3564
Hate speech!!! (media.patriots.win)
posted ago by sebster ago by sebster +3568 / -4
Comments (104)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is just true by definition always, at all times and in all circumstances, but it's not the question of interest. The question of interest is: do the cloth masks they're being forced to wear attenuate enough COVID-19 virii to prevent a significant number of illness transmissions ?

That isn't a demonstration of anything being wrong, that is supporting my argument.

Sure the viral load is always delivered in spittle or it breaks off from that and goes airborne. But the scenarios in which sufficient spittle would be expelled then inhaled are very very limited- sudden big sneeze in elevator or face to face etc.

When people say "masks don't work" they mean a combination of 1) masks don't work to stop the spread of this disease in this real world and in fact and 2) ordinary cloth masks aren't known, in this real world and in fact, to stop the spread of a viruses generally.

And again, more support. The fact that cloth masks were considered a suitable barrier should've been a tip off that the severity of the "pandemic" was not nearly as high as touted.

If inadequately rated/worn protection is being considered adequate by those demanding it's use, the conclusion should not be "protection doesn't work", it should be "the problem isn't that bad".

"Masks don't work" must invariably include all types of masks worn all types of ways. People wearing inadequately rated masks improperly and still not experiencing the problem is not indicative of "masks not working" being true, but that "the problem isn't that bad".

Oh look, we're being mandated that we wear a mask to stop the spread of a supposedly airborne virus, but a mask that is not rated is seen as an adequate solution my those pushing the mandate in the first place? Must mean that the virus isn't actually airborne, or that the liklihood of spreading the virus isn't as high as we're being led to believe, or that the disease isn't as severe in the majority of the population.

None, some or a lot of the info in my next post gets read by people, or, by people they trust. Maybe they just "notice" that people around them aren't dropping dead like it's the freaking Black Death of the Dark Ages. At any rate, all of this information gets processed by them then digested then condensed then represented in speech as: "masks don't work" "lockdowns don't work".

And that's OK. No one knows how people process the non-stop inflow of information of all types from their senses and their reading and interactions and conscious and preconscious and unconscious thinking to arrive at an accurate picture of reality. It's a big fat mystery.

You've essentially restated my entire point. Why do people condense information down into these generalized conclusions (i.e. wild extrapolations based of limited data)? Because it appeals to them. It's a heuristic driven by confirmation bias.

1
MrAnderson1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

If I was confirming your points then I am afraid there was some sort of miscommunication between us. Great chat through, always good to clarify my own thinking and listen and get a chance to listen to other people .