destroys Civil Discourse​

People often forget that individual behavior shapes culture. Our choices matter. Calling someone a tree hugger, sexist, Nazi, or SJW might offer a positive sensation. It might even be true. But using such rhetoric has a corrosive effect on society, says Glenn Geher, Ph.D.

“Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse,” writes Geher, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “[As] hard as it may seem, most people, regardless of where they stand politically, share the same goals of making this world a better place. In a climate beleaguered with disagreement, let’s remember that all discourse should be respectful and civil. Avoiding the ad hominem attack is a basic aspect of best practices in political discourse.”

3. It's Cruel​

By their very nature, ad hominem cut individuals down. We all get angry, and in these moments it’s natural to want to lash out.

Neurotic dope!

When we do, it often feels good, at least temporarily. I showed her! We often forget that our words can cut, sometimes deeply. When you attack someone’s makeup, weight, looks or any number of personal traits in response to an argument they present, you don’t just look dumb. You look petty and mean. This is true regardless of how many retweets and likes your comment receives.

4. It Ends Fruitful Discussion of Ideas​

I take ideas and the search for truth seriously. One of the best ways to sharpen the mind and get closer to truth is to challenge one’s own ideas. This often involves dialogue with other people. Because people rarely see eye to eye on all matters, it’s not unusual for debates and disagreements to occur. This is entirely proper. The fruitfulness of discussion depends largely on how well people are able to listen to one another and respectfully exchange ideas. Once a discussion grows heated, it makes a fruitful exchange of ideas more difficult. When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible. That’s usually when I make my exit. There’s little to be gained by engaging in such a discussion. If one’s goal is to “win” a debate by being the last man on the field, the ad hominem works fine. (Though Christopher Hitchens was probably correct to view it as “a sign of victory” whenever his opponents moved on to ad hominem.)

If one is genuinely interested in dialogue and healthy discourse, avoid the ad hominem.

5. It Can Get You in Big Trouble​

As a personal rule, I work hard to avoid ad hominem arguments for the reasons stated above. But I also discerned long ago the prudence of avoiding them for another reason: they can get you in hot water. This is especially true in the age of the internet, when today’s harmless (if rude) slang can become tomorrow’s hate speech. The “rules” that determine which words are acceptable and which are not—not to mention who can say them—are elastic, to say the least. Some might say they’re even irrational.

Increasingly we see celebrities, pundits, and athletes under fire for decade-old tweets and blog posts that for years had flown under the radar. Sometimes high-profile figures get fired for a careless tweet. Sometimes they get sent to sensitivity training. Sometimes they miraculously emerge unharmed.

The truth is, no one is quite sure what the rules are today, let alone what they’ll be 20 years from now. But a prudent policy, if you wish to avoid the fate of Rosanne or James Gunn, is to avoid using ad hominem arguments altogether. Learn to tailor your arguments against the ideas people espouse, not the people themselves. It will sharpen your mind, improve your arguments, and create a healthier atmosphere of ideas. In the long run, it just might make you a better person, too.

 

[bourbons]

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.Wikipedia

1. It Can Make You Look Unintelligent​

Smart people use ad hominem arguments, it’s true. But ad hominem attacks are generally viewed as a sign of low intelligence. Even Urban Dictionary—hardly a forum for high brows—recognizes that ad hominem arguments are generally used “by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.”

There’s no doubt that some ad hominem attacks can be clever. But to be viewed as a person of intelligence, one must learn to counter and debunk arguments, not simply deride or smear people.

2. It Destroys Civil Discourse​

People often forget that individual behavior shapes culture. Our choices matter. Calling someone a tree hugger, sexist, Nazi, or SJW might offer a positive sensation. It might even be true. But using such rhetoric has a corrosive effect on society, says Glenn Geher, Ph.D.

“Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse,” writes Geher, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “[As] hard as it may seem, most people, regardless of where they stand politically, share the same goals of making this world a better place. In a climate beleaguered with disagreement, let’s remember that all discourse should be respectful and civil. Avoiding the ad hominem attack is a basic aspect of best practices in political discourse.”

3. It's Cruel​

By their very nature, ad hominem cut individuals down. We all get angry, and in these moments it’s natural to want to lash out.

Neurotic dope!

When we do, it often feels good, at least temporarily. I showed her! We often forget that our words can cut, sometimes deeply. When you attack someone’s makeup, weight, looks or any number of personal traits in response to an argument they present, you don’t just look dumb. You look petty and mean. This is true regardless of how many retweets and likes your comment receives.

4. It Ends Fruitful Discussion of Ideas​

I take ideas and the search for truth seriously. One of the best ways to sharpen the mind and get closer to truth is to challenge one’s own ideas. This often involves dialogue with other people. Because people rarely see eye to eye on all matters, it’s not unusual for debates and disagreements to occur. This is entirely proper. The fruitfulness of discussion depends largely on how well people are able to listen to one another and respectfully exchange ideas. Once a discussion grows heated, it makes a fruitful exchange of ideas more difficult. When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible. That’s usually when I make my exit. There’s little to be gained by engaging in such a discussion. If one’s goal is to “win” a debate by being the last man on the field, the ad hominem works fine. (Though Christopher Hitchens was probably correct to view it as “a sign of victory” whenever his opponents moved on to ad hominem.)

If one is genuinely interested in dialogue and healthy discourse, avoid the ad hominem.

5. It Can Get You in Big Trouble​

As a personal rule, I work hard to avoid ad hominem arguments for the reasons stated above. But I also discerned long ago the prudence of avoiding them for another reason: they can get you in hot water. This is especially true in the age of the internet, when today’s harmless (if rude) slang can become tomorrow’s hate speech. The “rules” that determine which words are acceptable and which are not—not to mention who can say them—are elastic, to say the least. Some might say they’re even irrational.

Increasingly we see celebrities, pundits, and athletes under fire for decade-old tweets and blog posts that for years had flown under the radar. Sometimes high-profile figures get fired for a careless tweet. Sometimes they get sent to sensitivity training. Sometimes they miraculously emerge unharmed.

The truth is, no one is quite sure what the rules are today, let alone what they’ll be 20 years from now. But a prudent policy, if you wish to avoid the fate of Rosanne or James Gunn, is to avoid using ad hominem arguments altogether. Learn to tailor your arguments against the ideas people espouse, not the people themselves. It will sharpen your mind, improve your arguments, and create a healthier atmosphere of ideas. In the long run, it just might make you a better person, too.

She's providing comment and opinion regarding Fauci and his role in the covid response. Her known agenda, who she is and what she has said previously is relevant. God knows you've questioned the history, agenda and mental health of a vast number of individuals regarding this topic in the past. If this is ad hominem, you have employed the very same approach extensively.

Even if by your judgement the comments posted since you introduced this video to the thread veer into derision or invective, that's ok per your definition;

Criticism, satire or invective directed towards public figures, political themes, interest groups etcetera is distinct from personal derision between participants.

By any measure, the video falls into a 'political theme' or 'interest group' category.

For christ's sake mate - pull yourself together or log off. For your own wellbeing if nothing else.

 

[Chief]

gaslighting me about the consumption of liquor.

LOOK AT YOUR USER NAME AND AVATAR!

 

[yebiga]

She's providing comment and opinion regarding Fauci and his role in the covid response. Her known agenda, who she is and what she has said previously is relevant. God knows you've questioned the history, agenda and mental health of a vast number of individuals regarding this topic in the past. If this is ad hominem, you have employed the very same approach extensively.

Even if by your judgement the comments posted since you introduced this video to the thread veer into derision or invective, that's ok per your definition;

By any measure, the video falls into a 'political theme' or 'interest group' category.

For christ's sake mate - pull yourself together or log off. For your own wellbeing if nothing else.

Another post where you again inappropriately question my well being. No discourse is possible with this approach and picking over old bones is a vacuous justification for continuing with this inappropriateness.

The exact same point applies to this video montage - the author of this montage or any message, may or may not be relevant - but they can only become relevant after we address the content of the message. But without having addressed the content at all and only targeting the authors character serves only to derail and divert.

Relevance is not a small matter - the latest research in Artificial Intelligence defines Relevance Realisation as the fundamental characteristic of Intelligence.
The rationale behind this finding is something known as Computational or Combinatorial Explosion. Namely, every situation - even the most simple is actually really incalculably complex. If that is true - then analysing something like Politics and Culture, which contains high levels of abstract thought together with fluctuating opinions bound within often fuzzy categories, inevitably contains even higher levels of complexity then we normally confront. Unless we deliberately narrow down the complexity to its essentials - namely the most relevant points - we cannot help but become trapped within the complexity and irrelevancy. We not only become more error prone, we become incapable of acting or thinking appropriately at all.

This topic of COVID, the conduct of the pandemic by various jurisdictions, the various vaccines, and responses involving health facilities and professionals bodies across the entire globe, renders the subjects so vast - in and of itself - that the computationally explosion perhaps infinitely exponential. It is difficult to know even where to begin. Then to add into this mix, not only the various opinions concerning this topic, which are in themselves challenging enough, but to insist before we can discuss any opinion, we need to first engage in a thorough examination of the character and motivations of the authors of any opinions - all but guarantees that no discussion can progress and that any attempt is almost certain to devolve into irrelevant nonsense.

When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible. There’s nothing to be gained by engaging in such a discussion. If one’s goal is to “win” a debate by being the last man on the field, the ad hominem works fine.

 

[yebiga]

LOOK AT YOUR USER NAME AND AVATAR!

I don't believe it would be appropriate for posters to begin ascribing towards you the worst implications that your byline "chugging adrenochrome" affords?
Do you?
Can we try to stick to the topic, please.

 

[bourbons]

Another post where you again inappropriately question my well being.

No, I legitimately think you've reached a stage where posting here is becoming detrimental to your well being, based on what you've volunteered and how you're responding to posts.

You do you though, I'm out.

 

[Chief]

I don't believe it would be appropriate for posters to begin ascribing towards you the worst implications that your byline "chugging adrenochrome" affords?
Do you?
Can we try to stick to the topic, please.

It's a joke mate. One I assumed you were making yourself given your username - and for those at home, it's a brand of plum liquor - and the image of a drunken person in your avatar.

A joke.

If you won't cop a joke that you made about yourself in the most prominent way, what is the point in discussing anything with you?

You are doing your best to play the victim so that no matter what you say - no matter how detached from reality or steeped in online conspiracy theories - the person pointing it out is in the wrong and hurting you personally.

You have a right to your opinion based on being a human with rights to think your own thoughts. You only have a right to your opinion based on it aligning with reality if it actually aligns with some sort of reality. Facts. Evidence.

Big Headings

The size of the font doesn't make what you say any more true.

 

[yebiga]

It's a joke mate. One I assumed you were making yourself given your username - and for those at home, it's a brand of plum liquor - and the image of a drunken person in your avatar.

A joke.

If you won't cop a joke that you made about yourself in the most prominent way, what is the point in discussing anything with you?

You are doing your best to play the victim so that no matter what you say - no matter how detached from reality or steeped in online conspiracy theories - the person pointing it out is in the wrong and hurting you personally.

You have a right to your opinion based on being a human with rights to think your own thoughts. You only have a right to your opinion based on it aligning with reality if it actually aligns with some sort of reality. Facts. Evidence.

Big Headings

The size of the font doesn't make what you say any more true.

Chief I am trying to stay on topic
I have attempted to not cast vile aspersions at participants -
But I confess, over the yers, to have indulged and even instigated tit for tats that I should not have.

It is clear that both the advent of Trump and then COVID has caused a heightened level of division of participants. Somewhere, a long the line, we've gone from partisan fun and banter to something personal, ugly and indecent.

The attacks on this particular thread during the last 12 months - via Malifice - were ca low point, completely and utterly inappropriate. And whilst, there me be some legitimate push back towards fringe opinions were the thread on the main boards - it is quite another thing, when this thread has at all times resided here on the conspiracy board, for Moderators to systemically psychologically attack, deride and cancel participants because they dare to merely challenge the mainstream.

I think all of us suffer and become less than we should or could be, by regressing into what is now a reflexive routine ritual of personal derision and attacks.

I will not indulge in it any longer and none of us should. We have been using Social Media long enough now to understand, that without some modicum of impartial rules, some etiquette, some basic standard of decency the promise that social media offered turns into something that is not serving but harming our culture and us individually.







I

 

[pc79]

 

[pc79]

 

[Chief]

My god!

He's saying - in 2004 - that someone who has had influenza doesn't need a vaccination shot.

That's influenza.

Not Covid.

Tired of going around in circles on reminding people that Covid isn't influenza.

Infection adds to immunity, but infection without vaccination comes with a FAR greater risk of damage to the body.

It's NOT better to get infected without being vaccinated. Not on any metric.

 

[yebiga]

My god!

He's saying - in 2004 - that someone who has had influenza doesn't need a vaccination shot.

That's influenza.

Not Covid.

Tired of going around in circles on reminding people that Covid isn't influenza.

Infection adds to immunity, but infection without vaccination comes with a FAR greater risk of damage to the body.

It's NOT better to get infected without being vaccinated. Not on any metric.

There is something darkly fitting that you post this assertion here within a conspiracy thread.

Firstly, even our precious health authorities - supported by the posting policy of the likes of facebook - have been in constant flux in relation to all matters pertaining to covid. Questioning the effectiveness of masks, not so long ago, was verboten on FB and You tube. Today, it is no longer censored. The same occurred concerning whether Covid originated naturally or arose from a gain of function bio-lab in Wuhan.

At the beginning of the COVID vaccine roll-out - authorities asserted the vaccines were not only nearly 90% effective in preventing COVID they were entirely guaranteed to prevent spread and re-infection. Then it was conceded they were becoming less effective, various mutations were blamed for outsmarting the vaccines. In the end, as COVID cases and deaths only increased with the forced vaccination hysteria that championed a 95% double dose vaccination rate amongst Australian's, our authorities shamelessly continued to sprout the effectiveness of the vaccines - whilst, simultaneously acting as if the pandemic were over!

In recent months, various senior health officials in the USA and elsewhere have even conceded that they may have exaggerated - for the greater good mind you - both the effectiveness of the vaccines and the danger of COVID. Scores of thousands of health professionals have and continue to question the effectiveness of these COVID vaccines, thousands others having examined all cause mortality rates claim that when it comes to COVID these vaccines cause more harm than good

This week alone - WAPO - amongst others had a story along the lines that the Trump administration had unduly pressured vaccine manufacturers to hastily release a vaccine - such an argument implicitly suggests that they may not be as effective as they should be. There are laws in science like gravity which are universally accepted. Vaccine effectiveness is not one of those laws and a vaccine that was rushed, using new and innovative technology, that was not tested thoroughly to the long held established vaccine standards - is by definition unresolved. To stringently assert otherwise - and on a conspiracy thread no less - must lead any reader to wonder at the author's motives.

 

[Stokey]

Why are the Dems now blaming Trump for these wonderful vaccines?

I thought we should be congratulating him.

 

[Home Alone]

There is something darkly fitting that you post this assertion here within a conspiracy thread.

Firstly, even our precious health authorities - supported by the posting policy of the likes of facebook - have been in constant flux in relation to all matters pertaining to covid. Questioning the effectiveness of masks, not so long ago, was verboten on FB and You tube. Today, it is no longer censored. The same occurred concerning whether Covid originated naturally or arose from a gain of function bio-lab in Wuhan.

At the beginning of the COVID vaccine roll-out - authorities asserted the vaccines were not only nearly 90% effective in preventing COVID they were entirely guaranteed to prevent spread and re-infection. Then it was conceded they were becoming less effective, various mutations were blamed for outsmarting the vaccines. In the end, as COVID cases and deaths only increased with the forced vaccination hysteria that championed a 95% double dose vaccination rate amongst Australian's, our authorities shamelessly continued to sprout the effectiveness of the vaccines - whilst, simultaneously acting as if the pandemic were over!

In recent months, various senior health officials in the USA and elsewhere have even conceded that they may have exaggerated - for the greater good mind you - both the effectiveness of the vaccines and the danger of COVID. Scores of thousands of health professionals have and continue to question the effectiveness of these COVID vaccines, thousands others having examined all cause mortality rates claim that when it comes to COVID these vaccines cause more harm than good

This week alone - WAPO - amongst others had a story along the lines that the Trump administration had unduly pressured vaccine manufacturers to hastily release a vaccine - such an argument implicitly suggests that they may not be as effective as they should be. There are laws in science like gravity which are universally accepted. Vaccine effectiveness is not one of those laws and a vaccine that was rushed, using new and innovative technology, that was not tested thoroughly to the long held established vaccine standards - is by definition unresolved. To stringently assert otherwise - and on a conspiracy thread no less - must lead any reader to wonder at the author's motives.

But the vaccine has been very effective to the point where it has eliminated the alpha and delta strains.

To expect it to have the same efficiency to new strains that emerged after their development is very selective to the point of making your argument redundant.

On SM-A515F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[kane249]

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/australian-antivaxxers-who-sued-state-and-federal-governments-forced-to-pay-214023-in-legal-costs/news-story/5c9624ef82c32e1cedcecac5a0d462c5

Nuremberg code didn't save them

 

[Stokey]

The best restaurant in my parent's town was forced to shut as the owners were branded as anti-vaxxers.

They almost lost everything but held strong and opened up again this week.

Did they get vaccinated? No.

Are the same people who wanted them closed now eating there again? Yes.

So much for science, principles, health, safety etc etc.

 

[Chief]

Anti-vaxxers are just misguided at best, complete ******* idiots at worst.

 

[Stokey]

Anti-vaxxers are just misguided at best, complete ******* idiots at worst.

But not dangerous anymore?

 

[Chief]

But not dangerous anymore?

Oh they are still that. Just not as dangerous now everyone else has done the right thing.

No idea about your story. Could be made up. Who knows?

 

[Stokey]

Oh they are still that. Just not as dangerous now everyone else has done the right thing.

No idea about your story. Could be made up. Who knows?

Woukd you eat there?

 

[Chief]

Woukd you eat there?

Probably not. Why reward campaigners like that?

 

[Stokey]

Yep Luckily we have the vaccines to stop the spread and to stop people from dying.

 

[Chief]

ffs you're a drain.

 

[Stokey]

ffs you're a drain.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[Chief]

Facts don't care about your feelings.