What does the "science" say?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
Here's the deal, and I've given this great thought.
Let's say I'm going over to a my wife's friend's house.
The friend has gotten into a ton of weird health stuff, and it's been getting weirder.
I enter the house with my wife and the friend has made some pie.
The pie looks a little rough, but no different than any other home-made pie.
The only thing is, the friend's hands are covered in shit. It smells, and looks like shit.
The friend offers my wife and I some pie.
Now, here's the deal. I have no evidence that shit is in the pie. The shit on the friend's hands could be completely coincidental, even though the friend seems to be making no effort to clean it off.
I maintain hesitation, not fear, and refuse to eat the pie.
Continuing with the scenario -- despite, my hesitation and my recommendation that she not eat the pie, my wife eats some of the pie, assuring me that her friend would not put shit in it. The friend is silent on the matter.
She seems to enjoy it, but this is my wife's friend, not mine. I don't know enough about the friend to make any conclusions on whether or not my wife has or has not become a shit eater. I only have anecdotal evidence that the friend has been getting into some weird stuff.
I do trust my wife, however, but I can't trust her judgement because it could be blinded by the trust she has with her friend.
Finally, we move past the shit pie segment and later in the evening my wife goes in for a kiss.
Now, I still don't know for certain if she ate a shit pie. The ultimate question I have for you is this:
Am I fear mongering to resist the kiss? Would I be fear mongering if another friend came over and I suggested they not eat the pie or kiss someone who has?
I personally have no capacity to prove whether or not the pie has shit in it, and I think it is safe to not trust my wife's friend on account of their previous behavior before the event.
So, my ultimate point is this: I absolutely do not need to formally declare a hypothesis or substantiate that hypothesis with physical proof or evidence to come to the conclusion there is a non-zero chance shit is in the pie, even if by accident due to the carelessness of the friend.
Oh, and if there is shit in the pie, I really don't care that the science of baking would result in the germs being killed off. Personally, regardless of its sanitary nature, I don't want to eat a shit pie or kiss someone who has.
Personally, I do not see it as fear mongering.
Rather, it's justifiable hesitation. I'm not afraid of the pie, I simply just don't trust it and as such cannot make a recommendation for anyone else to either. The only way I would trust to eat the pie is if I saw it made from scratch, which, in the case of the "vaccines" they flagrantly refuse to disclose, which only adds to my hesitation.
In the case of the pie, you have ONLY one piece of evidence to go on. In the case of the vaccine, there is a metric shit ton of evidence. Because there is so much, and none of it supports the shit hypothesis, we don't assume there is shit just because we might have seen some at some point in the past in an unrelated event (something that is problematic with your hypothetical).
A better hypothetical would be, there was shit in a pie they made years ago. There isn't any on the hands of the current pie makers, at least none that we have seen.
Since all we have is the shit from years ago to go on, and all the evidence does not support the current shit theory, we discard that theory and assume that the Caltrops that were actually found in the current pie are the problem with this pie.
If you started talking about how there might be shit in the pie, even though there was no evidence of it after a year of studying it, yes, that is fear mongering. If you talked about the caltrops for which there is supporting evidence, and you showed that evidence, that would be a report of evidence, and not fear mongering.
As a researcher (and as a human being) you have a responsibility to present the evidence and not your fears for which there is no evidence. I mean, you can talk about your fears, but presenting your fears as if it were evidence is irresponsible. Even when talking about your fears it is essential that you present it as such so that people can take it in the appropriate context. It helps with their decision making process to know that you are basing your statements on your fears, and not evidence that you aren't presenting.
Think about it. you are literally telling someone that they should not have a relationship with someone who got the vaccine because of something for which there is no substantive evidence. Do you not see how irresponsible that is? You have no right to tell people to not have a relationship with other people just because you are afraid of something for which there is no evidence. That type of shit is the opposite of We The People.
Separating us is their victory condition and our loss condition. We can't win this war if we give them the win.
You see, that's why I closed with the following:
Because ultimately, I don't care what you or anyone else does.
My claims don't have to be excessively substantiated, and I don't even have to even believe them.
Its like a card match, and I know what cards have already been played out of the deck. Meanwhile a newcomer comes to the table, and I just give him a heads-up that half the deck has already been played.
It doesn't really change the odds of the game, but the information is essential to how he plays his hand. He knows that I have knowledge of the already played cards and he doesn't. It doesn't change his odds, but it does mean I have a possible advantage.
If I didn't tell him half the deck had been played however, it still wouldn't have changed his odds of winning, but he would be playing riskier on account of my reserved knowledge, whether or not I have the capacity to utilize that knowledge.
In this way, that I know there is a possibility that he's at a disadvantage is information he would like to have, regardless of whether or not it ultimately matters in the unknown that is the odds of a card game.
Do you kind of get what I'm going at here?
I'd rather know there is a chance of bad things happening when others have suspicions rather than go in blind. Just knowing something is possible but not probable isn't reason to have fear.
Honestly, this is getting into simple personal preference now.
When I look at anything before me I consider all possibilities and I reject nothing presented to me by others on its face, because I have nothing to fear. We all face death eventually, so why should I care what happens so long as my soul is intact?
What this is called is Discernment. People fear monger on everything all day every day, and that is just nature. You can't know if someone is trying to dupe you or not, so just assume they are, tell fear to go fuck itself, and temper your actions accordingly.
In the end, the only poor decision is one made in haste when the Truth need only time to reveal itself.
As far as the card game goes, it costs the newcomer nothing just to wait until all the cards are played and the House cracks open a new deck.