3 ms·

If your only critique is that some of the signatures are fake, then you haven't exactly disproved the declaration as much as hurled insults at it. That's usuall

If your only critique is that some of the signatures are fake, then you haven't exactly disproved the declaration as much as hurled insults at it. That's usually what people do when they don't have facts on their side.

michaelmrose 5y ago
When a large part of the argument for the position was that it was the reasoned words of qualified experts the fact that it is a complete lie full of signatures of imaginary people is even more destructive than one might imagine to its credibility because honest positions aren't normally advanced by lies. If I produced a position that advanced the idea that water makes things wet and it was signed by Roger Rabbit and Porky Pig you wouldn't give it serious thought and assume that it pushing some untruth or other because generally the truth doesn't walk in clothed in a lie. Positions unworthy of consideration don't need to be debunked because they have proven their lack of worth on their face. If you believe the ideas contained therein are worthy you ought to strip them of their association to obvious liars and present them bare to the world lest they be casually dismissed.
- PathOfEclipse 5y ago
  I considered the great barrington declaration first and foremost based on its ideas, not based on its signatories. Similarly, I would take seriously the claim water is wet because it's actually true. I've also spent a good deal of time listening to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the co-creators of the declaration. I would that he had Dr. Fauci's job. Actually, he would probably be miserable because the job is about politics far more than it is about science.
- HoobaTemp 5y ago
  I assume you want people to take what you're saying seriously, we all do. It would help if you were to mention why it is "a complete lie", how the positions therein are "unworthy of consideration", have "proven their lack of worth on their face", as well as which signatories are "imaginary people". I am literally not saying that you are wrong. I'm saying that making broad statements in the context "everyone knows...", without support, will lose anyone but those willing to endlessly argue with you in the same opinionated context. In other words, instead of a worthwhile discussion, this is the equivalent of standing behind barricades on one side of the street screaming at the people behind the barricades on their side of the street who are screaming at you. Despite well composed sentences above, it has no more value than graffiti. Why bother?
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    The Great Barrington declaration was a web form signed by such luminaries as 'Dr Johnny Fartpants', 'Professor Notaf Uckingclue', Dr Johnny Bananas”, “Professor Cominic Dummings” a resident at the “university of your mum” and another supposed specialist whose name was the first verse of the Macarena. A web form with no verification step that tells people that they don't have to lock down is going to be seen by 10,000 weirdos on the internet for every one doctor or scientist. Not doing at least a first pass filter of removing obvious nonsense and counting doctors based on people checking a box robs them of all credibility. Furthermore the notable authors who really are the primary minds behind it also pushed for an entire list of now discredited theories and flawed studies now known to be nonsense. Like claiming that we were nearly at the threshold for herd immunity back in 2020. In retrospect their theories look even worse than they did at the time. Suggesting that we ought to let covid wash over half of us while the other half somehow stayed away from the first in October 2020 looks especially insane when vaccination began in December 2020. It's like being in an out of control truck hurtling towards the cliff with a fellow in the back yelling "jump jump you're going over anyway!" in retrospect with the perfect clarity provided by hindsight knowing that the truck will slow to a stop before hitting the cliff edge and going over that fellow looks either malicious or stupid. Winter 2020 was bad but not bothering with precautionary measures would have meant many more would have faced covid without the better tools and vaccination to blunt the harm. Furthermore as deaths continued to rise as our health care system choked people would have eventually when deaths rose enough self imposed the isolation and economic consequences the declaration spoke out against being imposed from on high. It's bad science, bad methodology, bad public policy, bad logic and bad faith. 'Professor Notaf Uckingclue' needs to go back to school.

michaelmrose 5y ago

When a large part of the argument for the position was that it was the reasoned words of qualified experts the fact that it is a complete lie full of signatures of imaginary people is even more destructive than one might imagine to its credibility because honest positions aren't normally advanced by lies. If I produced a position that advanced the idea that water makes things wet and it was signed by Roger Rabbit and Porky Pig you wouldn't give it serious thought and assume that it pushing some untruth or other because generally the truth doesn't walk in clothed in a lie. Positions unworthy of consideration don't need to be debunked because they have proven their lack of worth on their face. If you believe the ideas contained therein are worthy you ought to strip them of their association to obvious liars and present them bare to the world lest they be casually dismissed.

PathOfEclipse 5y ago
I considered the great barrington declaration first and foremost based on its ideas, not based on its signatories. Similarly, I would take seriously the claim water is wet because it's actually true. I've also spent a good deal of time listening to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the co-creators of the declaration. I would that he had Dr. Fauci's job. Actually, he would probably be miserable because the job is about politics far more than it is about science.
HoobaTemp 5y ago
I assume you want people to take what you're saying seriously, we all do. It would help if you were to mention why it is "a complete lie", how the positions therein are "unworthy of consideration", have "proven their lack of worth on their face", as well as which signatories are "imaginary people". I am literally not saying that you are wrong. I'm saying that making broad statements in the context "everyone knows...", without support, will lose anyone but those willing to endlessly argue with you in the same opinionated context. In other words, instead of a worthwhile discussion, this is the equivalent of standing behind barricades on one side of the street screaming at the people behind the barricades on their side of the street who are screaming at you. Despite well composed sentences above, it has no more value than graffiti. Why bother?
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  The Great Barrington declaration was a web form signed by such luminaries as 'Dr Johnny Fartpants', 'Professor Notaf Uckingclue', Dr Johnny Bananas”, “Professor Cominic Dummings” a resident at the “university of your mum” and another supposed specialist whose name was the first verse of the Macarena. A web form with no verification step that tells people that they don't have to lock down is going to be seen by 10,000 weirdos on the internet for every one doctor or scientist. Not doing at least a first pass filter of removing obvious nonsense and counting doctors based on people checking a box robs them of all credibility. Furthermore the notable authors who really are the primary minds behind it also pushed for an entire list of now discredited theories and flawed studies now known to be nonsense. Like claiming that we were nearly at the threshold for herd immunity back in 2020. In retrospect their theories look even worse than they did at the time. Suggesting that we ought to let covid wash over half of us while the other half somehow stayed away from the first in October 2020 looks especially insane when vaccination began in December 2020. It's like being in an out of control truck hurtling towards the cliff with a fellow in the back yelling "jump jump you're going over anyway!" in retrospect with the perfect clarity provided by hindsight knowing that the truck will slow to a stop before hitting the cliff edge and going over that fellow looks either malicious or stupid. Winter 2020 was bad but not bothering with precautionary measures would have meant many more would have faced covid without the better tools and vaccination to blunt the harm. Furthermore as deaths continued to rise as our health care system choked people would have eventually when deaths rose enough self imposed the isolation and economic consequences the declaration spoke out against being imposed from on high. It's bad science, bad methodology, bad public policy, bad logic and bad faith. 'Professor Notaf Uckingclue' needs to go back to school.