Politics CHARLIE KIRK SHOT IN UTAH

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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...

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.