How to Deal With the Coronavirus

@mark noble,

OOOOOOOOhhhhhhh! You've got secret evidence you will share if I'm nice and YOUR problem is my ego?

You are too kind. And extremely obtuse.

"I believe in science. Not just because it true, but because its hardly ever wrong, its hardly ever made up of discredited crackpots. Because it never screams incoherently, never glosses over it's gaps in knowledge, never implies the bogeyman "THEY" are out to get them. When scientists make a mistake, they acknowledge it and never claims "secret" aspect to their knowledge and they base it on experiment, research, peer review and simultaneous work by other groups of science."

Bite me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I know it's a losing proposition to attempt conversation with you, but I am intrigued. How are crackpots accredited? Is there a governing body for crackpots?

Step 1: be a crackpot
Step 2: go through all the hoops required to gain accreditation in a field (crackpot is not a field)
Step 3: behave in a way that leads people to believe you're not a crackpot

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Do you see the very first 'questionmark'?

That designates the prior text as the 'question'.

Reading beyond is additional to the 'question', unless an initial 'answer' is determined.

Have a Lovely Day

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Do I believe everything, factual or not is conspiracy theory? I believe what hasn't been proven is quackery. Dr Judy is a quack.

You don't have sufficient critical thinking ability to know what is in fact proven or not. Your understanding of what is 'proven,' is just your subjective impression, which you assume is valid intuitively.

Quote:

Are you a graduate of the livinglava school of word saladry? Or are you naturally this incoherent?

You don't even know enough about word salad to pass a test identifying it; and yet you toss the term around freely.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

I haven't mentioned 'They, Science, crackpots, secrets, experiments or peer-reviews'.
Answer the question - That's all.

Have a Lovely Day

0 Replies

@mark noble,

Can I get Roquefort with that or does it only come with Bullshit dressing?

2 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Have an awesome sojourn, Bobsal.
My final reply to you, forever.

Have a Lovely day, too

1 Reply

@mark noble,

So why do you edit that last post??? Too much iceberg lettuce?

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Can I get Roquefort with that or does it only come with Bullshit dressing?

Do you know that when you use puns to dress up your word salad ridicule, it doesn't actually add any validity?

Using humor to persuade people to accept/validate what you're saying is propagandistic.

Do you work in the late-night talk show industry or are you just 12 and don't know any better?

2 Replies

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Are you suggesting that chat/talk shows are 'programs' intended to mould the viewer/audience into a fake, nationalist sense of identity and 'communal-norm'?
If so?
'yana'

Have a Lovely day

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

You have a specific one in mind?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Using humor to persuade people to accept/validate what you're saying is propagandistic.

A good sense of humor that is creative , yet available is a sign of a high intelligence. That's why you always miss out on what is said to you.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Using humor to persuade people to accept/validate what you're saying is propagandistic.

A good sense of humor that is creative , yet available is a sign of a high intelligence. That's why you always miss out on what is said to you.

You are a sloppy thinker. I clearly explained that humor is a technique for garnering acceptance of something said without necessarily having a valid reason.

Your response is that "humor is creative and a sign of intelligence."

If you had real intelligence, you would use it to think critically instead of correlating humor with intelligence and intelligence with being right.

You don' t understand the difference between correlation and causation, but that is common among academic professionals, which you are/were as I recall you saying at some point.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

I rest my case. Apparently its all flown over yer head .
Saad

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

humor is a technique for garnering acceptance of something said without necessarily having a valid reason.

What a collectivist piece of group-think.

I've always thought that the socialists were a singularly unfunny non humorous people. Looks like the libertarians are even worse. No humor at all in collective? Humor never ever educates, doesn't ever have a point? Have you and the rest of the collective ever held a criticism session with cold joint? Then again his "humor" has neither truth or a point, and the worst: is not funny.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Quote:
humor is a technique for garnering acceptance of something said without necessarily having a valid reason.

What a collectivist piece of group-think.

I've always thought that the socialists were a singularly unfunny non humorous people. Looks like the libertarians are even worse. No humor at all in collective? Humor never ever educates, doesn't ever have a point? Have you and the rest of the collective ever held a criticism session with cold joint? Then again his "humor" has neither truth or a point, and the worst: is not funny.

Nothing you say is phrased in a way that invites lucid discussion.

It's all connotation, sarcasm, etc.; which is indeed indicative of using emotion to provoke group-think.

Why can't you just explain things you say so that others can respond with their thoughts on the matter?

Do you just want to say things in a way that avert critical response? Do you think that makes you more right if your posts are rhetorically fortified against questioning/discussion?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Says the word salad whiz.

0 Replies

Governors who pushed hardest for reopening get lowest approval
Source: American Independent

By Josh Israel -May 19, 2020 12:36 PM

Governors who bragged about keeping their states open also received low marks.

A 50-state poll released Tuesday shows that most governors who refused to issue stay-at-home orders or rushed to reopen their states get among the lowest marks for their handling of the coronavirus.

The SurveyMonkey data shows that while 49 of the 50 governors get majority approval for their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, the eight who got the least support included three governors who never issued stay-at-home orders, another who co-authored a Washington Post opinion piece bragging about keeping his state "open for business" during the pandemic, and three more who have come under fire for reopening too quickly.

Of the seven governors — all Republicans — who refused to issue stay-at-home orders at any point in the pandemic, most rate in the bottom half nationally as far as approval. (Only North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum cracked the top 15.)

Four of those governors boasted earlier this month that their states "stayed open in the covid-19 pandemic" and that their "approach worked."

Read more: https://americanindependent.com/governors-coronavirus-polls-brian-kemp-ron-desantis-georgia-florida-gop-covid-19/

1 Reply

How to Deal With the Coronavirus

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know