Do we have any data to back this up? It's an interesting post but frankly, we have to do better than this.
If we are to convince our friends, neighbors and loved ones to not keep getting boosters, we need real data, not rhetoric. The fastest way to lose an argument is to overstate one's case.
We are the news and all of the responsibilities that come with that.
Doctor Peter Mcculloch. Cardiologist. One of the, if not the most, cited in his field. Has written countless papers. At the forefront of the COVID protocols that likely saved untold numbers of lives.
I know who it is. The problem is that this video is useless when there's no data attached to it. It's the type of video that if shared with a skeptic, it will harden their resolve.
If we're going to make posts where the title references a study, we should be including that study in our post to make it a good, high quality post.
Not all posts are designed to convince. A 38 second video will likely not convince a hardened skeptic or even someone who is psychologically unwilling to accept information that indicates they may have willingly injected poison into their body.
Some posts are intended to nudge the skeptical viewer and for the believer it is intended to confirm previously known information.
For those that need nudges, you may find you will have to hint or reveal bits at a time in order for them to warm up to the idea that they may have been wrong. This "nudging" can take months if not years.
In my view. It is better to have the data out their then not at all. Criticizing the OP may not help as much as you may believe. It may only serve to stop someone from posting anything since the hassle may not be worth the effort.
Despite popular belief. This forum works best and has done so in the past as a collection of researchers rather than only a depository of information for those who want to be hand fed.
In my opinion. Filling in the void would have been a more useful approach in this case. Help the OP by finding the study and posting it within the comments. Something called teamwork and collaboration.
Why do you think it's your job to convince anyone of anything? Nobody has brain that you know except you? I'm not shocked to hear you say this given the last interaction we had about how you think the gays should just be left alone (in more or less words).
My family took the shots because they're adults and made the decision to. It's big headed to think you're going to be viewed as more of an expert on this subject because your "news source is more accurate than theirs." That's effectively what you're making a case for when trying to convince someone with access to the internet of anything.
"Why do you think it's your job to convince anyone of anything?"
Because these shots are killing people.
In regards to your 2nd/last paragraph, then why are you here? The entire point of the Q movement is for us to be turning the tide towards truth. Do a search for "digital warriors".
Do we have any data to back this up? It's an interesting post but frankly, we have to do better than this.
If we are to convince our friends, neighbors and loved ones to not keep getting boosters, we need real data, not rhetoric. The fastest way to lose an argument is to overstate one's case.
We are the news and all of the responsibilities that come with that.
Doctor Peter Mcculloch. Cardiologist. One of the, if not the most, cited in his field. Has written countless papers. At the forefront of the COVID protocols that likely saved untold numbers of lives.
This is not an argument from authority.
His work is easy to find.
I know who it is. The problem is that this video is useless when there's no data attached to it. It's the type of video that if shared with a skeptic, it will harden their resolve.
If we're going to make posts where the title references a study, we should be including that study in our post to make it a good, high quality post.
Not all posts are designed to convince. A 38 second video will likely not convince a hardened skeptic or even someone who is psychologically unwilling to accept information that indicates they may have willingly injected poison into their body.
Some posts are intended to nudge the skeptical viewer and for the believer it is intended to confirm previously known information.
For those that need nudges, you may find you will have to hint or reveal bits at a time in order for them to warm up to the idea that they may have been wrong. This "nudging" can take months if not years.
In my view. It is better to have the data out their then not at all. Criticizing the OP may not help as much as you may believe. It may only serve to stop someone from posting anything since the hassle may not be worth the effort.
Despite popular belief. This forum works best and has done so in the past as a collection of researchers rather than only a depository of information for those who want to be hand fed.
In my opinion. Filling in the void would have been a more useful approach in this case. Help the OP by finding the study and posting it within the comments. Something called teamwork and collaboration.
We need to do better than this. That's the bottom line.
Why do you think it's your job to convince anyone of anything? Nobody has brain that you know except you? I'm not shocked to hear you say this given the last interaction we had about how you think the gays should just be left alone (in more or less words).
My family took the shots because they're adults and made the decision to. It's big headed to think you're going to be viewed as more of an expert on this subject because your "news source is more accurate than theirs." That's effectively what you're making a case for when trying to convince someone with access to the internet of anything.
"Why do you think it's your job to convince anyone of anything?" Because these shots are killing people.
In regards to your 2nd/last paragraph, then why are you here? The entire point of the Q movement is for us to be turning the tide towards truth. Do a search for "digital warriors".
So you're a care bear about whether other people know the truth or not but you won't do it for Christian reasons?
That's rich. Why not just "live and let live" like you said about the gays before?
As I mentioned in our previous exchange, I'm very sorry about whatever it is that's happening to you.