Wait, run that by me, again? WHAT percent of the United States have been fully vaccinated? THERE'S THAT MAGIC NUMBER, AGAIN 👿
(media.greatawakening.win)
Get Thee Behind Me, *SATAN*
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
Now it says 66.7
https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/vaccination-rollout-and-access/
I’m curious if it ever originally said 66.6 though. I understand OP has a screenshot but images can be shopped. One like this wouldn’t be difficult
It probably did but it's completely insignificant. This tally is clearly counting up from 0 to 100% by 10th, which means if you catch it on the right day you could have seen any number from 0.0 up to the current 66.7. This numerology bullshit is just a massive waste of time.
When counting by tenths (the lowest digit in this counting system) one has to pass through 66.6 to get to 66.7. There is no reason to doubt that it said 66.6%. Which is to say, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that it said 66.6% is beyond a reasonable doubt.
What "beyond a reasonable doubt" also says is, any doubts you have are not reasonable (at least as you have expressed it). That doesn't mean there can't be reasonable doubts on this topic, but you have not expressed one.
Being skeptical is great for investigation. If you feel there is a reason to investigate whether it ever really said 66.6% have at it, but the doubts you have expressed are not based on reason, rather they are based purely on speculation.
Speculation can be a perfectly valid guide, but it can make no statements, nor should a persons rhetoric suggest that such speculation is meaningful; e.g. "photoshopping this wouldn't be difficult". It is expressed as a meaningful doubt, but it is not.
I could similarly say "hacking the C_A is not difficult" (for some). Should we doubt all of the C_A reports that guide a great deal of our conclusions because it may have been hacked? Unless there is evidence of such hacking and evidence of such replacement of "declassified documents" by other nefarious sources, the answer is no (or at least we should not be making statements of our doubt as if they had validity), because such a doubt is not based on reason, but purely on the imagination.
The point is, recognize the difference between a reasonable doubt (a doubt based on a logical extrapolation of evidence) and a speculation (often based on fear, always based on an active imagination, and not a logical extrapolation of available evidence). I'm not saying the second isn't useful. I use it all the time in my investigation. I'm only saying, recognize the fundamental difference between the two.
Well, two things.
One person pointed out that this appears to be a count around the world as data comes in. It's pretty reasonable to assume that any country with a current value >66.6% likely has had it on their map as well, simply based on the fact that numbers are sequential. Thus, there's not really a huge deal with this.
Two, I dond't really mention hacking. I said photoshop. Something like this can be faked on microsoft paint. I can go right now and make it say the US is 2% and it'd look legit.