3
Yawnz13 3 points ago +3 / -0

And here I am wondering where all these people got their privately-owned, armed ships.

https://awiatsea.com/Privateers/Privateers_A.html

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

Masks do work, vaccines do work.

What we're seeing is hyperreality that induces people into believing that cloth handkerchiefs worn haphazardly over the face = properly worn and rated masks and that the COVID placebos that grant no immunity to the disease = vaccines.

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.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

The problem with looking at VAERS is again people extrapolating nonsensical ideas from limited data. All VAERS shows is that X number of people presented Y condition within Z amount of time after getting a particular vaccine. It's a classic correlation =/= causation issue.

Take the problem with the live polio vaccine. Several batches were contaminated with another virus. The government freely admits this, but many people simply don't believe anything the government says anyway, so they'll never be satisfied with any answer given them.

Arguments citing VAERS are similar. They purposefully refuse to take into account possible contamination during manufacture, shipping, storage, and administration of the vaccine because the vaccine itself being the problem plays into their pre-existing bias.

The virus size vs mask pore size is likewise a similar argument that ignores certain points, i.e. that the virus itself is not simply floating around in the air on it's own. It's suspended in liquid droplets or on more solid particles like dust. Tangentially, "masks don't work" relies on a similar ignoring of evidence, i.e. that the vast majority of people aren't wearing masks that were ever designed to work for the purpose they're being used for. Masks do work when they are worn properly and are rated for their intended use. Saying "masks don't work" is like saying "guns don't work" when someone fails to defend themselves because they shot their attacker with a BB gun instead of an actual gunpowder-using firearm.

Also, "democratic republic" is redundant. All republics are democratic in nature.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

I personally don't buy the idea that these thoughts originate from actions done by the media. The originate from the person's own pre-existing thoughts and feelings and are simply exacerbated by the hyper-reality presented to them by the media they choose to consume (a choice also based on said pre-existing thoughts and feelings).

The whole "mass poisoning" angle is just another one of those wild extrapolations made as a result of the mentioned interaction. They see focus placed on people getting the vaccine, so they automatically believe that there is something sinister in the vaccine itself. I've already been through several other "mass poisonings" from other vaccines, chemicals in my food, fluoride in my water, chem trails in the air, and radiation from my cell phone.

Similiarly, I've lived through other "mass poisonings" that would supposedly have been the result of Trump's net neutrality ruling, lowering my taxes, reductions in illegal immigration, the "Muslim ban", etc.

These are essentially the same people. Both sides win gold medals in long jumping to conclusions based not on actual evidence, but how the media they choose to consume interacts with their own pre-existing biases.

See, I don't believe any of this requires a particularly high level of education on the matter. Consider the idea of asymptomatic spread. One would think that the liklihood of me spreading a disease would directly correlate with amount of a particular pathogen in my system. One would also think that the severity of my symptoms would directly correlate with said amount as well. If I'm not displaying symptoms, surely I must not have a population of the pathogen (i.e. viral load) that is high enough to cause damage to my body, which in turn means that I would have a much smaller chance of spreading the pathogen.

Now sure, some people will counter with "Well what about the incubation period?!". That doesn't really hold water since they still can't directly attribute spread to asymptomatic people.

In regards to the COVID vaccines, I personally believe that they are nothing but a placebo. They have nothing sinister in them, but they are simply being used as the vector (joke intended) for deprivation of rights. It helps the government figure out who the dissidents are. The rise of social media has shown the government how much power public perception has. They don't have to pass laws directly targeting groups of people anymore, or implant some kind of retarded microchip in my injections. They just put out vague "Get the vaxx for public safety" statements and let the generally dumb, angry, vocal crowd do their work for them.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

I got a bachelor's in biomedical science from Troy University back in 2019, but you really don't need a degree to smell bullshit.

All this talk about gene therapy and not a single person can explain the how.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes.

All these fuckwads claiming that it's "gene therapy" have no idea what mRNA is and are unable to explain how it would go about changing one's genetic code or which genes are supposedly being altered/added.

0
Yawnz13 0 points ago +1 / -1

Retard detected. Can't back up your claims or answer the question, so you puss out.

3
Yawnz13 3 points ago +3 / -0

Repulbics are types of democracies.

Direct democracy = the population vote on every issue

Republic = representative democracy = the population vote on representatives who in turn vote on issues

However, the purposeful use of "democracy" in this context seems to be a theme in leftist media, with the idea that it undermines the notion that the US is a specific type of democracy that is less beholden to mob rule (i.e. direct democracy). This idea is supported by pushes to lower voting age, extend voting rights to non-citizens and felons, etc.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

The lack of DNA evidence proving said element?

-1
Yawnz13 -1 points ago +1 / -2

mRNA isn't gene therapy, since it can't do anything on it's own. If it is, go on and detail to use the gene locus (or even loci) that it affects and how.

Which hospitals did you read about? Seems to me that this is either a case of people pushing hyperreality (News is talking about it, must be true!) or they're projecting what they know (or think they know) is happening at their local hospital onto the rest.

3
Yawnz13 3 points ago +3 / -0

JAMA published the articles showing how asymptomatic spread is basically non-existant and they published the study from Italy last year that showed that pretty much all COVID deaths are elderly patients with pre-existing conditions.

The Lancet on the other hand has published bullshit many a time.

3
Yawnz13 3 points ago +5 / -2

Most (grade school) teachers don't teach anything complex enough to have to "keep up" in their field. There really isn't anything groundbreaking coming out about spelling, or basic grammar, or algebra.

4
Yawnz13 4 points ago +5 / -1

Maybe because most hospitals aren't actually requiring them?

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think what will be interesting is how the Jones and Kandiss will run against each other.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

It is hardly moronic. The Constitution is very clear about the VP's powers, just as it is very clear about pretty much everything else. If you are only willing to take certain parts as written, you are the retard, traitor, and coward.

The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed". There is no room for debate.

The Twelfth Amendment says "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted". Not "accept or reject", not "appraise", not "scrutinize". There is no room for debate.

Had the office of the VP had these powers, why weren't they ever exercised? Why didn't Joe Biden do it in 2017? What didn't Al Gore do it in 2001, especially after how contentious Florida was?

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

And we aren't talking about "the federal governmemt" but a specific office that is granted VERY specific powers. The ability to solely and unilaterally reject EC votes is not one of them.

0
Yawnz13 0 points ago +1 / -1

Entirely irrelevant. There isn't a single part of the Constitution that gives the VP authority to reject EC votes on their own, regardless of the context.

Even if there was, it still wouldn't have mattered. The states confirmed their results with full knowledge of the violations. They would've just sent them again.

So Trump not invoking the Insurrection Act during the riots and over election fraud makes him a retard, a traitor, or a coward? Both men adhered to the Constitutional limits of their respective offices, that makes them none of those things.

view more: Next ›