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:
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.
If I understand you correctly, your first point was what I said. It was MY first point as to why it wasn't reasonable to doubt that it did in fact say 66.6%, which you seemed to feel was questionable in your first post above. So I guess we are in agreement? Though that wasn't really the main point of what I was trying to say.
For your second point, the hacking was intended to be an example of creating doubt out of thin air.
My response, which came out a little more "lecturey" than I intended, was meant to discuss the concept that we (as in all people) have a tendency to give more credence to imaginary doubts than they deserve. It is a fundamental part of how we remain stuck in the Matrix. We attach belief to imaginations, and use rhetoric to give those imaginings power to influence the beliefs of others.
I wasn't trying to suggest there was anything wrong with wondering if the photo was "shopped." I was trying to say that by attempting to cast doubt on its authenticity, without any evidence to support it, it would create doubt in others where there was no reason for any to exist. I.e. it would create doubt that wasn't based on reason but imagination, i.e. it wasn't a reasonable doubt.
Your doubt wasn't based on any evidence but rather on what you dreamed up as "possible." My response about "hacking" was the exact same thing. I created a doubt (not really, but hypothetically), based purely on my imagination, on why we should doubt everything that we think of as evidence of C_A fuckery. That imaginary doubt was intended to be an example of what you did taken to the extreme to show what it was.
I really didn't mean to direct my "lecture" at you. I was intending it to be an exposure of how we use rhetoric to change beliefs based on no evidence whatsoever. It was intended to be a caution of something we should watch out for in our writing. This type of rhetoric helps to perpetuate The Matrix.
Using these imaginings, cycled through influential rhetoric, can manipulate not just doubt, but fear, or really any other emotion, thought, belief, etc. It is this idea of giving substance to imaginary plausibility's that literally runs the whole world.
I hear you. Yeah I think we’re on the same understanding. I just don’t really love grainy little images with altogether pretty stupid insights either way