3 ms·

Contradictions: A Sign of False Information

1 points by colinprince 5y ago

ggm 5y ago
to be "self contradictory" the self word must apply. So these statements have to be understood to be articulated if not at the same time (the ideal) then by the same people. The contradiction here is that the same people espouse contradictory views, seeing both as butressing their view. That statements contradict each other is not unusual. Sometimes in the social domain, the "facts" are opinions. These tend to be oppositional (contradictory) from the same underlying information which is the underlying factual basis. But, are espoused by different people. Thats not the kind of contradiction here: This one, is the bizarre world of the people who can hold two oppositional "facts" (questionable) at the same time, and BOTH justify (questionable) their point of view. For the other kind of contradiction: I think C19 is "perfectly" adapted to invade human hosts. Does this mean I think its manufactured? No. I see this as evolution. But from the same belief, "its perfect" an oppositional view goes to "its TOO perfect" and then goes to "because its SO perfect, it must be manufactured AHA" Was my use of the word "perfect" unwise? Yes. But, this is none the less what I think. Like many things in Evolution, its outcome is a messy, minimum-necessary achievable function of gene expression and gene mutation which arrived at a place well suited to modern mankind as a host, and with the right biomechanical behaviours (how fatal, how long it persists as an aerosol, how infectious it is, how long it survives, none of which require "intentionality" so behavuour is also perhaps the wrong word here...) to spread wide. From the virus' perspective, this is a pretty good outcome. No human gain-of-function agency is neccessary to do this: just, statistics, and a lot of virus. For somebody deeply wedded to Lab-made, the same thing is "evidence" of need of mans hand. Go figure.
josephcsible 5y ago
A lot of these points aren't actually contradictions. Examples: > “SARS-CoV-2 is not that dangerous” and “SARS-COV-2 is so good at making humans sick that it was clearly engineered.” It's perfectly possible for a disease to have low lethality but high transmissibility. > “A ~1% death rate from COVID is not a big deal” and “an extremely rare (<0.001%) nonfatal side effect from a vaccine is a very big deal.” This incorrectly assumes that you'll definitely get COVID if you don't get the vaccine. Also, deaths from COVID are concentrated in demographics different from where deaths from vaccine side effects are. > “An observational study of ~30 people is enough to justify giving hydroxychloroquine for COVID” and “A randomized, blinded placebo-controlled trial of ~30,000 people is not large enough to justify giving the vaccine.” There should be a higher standard for drugs given to the entire world population than for ones only given to those who have a severe case of a disease. ---- And a lot of the other ones, while they are indeed contradictory, are basically straw men. Examples: > “If a 75-year-old with pre-existing conditions gets COVID and dies from pneumonia 4 days later, COVID was not the true cause” and “if a 75-year-old with pre-existing conditions gets the vaccine and dies from pneumonia 4 days later, the vaccine was definitely the true cause.” The complaint I've heard is that the former is counted as a COVID death, but the latter is not counted as a vaccine death. "You can't have it both ways" itself goes both ways. > “Most COVID cases are false positives” and “the case fatality rate is overestimated.” (If there were, in fact, fewer true COVID cases due to false positives, that would make the case fatality rate much higher.) While I've repeatedly heard the claim that most COVID deaths weren't actually caused by COVID, I've never heard the claim that most COVID diagnoses are false positives. In fact, what usually gets claimed is that there's way more cases than diagnoses.

1 points by colinprince 5y ago

ggm 5y ago

to be "self contradictory" the self word must apply. So these statements have to be understood to be articulated if not at the same time (the ideal) then by the same people. The contradiction here is that the same people espouse contradictory views, seeing both as butressing their view. That statements contradict each other is not unusual. Sometimes in the social domain, the "facts" are opinions. These tend to be oppositional (contradictory) from the same underlying information which is the underlying factual basis. But, are espoused by different people. Thats not the kind of contradiction here: This one, is the bizarre world of the people who can hold two oppositional "facts" (questionable) at the same time, and BOTH justify (questionable) their point of view. For the other kind of contradiction: I think C19 is "perfectly" adapted to invade human hosts. Does this mean I think its manufactured? No. I see this as evolution. But from the same belief, "its perfect" an oppositional view goes to "its TOO perfect" and then goes to "because its SO perfect, it must be manufactured AHA" Was my use of the word "perfect" unwise? Yes. But, this is none the less what I think. Like many things in Evolution, its outcome is a messy, minimum-necessary achievable function of gene expression and gene mutation which arrived at a place well suited to modern mankind as a host, and with the right biomechanical behaviours (how fatal, how long it persists as an aerosol, how infectious it is, how long it survives, none of which require "intentionality" so behavuour is also perhaps the wrong word here...) to spread wide. From the virus' perspective, this is a pretty good outcome. No human gain-of-function agency is neccessary to do this: just, statistics, and a lot of virus. For somebody deeply wedded to Lab-made, the same thing is "evidence" of need of mans hand. Go figure.

josephcsible 5y ago

A lot of these points aren't actually contradictions. Examples: > “SARS-CoV-2 is not that dangerous” and “SARS-COV-2 is so good at making humans sick that it was clearly engineered.” It's perfectly possible for a disease to have low lethality but high transmissibility. > “A ~1% death rate from COVID is not a big deal” and “an extremely rare (<0.001%) nonfatal side effect from a vaccine is a very big deal.” This incorrectly assumes that you'll definitely get COVID if you don't get the vaccine. Also, deaths from COVID are concentrated in demographics different from where deaths from vaccine side effects are. > “An observational study of ~30 people is enough to justify giving hydroxychloroquine for COVID” and “A randomized, blinded placebo-controlled trial of ~30,000 people is not large enough to justify giving the vaccine.” There should be a higher standard for drugs given to the entire world population than for ones only given to those who have a severe case of a disease. ---- And a lot of the other ones, while they are indeed contradictory, are basically straw men. Examples: > “If a 75-year-old with pre-existing conditions gets COVID and dies from pneumonia 4 days later, COVID was not the true cause” and “if a 75-year-old with pre-existing conditions gets the vaccine and dies from pneumonia 4 days later, the vaccine was definitely the true cause.” The complaint I've heard is that the former is counted as a COVID death, but the latter is not counted as a vaccine death. "You can't have it both ways" itself goes both ways. > “Most COVID cases are false positives” and “the case fatality rate is overestimated.” (If there were, in fact, fewer true COVID cases due to false positives, that would make the case fatality rate much higher.) While I've repeatedly heard the claim that most COVID deaths weren't actually caused by COVID, I've never heard the claim that most COVID diagnoses are false positives. In fact, what usually gets claimed is that there's way more cases than diagnoses.