Gurdus4

Please. I want to hear how it is that you argue that a medical councils investigation that was found in high court to at least be deeply flawed and deeply biased and totally wrong, can stand as reliable or true?

If two men go to jail for robbery, and then it's discovered in an appeal that one of the men was sent to jail for robbery without any evidence by legal authorities, and that they were not following legal due process and were indicating clear incompetence or deep bias... Then That man then gets let out as innocent.. you can't possibly take their decision against the other man as legitimate anymore. It doesn't mean it's false, but it can't be reliably taken at face value anymore. Expl

Conspiracy doesn't have to be intentional, if enough people want the same things, they'll act in ways that mean they get those things.

They only have to want power and money and control and that's it. They don't have to get together to explicitly secretly plot some Hollywood evil centrally coordinated plan.

They just have to have interests that align across power structures.

If, at some point in the future, it became genuinely undeniable that major claims about vaccines or the COVID vaccines were false, not just debated, but accepted as common knowledge, I honestly wonder how the people who pushed those claims the hardest would cope with that. By “came out,” I don’t mean more studies arguing back and forth. I mean something so clear that even the people who spent years defending the narrative would accept it. For those who didn’t just promote the vaccines, but relentlessly mocked and attacked anyone who questioned them, if I imagine myself in that position having gone all-in publicly, morally, and professionally, I genuinely think the psychological hit would be

So I mean, you're pro vaccine in general, and overwhelmingly promote or believe in vaccines or the schedule, but... You believe there's major issues in the pro vaccine rhetoric in how it behaves and the kinds of arguments they make and the attitude they take towards skepticism/they way they treat skeptics, and disagreement and the general approach they typically have to defend their position?

It's more respectable when someone genuinely believes in something like communism, because at least it’s their belief. A lot of people on the left don’t seem to believe much at all, they just repeat whatever they’ve been taught to say, without really understanding it. That’s why so many of them misuse words like fascism, don’t grasp what communism actually involves, or have no real understanding of global politics, like how many Venezuelans actually feel about Maduro. They’re not holding beliefs so much as wearing a costume of beliefs they think they’re supposed to display. For that reason, I don’t think it really makes sense when people on the right point at Antifa or similar groups and say

People were constantly claiming to have been injured. Mainstream documentaries like, vaccine roulette were coming out against vaccines and about the swine flu situation.

Just saying little bit odd. Isn't it

I haven't played bops zombies in years, probably 7 since I last even touched it and 10 since I last played properly (on ps3/ps4)

I used to be quite good at it, I got to round 70s on most maps on my own and even got to round 100+ on some maps a few times. Yeah I haven't played it in ages, but oh my god, the FUCCKin zombies, they are SOOO aggressive... Like 4x more aggressive than I ever remember.

For the first 10 or so attempts on Kino Der Toten, I couldn't make it above round 4, in fact round 2,3,4,5 were harder that round 10-20 (when I eventually made it there after about 15 attempts).

The problem seemed to be that the zombies were extremely fast at hitting me, and also that I could go