Search results

Nope. Here's a hint for how stupid you are. Literally any idea, no matter how ridiculous, can be asserted without there being any fallacious reasoning involved. It's only when a syllogism is attempted that fallacies can manifest. This is why you and your ilk never use the word "therefore."...

Nope. You're worse than ignorant. And there's another fallacy-riddled argument.

That's why a sensible initial policy is treatment, not vaccines. The Wu flu would have been all but over by now had we done nothing rather than the insanity that has drawn it out. What we have is a state health bureaucracy driven by people with a vested interest in developing vaccines. The...

Of course it is. Nothing you say stands up to the demands of logic and reason. COVID-19 isn't a deadly pandemic in the vein of the situation at hand when those other diseases were a problem. It took about six months before we had the data and experience to treat and save practically every...

The plan was to deploy vaccines amid a pandemic to drive variants into existence and keep the panic going. The experts know that this is what vaccines do. SARS and MERS came and went without vaccines. This one has been kept alive by them.

That's the logical fallacy called false dichotomy. You need to think through your useless posts more rationally.

If you think that the bureaucratic tyranny being practiced over this pandemic, which was manipulated into existence and maintained by similarly nefarious means, is not a precursor to a world in which a global authority requires a bowed knee before it will allow you to buy a bagel, you're a wild...

What? Did you misread the question? What do you think it means to say "time is consistent"? So you think time is a created, physical thing. What is it made of? You need to take immense care when using a scientific theory to prop up your theology. You haven't shared links to proofs...

What do you think it means to say "time is consistent"? "Applies to"? What does that mean? It sounds like you're taking the name of a mathematical theory and using it for a philosophical agenda. Problem 1 is that you aren't describing the distinction in any effective way and problem 2 is...

The Michelson and Morley experiment did not return an Earth orbital velocity of 0kps.

We prefer a rational, scientific approach. This is not an explanation of how what I say cannot be correct. It's a presentation of your weird theology and has no bearing on what I have said. Heck, I could agree with everything you said here and it would not change a thing about what the math...

For example, inspired by post 1,069: Einstein's E=mc2 is based on the first term of a Taylor series. He describes how subsequent terms can be ignored because the high radicals in the denominators make negligible difference when adding them to the answer. Using E=mc2, all you can ever get is an...

There is nothing between the lines. Try responding to the lines. Yep. And I provide reasons for my assessments. For instance, when I say I reject Einstein's work, you counter with: "Other people don't." Such responses are a complete waste of time. They are the fallacy of an appeal to...

I don't know what that means. Or you could engage over the substance and stop contributing nonsense. When you're done counting the adherents to ideaologies, we can discuss something useful, like the ideas. I don't know what that means. Nope. Credentials are irrelevant. We want you to...

No, I don't. I don't believe as you do. To engage rationally, you can either show how your case is correct or refute mine. When you say: "These people are on my side," the proper scientific response is to laugh in your face. Learn to engage rationally. When you declare Einstein to be...

What is that supposed to mean? You bring up who believes things as if it should affect what I think. I prefer a rational discussion. No. Notice how you want to declare the math to be on your side, but when challenged on it, you bring up examples where the theory is simply assumed, not...

So what? No, they don't.

MERS came and went SARS came and went. The Wuhan flu came, "scientists" decided to add vaccines, and it stayed.

Yikes.. :D

Sounds ... clunky. How would we test such an idea?