Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

Have you considered that it is not the view but the evidence used to support said view that causes us to reject it?

How can it be, when you refuse to view the evidence?

You stupid fuck.

[Katman]

The strawman bit (off topic argument you'd rather address) where you blab on about how the conspiracy theorist label offends you

Dude seriously, if you really think being called a conspiracy theorist offends me you're dumber than I thought.

In the 10+ years I've been on here I've been called all manner of things.

Conspiracy theorist is probably one of the more polite ones.

[TheDemonLord]

How can it be, when you refuse to view the evidence?

You stupid fuck.

No, I refuse to watch overly long propaganda. Theres a difference.

If there are relevant points/evidence in the video, then by all means, make a short summary of them and the relevant time stamp and I will watch.

If there are peer reviewed studies mentioned in the video, then surely we can just look them up and discuss them without the need of the video.

If there's an interview - then lets read the un-edited transcript and then discuss in what was said, again without the need of the video.

However if there is a story being told, in order to dupe the gullible twits that lap this kind of thing up, then we would definitely need the video.

Oh Wait.....

[bogan]

Dude seriously, if you really think being called a conspiracy theorist offends me you're dumber than I thought.

In the 10+ years I've been on here I've been called all manner of things.

Conspiracy theorist is probably one of the more polite ones.

Strawman

How the fuck do you still struggle with this notion? It matters not whether the offense is genuine or not, just that you derail the discussion to be about a point in which you judge yourself to be better equipped to refute. In fact, mock offense is used in many forms of strawmannery.

[Drew]

I've watched half of the interview now. That's half an hour I'll never get back.

[Katman]

No, I refuse to watch overly long propaganda. Theres a difference.

Ok, start watching at 28:35 and we'll discuss that topic first off.

There's plenty else before that - but we'll get back to that.

[Drew]

Ok, start watching at 28:35 and we'll discuss that topic first off.

God dammit. I watched to 27 minutes before giving up. They just sit there talking about how the CDC covered it up and how some stuff got snuck out. Why don't we ever actually get to see the material that got leaked?

[Katman]

Why don't we ever actually get to see the material that got leaked?

Dude, it's an interview about the documentary.

The information is supposedly in the documentary. (You would have learnt that if you'd actually watched the interview).

I expect they didn't imagine they would have to bring actual documentation to the interview.

[RDJ]

God dammit. I watched to 27 minutes before giving up. They just sit there talking about how the CDC covered it up and how some stuff got snuck out. Why don't we ever actually get to see the material that got leaked?

Thanks for doing this so we know there is no point in watching it ourselves, time saved.

[mashman]

...and you've got less than nothing.

A serious question - why do you appear to be defending someone who is totally discredited?

Nice.

The scientists involved in the study signed the paper off based on the science. Apparently the science isn't in question, it's the way it has been framed, pun intended. I'd like to know the truth, coz science says truth and human say, yeah but bro... stabby stabby injecty injecty

[Oscar]

Nice.

The scientists involved in the study signed the paper off based on the science. Apparently the science isn't in question, it's the way it has been framed, pun intended. I'd like to know the truth, coz science says truth and human say, yeah but bro... stabby stabby injecty injecty

The science is in question.
The results couldn't be replicated.

The guy seemed to be doing it for the money.

[Drew]

Dude, it's an interview about the documentary.

The information is supposedly in the documentary. (You would have learnt that if you'd actually watched the interview).

I expect they didn't imagine they would have to bring actual documentation to the interview.

Then why the fuck did we have to watch it? It adds nothing to this.

[Katman]

Then why the fuck did we have to watch it? It adds nothing to this.

Maybe you just didn't understand the words they used.

[Katman]

The results couldn't be replicated.

Actually, they have.

It was talked about a few pages ago.

Do pay attention.

[Drew]

Maybe you just didn't understand the words they used.

Easy tiger, I understood the words. But you are trying to use it as proof, when what it proves is that three old white dudes sat around for an hour. Fuck all else.