Healthcare Workers should be Fired

[Skepdick]

*Which conspiracists?

Name one, just one.

Henry "The Backpedal" Quirk

[henry quirk]

*Which conspiracists?

Name one, just one.

Henry "The Backpedal" Quirk

Common asked a question. I wanna see if he can name just one of the folks he deems conspiracists and name just one of the scientists he believes. So: how am I back pedalin'?

[Skepdick]

Common asked a question. I wanna see if he can name just one of the folks he deems conspiracists and name just one of the scientists he believes. So: how am I back pedalin'?

Oh, you forgot already!

He an't got any. If he did he'd have come with the particulars lined up.

The particulars shall be provided to you within 72 hours of publicly saying "I agree to the wager. Arrange the particulars".

Alongside your agreement, tell me which state you are in. The lawyers + escrow people will need this to confirm they can accomodate the legalities around our geographical disparity.

As a gesture of good will, I will donate $100 to any charity of Henry's choosing right now (even though we all suspect Henry "The Back Pedal" Quirk won't reciprocate)

[henry quirk]

Common asked a question. I wanna see if he can name just one of the folks he deems conspiracists and name just one of the scientists he believes. So: how am I back pedalin'?

Oh, you forgot already!

He an't got any. If he did he'd have come with the particulars lined up.

The particulars shall be provided to you within 72 hours of publicly saying "I agree to the wager. Arrange the particulars".

Alongside your agreement, tell me which state you are in. The lawyers + escrow people will need this to confirm they can accomodate the legalities around our geographical disparity.

As a gesture of good will, I will donate $100 to any charity of Henry's choosing right now (even though we all suspect Henry "The Back Pedal" Quirk won't reciprocate)

Good lord, you're still on that?

Like a poodle worryin' over a chew toy.

I leave you to it, Ringo.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What are the odds that the *conspiracists are right and the **scientists are wrong? According to the chances, who should you believe?

*Which conspiracists?

Name one, just one.

**Which scientists?

Name one, just one.

You prefer pseudoscience to science for some reason. Scientists are trying to prove themselves wrong all the time. That's what they do. Pseudoscientists are arrogant kunts who pull 'theories' out of their arses (like, ''all the vaccinated are going to die of the vaccine within 5 years'') and don't bother with tedious annoyances like facts and evidence, especially not facts and evidence that disprove their lazy garbage. It's exactly the same principle as religious belief. How coincidental

[henry quirk]

What are the odds that the *conspiracists are right and the **scientists are wrong? According to the chances, who should you believe?

*Which conspiracists?

Name one, just one.

**Which scientists?

Name one, just one.

You prefer pseudoscience to science for some reason. *Scientists are trying to prove themselves wrong all the time. That's what they do. **Pseudoscientists are arrogant kunts who pull 'theories' out of their arses (like, ''all the vaccinated are going to die of the vaccine within 5 years'') and don't bother with tedious annoyances like facts and evidence, especially not facts and evidence that disprove their lazy garbage. It's exactly the same principle as religious belief. How coincidental

*Which scientists?

Name one, just one.

**Which pseudoscientists?

Name one, just one.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Perhaps all the vaccinated will be dead in 5 years. Who knows? There's no rational, evidence-based reason to believe that will be the case however. But if we are then it will be entirely coincidental, rather like the man on the beach on a sunny day jumping up and down shouting 'It's going to rain today!''. Eventually he's going to be right...

Every single scientist except a handful of nutters.

Conspiracy theorist/pseudoscientist: Henry Quirk.

[henry quirk]

Perhaps all the vaccinated will be dead in 5 years. Who knows? There's no rational, evidence-based reason to believe that will be the case however. But if we are then it will be entirely coincidental, rather like the man on the beach on a sunny day jumping up and down shouting 'It's going to rain today!''. Eventually he's going to be right...

Every single scientist except a handful of nutters.

Conspiracy theorist/pseudoscientist: Henry Quirk.

In other words: you can't name even one in either category (and I don't count in the latter or former).

Three of you (B, common, yourself) laud the scientists, decry the crackpots, but none of you can or will name one of either.

Here's what I make of that: none of you can name any reputable scientists or dastardly crackpots becuz, in context, everything any of you think you know about beer virus or the jabs comes from the talkin' heads on TV or from the ink-stained wretches of newspapers or magazines (or their counterparts on-line). In other words: you've been fed a specific line (select facts and interpretations of fact) and you take that line as gospel.

B, for example, by her own proud admission, relies on The Guardian, reasoning becuz the rag is subscriber-driven rather than advertiser-driven it's a reliable, accurate conduit. She will not see the rag is ultimately money-driven and, like any other money-driven entity, will skew to favor its consumers and their notions.

And your every single scientist comment, as though a degree and a lab coat insulate against corruption or elevate a fallible man into sumthin' better.

Common, I guess, is motivated by age and frailty to grasp at a security blanket, a totem to keep the virus at bay.

I think mebbe the three of you (and others in-forum) are in thrall to scientism (a religion if there ever was one) and its priests.

The Holy Writ: this is the Coronapocalypse; your salvation is in a needle.

As Jack sez up-thread, time will show who is right and who is not.

[Lacewing]

...you've been fed a specific line (select facts and interpretations of fact) and you take that line as gospel.

Do you not think this is what you've been fed, Henry?

Do you consider Reuters a reputable source? Here's a link that contains their sources.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKCN2AU2KR

I do not watch TV or social media, so I'm not typically bombarded by all of that noise. If there's something specific I want to research, I do that -- and I'm more inclined to trust balanced reporting vs. reporting that sounds like the author's hair is on fire and they're being abducted by aliens.

Which reputable sources do you use most often? I will check them out.

I suppose anything is possible in regard to the vaccine -- just as pretty much everything in life can be a risk. I think it's just as likely (or more so) that people will die as a result of their stupidity, vaccinated or not -- because being stupid seems to be more of a risk factor than ever for the challenges unfolding ahead of us.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Perhaps all the vaccinated will be dead in 5 years. Who knows? There's no rational, evidence-based reason to believe that will be the case however. But if we are then it will be entirely coincidental, rather like the man on the beach on a sunny day jumping up and down shouting 'It's going to rain today!''. Eventually he's going to be right...

Every single scientist except a handful of nutters.

Conspiracy theorist/pseudoscientist: Henry Quirk.

In other words: you can't name even one in either category (and I don't count in the latter or former).

Three of you (B, common, yourself) laud the scientists, decry the crackpots, but none of you can or will name one of either.

Here's what I make of that: none of you can name any reputable scientists or dastardly crackpots becuz, in context, everything any of you think you know about beer virus or the jabs comes from the talkin' heads on TV or from the ink-stained wretches of newspapers or magazines (or their counterparts on-line). In other words: you've been fed a specific line (select facts and interpretations of fact) and you take that line as gospel.

B, for example, by her own proud admission, relies on The Guardian, reasoning becuz the rag is subscriber-driven rather than advertiser-driven it's a reliable, accurate conduit. She will not see the rag is ultimately money-driven and, like any other money-driven entity, will skew to favor its consumers and their notions.

And your every single scientist comment, as though a degree and a lab coat insulate against corruption or elevate a fallible man into sumthin' better.

Common, I guess, is motivated by age and frailty to grasp at a security blanket, a totem to keep the virus at bay.

I think mebbe the three of you (and others in-forum) are in thrall to scientism (a religion if there ever was one) and its priests.

The Holy Writ: this is the Coronapocalypse; your salvation is in a needle.

As Jack sez up-thread, time will show who is right and who is not.

There's no vaccine for stupid. Perhaps a lobotomy would be more beneficial to you.

[commonsense]

What are the odds that the *conspiracists are right and the **scientists are wrong? According to the chances, who should you believe?

*Which conspiracists?

Name one, just one.

**Which scientists?

Name one, just one.

Here are their names:

“Any Conspiracist”

“Any Scientist”

[commonsense]

*Which conspiracists?

Name one, just one.

Henry "The Backpedal" Quirk

Common asked a question. I wanna see if he can name just one of the folks he deems conspiracists and name just one of the scientists he believes. So: how am I back pedalin'?

I don’t deem any differently than most people deem.

Anyone applies to everyone generally speaking. I do not know the names of everyone who self identifies as a scientist or a conspiracist or a dentist for that matter.

Since predictably you will cry that I did not have a response to your ingenuine imperative, let me point out that I asked a general question about probabilities first. I asked the question of anyone.

Name one person who, like you, doesn’t understand the question

[commonsense]

Common asked a question. I wanna see if he can name just one of the folks he deems conspiracists and name just one of the scientists he believes. So: how am I back pedalin'?

Oh, you forgot already!

The particulars shall be provided to you within 72 hours of publicly saying "I agree to the wager. Arrange the particulars".

Alongside your agreement, tell me which state you are in. The lawyers + escrow people will need this to confirm they can accomodate the legalities around our geographical disparity.

As a gesture of good will, I will donate $100 to any charity of Henry's choosing right now (even though we all suspect Henry "The Back Pedal" Quirk won't reciprocate)

Good lord, you're still on that?

Like a poodle worryin' over a chew toy.

I leave you to it, Ringo.

Classic backpedaling.

[henry quirk]

Do you not think this is what you've been fed, Henry?

wasn't talkin' to, or even about, you, lace


Which reputable sources do you use most often? I will check them out.

already went down that road with you

[henry quirk]

Perhaps all the vaccinated will be dead in 5 years. Who knows? There's no rational, evidence-based reason to believe that will be the case however. But if we are then it will be entirely coincidental, rather like the man on the beach on a sunny day jumping up and down shouting 'It's going to rain today!''. Eventually he's going to be right...

Every single scientist except a handful of nutters.

Conspiracy theorist/pseudoscientist: Henry Quirk.

In other words: you can't name even one in either category (and I don't count in the latter or former).

Three of you (B, common, yourself) laud the scientists, decry the crackpots, but none of you can or will name one of either.

Here's what I make of that: none of you can name any reputable scientists or dastardly crackpots becuz, in context, everything any of you think you know about beer virus or the jabs comes from the talkin' heads on TV or from the ink-stained wretches of newspapers or magazines (or their counterparts on-line). In other words: you've been fed a specific line (select facts and interpretations of fact) and you take that line as gospel.

B, for example, by her own proud admission, relies on The Guardian, reasoning becuz the rag is subscriber-driven rather than advertiser-driven it's a reliable, accurate conduit. She will not see the rag is ultimately money-driven and, like any other money-driven entity, will skew to favor its consumers and their notions.

And your every single scientist comment, as though a degree and a lab coat insulate against corruption or elevate a fallible man into sumthin' better.

Common, I guess, is motivated by age and frailty to grasp at a security blanket, a totem to keep the virus at bay.

I think mebbe the three of you (and others in-forum) are in thrall to scientism (a religion if there ever was one) and its priests.

The Holy Writ: this is the Coronapocalypse; your salvation is in a needle.

As Jack sez up-thread, time will show who is right and who is not.

There's no vaccine for stupid. Perhaps a lobotomy would be more beneficial to you.

predictable