Politics CHARLIE KIRK SHOT IN UTAH

And when covid first started those experts didn't agree on everything. But people used it as a division in society instead of letting things play out to see what is best for us all.
Crazy, i know.

 

You know what would really solve all this back and forth? If they released the Epstein files.

 

Which epidemiologist disagreed with social distancing at first?

Which epidemiologist disagreed with masking?

Which epidemiologist disagreed with vaccination?

 

how exactly am i discrediting scientists by stating the fact they didn't all agree on the outset and it was then used as a division both politically and societally?

 

I don't know names but ive already posted it twice. Are you reading my posts?

 

You're discrediting Science and academia by saying they have agendas and can't be trusted.

 

Again, bullshit. I never said that. You are twisting my words. Quote me saying scientists and academia have agendas and cant be trusted.
Lets see how you truncate my statement to fit your narrative (sounds familiar)…

i said some can, just like all professionals in all aspects. But i said im sure the vast majority are on the up and up. You aRe generalizing and truncating my statement instead of taking it word for word.
Thats bullshit

 

“Social distancing worked. Masks worked. Vaccines worked. These things saved at least a million lives in the US in the first year alone”.

lol what? There is many scientists that have come out and said otherwise, and many were silenced as well.

This isn’t 100% accurate information you are spiting out. It’s just who you agree with and from your personal experience.

let me guess you took your vaccine shot? I never took mine and guess what, I never got Covid! Even living in a house where 3 other people had it at different times and I still never got it.

also working in my store in a mall where I was in contact with many people daily over the 2 years and going to the gym and working out without a mask.

 

So you aren't actually addressing what I'm saying. You aren't having an open and honest dialogue. You are trying to go for gotchas.

You are using red herrings to try and change the conversation into something you're more comfortable speaking about.

I'm not saying this to pick on you. This is an example of what is wrong. The right has taught people to have conversations like this. They have taught people that this is okay in debate.

It's not. It's not productive.

You don't have to debate the details of what the scientific community has already accepted. They have already looked at the details. They are better at that than you and I are. We aren't going to find something that they missed.

Perhaps one of them will find something that they missed. And when they do the generally accepted course of action may change.

But us disagreeing with what they suggest based on some guy off in the corner saying the The academic or scientific community may not be right is an absolute waste of time.

You can't have productive open and honest dialogue like that.

That's why the US is so bad on climate change. That's why the US did so poorly with COVID. That's why the US lags behind the rest of the developed world in so many things.

 

I think whats missing here is both statements can be true, but its not an absolute on either side.

I believe science fully, AND also understand its flaws because of hypothesis and also... follow the money. Is it a disingenuous scientist (i.e. paid by a company for certain results or skewed results), etc.

Its why I dont believe any scientist or doctor thats funded indirectly or directly by the Trump administration or any of its affiliates. Same way I dont trust a scientist that tells me mcdonalds is actually healthy, or a skewed result about a pharmecutial drug.

We have all the information in front of us. But one of the first things I ever learned in college is follow the money on anything.

Most scientists are trying to do right. But just like anyone else, there are some corrupted ones. Unfortunately, due to people and bad morals and ethics, we have to sift through them.

But to outright deny science, THATS where I have an issue. And that is currently the world we live in. And that is dangerous beyond all else.

 

bullshit Chris. I never said science cant be trusted. Why are you putting words in my mouth???

 

Thank you for indicating exactly how science doesn't work.

 

Im done. You guys are clearly twisting my words claiming i said things i never said or said way differently.
all too familiar….

 

This statement is a good example of how little you understand about science or the scientific method.

Once again, it is very difficult to have an open and honest dialogue like this.

 

That’s your reply? Lol funny.

again it’s what and where you get your information and whatever decision you want to form, that’s your choice.

but don’t come out and make those statements like it’s 100% facts when you don’t know any better than anyone else here.

 

Thank you for the open and honest dialogue.

 

Please feel free to list any legitimate epidemiologists who disagreed with any of the things that I claimed.

Once you do I'll show you how they were likely paid by a political or corporate entity to do so.

 

"More political and full of hate in recent years."

Sounds familiar.

 

lol, so now you want to claim anyone that had a different view from what you said and read in the past was paid for by a political corporate entity?

Funny man, this goes back to every way you come across on here from this topic to basketball, if anyone doesn’t agree with you they are wrong and your right and you think your smarter than others here.

showed in the past and shows in the way you’re replying now.

like I said you are free to form your own decision, we all have that right, but don’t claim something is 100% facts when you are not a scientist yourself.