Hahahahahhaaha, once again shamelessly retreating behind a gloriously dishonest restatement pretending that your positions are actually totally ordinary and conventional.

Yeah but do you vaccinate.

And that was hyperbole fwiw. I don't think you actually support government and media. I think the real issue is that you're emotionally invested in your beliefs and so you respond to anyone challenging them with insults. Which is fine. I used to think my professor who would call NPR national petroleum radio was crazy so I know how it goes. And you are definitely free to criticize my thought processes. They're pretty solid but feel free. I love a good debate on inductive vs bayesian reasoning. But there isn't anything vile about what I think.


Lol. You apparently don't know how to engage in actual discourse. I mean at least try to back up your claims.

Well yea, government and politicians lie, but with conspiracy theories everything is a lie. Facts are lies, the world is flat, up is down. Edward Snowden is a lie and a gatekeeper, and so is Julian Assange. Aliens are real and the US is hiding it but leaked military footage of UFO's isn't proof of aliens, it's the US trying to control the minds of US citizens.

Here, I'll come up with a conspiracy on the spot. Cornavirus was released on the public for xyz reasons, and proof is revealed from the illumanti imagery in Avengers Infinity War. Then we see Thanos snaps his fingers killing off half of humanity, they were priming us for the CORONAVIRUS!!

The conspiracy theory is by design nebulous, facts are brushed off, everything is a lie, nothing can be proven, and all information just leads to more theories. Even when conspiracies are proven true, it's just counterintelligence trying to trick you and you are powerless to stop the group pulling all the strings. It's absurd. It's akin to religion, I see a lot of similarities between the two. Some people just need something fantastical to believe in, it's just two different forms of the same thing.

Probably, but there's ways you can mitigate it without everyone locked down for months/years on end.

Drinking Lysol?

All the best.

Who is denying climate change ITT?

Using per capita numbers is just as dumb now as it was the last time you did it.

The rate of disease spread is not a function of population size up until the infected population is within at least a factor of 10 of the population size.

Here's a toy example. One sick person comes to the USA and infects 3 people who infect 3 people who infect 3 people. But thanks to rapid testing and contact tracing, those 40 people are identified and quarantined immediately, and the spread is totally halted. Now, imagine the same thing happens in Luxembourg. Is the US's response 500x better? Of course not. The countries did the same thing and stopped the spread at the same point.

OK, what's your plan?

How

How are they different?

Yeah, but all efforts to remove Trump have failed thus far.

Isolate vulnerable people (elderly etc). Make masks compulsory in public and in work places. Improve testing capability and accuracy.

I can't improve on what wizi said, so I'll let that stand as my response to your horseshit also.

Every single right winger, or have you been living under a rock?

Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?

Induction starts from the bottom and builds up a system of knowledge based on things that are known to be true and/or reasonably inferred, whereas Bayesian reasoning assigns probabilities to different scenarios based on what one thinks about the world. It's more of a top-down approach similar to deduction whereas induction is bottom-up.

You do realize the USA is nowhere near the testing capacity yet?

In their defence - exponential function is hard; logic is hard; thinking is hard. Spouting off shite on message boards is easy.

A. How?

B. Who's locked down?

Oh, it's nice to meet a fellow logician on these boards.

Could you give an example of a proof of something (anything) via inductive reasoning, and another proof of the same thing (theorem etc.) via deductive reasoning? I'm sure someone who has studied this as extensively as you have must have an example to hand (hint: they exist, and they are numerous).

So just a giant strawman of things that I haven't claimed and vapid generalizations about conspiracy theories? And this is why my beliefs are vile?

I studied linguistics and we didn't have a proper semanticist so I was forced to take logic in the math department. It was right between phonology and field methods and was at lunch time and I usually skipped it. Would you like some sentence diagrams or an explanation of sound alterations in Catalan instead?

He never said he was wrong. He said he apologized to the friend of a victim whom he kept badgering to watch their dead body be dragged around.

I am not aware of Luckbox suggesting he was wrong about any of that, or that he does not still whole heartedly agree with those thoughts now.

I for one would cut him some slack if he renounced his idiotic positions but I am unaware of that having taken place. Would be great if he has and was sincere.

Back to the point though, apologizing to the guy for what he did is not the same as admitting he was wrong about anything. It is more in line with telling someone “I am sorry you got so upset about what I said.”

If he has actually renounced his views, awesome, let’s move on. If not, I think it is important to keep bringing it back up because it represents a huge analytical defect on his part and impacts how everything he says should be received.

Wookie,

Trump is Trump, data is data, graphs are graphs. They just are what they are, you try to attribute falseness out of them when they're just very transparent at what they are, no more no less. I'm sorry linking you to 50 different graphs comparing countries and regions in different metrics was not to your satisfaction, can you point me towards some information that leads objective people like yourself to conclude that the USA is uniquely responding terribly and it's all because of Trump?

I never said your graphs were false, only that they were stupid. I have no interest in recreating the same case I've already made ITT for you. Go back and read it.