The education system should give us enough critical thinking and inteligence to be able to look at something, an opinion and be able to weed out the rubbish from the truth right?
If i told you that was france was a south american country, you'd know it was lies, you don't need someone to separate fact from fiction for you.
But the thing with covid is, there are no absolute truths, 18 months later, what do we know? do we know when it first appeared? no, do we know why? no, do we know where i came from? no.
The vaccine 10 months ago was going to make us all immune, it hasn't, so what does that mean? well like the saying goes, we only know that we know nothing.
how can you stop disinformation or even know what good and bad information is with covid, when we have no fucking idea?
and remember, another mans disinformation is another mans truth. some orwellian figure in silicon valley or in washington deciding what i should read, scares the shit out of me, as it should you!
reply
share
jriley555 (8551)
4 years ago
the irony of your complaint :
"The education system should give us enough critical thinking and inteligence to be able to look at something, an opinion and be able to weed out the rubbish from the truth right?"
is that you suffer from that very deficiency yourself. i've already given you good solid information on the fact that the covid vaccines lower your risk of death a thousandfold, also your risk of serious illness. but from that you conclude, because that isn't zero risk, that vaccines aren't effective, and further, that they don't produce antibodies. this make absolutely no sense at all. your logic is whacked. vaccines function PRECISELY by inducing an immune response that will be activated in contact with the targeted virus. that is the only point of a vaccine - an effective immune response.
you should go back over our previous exchange and see if you can LEARN something from it. i know you won't, that you came here with a compulsion to troll/spread nonsense, but on the off-chance you are merely willfully deluded up to the moment but slightly willing to absorb some new information, there it is.
reply
share
jimmyjuliano12 (342)
4 years ago
solid information isn't copying and pasting things from people who have spent the last 18 months getting things wrong, time and time again.
you don't even understand the concept of a vaccine, and what it's actually supposed to do. you're using words that you don't understand.
I know for a fact that 7,8,9 months ago you were calling anyone who believed that the virus wouldn't make you immune "loony", now you've been proven wrong. everything we are being told is being proven wrong time and time again.
reply
share
jriley555 (8551)
4 years ago
"you don't even understand the concept of a vaccine, and what it's actually supposed to do. you're using words that you don't understand."
i'll bite. explain how vaccines work, and how my remarks are in error.
reply
share
jimmyjuliano12 (342)
4 years ago
vaccine
/ˈvaksiːn,ˈvaksɪn/
noun
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide IMMUNITY against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
IMMUNITY means you WON'T get it.
even you recognize that people even with 2 jabs are getting it right? so there isn't IMMUNITY! so it's not a vaccine.
holy fuck i'm talking to morons who can't find their asses with both hands
reply
share
jriley555 (8551)
4 years ago
how does that in any way contradict what i've been telling you ?
how does a death rate be reduced a thousandfold ? with IMMUNITY conferred by a vaccine. how otherwise - magic ???
you don't listen, ponder, absorb what people who actually know what they are talking about are telling you.
let me repeat this, and again - compare it to the definition you just quoted :
vaccines function PRECISELY by inducing an immune response that will be activated in contact with the targeted virus. that is the only point of a vaccine - an effective immune response.
you can either humble yourself enough to actually listen, ponder, & learn something (because i actually do know what i'm talking about and have no desire to lie to you or anyone else about a matter so serious), or persist in your willful misunderstanding. vaccines are designed to produce an immune response to a target, thereby conferring IMMUNITY. that's it. the strength of the immune response will vary, because the strength of individuals' immune systems vary - and that will account for the small number of infections/deaths which occur among the vaccinated.
i cannot make it clearer.
reply
share
jimmyjuliano12 (342)
4 years ago
the basis of a vaccine is make you immune, polio vaccines make us immune, thats why it's called a vaccine.
covid vaccines don't make you immune, so they don't work. it's that simple, i won't reply to you from now on, dumb dumb.
reply
share
db20db (17754)
4 years ago
During all the years that I took an annual flu shot, I never once encountered the claim that it would make me immune. What I consistently read was, that it would significantly reduce the likelihood of my contracting it, and if I did, it would minimize the symptoms.
reply
share
jimmyjuliano12 (342)
4 years ago
because it's not a vaccine, it's a shot that boosts the immune system.
did you get the polio vaccine when you was a kid? yeah right? well thats a vaccine, because you'll never get polio.
i'm dealing with fucking mental midgets
reply
share
db20db (17754)
4 years ago
I suspected you were playing with semantics, driven by your overly inflated ego, and you just confirmed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine
Aren't you the one who initiated this thread with the advice of questioning everything? But you rapidly became exempt from that very scrutiny. You're on the same level as a cult leader, albeit much more transparent.
reply
share
jriley555 (8551)
4 years ago
he thinks of immunity in absolute, or binary, terms and insists it must be thought of in that way. his defect, more than in misunderstanding, is that he chooses to argue rather than to seek to increase his understanding.
immunity, like many aspects or properties of life, has a range - one can be partially immune. the strength of immune response in individuals is variable, the viral load one receives during an encounter with the infected varies. and even for those with less healthy immune systems, some immunity is vastly preferable to no immunity.
a vaccine gives all the opportunity to safely develop as robust an advance covid-targeted immune response as their immune system is capable of providing. for the vast majority, that renders the disease, at most, mildy irritating, on the order of the common cold & more often nothing at all.
perhaps i should have made this clearer.
reply
share
db20db (17754)
4 years ago
Trying to reason with that guy is clearly an exercise in futility.
As far as I'm concerned, he made a complete fool of himself here and is now still working at peeling that omelette off his face.
reply
share
jriley555 (8551)
4 years ago
it would be nicer if he could learn something. i get the fact that a lot of truly odd people post on the internet. it would be nice to see somebody come to their senses, once in a while.
at any rate, if anyone has similar concerns, at least they can see the thinking, the science, dealing with some of the complexities and perhaps misunderstandings that arise from a steady diet of highly-warped information sources.
reply
share
db20db (17754)
4 years ago
I constantly find myself learning something from other posters here when I'm browsing.
reply
share
sslssg (35194)
4 years ago
another mans disinformation is another mans truth.
No
Simply no.
You can't tell me that france is in south america and that I should know that it's a lie, and then tell me that that could be someone's truth.
When it comes to things involving science, we should listen to the scientists. Most studies are put forth and then are replicated by others. If others do not find the same results then that study isn't published. When someone is disagreeing with 95% of the consensus of scientists from all over the world with different governments, we should be asking why. Why were their results different? What did they do differently? When was the study done compared to the 95% of the other studies? Who is paying their salary? Was anyone else able to have the same results? This goes for more than just virology as well.
Someone has always decided what we read. ie publishing companies, newspapers, other media companies, libraries for instance. You say it should scare the shit out of me, but from what I can see if you want to find the scientific disagreements you still can. I challenge that it should scare the shit out of you that one individual who has a following can spew lie after lie after lie. Lies that are recorded and that are proven to be false, and millions of people will believe that person just because it's more convenient to their preconceived notions and they won't believe the truth when it is put right in front of them. That is what scares me.
reply
share
jimmyjuliano12 (342)
4 years ago
When it comes to covid, how can you separate disinformation from real information?
what information is there? do you know where it came from? did it come from a cave? a market? a lab?
when did it appear? because many countries have very differing data on their "patient zero"
and lastly, why? why do we have this virus?
add to that, that they told us that the vaccine would create IMMUNITY, and now we know it doesn't.
so tell me, i'm really interested, how are you gonna distinguish between fact and fiction with this virus when even fauci changes his fucking mind every 2 minutes? when we don't have a fucking clue what is happening?
"lets listen to the scientists" is the most fucking dumb thing i've ever heard!!
Opinion: Attacks on trans people are also attacks on science ...https://www.cnn.com › 2021/06/24 › opinions › attacking...
24 jun 2021 — Dr. Jack Turban and Professor Jules Gill-Peterson write that conservatives who claim to be "following science" in putting forth ...
should i listen to this fucking loon, who thinks a man with a wig on his head is a broad? are you that fucking naive?
reply
share
sslssg (35194)
4 years ago
Well considering that the article starts with the word Opinion I would take it as that man's opinion on the subject.
should i listen to this fucking loon, who thinks a man with a wig on his head is a broad? are you that fucking naive?
I happen to be very supportive of trans people as I have a few in my life. So thank you, but I'm done here.
reply
share
jimmyjuliano12 (342)
4 years ago
you've just lost you little queen!
i'll tell you what is disinformation, telling us that a man with a dress on is a woman.
in order to know if something is fact or fiction, we need a base of facts in the first place. for example we know that a man isn't a woman because of the chromosomes
however with covid, there are no facts, no truths, so how can you tell me what is disinformation?
i'd end the debate if i was as dumb as you, run along susy
reply
share
sslssg (35194)
4 years ago
You have just proved who you really are. We disagree so you pull out insults. I'm assuming that you think that I am a man and tried to call me a queen as an insult. I am not. By getting defensive, and trying to attack me when I say I'm done, just shows that you cannot put forth a solid argument and have to resort to such tactics.
You are not worth my time or my energy.
reply
share
jimmyjuliano12 (342)
4 years ago
you said we should listen to scientists, a scientist in the link i've provided says that transgender "women" are infact "women"
you can be nice and as supportive as you like. but to say we should listen to people who deny science, just shows how naive you are.
i've put up a good argument, you're just too emotional to understand it.
you say we should listen to scientists, but i've given you the best argument in the world of how they are wrong, and now base everything off feelings.
reply
share