Beer Virus V

[Timjoebillybob]

I may be mistaken. I thought you were in the we believe the government, big pharma, and politicized science group. My apologies if I was mistaken.

I'm more in the pointing out BS group.

OMG! That one blows my mind. He is not even a scientist. LOL

I got into it a bit with a friend on facebook who called him a scientist. My side of it was mostly posting memes of people that were more qualified to call themselves scientists than him, including Dolph Lundgren, 2 Chainz(rapper), Dexter Holland (lead singer of the Offspring), and a couple of others. His side was stating how many patents he had and a few other things, then a quick degrade into personal insults.

I will say I don't have a problem with his "science guy" persona, I consider myself a gun guy and I'm not qualified to call myself a gun smith/engineer/heck even clean some of them out there. And his show did get a lot of kids interested in science, so that is a plus for him.

 

[Ingomike]

Maybe I should have used the sarcasm symbol???

Oh I got the sarcasm, that people believe this guy is what I was about.

 

[Ingomike]

I will say I don't have a problem with his "science guy" persona, I consider myself a gun guy and I'm not qualified to call myself a gun smith/engineer/heck even clean some of them out there. And his show did get a lot of kids interested in science, so that is a plus for him.

I have never understood the whole Walter Cronkite "most trusted man" thing. He was a freaking news reader, repeat, news reader. He read what they paid him to read. Same here, he was a host for a science show. He might even be great at that, but neither news reader or science show host makes ones opinions particularly valuable.

As a gun guy you are doing what gun guys do. I also doubt you are calling out "my way or the highway" on gun engineering. But the host of a science show is doing just that...

 

[foszoe]

As a gun guy you are doing what gun guys do. I also doubt you are calling out "my way or the highway" on gun engineering. But the host of a science show is doing just that...

You ever met a diehard 1911 guy?

 

[nonobaddog]

You ever met a diehard 1911 guy?

Many, they must hate double action.

 

[BugI02]

So thinking about this for a bit, this sticks out as a problem to me. And I'm talking generally about when to be so dismissive and when not to be. And what the highlighted refers to isn't specifically what I'm saying.

Bias can be obvious. Lies are only "obvious" when intuited to be false, OR if you have factual evidence of the truth. Intuition can be wrong. Your own bias might make you think it's an obvious lie when it could be the truth. So that leaves factual evidence of the truth as the most reliably obvious.

It's fair to question a source that has historically fabricated "facts", for example GWP, or CNN. They WILL report with a bias, but that doesn't mean they won't report truth from time to time. Although these highly biased sources deserve higher scrutiny, they don't deserve automatic dismissal. What they're saying could be true. Bias isn't always false. It takes some investigation to know.

When I think it does warrant automatic dismissal is when you read the article and the due diligence is missing. No facts proven. No named sources. No logical path for deductive reasoning. Just claims without real evidence. That's the point where I would want to dismiss the claim. For example, why should I believe the claim about UFO's? Without you showing me that there are aliens visiting us, there is no reason to believe that unexplained phenomenon is because it's aliens. Without you connecting the dots between DJT and Russia, with real ass evidence instead of fabricated ********, yeah. I'm dismissing that.

Fauci lied. And that makes everything he says from then on eligible for a higher scrutiny. He wasted his cred. The CDC and WHO and other loudmouthed scientists have been all over the place during the whole thing. And maybe we can excuse some of that because this is all new. They didn't know much. But when they don't know, and still ferociously attack any discussion of theories they don't like, I think it's fair suspect that they're not being very honest.

If they want me to be less skeptical, then they need to stop acting like they're hiding ****. They behaved like they didn't want HCQ to be effective. Within days of Trump touting HCQ, there were studies saying it was not. And then after time, when other more genuinely curious scientists study it, we find that it's more effective than those early studies showed. And then some scientists come out and admit that they felt they needed to disparage HCQ because they didn't want to be on the same side as the bad orange man.

I think at this point, institutional science has a reputation to rebuild. They've behaved horribly. But worshipers of institutional science won't see that. Because being on the side of apparent truth is more important than being on the side of actual truth.

Sorry for the long rant.

It's fair to question a source that has historically fabricated "facts", for example GWP, or CNN. They WILL report with a bias, but that doesn't mean they won't report truth from time to time. Although these highly biased sources deserve higher scrutiny, they don't deserve automatic dismissal. What they're saying could be true. Bias isn't always false. It takes some investigation to know.

Good post - except for the 'Who are you and what have you done with the person who said Gateway Pundit was toilet paper' consideration

 

[BugI02]

If you can cite a site that's trustworthy 100% of the time that would be dyn-o-mite outta sight!

The Word

 

[bobzilla]

Many, they must hate double action.

I have no problem with DA... on your gun. I like mine nice, short and crisp throwing large chunks of lead/copper at it's intended target

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I have never understood the whole Walter Cronkite "most trusted man" thing. He was a freaking news reader, repeat, news reader. He read what they paid him to read. Same here, he was a host for a science show. He might even be great at that, but neither news reader or science show host makes ones opinions particularly valuable.

As a gun guy you are doing what gun guys do. I also doubt you are calling out "my way or the highway" on gun engineering. But the host of a science show is doing just that...

I can understand the Cronkite thing, he was a honest reporter who at least tried(and IMO mostly if not completely succeeded) to not to let his beliefs or opinions influence his reporting and verified and vetted what he was reporting on. And to the best of my knowledge that didn't change when he became a new anchor. Wish all news reporters would do the same and could be trusted to do so.

But I will agree with you on the opinions part. Which to the best of my knowledge he didn't share at least publicly till he retired.


I'm not saying I agree with his current actions, just that I don't have a problem with the "science guy" persona.

 

[jamil]

BS, you are all about this crap. I post things that are interesting not necessarily that I believe them. I'm capable of discussing Trump being reinstated in the presidency, smoking a cigar (don't like bubble gum), and knowing it is very very unlikely.

IRL, that discussion usually goes something like this for me.

Wait. You're serious?

 

[jamil]

But Bill Nye said so.....

Bill Nye, the "my sex junk" guy?

 

[jamil]

Good post - except for the 'Who are you and what have you done with the person who said Gateway Pundit was toilet paper' consideration

GWP is toilet paper.

Fact check: true

However, even true stuff can be written on toilet paper. Sometimes GWP reports stuff that's true. So does CNN. Because they're both toilet paper, you expect mostly ****. But you still have to look to see if it's ****.

 

[jamil]

The Word

That's an issue of faith. Just believing.

 

[foszoe]

At

That's an issue of faith. Just believing.

First i was gonna object on grounds of Site but then I realized few probably read the book anymore

 

[jamil]

At

First i was gonna object on grounds of Site but then I realized few probably read the book anymore

On grounds of Site?

 

[BugI02]

At

First i was gonna object on grounds of Site but then I realized few probably read the book anymore

Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages

Online Bible Study Suite. Topical, Greek and Hebrew study tools, plus concordances, commentaries, sermons and devotionals.

biblehub.com

 

[BugI02]

That's an issue of faith. Just believing.

Please cite evidence that it has ever been found to be lying

 

[foszoe]

Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages

Online Bible Study Suite. Topical, Greek and Hebrew study tools, plus concordances, commentaries, sermons and devotionals.

biblehub.com

Exactly.

I still use scrolls

 

[BugI02]

Exactly.

I still use scrolls

It seemed you wanted a site cite

 

[actaeon277]

Ohio judge adds COVID-19 vaccination as terms of probation • Ohio Capital Journal

“(A)t least some of these folks need to be encouraged not to procrastinate,” the Ohio judge said about requiring them to be vaccinated.

ohiocapitaljournal.com