My wife is very empathetic and has had a difficult time buying the idea that there could be so much evil and the media is protecting/perpetuating the evil.
Then we got Covid (confirmed positive tests, yes). And we took ivermectin. It helped me get mostly better after only 10 hours of being real sick. Similar experience to Joe Rogan. For her she took it, was getting better, then secretly stopped taking it because she didn’t fully buy what I had told her about it. Then she got worse and worse while I got better. Two days later she said she’d take it again… and within an hour her symptoms went down. This morning (18 hrs later) she seems to be almost over it all.
I showed her that great doc on the history of ivermectin and she’s now finally taken the red pill because she experienced how this drug really does work and if people are suppressing it then… well… evil… and she’s now pissed about it… first major red pill.
Yes, that is what you are doing you fucking idiot. Because one credible scientist believes in string theory, that's good enough for you to not believe in God. Holy absolute FUCK you are so stupid you don't even REALIZE you are stupid.
No wonder you let other people do the thinking for you. 😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I never mentioned a single person as a source, please quote me where I did.
Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making any logical fallacies you fucking retard.
Don't worry, the Lord loves you more than I do. I think you're an idiot, personally.
You admit I've never used appeal to authority fallacy, but still insist I've done some other, unnamed, fallacies. All while using ad hominems. Classy, and about what I expect from religious people.
No, I said you did. And you did.
Nope, I was referring to Appeal to Authority there. I was pointing out the fact that just because you think you aren't making fallacies, doesn't mean you aren't actually making fallacies. Even though I was speaking in general terms it should have been obvious WHICH fallacy I was specifically referring to considering the context clues of the conversation.
THIS is what I said: Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making any logical fallacies you fucking retard.
Any. And big surprise, "any" includes Appeal to Authority, which I was SPECIFICALLY referring to this whole conversation and even more specifically directly in the quoted sentence.
But here I fixed it since it was too difficult for you to parse:
Just because you didn't name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making an appeal to authority fallacy.
Honestly after trying THIS long to explain why you're wrong and you STILL not getting it, to the point that you have LITERALLY devolved to actually arguing semantics, I don't really care if you call me classy.
I mean, you read a one sentence description of a fallacy and then tried to pass that off to someone who has actually taken courses in the subject as if it was good enough. You probably thought "got 'em! It has to refer to a SPECIFIC person!" No, it doesn't.
So yeah, you sound like a Iiberal who thinks they're much smarter than others. And apparently simply claiming to follow "science and logic" is enough to delude yourself into thinking you actually DO follow science and logic, but in actuality have no fucking clue what it is you are actually "following".
*Edited to be less of a dick. Believe it or not.