General Discussion: Covid


Show original post
Sayword
Sayword avatar

5982 posts since 1/4/07

posted 30 Jul 2022 19:24, edited 30 Jul 2022 19:24
For example I post an obvious what would be considered woo woo conspiracy video. You don't think I know the stigma that would have?

But what is in the video has yet to have been disputed. Whether it is true or false. It's just information.

Figurine posted an opinionated article that is supposed to have exposed the things in the video, but instead it was filled with opinions about the person in the video.

I hadn't made one opinion, infact I was responding to phelen automatically dismissing information by posting a link he would automatically dismiss. Didn't even get a chance to talk about it, before figurine post something that has completely nothing to do with the subject I had posted, because he wanted to disprove me, even though I hadn't stated one thing about the video other than the link.


We spent pages here chatting nonsense, because mostly I want to see how this person thinks and why they think like this. You would jump to conclusions off a link being posted with no discussion involved? And not only that with something completely off subject to affirm your beliefs on why you shouldn't even bother with it?

I'm just trying to learn this new dichotomy where people willfully choose to disregard information. I'm pretty sure this is how the serfs became who they are in a feudal system. Feed the people terrible information, until the people are so fed up with it they are tired of looking up information themselves to the point where they wholly disregard information all together.


You guys would know, y'all live under a dead queen. Plus I pride myself on still creating word salad originally.
nothingelseworked
nothingelseworked avatar

3613 posts since 21/2/10

30 Jul 2022 19:35
Sayword wrote: Figurine posted an opinionated article that is supposed to have exposed the things in the video, but instead it was filled with opinions about the person in the video.

Could you clarify what you mean by 'opinionated' in your sentence, please?
Sayword
Sayword avatar

5982 posts since 1/4/07

posted 30 Jul 2022 19:47, edited 30 Jul 2022 19:47
nothingelseworked wrote:
Sayword wrote: Figurine posted an opinionated article that is supposed to have exposed the things in the video, but instead it was filled with opinions about the person in the video.

Could you clarify what you mean by 'opinionated' in your sentence, please?
sure

In the article that figurine posted, the author was conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in his opinions of Mike Adams the health ranger. Since then I posted that the article was too opinionated.

The opinionated article has been the topic of this thread since, more specifically the education on what opinionated is and how it applies to the word opinion.
figurine
figurine avatar

6215 posts since 14/5/07

30 Jul 2022 19:55
It was a video of nitric acid reacting with isopropyl alcohol, you can see similar videos on YouTube.
Sayword
Sayword avatar

5982 posts since 1/4/07

30 Jul 2022 20:01
figurine wrote: It was a video of nitric acid reacting with isopropyl alcohol, you can see similar videos on YouTube.
20 pages laterLaughing out loud
figurine
figurine avatar

6215 posts since 14/5/07

30 Jul 2022 20:03
Sayword wrote:
figurine wrote: It was a video of nitric acid reacting with isopropyl alcohol, you can see similar videos on YouTube.
20 pages laterLaughing out loud
Yea 20 pages later and you still look stupid (adjective in case you get confused again).
Sayword
Sayword avatar

5982 posts since 1/4/07

30 Jul 2022 20:08
figurine wrote:
Sayword wrote:
figurine wrote: It was a video of nitric acid reacting with isopropyl alcohol, you can see similar videos on YouTube.
20 pages laterLaughing out loud
Yea 20 pages later and you still look stupid (adjective in case you get confused again).
stop projecting, people can read. Laughing out loud
figurine
figurine avatar

6215 posts since 14/5/07

30 Jul 2022 20:12
At least MLI has the guts to stand by what he posts, rather than trying whatever you've just done to distance yourself from the nonsense you've posted before.
burny
burny avatar

6159 posts since 25/5/06

30 Jul 2022 20:14
figurine wrote: At least MLI has the guts to stand by what he posts, rather than trying whatever you've just done to distance yourself from the nonsense you've posted before.
Sayword
Sayword avatar

5982 posts since 1/4/07

30 Jul 2022 20:27
figurine wrote: At least MLI has the guts to stand by what he posts, rather than trying whatever you've just done to distance yourself from the nonsense you've posted before.
you sure are opinionated.
Appleseed
Appleseed avatar

219 posts since 2/4/17

4 Aug 2022 08:34
Dreep
Dreep avatar

1907 posts since 29/7/08

4 Aug 2022 08:37
the point being? other than you are a massive incel.
Appleseed
Appleseed avatar

219 posts since 2/4/17

4 Aug 2022 08:39
figurine wrote: Fact checking websites aren't propaganda.

LOL https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/reuters-fact-check-covid-social-media-pfizer-world-economic-forum/

Blind belief in a "fact checking organisation" is the same as believing in the Ministry of Truth. Fucktard.
Appleseed
Appleseed avatar

219 posts since 2/4/17

4 Aug 2022 08:40
Dreep wrote: the point being? other than you are a massive incel.

Join the resistance before its too late. Or just accept this bullshit. Your choice.
morning mist
morning mist avatar

3718 posts since 29/5/05

4 Aug 2022 09:02
Appleseed wrote: Blind belief in a "fact checking organisation" is the same as believing in the Ministry of Truth. Fucktard.

Kinda like believing a known vaccine/5g radiation/medicine missinformation site like Childrens Health Defense?
Appleseed
Appleseed avatar

219 posts since 2/4/17

4 Aug 2022 09:13
morning mist wrote:
Appleseed wrote: Blind belief in a "fact checking organisation" is the same as believing in the Ministry of Truth. Fucktard.

Kinda like believing a known vaccine/5g radiation/medicine missinformation site like Childrens Health Defense?

So..you're saying Reuters doesn't have ties with Pfizer and the WEF? What "fact checking" organisation are you going to use to back that up? Reuters? HAHAHA
morning mist
morning mist avatar

3718 posts since 29/5/05

4 Aug 2022 09:21
Appleseed wrote:
morning mist wrote:
Appleseed wrote: Blind belief in a "fact checking organisation" is the same as believing in the Ministry of Truth. Fucktard.

Kinda like believing a known vaccine/5g radiation/medicine missinformation site like Childrens Health Defense?

So..you're saying Reuters doesn't have ties with Pfizer and the WEF? What "fact checking" organisation are you going to use to back that up? Reuters? HAHAHA

You 100% read that shit daily Laughing out loud

Didn't really comment on the Reuters thing, it's just funny a guy with the worst sense of source criticism on here (maybe Fudge?) complains about it
morning mist
morning mist avatar

3718 posts since 29/5/05

4 Aug 2022 09:23
no, Sayword is the worst, he sources God for his takes
Sayword
Sayword avatar

5982 posts since 1/4/07

4 Aug 2022 15:21
morning mist wrote: no, Sayword is the worst, he sources God for his takes
God is the only one that I trust, I trust no man, nor do I have faith in man.

God is the truth. Try God.