Leaderboard

The underlying problem here is that you are giving your own personal guess more credence than the educated opinions and conclusions of experts. If at the end of the day you're going to choose to ignore references cited by others, not cite any yourself, and stick to your own beliefs without any justification, why bother posting in the first place? It's completely astounding to me that you think you have the knowledge and skills to make such an inference. Why bother with virology and epidemiology when we have you? Aside from that, your thought process is flawed: 1) You've arbitrarily predicted (and stated as fact) that the outcomes of COVID will be (or "are", as if this is retrospective) similar to those of SARS, for reasons you haven't explained 2) You've been presented with scientific evidence that the outcomes of COVID are different from SARS 3) The only reasonable conclusion is that you were wrong at (1), yet somehow you conclude the opposite. That's not an argument--that's a statement of belief with nothing to back it, and it's wrong. You believe it because it seems intuitive, but intuition does not equal truth. You've already been provided with two specific example diseases that start as a mild viral infection but then later on become much more severe and even deadly. And you've been moving the goalposts, too. First it was "organ damage", then it was "organ failure", then you got called out on that and moved it to "severe organ damage".

So as most of you know, Trump supporters have become quite upset with fact checking on Facebook and Twitter. They become outraged when these platforms block completely untrue posts and append a note to misleading posts that "this isn't really true." "Where's my right to free speech?" they ask. "It is OUTRAGEOUS that my First Amendment rights are being violated!!! It's CENSORSHIP because they are afraid of the TRUTH!" Many of them moved to Parler, the "free speech" alternative. No censorship there! They have 100% freedom to claim that Biden is a convicted pedophile, the New World Order is backing the Clintons and Trump really won the election. And no one will post a link on top of their post saying "this is inaccurate; check here for election updates." Recently some Parler minions have proposed writing in Trump in the Georgia special election. Hashtag #WriteInTrumpForGA! (because everything has a hashtag) Different people have proposed this for different reasons: 1) It's a protest against the unfair election 2) There's this mumble mumble thing that means that if you write in Trump he will win Georgia 3) Punish those RINO's running for Senate because they didn't support Trump enough! Trump supporter Lin Wood tweeted that “politicians love votes & money (not necessarily in that order). Want to get @SenLoeffler & @sendavidperdue out of their basements to demand that action must be taken to fix steal of the 11/3 GA election? Threaten to withhold your votes & money. Demand that they represent you.” Anyway republicans are suitably panicked by the thought of hundreds of thousands of Georgia voters voting for Trump instead of the GOP candidates for Senate. But hey, if they want to lodge a protest vote, good for them. (Probably good for the US as well.) Parler was thus put in the position of carrying material that was damaging to republicans. You can guess what happened next. From a Parler post: ======================== BRRAKING NEWS: Parler is Censoring #WriteInTrumpForGA after many Trump Supporters took to social media to boycott the Georgia Senat elections after the republican secretary of State refused to the elections to Trump, Seems Parler didn't like many Trump Supporters refusing to vote of Republican senate runners and decided to cut the feed from Parler to keep them in check. Whatever happen to the first Amendment? ======================== This election has been a long and painful grind - but there are some bright moments.

nwt, you, lippy and mrcwood are turning into our own Squad here. I'm liking it.

Christmas Grinches pressured Shutter to remove the Christmas theme.. the same one used for years.. It looked fine, snowflakes suck up the ram though. Bring back Christmas....

You identify with the Zionists; she identifies with the Palestinians. They have conflicting priorities. Kind of like your priorities with killing Iranians who offend you with their jobs, and those of lots of other people. I have a Palestinian cousin -- he's one of 12 children in his family, with extremely widely-ranging religious beliefs (from Evangelical Christian to conservative Muslim). He keeps very quiet indeed about this issue, but he was born there, and went through refugee camps to get here as a teenager (I think). He's been a citizen since the 1960's. I'm telling you that simply because it's more complicated than "Jews good -- PLO bad." Palestine had lots of inhabitants, including both Arabs and Jews, before 1940. The cost of WW2 to the Jews was inconceivable. The cost to the Palestinians of Israeli independence was "The war culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel by the Jews, and saw the complete demographic transformation of Palestine, with the displacement of around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs and the complete destruction of most of their villages, towns and cities" (from Wikipedia). England felt they could "give" it to the Jewish inhabitants because they had taken it away from Turkey as part of the end of WW1. Too many people give themselves the right to decide for other people. English and Spaniards and Portuguese in the New World (well, then followed by everyone else), Europeans in general in Africa, English in NZ and Australia -- the list goes on and on. So I gues what I'm saying is if she says that, what of it? We have plenty of people who call for the forcible eviction of Palestinians from their land, why should it be so awful for Palestinians to call for the eviction of Israelis from their land? It's more "eye for an eye" stuff, which costs everyone in the long run, but she doesn't have fewer rights than the Israeli sympathizers. Wendy P.

Well, that's the same network where I heard someone say something akin to "the claims of lack of transparency are hard to understand -- he has been the most transparent president in the history of the country." I'm not sure they meant "we can see right through him," that that's how I took it Wendy P.

and with this, I think we can put the thread to a rest

Why do you care? You regularly post genocidal comments comments against Muslims, so I can't imagine that you think there's anything wrong with it.

Hi Tim, Uh, Trump inherited his. Jerry Baumchen

Well, Hitler's been overused lately, so 1984 is sort of second most hyperbolic.