Multiple sources with direct knowledge of Irving’s decision have told The Athletic that Irving is not anti-vaccine and that his stance is that he is upset that people are losing their jobs due to vaccine mandates. It’s a stance that Irving has explained to close teammates. To him, this is about a grander fight than the one on the court and Irving is challenging a perceived control of society and people’s livelihood, according to sources with knowledge of Irving’s mindset. It is a decision that he believes he is capable to make given his current life dynamics. “Kyrie wants to be a voice for the voiceless,” one source said.
However, the nation’s top doctors and science have cleared the vaccine as safe and effective. The Center for Disease Control (CDC), American Medical Association (AMA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) state clearly that COVID-19 vaccines are effective at helping protect against severe disease and death, including from variants of the virus, while also being safe. In fact, multiple studies showed that 99 percent of people who are in intensive care units in hospitals are unvaccinated. Sources say 96 percent of NBA players are currently vaccinated. More than 3.75 billion people worldwide have received a vaccine dose. To be clear, Irving’s stance is not believed to be anti-science, according to sources.
Rival teams believe the Nets would be open to a significant trade offer for Irving, but his openness to playing for other franchises is unclear. Irving will be fully eligible in all markets except New York City and San Francisco. Brooklyn is on a championship chase, wanting the commitment of every player on their roster, now dealing with the cloud of uncertainty regarding a member of its big three.
The earth is not flat.
Until you realize it is. You've got some strong faith in the trustworthiness of the government for something that cannot be validated, observed, tested, demonstrated, etc.
That's a religion. Which as fine, as long as you don't pretend it is science.
Do you happen to know what the scientific experiment is (that could pass through the scientific method) that had us change our mind on the shape of the earth? Or decide that it spins?
Hint, there is none. The shift was philosophical and political. To this day, no such experiment exists.
Couple that with a $60 mil a day budget for NASA and ask yourself what they've produced (besides propaganda) in the last 50 years?
Think of the work that could be done to end world hunger with that kind of budget.
No, NASA is part of the deep state cabal, enjoying a fat black budget.
I know it sounds dumb as hell, but, maybe you can entertain the concept without accepting it, or knee-jerk dismissal.
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed" - Adolph Hitler
Yawn. Explain to me how timezones work, explain to me what the shape of the earth actually is, explain to me why the moon, the sun, and every other planet in our solar system appears as a globe shape.
There's no issue with timezones and a flat earth, unless you're operating under misunderstandings or creating strawman arguments. Light doesn't travel infinitely. They tell you fairytales of light from distant stars traveling trillions of miles. Light is subject to the inverse square law. With a local small sun, there's no issue.
We can't know everything there is to know about the exact shape of the earth because we can't get far enough away. We do know though we aren't living on a sphere, there's endless demonstrable and repeatable observations you can perform yourself that falsify the globe model, which must have the defined geometry of a sphere. The claim doesn't match observeable reality.
We don't know that the moon, sun, planets are spherical (even though I'd agree they appear that way). See: https://youtu.be/-7cLw65IAaI
Even if we could determine they are spherical, that doesn't prove anything about where we live. That's a logical fallacy akin to assuming the pool table is spherical because all of the balls are.