Leaderboard

1. I'm a He. 2. You misquoted the abstract of Boehmer et. al. let alone actually read the paper itself. They used both inpatient and outpatient data, corrected their data for patient effects, and compared their data to other hospital patients rather than the population at large. 3. You provided no evidence whatsoever to support this being an overestimation of the myocarditis risk for COVID patients, no any actual evidence of anything but your own personal incredulity, which given you apparently didn't read the paper, indicates bad faith and little point engaging you. 4. Despite a statistic being openly reported in a publication, you demand I "show my working". My working is "actually reading the paper". 5. You provide no evidence of VAERS under-reporting vaccine side effects by your claimed 90-99%. Again, despite you repeatedly demanding others provide you with citations, you can seemingly pull numbers out of your posterior and we are all supposed take them as gospel, despite all indications that they are erroneous <- this underlined bit of text is a link to a peer reviewed publication. Ultimately, the "take down" was a a mix of logical fallacy, proof of bad faith argument, and mis-cited data because you apparently didn't actually read the papers you demanded. It clearly demonstrates you aren't worth engaging.

Obligatory xkcd reference FREE SPEECH

Because you are arguing with me over the difference between killing or torturing someone (which there are plenty). However, I used the examples to show that though differing, killing and torturing are both terrible tactics that might be employed to achieve a similar outcome (save innocent lives), so for that act, share the same moral standing. They both, dependent on the situation, could be the "lesser" of the 2 evils and therefore the "right" thing to do.

In your OP you said, "Is there intrinsic value (not given by humans) to different species", but these comments are all about human values, so I am not sure what you are trying to say.

I bet you were a big hit on all of them!

On your very first post in this forum you insult us?!?! Stick it where the sun don't shine.

The right of freedom of speech involves the government. This forum isn’t run by any government, so it’s a non-issue. You are visiting a place that belongs to someone else. You are a guest here. Limitations on your speech are well within the authority of those who run this place. And, of course, disagreement in no way infringes on your right, and neither does being held accountable by others for what you say.

The formula for each cell is given in the picture (above the table): The numerical values you need to insert into the multiplication are found in the graph. The document you linked to contains general explanations, can you please specify a little more where you're struggling? This specific example, joint probabilities in general, something else?

The bottom line is, Kirk is a terrible captain...

I haven't. Only the points I disagree with that are not a genuine attempt to present an objective argument, or attempts to demean: For example how is implying I'm sealioning (The Vat) a constructive contribution? It's not, so it gets a down vote. And yet I put forward many reasonable arguments, and yet they are down-voted. This is hardly an objective forum. Arete has clearly been disingenuous with the figures presented, I point that out as any critical thinker should do - and it gets down-voted? I'm sorry, are we not allowed to point out when people are wrong? You lot seem to be more than happy to dish it out, just not so happy to receive it back. Shame, and petty.

You are wrong. The rock bottom foundation for freedom of speech involves morality. And morality is never a non issue. Anyplace, public or private where people communicate with each other is a place where freedom of speech should be should be part of the framework. Especially if what is said is true. Of course, that isn't the case. And there happens to be a word for it. SLAVERY! Also, I posted a meme by Voltaire that said, "The right to free speech is more important than the content of that speech." As it turns out, Voltaire may not have said it. Did that smash your cult well enough?

It says below your username that you are a genius. From what you say, I see no evidence of that. For what I have to say, I have no equal. Keep that in mind if you reply to me again. Also, in my first reply I brought up the meme by Voltaire that said, "The right to free speech is more important than the content of that speech." I pointed out that Voltaire may not have said that. You also brought up something that I have had at least a couple people bring up at other forums. Which is being responsible for the consequences of what I say. It is not I who must suffer the consequences of what I say but others. Because for the topics I do speak of, I speak the truth to the best of my ability to do so. Over and over and over again I have told people that if they disagree with anything I said, just tell me what it is and why. Being unable to do that, they banned me instead. I will tell you something now. You can believe me later. The reality of existence is what it is. It isn't what you would like it to be. (Cult) You brought up things such as minorities, gays, different religions, etc. For just about everything you think is true, the opposite is in fact the case. How do you like that fact Mr Genius. There could be 100 of the absolutely smartest people on the planet on this forum. If they dared go against what I might say, I would slap them around like the worms that they in fact are. How about sticking to the point. Of what I posted, I asked people here to point out what the filthiest of the apparently filthy memes I posted was. Do so. You also bring up prejudice. In case you don't know, that word means to pre judge. I don't pre judge anything. I consider it, then I judge it. The interesting part comes into play when you try to disagree with what I have judged to be true.

I have been to just about every forum there is. What I most often run across is stupidity. Why? Mainly because what I consider to be the fundamental human right of freedom of speech isn't allowed. I see that getting into the finer points of science is what this forum is all about. But without freedom of speech, you are all just well trained slaves. Trained seals flapping your flippers together for treats. Most likely, this doesn't bother you. You may feel that your education is a bigger fish to fry. And from what I have seen, most people want to be led. They prefer fantasy to reality. Nobody really cares what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. People would rather be wrong than be told they are wrong. I am also reminded of something said by Upton Sinclair. "It is difficult to get somebody to understand something, especially when their salary depends on them not understanding it." I also have a statement by Samuel Clemens for you. To paraphrase, he said, "It's easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them that they've been fooled." Of just about every political or Atheist forum out there, I will show you what they apparently consider to be pure filth. Feel free to tell me which one you find to be the filthiest.

Ha ha ha... so predictable. I think the reason why you refuse to attempt to answer even one of those points is because each one of them proves that the narrative you champion is wrong... and the cognitive dissonance would be far too great for you to be able to deal with... "Ludicrously tight questions"... oh dear, a poor excuse. If I didn't ask 'clear-cut questions' you would complain they weren't specific enough. "I see this as a complete and total waste of my time"... yes because it would prove you wrong, and you can't be seen to be wrong in an echo chamber, you have an ego to protect after-all. Let me express why you refuse to answer these questions - : You can't prove the vaccine trials have finished because the Pfizer phase III clinical trial for the covid vaccine (long-term safety data) doesn't finish until March 2023 - you would therefore have to admit that the vaccine is experimental which goes against the narrative you are presenting. You can't prove the long-term safety of the vaccine because you know the phase III trial doesn't finish until March 2023 - but you refuse to answer this simple question because you'd have to admit that the vaccine cannot be classed as safe, which goes against the narrative you are presenting. You know that PCR testing is being misused and that a positive 'case' does not confirm it is an infectious case - but this would expose the nefarious narrative being presented and would destroy your argument. Hence your refusal to even comment on it. It takes 10 seconds to find the Infection Fatality Rate, particularly the paper accepted by the WHO and written by John Ioannidis - which shows the IFR to be 0.05% (half that of the flu) for people under 65 - but you know this makes a mockery of the mainstream narrative you support - so better to keep silent. Providing the adverse reaction risk for the vaccine for a specific age group is pivotal to making an informed decision - if this risk is higher than the IFR risk for covid, then mandatory vaccination is not justified - but to admit this would be to go against the narrative you support. To highlight the Absolute risk reduction figure of the vaccine would be to show that the vaccine provides a miniscule 0.8% absolute benefit (Pfizers own trial data) - and this would expose the way in which Pfizer have used the 95% Relative figure to mislead the public into thinking the vaccine is far more effective than it actually is. Such a small improvement in a reduction of symptoms only, again would not justify mandatory vaccines - showing that this challenges your preferred narrative. Highlighting the difference between people dying WITH covid and OF covid would also highlight that the threat of covid has been greatly exaggerated and intentionally misconstrued - this goes against the fearful narrative you have chosen to support. The thing is, knowing the data above is CRITICAL when it comes to making an informed decision on whether to take the vaccine, and whether it's justified in mandating a vaccine for others. If you aren't aware of this data then you're opinion is worthless and holds no credibility - you cannot make a credible judgement unless you know this data. Your narrative runs contrary to this data, which indicates that you are either greatly misinformed, or your intention here is to misinform others. Is this why you refuse to answer these critical questions? Cue demeaning responses and further excuses as to why you don't have to answer any of them, or the presentation of questionable data and misrepresentation of that data similar to the approach taken by Arete. Then watch as the other components within this echo chamber give this a negative rating and are outraged at my preposterous, but logical view. P.s I notice Arete has failed to respond regarding my take-down of the misleading information she presented... Cue, a defense of her data and further character assassination... with no presentation of credible scientific data to justify your views... This forum is so predictable it's embarrassing. You have literally just described yourself...