@countessalmirena wrote:
Throwing in a few thoughts...
I'm very definitely not opposed to differing opinions. Even the cleverest person only diminishes his/her capacity for embracing new information by blocking out different views. Today's cutting-edge renaissance man/woman can become tomorrow's stodgy leecher.
The main issue that I see in 4channel's posts, from a personal perspective, is that he provides vaccine misinformation. Vaccination against COVID-19 is a current issue of enormous importance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already stated that I am not anti-vaccination and I do believe that some vaccines are helpful. I've also said that this should be an option for those who want it. I just believe that people should have a choice, a right to decide what goes into their body and what modifications are to be made.
You say I provide mis-info. I believe that you said the same thing about respected medical professor, Dr. Peter McCullough. Well I strongly disagree. What I have posted in response, in discussions does not come from conspiracy sites. I back up what I say with info sourced from medical professionals. Sometimes, due to the fact that mainstream news sites refuse to report on what medial experts are saying, I go to YouTube to watch things such as Dr. Peter McCullough where he testifies at the Texas Senate HHS Committe in March this year. And there are times when I do source mainstream news, as well as sites like the one by Michael Savage . And this here makes sense as well as this! And even Dr. Robert Malone, a prominent pioneer participant in mRNA technology, in an interview with Tucker Carlson questions the safety and refers to the "vaccine" as experimental.
Besides the obvious, a good deal of this relates to what is taking place in Victoria and what gives people the motivation to express the value of their rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@countessalmirena wrote:
I tend not to be a person who sees conspiracies everywhere. When I see evidence of dodgy dealings, I accept that information (although I try to question before accepting). I have my own biases and opinions, as all of us do... and I'm aware that we accept and remember information confirming our own views much more readily than we do with information contradicting our own views.
I'm absolutely not a fan of homeopathic medicines, primarily because demonstrating repeatable correlation between treatment and condition is able to be done with double blind randomised clinical trials... and such trials, fairly obviously, do not demonstrate a correlating or causative link. For people who want to pursue such regimes and believe in them, I tend to shrug my shoulders and let them get on with it. Free will is not there only so that people can believe, do and say what I say they should be believing, doing and saying!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see conspiracies in everything either. (IKILMOTACA) But I don't believe everything that mainstream media says either. And talking about conspiratorial stuff, it spotted Qanon as the twittleberry club for right wing versions of the feel-good lefties, failed Tea Party adherents, rednecks and confused libertarians. Oh yeah I forgot those men who may have inferiority complexes.
Oh and Flat Earthers, well, I have grown fond of them. I find their belief system quite cute. And former pro footballer David Icke, well I don't know about him. He makes sense on a fair bit of what he says but other stuff, well .. .. it's a bit far fetched.
Occasionally a conspiracy, actually fairly often it is not a theory. It is a fact! Nearly 2 decades ago, I recall mainstream news, the shills in chat and message boards, armchair warriors and wannabe right wing commentators accusing those who opposed the Iraq war as traitors, "Kumbaya" campfire singers, Muslim lovers, self-hating Westerners, commies and yes .. .. .. .. .. "Tin-foil hat nutjobs". Now it's a mainstream view the war was about oil and strategy. Ask those accusers today what they think and a lot of them will say .. .. "Oh no I didn't say that", "It wasn't me" etc., or they just change the subject, refuse to answer and so on.
I believe that in years to come, we will look back on today's official narrative with a wider perspective and one that exposes the narrowness of our thinking. Self imposed?
As far as homeopathic / natural therapy treatment is concerned, I'm not saying that it should ever be a replacement for a vaccine and I always support professional medical direction and consultancy for someone wishing to implement this type of treatment into treating a serious or life threatening illness. But, let's be realistic here. Waiting for an honest result from "double blind randomised clinical trials" could mean waiting for nothing. These trials have been sabotaged in the past and have been done in a way to initiate a pre-determined outcome. Big Pharma has a major investment in our being unwell and their profits can only come from us being treated with their drugs or vaccines. And for them, the more expen$$$$ive the drug or vaccine treatment, the better. Like the media, Big Pharma is not here to provide a service from the goodness of their heart. Their primary existence is to make profit.
There is a good side to homeopathic treatment but that is best discussed on another thread. Some facts and findings are absolutely amazing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@countessalmirena wrote:
I tend not to get into discussions about the core views of people where their views are obviously very set in an alternative cement. Rather, I would keep the conversation quite light and perhaps find common ground in other topics. Not only is it usually useless to try to convince a person with an opposing view that isn't based on facts, but the very act of attempting to convince them serves only to entrench those views.
There was a study done by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler in 2010, called When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions, which concluded that ❝While our experiments focused on assessing the effectiveness of corrections, the results show that direct factual contradictions can actually strengthen ideologically grounded factual beliefs [...]❞
(My bolding and my underlining.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it can be as you say. That I can accept. Trying to get a Trump lover to understand that he's not in their corner or the truth about Q being the twittleberry and "I feel good" club is an uphill battle. But quite often it an be the other way around. Talking to someone who has an
"official-version perspective" based on what they have learnt from years of watching and reading content served to them by mainstream media can initiate an internal damage control and make them retreat further into that picture of their world, molded for them by the media at the behest of whoever *wink*.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@countessalmirena wrote:
So... I'm not out to persuade 4channel of anything. If 4channel ever wants to discuss this properly, of course I would seek to engage in respectful debate. But in the meantime, I do not want false information to be posted on a public board of which I'm a member, without at least addressing that false information and providing facts-based argument and the gold standard of data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of proper discussion should never only be determined by what is considered mainstream. What is state-controlled in some countries is also corporate-controlled in others. We often form our opinions and sometimes act on what we see, read and hear via the media. Can we always be guaranteed to do this correctly if mainstream media is influenced by certain corporations? Can we rely on tests for efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines if there is outside influence involved?
What is the gold standard? Well, for money, it is explained here!
For others, it can be in the mind of the beholder. Both me and yes .... you!
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
