• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If you Believe in Science and Mathermatics

cabse5 said:
Deny that Fauci, for example, admitted he made a big mistake...numerous times.
Click to expand...
I see you can not deny it so you change the subject. Lol
 
GolfingChef said:
No they do not. Where they hell do you get this shit from? Let me guess, you are a flat earther also...right?



We do? Damn, that is the first I have heard of it.
Click to expand...
The epidemiological community disagrees with me. Read that post of mine again for clarity.
Like I posted to another, the problem with the epidemiolocal community is the community didn't consult any other interdisciplinary scientific fields before formulating its plan to fight Covid.
 
cabse5 said:
The epidemiological community disagrees with me. Read that post of mine again for clarity.
Like I posted to another, the problem with the epidemiolocal community is the community didn't consult any other interdisciplinary scientific fields before formulating its plan to fight Covid.
Click to expand...
Yes the medical community thinks your opinion is nuts
 
GolfingChef said:
No they do not. Where they hell do you get this shit from? Let me guess, you are a flat earther also...right?



We do? Damn, that is the first I have heard of it.
Click to expand...
I know a little statistics. The epidemiologists who devised the plan to fight Covid didn't utilize proper statistical methods, for example, or even ask psychologists, or sociologists.
 
roguenuke said:
Those entering a private forum where someone gives you a platform at their discretion is not the same as entering a public forum. Even public forums have rules that must be followed and the people speaking can be corrected by others, even others within a position of power for that forum. The First Amendment does not protect any right for others, including others controlling a public square's access, to not be corrected for things that you say that you feel are "truth", facts, but others can demonstrate or even just feel aren't. Your rights are not being restricted if the owner of a park posts pamphlets up that counter claims he/she knows you will be making during a time when you have set up to speak at that park, in that public venue. If you start to make what they view as false claims or spread hate in their park, they are also free to kick you out of their park. There is no First Amendment protection for you to say and do anything you like in/on another person's property. And they can choose many different means of restriction there, be it countering your claims with other information or simply kicking you out.

A party or even a book club could be seen as a public forum with private membership that is open to the public but still requires maybe providing name and contact info. How would that be different than Facebook or Twitter?
Click to expand...

What I posted was an unembellished link to an article that documented an interview with a real live doctor from a Johns Hopkins. I included no comment or even emoji. Just the link.

This was not a protest. It was not filled with hate. It was not a call to violence or even to action. It was simply the informed opinion of a medical expert expressed in her own words.

It did, however, depart from the party line of propaganda that Facebook desires to have accepted as the only truth that they will allow into the conversation.

They have decided to be a propaganda outlet with propagandistic bumper rails to keep all thoughts within a defined lane that they define.

This should cause concern in anyone interested in a fair discussion of ideas to fairly define any issue.

Why doesn't it not cause concern in you?
 
vegas giants said:
Yes the medical community thinks your opinion is nuts
Click to expand...
You must be less like Trump in you posting. To be exact, it's the epidemiological community that thinks my opinion is nuts and not the scientific community that thinks my opinion is nuts.:rolleyes:
 
vegas giants said:
I see you can not deny it so you change the subject. Lol
Click to expand...
You originally moved the goal posts and then I moved the goal posts right along with you. Why don't you justify your original moving of the goal posts, that Sweden admitted they made a mistake?
 
JasperL said:
That distinction isn't relevant to your assertion. They are private entities, and the government cannot compel them to host any speech, any viewpoint. DP bans racist dirtbags and trolls. The 1A allows that, provides DP the right to host only those ideas they want on this place.


if you don't like it, don't use Facebook.... That's your remedy. it's not government approving every moderation decision FB makes, or allowing you to sue someone for not allowing you to spew whatever you want on THEIR private property.


They are not a public square - they are private companies inviting you to post, for free. That means they make the rules and you can agree or don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.


it's amazing how conservatives these days are turning to big brother because a private company isn't behaving like they want.... SAD!!
Click to expand...

The pervasiveness of these "platforms" is moving from the things you describe to that of being a public utility. No different than denying phone service based on race. Breaking them up is a logical step. Just like AT&T.

Editors editing opinion based on the biased viewpoints they hold convert these "platforms" into publishers. As publishers, they are subject to different laws.

If they wish to be recognized as platforms, they need to act like platforms. this is not all that complex to understand.

While they do invite folks to post for free as you said, they also edit content. That is NOT a "platform". That is a publisher.

IF they wish to be classed as platforms, they need to act like platforms.
 
code1211 said:
What I posted was an unembellished link to an article that documented an interview with a real live doctor from a Johns Hopkins. I included no comment or even emoji. Just the link.

This was not a protest. It was not filled with hate. It was not a call to violence or even to action. It was simply the informed opinion of a medical expert expressed in her own words.

It did, however, depart from the party line of propaganda that Facebook desires to have accepted as the only truth that they will allow into the conversation.

They have decided to be a propaganda outlet with propagandistic bumper rails to keep all thoughts within a defined lane that they define.

This should cause concern in anyone interested in a fair discussion of ideas to fairly define any issue.

Why doesn't it not cause concern in you?
Click to expand...
And nothing in there applies to Internet platforms. Facebook, twitter, nor YouTube are public utilities. They are not necessities. They are entertainment platforms.
 
code1211 said:
The pervasiveness of these "platforms" is moving from the things you describe to that of being a public utility. No different than denying phone service based on race. Breaking them up is a logical step. Just like AT&T.

Editors editing opinion based on the biased viewpoints they hold convert these "platforms" into publishers. As publishers, they are subject to different laws.

If they wish to be recognized as platforms, they need to act like platforms. this is not all that complex to understand.

While they do invite folks to post for free as you said, they also edit content. That is NOT a "platform". That is a publisher.

IF they wish to be classed as platforms, they need to act like platforms.
Click to expand...
Without 230, those things would cease to exist the way they function now. They are not like public utilities.
 
cabse5 said:
The epidemiological community disagrees with me. Read that post of mine again for clarity.
Like I posted to another, the problem with the epidemiolocal community is the community didn't consult any other interdisciplinary scientific fields before formulating its plan to fight Covid.
Click to expand...

I apoligze for misreading your post.

So, I am in the statistical community, can you explain the problem we have with what is going on?

Thanks
 
cabse5 said:
You originally moved the goal posts and then I moved the goal posts right along with you. Why don't you justify your original moving of the goal posts, that Sweden admitted they made a mistake?
Click to expand...
You brought up sweden as a example.

I showed you you were wrong
 
cabse5 said:
You must be less like Trump in you posting. To be exact, it's the epidemiological community that thinks my opinion is nuts and not the scientific community that thinks my opinion is nuts.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well I said medical community so theres that. Lol
 
Paradoxical said:
A guy testifying under oath is not evidence enough for you?

But, all some blogger has to do is say Trump did something and it's 24/7 calls for impeachment.
Click to expand...
No. I've seen people testify under oath who have been wrong. Some lied, but many were just wrong. People are prone to err due to many factors, but not the least of which being that their own bias can lead them to see something they didn't really see or come to a faulty conclusion about what they saw.
 
roguenuke said:
No. I've seen people testify under oath who have been wrong. Some lied, but many were just wrong. People are prone to err due to many factors, but not the least of which being that their own bias can lead them to see something they didn't really see or come to a faulty conclusion about what they saw.
Click to expand...
Seen that video yet?
 
Paradoxical said:
Nor did Vindman but libbies chose to believe him. You folks practice selective belief.
Click to expand...
As you have shown to within these discussions throughout. When shown wrong, instead of simply admitting it, you move onto another accusation or in some cases try to twist others' arguments to your biased perception.
 
Paradoxical said:
Nor did Vindman but libbies chose to believe him. You folks practice selective belief.
Click to expand...
"Libbys" believed Col. Vindman because his testimony matched the transcript released by the Trump administration. Did you not ever read the transcript, or did you choose not to because it showed Trump in a bad light, despite his claims that it was a perfect call.
 
911Sparky said:
"Libbys" believed Col. Vindman because his testimony matched the transcript released by the Trump administration. Did you not ever read the transcript, or did you choose not to because it showed Trump in a bad light, despite his claims that it was a perfect call.
Click to expand...
Trump was the one who released the call. You knew that right?

What do you think of that video where they were pulling suitcases full of ballots and ran them through the machines and next morning, Trump has all of sudden lost his huge lead?
 
Paradoxical said:
What do you think of that video where they were pulling suitcases full of ballots and ran them through the machines and next morning, Trump has all of sudden lost his huge lead?
Click to expand...

they were not suit cases and that is what happens when you count all the votes.

They do not quit counting votes just because your god is in the lead.
 
GolfingChef said:
they were not suit cases and that is what happens when you count all the votes.

They do not quit counting votes just because your god is in the lead.
Click to expand...
They cannot count votes when there are no observers there.
 
Paradoxical said:
Trump was the one who released the call. You knew that right?

What do you think of that video where they were pulling suitcases full of ballots and ran them through the machines and next morning, Trump has all of sudden lost his huge lead?
Click to expand...
Paradoxical said:
Trump was the one who released the call. You knew that right?

What do you think of that video where they were pulling suitcases full of ballots and ran them through the machines and next morning, Trump has all of sudden lost his huge lead?
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point of my post, it wasn't that Trump released the transcript, it was pointing out that you claimed Col Vindman lied, when in fact he told the truth, as verified by the transcript. So apparently it was you who lied.
 
911Sparky said:
I think you missed the point of my post, it wasn't that Trump released the transcript, it was pointing out that you claimed Col Vindman lied, when in fact he told the truth, as verified by the transcript. So apparently it was you who lied.
Click to expand...
He lied about there being a whistle blower. It was him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom