Will Elite Trader please take a stand against dangerous anti-vaxxer bullshit?
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
- Status
As one who participated in that debate, I rise.
To be fair, that was a national news topic, and therefore, ripe for debate.
It was even debated in a court of law.
It meant/means something more than bullshit to the litigants and courts; and can/does mean something to fellow citizens.
Dumbed down: In this case, it's about rights--and not really about cheerleaders etc.
And even if it weren't arguably about a Constitutional right; all adults should realize that not everyone likes the same food, tv shows, movies, or debate topics, etc. We all have different tastes.
You may call it bullshit; but I'm certain others may call topics you "approve of" and "authorize" for debate as bullshit as well--which is fine. Just as we all have our own likes and dislikes; we also all have our own opinions and assholes.
In solidarity.
As one who participated in that debate, I rise.
To be fair, that was a national news topic, and therefore, ripe for debate.
It was even debated in a court of law.
It meant/means something more than bullshit to the litigants and courts; and can/does mean something to fellow citizens.
Dumbed down: In this case, it's about rights--and not really about cheerleaders etc.
And even if it weren't arguably about a Constitutional right; all adults should realize that not everyone likes the same food, tv shows, movies, or debate topics, etc. We all have different tastes.
You may call it bullshit; but I'm certain others may call topics you "approve of" and "authorize" for debate as bullshit as well--which is fine. Just as we all have our own likes and dislikes; we also all have our own opinions and assholes.
In solidarity.
To be more clear, the arguing, name-calling, personal attacks in the debate is what I'm calling bullshit and then bringing it into a different topic of debate as bullshit as if the two were related.
It's ok to disagree but that other crap is childish...juvenile.
Seriously, do we need 5, 10, 15, 20 pages of arguing just to say...I don't agree with you or these are my facts ?
It's not the only topic but its the topic that I saw someone mention as if its still important...what for ?
Had another topic been mention that was related to Covid...I may have just brushed by it but that topic stood out because of its differences. They may as well been debating about who was lying about the taste of a certain Italian pasta as supportive evidence to a debate about Covid.
wrbtrader
Last edited:
Again, your likes/dislikes/opinions. Others may disagree.
Again, your opinion as to how many pages are needed.
Assuming you are referring to the cheerleading; I explained this in my previous response (i.e. lawsuits, Constitutional rights, etc.)
The topic was COVID. Whether someone was lying during the COVID discussion is also a fair sub-discussion.
FWIW: Here's what I thought a few days ago--prior to your argument:
I figured you were not happy about the flak GWB was taking because (1) You agree with him that this website should follow you all's opinions that "more needs to be done." And (2) a sub-debate about GWB's credibility distracts from the specific discussions you're interested in hearing--and more importantly to you, you want others to hear.
Just my thoughts.
I was very clear, it distracts from the OP topic presented by Federick Foresight that I agree with. Thus, I see the GWB sub-topic in this thread as a little different (off-topic) from the main topic of this thread by Foresight only because I've recently learned about the history and participated in a thread that verifiable Covid data/accurate was posted that did not involve NFL athletes nor Kneeling Cheerleaders.
In fact, this thread was almost dead...at its conclusion, until GWB showed up to raise a different issue about Covid misinformation/disinformation that I'm sure he should have read the thread to realize its something that can't be fixed.
- Further, GWB should be happy that most of the Covid misinformation stay in the Political threads instead of polluting the trading threads with the b*****t.
Thus, I've grown cold to it around the time Foresight started this thread. Yet, I do care when someone retaliates by trolling someone after they were called out for posting Covid misinformation or the Covidiot makes suggestive threats about murder as Karma...strangely on the same day after b******g about violent crime in the U.S in another thread.
That in my opinion is going over the line just because someone doesn't agree with them ?
- Regardless, how many pages can someone keep saying I don't agree with you, I don't believe your source, you're a liar ?
- How long will it take for GWB to understand to put the Covidiots on ignore/block ?
- Why is Demon Semen verifiable and not as Covid misinformation ? (it's not a joke but I do joke about it)
Yeah, he trolled me after the picture of Demon Semen in a bottle.
wrbtrader
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't recall how we got on the NFL. So I can't say whether I think it was off-topic. It could have been, but I doubt I'll look back to check. But what usually happens is that someone tries to use an example to support their position; but their example involves another one of their options, which opens the door for a new line of debate.
[Open Statement to All:]
Only the initial assertion and rebuttal should be opinions. And those should only be supported by credible: facts, society agreed upon opinions, and expert opinions.
I don't recall reading anything about a murder threat. But I'm sure it was clear that it wasn't serious.
My opinion is that there should be one line, and in this case, the website admins. draw it. There can't be a thousand members, with a thousand lines, where they demand no one cross, and we all have to memorize.
We can't debate this generally; you'd have to be specific and show that the debate became excessively circular (all debates can circle back a little bit). "I don't agree with this point1." "I don't agree with point2." Etc. is how a debates works. "I don't believe your source1." "I don't believe your source2." Etc. The more sources; the more contentions; the longer the debate. It's mathematical.
All debate aren't quick and easy. Just as all court cases aren't quick and easy. Some are; some aren't. No of us members gets to decree a maximum debate length because ... that's what we think the length should be.
The world is still debating religion, aliens, global warming, etc.
We stop, whenever we stop.
P.S. The only reason I mention Demon Semen is that it was the first Covid misinformation I came across...mentioned by a well-known Covidiot here at ET that I debated with about another Covid issue in the Sweden threads without mentioning his comments about the Demon Semen...although I did post a picture of what it must look like in a bottle.
- Why is Demon Semen verifiable and not Covid misinformation ? (it's not a joke but I do joke about it)
Yeah, he trolled me after the picture of Demon Semen in a bottle.
LOL. I vaguely remember reading something about "demon semen." I don't think I read a whole post on it, or maybe I simply forget. So I'm clueless about this right now, but you don't need to catch me up.
Baron,
First let me make it clear that I did not "submit a collection of posts that contain links and content you (I) don't agree with". I provided a set of posts of information with linked information from respected mainstream reputable sources that the demonstrated the content I was responding to was definitively Covid misinformation.
I did not rely on any personal "verifiable professional credentials" to "qualify you (me) to be a reputable and authoritative judge of scientific experts and medical evidence" I provided the evidence from scientific experts who are reputable and authoritative judges on the claims made in the Covid misinformation posts from dubious sources.
It is your prerogative to run the website you own in any manner you see fit. If you desire it to be a haven for Covid misinformation and to be overrun with this type of material without any correction or control -- well this is your choice. I have over the past two years tried to provide proper mainstream scientific information on ET to counter the endless stream of harmful Covid misinformation placed in the Politics forum. An effort it appears that you don't support or deem to be meaningful apparently.
Just keep in mind the ethical & moral responsibility you hold as site owner for allowing this type of Covid misinformation content -- and the broader impact across society of misinformation in the middle of the pandemic. I have endured friends and extended family members dying of Covid -- and have a family member who works in a Covid ICU who contends with preventable Covid deaths nearly every day. I really have no patience whatsoever with anti-vaxxers (even before the Covid pandemic) and those who deliberately spread medical misinformation that harms others.
- GWB
- Status