Politics CHARLIE KIRK SHOT IN UTAH

[ehizzy3]

I don’t want to seem like an alarmist, but I think this weekend is gonna be fucked. Both from fallout of this and Russia/Poland kicking off

 

[Phatguysrule]

It shows all legit scientists did not all agree. It says it right there and explain where snd how they didn't.
Not all scientists agreed on everything. This is a fact.

Different data sets showed different degrees of agreement with regards to a novel virus.

That is how science works. It does not make it less trustworthy. It does not make it wrong.

Once again, you are not qualified to have this conversation. I am not qualified to teach you.

Social distancing worked. Masks worked. Vaccines worked. These things saved at least a million lives in the US in the first year alone.

What legitimate epidemiologist disgrees?

 

[julius]

So boogeymen... That sounds about right...

1oo%

They have boogeymen in "welfare queens" "darker elements" "urban" "trans/drag queens", "DEI!" "WOKE!" "CRT" "open borders" etc.

 

[sheed30]

The shooter wasn’t a trans, antifa, or left wing. He was a terminally online incel with brain rot from the internet.

Writing “if you’re reading this your gay, lmaooo” like the whole thing is a joke just shows how unserious we have become.

Also our enemies, both foreign and domestic, just took notes on how bad our FBI is right now.

did you do some research? There is pics of him dressed as a women....also real peoeple that knew him from school have talked about how he was, what his views were, and he made a song about Charlie Kirk dead at 31 as well before all of this...

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Honest question:

How do you propose to talk and rationalize to a bigot and a racist?

In turn,

How then do you propose to talk to someone who wants Healthcare for all, affordable living, equal rights for all?

See where the chasm is? Dialogue isnt going to help when one is about hate and one is about trying to help people. I think thats where people are having the issue.

We need solutions, yes, but when the solutions are blocked by the very people who have the power to change it, this is what happens. This was inevitable. Its just weird that in a time where communication is at its most efficient, the higher ups decided to erode it with misinformation.

Your cause is noble, wanting to talk it out... there just isnt an actual framework for it to ever be constructive based on not having the ability to do anything about it. We literally cant get common sense bills passed because the powerful people aim to block it all. Its systemic, and talking about it, while it should be the way, just isnt feasible in the current enivronment.

Thanks Stren. But again. Im discussing you and I. The commoner. If we can stop claiming each other is evil and discuss it within ourselves, thats how change happens. This can only improve on an individual level. We must all take a step back and breath and not point fingers. We must discuss thru open and honest dialogue without closed ears. Then maybe, just maybe, enough of society gets it and starts to vote accordingly. No amount of anger or retaliation will ever fix this.
The only fix is on an individual level. We must fix ourselves and help fix those in our circles. If this happens, in time, the tides will turn and we might get out of this. But as long as we say “you voted for him, you are evil” we will never mend.
We must ask, why did you vote for him? Why did you come to that conclusion? Why do you believe this way or that.
It’s only fixable thru open and honest dialogue on an individual level. Then the masses can make real changes in the political arena. But as long as we fight, we are just their pawns. The sooner all of us recognize this, the better chance we have of fixing it.

I don't know if much is being discussed on Facebook. Mostly just viewpoints being shared.

Exactly. Exxxacccctly. No one is discussing. Just making statements of anger and hatred. Much like how this thread started out….And seems to have reverted back to. Instead of asking me why i think the way i do or what made me think the way i do, Im harmful to society. Im a victim.
This kind of dialogue is no good, but yet is still happening now. Right here in this forum of so called impartial, intelligent folk.

most people are not getting it.

 

[Chris Craig]

It shows all legit scientists did not all agree. It says it right there and explain where snd how they didn't.
Not all scientists agreed on everything. This is a fact.

COVID was new. Scientists hadn't figured it out yet. People were dying in mass. Hospitals were being over flooded to the point people couldn't be helped.

While every scientist didn't exactly agree, enough of them reached a consensus that the best method to contain the virus was for everyone to be home for a time and not around each other. This worked. Sure, there were negative impacts from it.

Scientists were trying to figure out whether masks were effective. The general consensus was to wear them. It did help.

Scientists weren't sure if the vaccines were safe because we had to produce them so quickly. Scientists did their best to make them safe and they mostly were. Every vaccine has rare side effects.

Science is a bunch of of theories and conjectures put forward on how something works. Experimentation and trials follow. In the end one theory is correct while many are proven wrong. That's the nature of science.

But, also in the end science itself is that compiled knowledge of strictly proven theories based on facts and not on politics or opinions. That science should be respected and accepted.

 

[Chris Craig]

did you do some research? There is pics of him dressed as a women....also real peoeple that knew him from school have talked about how he was, what his views were, and he made a song about Charlie Kirk dead at 31 as well before all of this...

I think that was a different person.

 

[Phatguysrule]

But see, you have been trying to teach me. You have been trying to teach me I'm being harmful. You have been trying to teach me about scientific methods. Dont you see that? In telling me im wrong and to seek education, you are trying to teach me im wrong but are self admittedly not qualified to do so and this is my point.

My whole point.
Most of us are unqualified, but were still gonna discuss it. Just read facebook man. So when discussing it, we need open and honest dialogue. Honesty includes admitting not knowing all the facts. Open means willing to listen to all to determine what is factual and what is not.

This is all silly. I simply stated that all sides must engage in open and honest dialogue for improvements to be had and you tried to cut that down and dismiss it as harmful.

I stand by my original statement.

No, all sides do not deserve an equal seat at the table. That has been one of the biggest mistakes we've made in America.

999 scientists agree on climate change. One scientist is being paid by the fossil fuel industry and says he disagrees. Or 999 agree on COVID, cigarettes, lead, vaccines, etc and one over here is paid by a corporation to disagree.

So the news brings on one of the 999 and the one who disagrees.

Now you're getting a 50/50 argument on something all legitimate scientists agree on.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Different data sets showed different degrees of agreement with regards to a novel virus.

That is how science works. It does not make it less trustworthy. It does not make it wrong.

Once again, you are not qualified to have this conversation. I am not qualified to teach you.

Social distancing worked. Masks worked. Vaccines worked. These things saved at least a million lives in the US in the first year alone.

What legitimate epidemiologist disgrees?

They disagreed until proven wrong thru trial, then came around. Yes, thats how it works, but its a fact they did not all agree. Was it motivational?, maybe, i doubt it, but the point is when these types of things happen society is typically jumping on a side instantly even when ideas have yet to be tested and proven.
It’s all about us and how we react to these things. And that, again, was my whole point.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

No, all sides do not deserve an equal seat at the table. That has been one of the biggest mistakes we've made in America.

999 scientists agree on climate change. One scientist is being paid by the fossil fuel industry and says he disagrees. Or 999 agree on COVID, cigarettes, lead, vaccines, etc and one over here is paid by a corporation to disagree.

So the news brings on one of the 999 and the one who disagrees.

Now you're getting a 50/50 argument on something all legitimate scientists agree on.

You have driven my original statement so far off track im just going to move on now.
If you disagree open and honest dialogue is needed to fix anything, thats your right. I believe that is harmful to our future. You believe what you want.

 

[Phatguysrule]

They disagreed until proven wrong thru trial, then came around. Yes, thats how it works, but its a fact they did not all agree. Was it motivational?, maybe, i doubt it, but the point is when these types of things happen society is typically jumping on a side instantly even when ideas have yet to be tested and proven.
It’s all about us and how we react to these things. And that, again, was my whole point.

They first agreed that social distancing was the best course of action. They were right.

When they knew more they agreed that masking was the best course of action. They were right.

Once we had the vaccine they agreed that it was the best course of action.

They were right.

The scientific consensus (based on evidence and what we knew) was right the whole time.

You have yet to show me one epidemiologist who disagreed with any of these courses of action at the time.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You have driven my original statement so far off track im just going to move on now.
If you disagree open and honest dialogue is needed to fix anything, thats your right. I believe that is harmful to our future. You believe what you want.

This is what you call a red herring. This is what Charlie Kirk would often do.

Congratulations.

You want to discredit academia and science. I don't believe you can have open and honest conversation with people who want to discredit academia and science.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

COVID was new. Scientists hadn't figured it out yet. People were dying in mass. Hospitals were being over flooded to the point people couldn't be helped.

While every scientist didn't exactly agree, enough of them reached a consensus that the best method to contain the virus was for everyone to be home for a time and not around each other. This worked. Sure, there were negative impacts from it.

Scientists were trying to figure out whether masks were effective. The general consensus was to wear them. It did help.

Scientists weren't sure if the vaccines were safe because we had to produce them so quickly. Scientists did their best to make them safe and they mostly were. Every vaccine has rare side effects.

Science is a bunch of of theories and conjectures put forward on how something works. Experimentation and trials follow. In the end one theory is correct while many are proven wrong. That's the nature of science.

But, also in the end science itself is that compiled knowledge of strictly proven theories based on facts and not on politics or opinions. That science should be respected and accepted.

you missed my point. But are not alone in that.
My point is we all instantly point fingers and claim divisions based on partial facts.
This will not help us as a society. Only open and honest dialogue can mend our human relations.

 

[Phatguysrule]

you missed my point. But are not alone in that.
My point is we all instantly point fingers and claim divisions based on partial facts.
This will not help us as a society. Only open and honest dialogue can mend our human relations.

Or (and I know this is kind of crazy) we listen to expert academically trained scientific professionals and don't point fingers.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

This is what you call a red herring. This is what Charlie Kirk would often do.

Congratulations.

You want to discredit academia and science. I don't believe you can have open and honest conversation with people who want to discredit academia and science.

Bullshit. You claim i want to do something im not doing. Bullshit.

Open and honest dialogue is the only answer. Saying i want anything is not honest cause you have no clue what i want. You haven't even asked, so mirror mirror.

you only want the conversation if i agree with you. If i don't, you make it personal. Thats the red herring.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Bullshit. You claim i want to do something im not doing. Bullshit.

Open and honest dialogue is the only answer. Saying i want anything is not honest cause you have no clue what i want. You haven't even asked, so mirror mirror.

you only want the conversation if i agree with you. If i don't, you make it personal. Thats the red herring.

True. I misspoke when I said "want". What I meant was you are actively trying to discredit academia and science.

You can't have an open and honest conversation with somebody on a given topic who refuses to respect academia and science on that topic.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Or (and I know this is kind of crazy) we listen to expert academically trained scientific professionals and don't point fingers.

And when covid first started those experts didn't agree on everything. But people used it as a division in society instead of letting things play out to see what is best for us all.
Crazy, i know.

 

[Shaboid]

You know what would really solve all this back and forth? If they released the Epstein files.

 

[Phatguysrule]

And when covid first started those experts didn't agree on everything. But people used it as a division in society instead of letting things play out to see what is best for us all.
Crazy, i know.

Which epidemiologist disagreed with social distancing at first?

Which epidemiologist disagreed with masking?

Which epidemiologist disagreed with vaccination?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

True. I misspoke when I said "want". What I meant was you are actively trying to discredit academia and science.

You can't have an open and honest conversation with somebody on a given topic who refuses to respect academia and science on that topic.

how exactly am i discrediting scientists by stating the fact they didn't all agree on the outset and it was then used as a division both politically and societally?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Which epidemiologist disagreed?

I don't know names but ive already posted it twice. Are you reading my posts?

 

[Phatguysrule]

how exactly am i discrediting scientists by stating the fact they didn't all agree on the outset and it was then used as a division both politically and societally?

You're discrediting Science and academia by saying they have agendas and can't be trusted.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

You're discrediting Science and academia by saying they have agendas and can't be trusted.

Again, bullshit. I never said that. You are twisting my words. Quote me saying scientists and academia have agendas and cant be trusted.
Lets see how you truncate my statement to fit your narrative (sounds familiar)…

i said some can, just like all professionals in all aspects. But i said im sure the vast majority are on the up and up. You aRe generalizing and truncating my statement instead of taking it word for word.
Thats bullshit

 

[Chris Craig]

you missed my point. But are not alone in that.
My point is we all instantly point fingers and claim divisions based on partial facts.
This will not help us as a society. Only open and honest dialogue can mend our human relations.

I was just speaking to your argument that Science can't be trusted because of agendas. Science itself sits outside of agenda because it is not based on ego, politics, or opinions. It's decided in immutable fact based on years of study and the process of narrowing down possibilities until one remains.

Sure we need open and honest dialogue. And, yes finger pointing has become a main stay in the art of vigorous debate. Some claims are made on full facts and still not accepted and I think there lies the issue. People, some more than others are unwilling, sometimes unflinchingly so, to accept the faults of their side of the argument. And thus, dialogue becomes debate.

 

[sheed30]

Different data sets showed different degrees of agreement with regards to a novel virus.

That is how science works. It does not make it less trustworthy. It does not make it wrong.

Once again, you are not qualified to have this conversation. I am not qualified to teach you.

Social distancing worked. Masks worked. Vaccines worked. These things saved at least a million lives in the US in the first year alone.

What legitimate epidemiologist disgrees?

“Social distancing worked. Masks worked. Vaccines worked. These things saved at least a million lives in the US in the first year alone”.

lol what? There is many scientists that have come out and said otherwise, and many were silenced as well.

This isn’t 100% accurate information you are spiting out. It’s just who you agree with and from your personal experience.

let me guess you took your vaccine shot? I never took mine and guess what, I never got Covid! Even living in a house where 3 other people had it at different times and I still never got it.

also working in my store in a mall where I was in contact with many people daily over the 2 years and going to the gym and working out without a mask.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I don't know names but ive already posted it twice. Are you reading my posts?

So you aren't actually addressing what I'm saying. You aren't having an open and honest dialogue. You are trying to go for gotchas.

You are using red herrings to try and change the conversation into something you're more comfortable speaking about.

I'm not saying this to pick on you. This is an example of what is wrong. The right has taught people to have conversations like this. They have taught people that this is okay in debate.

It's not. It's not productive.

You don't have to debate the details of what the scientific community has already accepted. They have already looked at the details. They are better at that than you and I are. We aren't going to find something that they missed.

Perhaps one of them will find something that they missed. And when they do the generally accepted course of action may change.

But us disagreeing with what they suggest based on some guy off in the corner saying the The academic or scientific community may not be right is an absolute waste of time.

You can't have productive open and honest dialogue like that.

That's why the US is so bad on climate change. That's why the US did so poorly with COVID. That's why the US lags behind the rest of the developed world in so many things.

 

[Strenuus]

What is a legit scientist? Anyone with a degree? If so, i do not believe they all agreed.

I think whats missing here is both statements can be true, but its not an absolute on either side.

I believe science fully, AND also understand its flaws because of hypothesis and also... follow the money. Is it a disingenuous scientist (i.e. paid by a company for certain results or skewed results), etc.

Its why I dont believe any scientist or doctor thats funded indirectly or directly by the Trump administration or any of its affiliates. Same way I dont trust a scientist that tells me mcdonalds is actually healthy, or a skewed result about a pharmecutial drug.

We have all the information in front of us. But one of the first things I ever learned in college is follow the money on anything.

Most scientists are trying to do right. But just like anyone else, there are some corrupted ones. Unfortunately, due to people and bad morals and ethics, we have to sift through them.

But to outright deny science, THATS where I have an issue. And that is currently the world we live in. And that is dangerous beyond all else.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I was just speaking to your argument that Science can't be trust because of agendas. Science itself sits outside of agenda because it is not based on ego, politics, or opinions. It's decided in immutable fact based on years of study and the process of narrowing down possibilities until one remains.

Sure we need open and honest dialogue. And, yes finger pointing has become a main stay in the art of vigorous debate. Some claims are made on full facts and still not accepted and I think there lies the issue. People, some more than others are unwilling, sometimes unflinchingly so, to accept the faults of their side of the argument. And thus, dialogue becomes debate.

bullshit Chris. I never said science cant be trusted. Why are you putting words in my mouth???

 

[Phatguysrule]

“Social distancing worked. Masks worked. Vaccines worked. These things saved at least a million lives in the US in the first year alone”.

lol what? There is many scientists that have come out and said otherwise, and many were silenced as well.

This isn’t 100% accurate information you are spiting out. It’s just who you agree with and from your personal experience.

let me guess you took your vaccine shot? I never took mine and guess what, I never got Covid! Even living in a house where 3 other people had it at different times and I still never got it.

Thank you for indicating exactly how science doesn't work.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Im done. You guys are clearly twisting my words claiming i said things i never said or said way differently.
all too familiar….