MICROTECHNOLOGY FOUND IN PFIZER’S VAXXINE
(forbiddenknowledgetv.net)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
The Earth is round-ish. It was constructed, and is governed, by gravity. Gravity creates approximately spheres (with some variance if the accumulated object is still rotating) because gravity is an omni-directional force. Harvard graduates are incapable of understanding the plain, succinct language of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Biden has served and represented the USA for about 1/4 of the country's entire existence. The experts declare a 95% relative risk reduction for an experimental injection, but Bob-down-the-way says since absolute risk is less than 1% anyway, who gives a rat's ass? Anyone who thinks without knowledge isn't thinking, they're guessing (fecklessly at that). Evidence and logic matters; I can print, buy, pilfer, earn, or swallow for credentials, and the credentials never mention which one I did. They's just words, words, words.
Gravity is losing ground everyday to the Electeic Universe theory. Watch Wal Thornhil speak and you will be shocked how wrong the science is aboit our Universe.
I'm not sure what the foregoing was supposed to mean, but your closure is the Fallacy of Truism: thinking you have a closing argument by reciting a common fact that has no bearing on the discussion.
Of course credentials are words. Words are what we use for communication. You cannot present evidence or logic without words to describe either and their relationship to a case or argument. "I sentence you to death!" says the Judge. Just words, words, words, right?
More to the point, having credentials gives some "credit" to what you might say for anyone who does not know you. If you want to dismiss the person with credentials because they offer "just words, words, words," then you are obliged to throw out everyone else as well, because that is all they are offering---without the benefit of any accreditation. You are not in a position to judge either evidence or logic if your own understanding is ignorant. So now comes the question: Who to credit? One mark is whether the person has the education, training, and/or experience to make statements pertaining to a given subject. Another mark is the person's willingness to take questions and explain with reference to examples. A third mark is how well the person's account squares with reasonable third-party references.
The problem with the internet is that radical egalitarianism obliterates any meritocracy. A complete boob can make pronouncements that are lunacy, but can assert he Knows It All. The trained scientist can argue and criticize the boob, but "they's just words, words, words." So, either you pay attention to credentials to give you some measure of the words a person says, or you have to put corks in your ears because "words, words, words" are worthless (as you imply).
I, without credentials, made an assertion about gravity that makes sense and defies flat-Earth. Then, by contrast, I engaged with the credibility of certain highly-credentialed shitheads. You hear everything (evidence) and assess proof, you hear everyone (interpretation) and factor for skew (bias); you extract that which makes the most sense. Credentials count as skew, not as evidence. Your first and third marks are invalid, and as an example, the simple understanding that Earth was a sphere(ish) had to defy them both.
But if you are ignorant, and you listen to the ignorant, what "makes the most sense" can be pure rubbish. I've seen this happen (Moon Hoax, Flat Earth, Chemtrails, etc.).
I don't know what you mean by your remark about a spherical Earth.