originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut
My intention was to present cogent argument that countered yours.
By insinuating that i also believed some crazy idea that had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion?
Not a single idea, a plethora of crazy ideas, all building one upon the other. Yet the ideas themselves aren't rationally cohesive, they are mostly
emotive appeals and are actually qiote contrary on a rational level.
Like for instance, take the idea that 'the COVID-19 numbers are a misdiagnosis of flu' (just one of many current theories), then:
- it didn't come from China.
- it isn't going to 'just go away like magic'.
- it can't be treated with antiparasitics.
- there's no explanation for the nearly 10 fold rise in deaths related to ARDS symptoms.
- it didn't come from someone eating bat soup.
- it isn't a function of Bill Gates' medical investments.
- it isn't caused or exacerbated by 5G telecommunications.
- the genomic sequences that everyone are seeing in laboratories and that are tested for with PCR don't actually exist.
- neither do any of the mutated strains that have been isolated and documented, exist either.
- the CCP bears no responsibility for the disease.
Do you see how a little reasoning can demolish a whole lot of sillyness?
Try each and every theory on its own in this same way, and see how it is easy to discredit many of the assumedly linked ideas, with simple rational
analysis. This is even without recourse to sources or science.
I don't think so. You were trying to besmirch my character because you couldn't present a "cogent argument" any other way. And I'm fed
up with that cowardly tactic.
TheRedneck
How is the tactic cowardly?
I chose to challenge the ATS 'mode' of group opinion, and go for something entirely less popular here, and continue to do so.
edit on 15/11/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)