COVID-19 (The artist formally known as Coronavirus)

[Nicktendo]

2 hours ago, Sheikah said:

Ah, fair enough. BBC fucked up with Jimmy Saville and therefore the opposite of everything they say must be true.

Honestly though, what on Earth makes you think you're qualified to state those under 40 shouldn't be getting vaccinated? I'd bet anything you have no medical background whatsoever.

If you want to automatically trust an institution which harboured a paedophile for 30+ years then be my guest. My almost blind faith and support in the institution of the BBC was crushed in a single day because of a stupid needless lie. An completely unnecessary and pointless lie that I happened to notice because I was living on the other side of the world at the time they decided to tell it from right under my office window. If they'd lie about something so pointless as "Russians panicking to buy foreign currency", "dollars all but gone!" and "the line at the currency exchange opposite me is almost a kilometre in length" when it was quite literally the opposite - it was a normal day and no one noticed or cared what was happening bar a few ex-pats, what else would they lie about? Why lie about that, seriously? What was there to gain from it? Would they, therefore, lie about much more important things? Trump? Brexit? Corbyn? Coronavirus? These are logical conclusions anyone would draw when faced with such a situation. Why do they tell us that protesting against racism is safe, encouraged and necessary in a pandemic (Summer 2020), but protesting lockdowns is irresponsible and dangerous (always)? An epidemiological contradiction with zero "science" to back it up. One of those positions is objectively right, one isn't - the BBC can't decide which it is though. Objective truth no longer matters. 

With regards to your second question - that is my science. See how this works? If you get to have your truth, your science, and your facts (even when you slyly replace my with the), and I get to have mine as well. Yours is supported by the mainstream media (even when they change their mind), not banned from social media (until they finally admit it), and is promoted by the government (who just get everything horribly wrong), mine isn't. I'm being forced to do something against my will as a result. Comply with the "science" or face the consequences. This is what happens when society plays dangerous games with critical theory and wilfully discards objective truths. If you can't see the parallels between this vulgar infringement of liberty rights and The Weimar Republic, I don't know what to say. 

I can find studies, evidence and data that suggest COVID-19 is not inherently dangerous or life-threatening to under 40s, you can find the opposite. Neither of us know for sure because we're less than 18 months into a novel coronavirus pandemic and neither of us are trained epidemiologists. But, trust the science, bigot. But which science, tho? I have never said that vaccines don't work, that masks are useless, that social distancing isn't beneficial (despite supporting and contradicting evidence) - I've simply stated an opinion, based on the opinion, research and data of epidemiologists, that I don't want to take an untested vaccine, and judging on the lack of long-term data and relative lack of threat COVID poses to younger people, I think it's quite clear why anyone could make such a claim in a politically-charged world of lies and falsehoods if safeguarding their own health was their primary motivator. As much as I despise and distrust the Russian government, I would take Sputnik V, because it has been proven (so far) to be very effective in UK based preliminary studies and has been created using old tried-and-tested technology and the repurposing of a traditional flu vaccine. Why is that not available to me? If I ultimately had to take one against my will, it'd be that one. Nope. Sorry. Not available in your country. Experimental Pfizer of pfuck off. 

I don't know how we solve this problem. I know getting completely off social media is very important, but I doubt many will. You lived just fine without it before, why can't you do it now? Easier consumption. News aggregator. Easy log in to this and that. Laziness. Twitter is less than 2% of the population constantly shouting into the ether hoping to be noticed. That and Facebook are filled with Bots, foreign and domestic, which repeat the same nonsense ad-nauseum to get things artificially trending or shared. Has anyone here ever actually read and shared a post they disagreed with? Without the customary "omg, can you believe this?!" comment, of course. How many of you have unfollowed someone when they say something unsavoury, offensive, or something you perceive to be untrue? How many of you have called for someone to be banned because they challenged your worldview, your comforting little bubble of niceness and rainbows, or "harmed" the "wider community"? Remember when the BNP went on Question Time? How did that work out for them? For our Tik Tok generation though, Digital IDs and the locking down and removal of "harmful and dangerous content" is nothing to fear. Nay, you encourage it! A threat to democracy! There is no democracy without objective truth, that much is blatantly clear. I know some people here want me banned, I'm well aware of that. Well, what's stopping you?

Incidentally, 45 of the hundreds of thousands of racist tweets and comments directed at England's footballers on social media after the Euros came from real, actual people based in the UK, many of whom have been arrested. 99.9% of them came from bots or overseas (Pakistan, Saudi, UAE, China, Russia, etc). How many of you knew that? Was it reported on the BBC after the outrage had cooled a little? Certainly not in the same manner the BREAKING story was. Is 45 too many? Of course it is - did it warrant the absolute shit storm that followed it? Probably not. The UK is not a racist country, no matter how many of you like to pretend it is when something like this happens. Once again, spoken like a true conspiracy nut. 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Nicktendo

[Goafer]

Well that certainly went places. Could have just saved yourself a lot of time and just wrote "Wake up sheeple" like the rest of the conspiracy nuts.

This conversation is ultimately pointless. Best to just go our separate ways and let natural selection decide who's right.

[Nicktendo]

5 minutes ago, Goafer said:

Well that certainly went places. Could have just saved yourself a lot of time and just wrote "Wake up sheeple" like the rest of the conspiracy nuts.

This conversation is ultimately pointless. Best to just go our separate ways and let natural selection decide who's right.

Compelling.

[Beast]

5 hours ago, Goafer said:

Well that certainly went places. Could have just saved yourself a lot of time and just wrote "Wake up sheeple" like the rest of the conspiracy nuts.

This conversation is ultimately pointless. Best to just go our separate ways and let natural selection decide who's right.

I thought it was quite interesting, personally. Like all viewpoints, I like to hear all sides and their thoughts. Obviously @Nicktendo ultimately feels strongly about this as do you. Admittedly, it is nice to hear another side as opposed to "get the jab, got the jab, get the jab", which is okay because that's your choice just as it is theirs to not get it for their reasons. However, not having it yet is mine and maybe it was in my head but from the vibes I got from here, if I had said my thoughts, I would be a little hesitant in getting my point in because I'd be ambushed for not having them or something. 

I did feel a little alone in not having it yet, honestly, but it doesn't sit right with me that a government, who has got everything so wrong for the past near enough two years, is absolutely pushing this to the point it truly is blackmail. And honestly, I'd even be saying this if I had them too because nobody should feel any pressure into getting anything they're unsure of. 

As I said, get it or don't, it should always entirely be your decision with no other influence. This could potentially be a life-changing for better or worse. For that reason, it must fall into your hands as it is your health and your body and it is entirely you who would have to live the consequences whatever they may be. 

[Sheikah]

If you want to automatically trust an institution which harboured a paedophile for 30+ years then be my guest. My almost blind faith and support in the institution of the BBC was crushed in a single day because of a stupid needless lie. An completely unnecessary and pointless lie that I happened to notice because I was living on the other side of the world at the time they decided to tell it from right under my office window. If they'd lie about something so pointless as "Russians panicking to buy foreign currency", "dollars all but gone!" and "the line at the currency exchange opposite me is almost a kilometre in length" when it was quite literally the opposite - it was a normal day and no one noticed or cared what was happening bar a few ex-pats, what else would they lie about? Why lie about that, seriously? What was there to gain from it? Would they, therefore, lie about much more important things? Trump? Brexit? Corbyn? Coronavirus? These are logical conclusions anyone would draw when faced with such a situation. Why do they tell us that protesting against racism is safe, encouraged and necessary in a pandemic (Summer 2020), but protesting lockdowns is irresponsible and dangerous (always)? An epidemiological contradiction with zero "science" to back it up. One of those positions is objectively right, one isn't - the BBC can't decide which it is though. Objective truth no longer matters.  With regards to your second question - that is my science. See how this works? If you get to have your truth, your science, and your facts (even when you slyly replace my with the), and I get to have mine as well. Yours is supported by the mainstream media (even when they change their mind), not banned from social media (until they finally admit it), and is promoted by the government (who just get everything horribly wrong), mine isn't. I'm being forced to do something against my will as a result. Comply with the "science" or face the consequences. This is what happens when society plays dangerous games with critical theory and wilfully discards objective truths. If you can't see the parallels between this vulgar infringement of liberty rights and The Weimar Republic, I don't know what to say.  I can find studies, evidence and data that suggest COVID-19 is not inherently dangerous or life-threatening to under 40s, you can find the opposite. Neither of us know for sure because we're less than 18 months into a novel coronavirus pandemic and neither of us are trained epidemiologists. But, trust the science, bigot. But which science, tho? I have never said that vaccines don't work, that masks are useless, that social distancing isn't beneficial (despite supporting and contradicting evidence) - I've simply stated an opinion, based on the opinion, research and data of epidemiologists, that I don't want to take an untested vaccine, and judging on the lack of long-term data and relative lack of threat COVID poses to younger people, I think it's quite clear why anyone could make such a claim in a politically-charged world of lies and falsehoods if safeguarding their own health was their primary motivator. As much as I despise and distrust the Russian government, I would take Sputnik V, because it has been proven (so far) to be very effective in UK based preliminary studies and has been created using old tried-and-tested technology and the repurposing of a traditional flu vaccine. Why is that not available to me? If I ultimately had to take one against my will, it'd be that one. Nope. Sorry. Not available in your country. Experimental Pfizer of pfuck off.  I don't know how we solve this problem. I know getting completely off social media is very important, but I doubt many will. You lived just fine without it before, why can't you do it now? Easier consumption. News aggregator. Easy log in to this and that. Laziness. Twitter is less than 2% of the population constantly shouting into the ether hoping to be noticed. That and Facebook are filled with Bots, foreign and domestic, which repeat the same nonsense ad-nauseum to get things artificially trending or shared. Has anyone here ever actually read and shared a post they disagreed with? Without the customary "omg, can you believe this?!" comment, of course. How many of you have unfollowed someone when they say something unsavoury, offensive, or something you perceive to be untrue? How many of you have called for someone to be banned because they challenged your worldview, your comforting little bubble of niceness and rainbows, or "harmed" the "wider community"? Remember when the BNP went on Question Time? How did that work out for them? For our Tik Tok generation though, Digital IDs and the locking down and removal of "harmful and dangerous content" is nothing to fear. Nay, you encourage it! A threat to democracy! There is no democracy without objective truth, that much is blatantly clear. I know some people here want me banned, I'm well aware of that. Well, what's stopping you? Incidentally, 45 of the hundreds of thousands of racist tweets and comments directed at England's footballers on social media after the Euros came from real, actual people based in the UK, many of whom have been arrested. 99.9% of them came from bots or overseas (Pakistan, Saudi, UAE, China, Russia, etc). How many of you knew that? Was it reported on the BBC after the outrage had cooled a little? Certainly not in the same manner the BREAKING story was. Is 45 too many? Of course it is - did it warrant the absolute shit storm that followed it? Probably not. The UK is not a racist country, no matter how many of you like to pretend it is when something like this happens. Once again, spoken like a true conspiracy nut.

I'll ask again, do you have any medical background to make the assertion that people under 40 shouldn't be getting the vaccine?

Next time I'm prescribed some medication perhaps I should just check with you first rather than read the dosage instructions?

Also, you're wrong in your assumptions about me and how I come by information. I have a PhD in Biomedical Science and can understand the limitations of data and databases, and where best to look (hint: not Facebook). The BBC quote was because they had already done the work of explaining why you were wrong and saved me the trouble. If all you can do is criticise the BBC without actually challenging their debunk then that says everything.

[Rummy]

18 hours ago, Beast said:

Yeah, I did read about that too. But I think my problem is the fear of the unknown. There's no possible way to know about future effects and that, for me, is something that genuinely concerns me a lot. Obviously the illness itself does too as does the side effects but what about the future and the impact it would have, the boosters for the new variants that would surely happen, etc.

What I'd like to ask you then - with so many other unknowns in your life that you risk every day why is this one so disturbing as a priority for you? I see many people(and I have here lol) argue this whole thing in extremes and false dichtomies - but you face unknowns every single damn day; yet this one is possible more documented or looked at than your life is(which contains the risk, but without a vaccine you can't avoid the risk of covid if that makes sense) so why feel so fearful of this one thing here, despite it being global? Yet at the same time you don't want to consider big data neccessarily, you also do not want to account for small data of the individuals in a risk category who can't vaccinate or aren't affected by the vaccine(ie no immunity develops) so you won't vaccine for them? This is a thing that confuses me - its neither big data nor small data that can convince folks in some of all this; so what WILL convince you? If anything?

 

Note this isn't a judgemental or as pointed a post as it sounds, but I've come to this thread with bigger issues but we're both old school enough Dazz that I think you know I ain't hating on or attacking you here(and frankly the environment of such feeling being fostered in this thread is not useful nor conducive to the discussions or the forum, but that'll be gotten to later this post it just by me as a member in the thread)

[Rummy]

11 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

Ah yes, the same BBC the hid the Jimmy Saville crimes for decades and helped him evade justice,

I'm gonna interrupt you here - you have argued in bad faith quite a few times here and you just buttload your posts with fallacies to avoid responses to how unjustified the things you slip in are. Scattergun approach and what I currently see a bit as arguments in bad faith.

I won't argue points with you - but I will argue the meta of critical thinking as it's quite blatant how bad faith you are being sometimes. Let me explain the fallacy in the above - the BBC are guilty of one thing therefore they are quilty of 100% of things and can never ever be trusted with anything. An argument to the extreme loaded with a few other fallacies. It doesn't wash. Does this argument extent to suggest that any criminal convicted of a crime who serves their time are still a criminal and should be judged, even though society already once had? Please consider your rhetoric, your motivation, and how you want to make the points you are making.

 

MOD NOTE:

This whole topic is sensitive, bad faith arguments will get a harder look from me(no matter what point you are arguing) and there may be a few times where I remind folks to tone it down a bit - please do or I'll simply start excluding people from this thread. Remember the olden and golden rule - posting is a privilege, not a right. I always use it if I have to and I will here. Please carry on.

[Beast]

30 minutes ago, Rummy said:

What I'd like to ask you then - with so many other unknowns in your life that you risk every day why is this one so disturbing as a priority for you? I see many people(and I have here lol) argue this whole thing in extremes and false dichtomies - but you face unknowns every single damn day; yet this one is possible more documented or looked at than your life is(which contains the risk, but without a vaccine you can't avoid the risk of covid if that makes sense) so why feel so fearful of this one thing here, despite it being global? Yet at the same time you don't want to consider big data neccessarily, you also do not want to account for small data of the individuals in a risk category who can't vaccinate or aren't affected by the vaccine(ie no immunity develops) so you won't vaccine for them? This is a thing that confuses me - its neither big data nor small data that can convince folks in some of all this; so what WILL convince you? If anything?

 

Note this isn't a judgemental or as pointed a post as it sounds, but I've come to this thread with bigger issues but we're both old school enough Dazz that I think you know I ain't hating on or attacking you here(and frankly the environment of such feeling being fostered in this thread is not useful nor conducive to the discussions or the forum, but that'll be gotten to later this post it just by me as a member in the thread)

I know you aren't attacking or hating and I respect that it's a genuine question so there's no worries on my part. If I'm honest, I just think it's way too new to know what the future implications may be. I have considered everything I've read and whilst I understand that it might be safe, if I'm not all in 100%, by good faith I can't do it because it will drive me crazy. As I have previously said, it took me ages to get the flu jab. It naturally just does. I can't help my thought processes, as much as I wish I could. If I had my own good time to process things and actually ease into it, I'd be fine. Yes, I know it's been quite a while but things take a while to get my head around. I've never said never and as I have said a thousand times, I'm not pro or anti. I'm simply against giving a time limit to get something that I, myself, am unsure of as I would have to live with the decision. As of right now, I am fine and happy. I keep distances, I clean and sanitise as I have always done. This is like second nature to me now and even with having the jabs, this wouldn't change for me or make me feel safer in any way. 

My own good time would probably be the only way for me to be comfortable. Giving me until September makes me extremely uncomfortable. 

[Nicktendo]

1 hour ago, Rummy said:

I'm gonna interrupt you here - you have argued in bad faith quite a few times here and you just buttload your posts with fallacies to avoid responses to how unjustified the things you slip in are. Scattergun approach and what I currently see a bit as arguments in bad faith.

I won't argue points with you - but I will argue the meta of critical thinking as it's quite blatant how bad faith you are being sometimes. Let me explain the fallacy in the above - the BBC are guilty of one thing therefore they are quilty of 100% of things and can never ever be trusted with anything. An argument to the extreme loaded with a few other fallacies. It doesn't wash. Does this argument extent to suggest that any criminal convicted of a crime who serves their time are still a criminal and should be judged, even though society already once had? Please consider your rhetoric, your motivation, and how you want to make the points you are making.

I was wondering when this would happen  Absent for months at a time until someone needs putting down. 

bad faith - Marxist mumbo jumbo. The commies on ResetEra would love you. 

I gave three very good reasons why I don't trust the BBC:
1) Jimmy Saville
2) Lies about Russia which directly contradicted reality.
3) Protesting is safe but also very dangerous depending on what's the flavour of the day. 

I wouldn't judge someone who had served their time, but I also wouldn't trust them. Very different things. Trust is easily eroded and difficult to earn. I don't need to reconsider anything. I'm perfectly comfortable in my position that I will not be forced to take a vaccine against my will, you'll have to pin me down and inject it into me if needs be, at which point you've lost the argument. Does @Beast have any medial education? It's always attack the messenger and never the message. Carry on. 

[darksnowman]

15 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

 Absent for months at a time until someone needs putting down. 

I'm sure you can identify as it sums up your activity in the Nintendo threads.  

16 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

I'm perfectly comfortable in my position that I will not be forced to take a vaccine against my will, you'll have to pin me down and inject it into me if needs be

You aren't coming across as perfectly comfortable, though. No one here propping your eyelids up with matchsticks and subjecting you to the BBC or any mass media, and no one here is going to pin you down and inject you. It's okay. N-E is a safe space.

Your point of view (and @Beasts ) is important so that a fair and balanced discussion can be had. We've members who're vaxxed (and glad to be, let's note), @Beast isn't totally convinced one way or the other,  and you're absolutely not interested under any circumstances. There's a nice spread of opinions and positions. But you really should consider presenting where you're coming from in a more approachable way so that others who want to engage with you on this topic can do so without it devolving to this.

[Sheikah]

28 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

I was wondering when this would happen  Absent for months at a time until someone needs putting down. 

bad faith - Marxist mumbo jumbo. The commies on ResetEra would love you. 

It's not difficult to grasp what he's saying, rather than actually address the points they're making you are systematically trying to discredit the source based on other reasons. The same way you're trying to do it with Rummy here - what's it matter how often Rummy posts?

This is a bad way to debate and very transparent, and not really a clever thing to do.

[Nicktendo]

8 minutes ago, darksnowman said:

I'm sure you can identify as it sums up your activity in the Nintendo threads.  

You aren't coming across as perfectly comfortable, though. No one here propping your eyelids up with matchsticks and subjecting you to the BBC or any mass media, and no one here is going to pin you down and inject you. It's okay. N-E is a safe space.

Your point of view (and @Beasts ) is important so that a fair and balanced discussion can be had. We've members who're vaxxed (and glad to be, let's note), @Beast isn't totally convinced one way or the other,  and you're absolutely not interested under any circumstances. There's a nice spread of opinions and positions. But you really should consider presenting where you're coming from in a more approachable way so that others who want to engage with you on this topic can do so without it devolving to this.

Look at my post history. That is not true at all.

We had one member a couple of pages ago calling for the unvaxxed to be excluded from society. 

My arguments were met with "BBC Fact Checks".

Are you following? 

[Ashley]

Temporarily closing.