Play Nice Random Chat Thread VII

[DesertRoo]

How is he woefully unqualified and disgusting?

because..

 

[ferball]

He's an absolute quack and just yet another example of woefully unqualified and disgusting nominees by the Elon/█████ administration.

Of course all the covid cooker/conspiracy nuts are celebrating his nomination though. Congratulations to you.

Absolute quack = professor of medicine at Stanford.

I would suggest your opinion of him is based entirely on who he is associated with and not on any meaningful criticism of his life's work. (BTW This is not an endorsement of him or his policy positions, just a criticism of your autonomic response to someone mentioning him.)

 

[Chadwiko]

So what's the acceptable timeline here 5, 10, 25 or 50 years?

For someone who avoids answering questions so much, you sure do love asking questions.

 

[Chadwiko]

Absolute quack = professor of medicine at Stanford.

Professor of Medicine at Stanford, whose work was described by the Director General of the World Health Organisation as "scientifically and ethically problematic", and downright "unethical".

So... yes.

He has tenure so he's unfireable at Stanford. Otherwise he'd probably be gone.

I would suggest your opinion of him is based entirely on who he is associated with and not on any meaningful criticism of his life's work.

And you would be wrong.

You previously referred to yourself as somewhat of a socialist, if I recall correctly?

I think you'll enjoy this recent article from the WSWS;

Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya’s reactionary attack on public health

Bhattacharya, widely tipped to be chosen by Donald █████ as the next director of the National Institutes of Health, has attacked the WSWS for exposing his anti-public-health views.

www.wsws.org

 

[DesertRoo]

For someone who avoids answering questions so much, you sure do love asking questions.

because your questions are dumb,
I've had to repeat over and over again, no one is supporting Russia, I take the same position to Israel or the Syrian Rebels.
We shouldn't be supporting any of it.. Australians shouldn't be going OS to fight, nor my tax $$ funding death and misery.

You keep fapping on about goodies and badies and twist yourself in knots trying to rationalise.

 

[Chadwiko]

because your questions are dumb,
I've had to repeat over and over again, no one is supporting Russia, I take the same position to Israel or the Syrian Rebels.
We shouldn't be supporting any of it.. Australians shouldn't be going OS to fight, nor my tax $$ funding death and misery.

You keep fapping on about goodies and badies and twist yourself in knots trying to rationalise.

Not the issue that I was talking about, mate.

 

[Val Keating]

Important context here; Israel has held the Golan Heights for 60 years.

Yeah, it's been 'disputed' territory with Syria that entire time, but Israel has been in control the entire time any of us have been alive. It's not 'new' territory they've just claimed this week.

There's been a lot of hyperbole about Israeli forces "near Damascus". Damascus is closer to the Israel border than Frankston is to Melbourne. That said, it is disappointing to see that Israel does appear to be over-extending around the buffer zone.

I really bloody hate Netanyahu and the far-right nationalist assholes in charge in Israel at the moment.

Isreal has been doing this since it was created.

The whole country is on land stolen by Zionists.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Chadwiko]

 

[Cyber_punk]

 

[DesertRoo]

View attachment 2185874

just watch the incoming effort to defame him, he’ll be presented as crazy/loner/crackpot conspiracy theorist, the usual

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Professor of Medicine at Stanford, whose work was described by the Director General of the World Health Organisation as "scientifically and ethically problematic", and downright "unethical".

So... yes.

He has tenure so he's unfireable at Stanford. Otherwise he'd probably be gone.



And you would be wrong.

You previously referred to yourself as somewhat of a socialist, if I recall correctly?

I think you'll enjoy this recent article from the WSWS;

Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya’s reactionary attack on public health

Bhattacharya, widely tipped to be chosen by Donald █████ as the next director of the National Institutes of Health, has attacked the WSWS for exposing his anti-public-health views.

www.wsws.org

I can't seem to find evidence of this quote from your post I have bolded on google. Do you have a link?

What about the Great Barrington Declaration did you not like?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Sucked in by the troll

 

[Chadwiko]

I can't seem to find evidence of this quote from your post I have bolded on google. Do you have a link?

What about the Great Barrington Declaration did you not like?

WHO Chief remarks regarding the 'Great Barrington declaration':

WHO chief says herd immunity approach to pandemic 'unethical'

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus cites lack of understanding of virus and lasting health effects

www.theguardian.com

 

[Val Keating]

Sucked in by the troll

That was so obvious I’m surprised anyone fell for it.

 

[ferball]

Professor of Medicine at Stanford, whose work was described by the Director General of the World Health Organisation as "scientifically and ethically problematic", and downright "unethical".

So... yes.

He has tenure so he's unfireable at Stanford. Otherwise he'd probably be gone.



And you would be wrong.

You previously referred to yourself as somewhat of a socialist, if I recall correctly?

I think you'll enjoy this recent article from the WSWS;

Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya’s reactionary attack on public health

Bhattacharya, widely tipped to be chosen by Donald █████ as the next director of the National Institutes of Health, has attacked the WSWS for exposing his anti-public-health views.

www.wsws.org

You'll notice I didn't defend him.

I was never against lockdowns but those lockdowns are a massive part of the huge shift of wealth that has happened since 2020. Ol' mate warned against those consequences and the mental health and health effects of the lockdowns and he was probably correct about that.

Is that your basis for calling him an absolute quack? Because if it is its a clear example of why so much of what you type is untrustworthy rubbish. You can't make a reasoned critique of someone without resorting to pathological shitposting.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

WHO Chief remarks regarding the 'Great Barrington declaration':

View attachment 2185920

WHO chief says herd immunity approach to pandemic 'unethical'

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus cites lack of understanding of virus and lasting health effects

www.theguardian.com

Thank you. No idea why I couldn't find it on google.

 

[Chadwiko]

You'll notice I didn't defend him.

(Proceeds to defend him)

Is that your basis for calling him an absolute quack? Because if it is its a clear example of why so much of what you type is untrustworthy rubbish. You can't make a reasoned critique of someone without resorting to pathological shitposting.

I want to point something out here; I was debating the issue at hand just fine. You resorted to attacking me instead of the issue. I didn't say anything about you at all.

Reflect on that next time you accuse me of being the reason threads get locked.

 

[Dan]

Reminds me of that presser when Biden referred to Zelensky as Putin.

I'll never forget Z's 'wtf am I dealing with' look on his face at the time.

#sharpasatack

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

All of these posters cynical of wealth and power sure are quiet about a billionaire being bankrolled by a bigger billionaire to stock a cabinet full of billionaires.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[ferball]

Professor of Medicine at Stanford, whose work was described by the Director General of the World Health Organisation as "scientifically and ethically problematic", and downright "unethical".

So... yes.

He has tenure so he's unfireable at Stanford. Otherwise he'd probably be gone.

Multiple people who criticised him have walked back their criticism since as the effects of the lockdown have become apparent.

And you would be wrong.

You previously referred to yourself as somewhat of a socialist, if I recall correctly?

I think you'll enjoy this recent article from the WSWS;

Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya’s reactionary attack on public health

Bhattacharya, widely tipped to be chosen by Donald █████ as the next director of the National Institutes of Health, has attacked the WSWS for exposing his anti-public-health views.

www.wsws.org

I don't recall saying I endorse his positions.

But regardless of my opinions, many of his concerns about the economic and health effects of lockdowns have been shown to be reasonable. This doesn't mean that they were the wrong choice either, just that its not as cut and dried and some people would like to make out and a reasoned debate would be a better response the sort of abuse you are spewing out. It certainly doesn't make him an absolute quack.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Like, you’ll find an example of deleted racist tweet as evidence of coming oligarchy, but cats got your tongue when the billionaire owner of Twitter is actively and openly campaigning and bankrolling a billionaire candidate and admitting to manipulating the algorithm.

But next week you’ll make an acrostic poem from a 1980s press briefing that proves soros is manipulating us all.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[ferball]

All of these posters cynical of wealth and power sure are quiet about a billionaire being bankrolled by a bigger billionaire to stock a cabinet full of billionaires.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

That's been the US system forever so nothing has really changed on that front.

 

[ferball]

(Proceeds to defend him)

Is pointing out that someone may be right defending them?

I want to point something out here; I was debating the issue at hand just fine. You resorted to attacking me instead of the issue. I didn't say anything about you at all.

Reflect on that next time you accuse me of being the reason threads get locked.

You weren't debating it fine, you called the guy an "absolute quack" on the basis of your own prejudices and didn't address the substance of what he said back in 2020 at all. I attacked your comments because they are the sort of thing we hear from the likes of Andrew Bolt when he doesn't have an actual argument. You reckon you're better than that but you don't provide much evidence.

You're doing the same thing for a different political side and in the process discrediting that side by dragging it down to the level of news ltd hacks.

There's a saying "never argue with a fool they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." You've been dragged down to that level and don't have the experience to match it with those people.

You might want to reflect on that.

 

[Whiskey Stat]

'Woahh... flipping heck'



That is a hard pass for me though.