Here we go again
12-23-2021 | 07:41 AM
#101
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
I've heard that. Sad.
You gotta watch the video because the transcript doesn't do it justice.
WATCH: Senior WHO Official Avoids Taiwan Question, Talks About China, Abruptly Ends Interview | The Daily Wire
“Will the WHO consider Taiwan’s membership,” Tong asked Dr. Alyward, who proceeded to stare blankly until she checked to see if he was still on the other end.
“I’m sorry I couldn’t hear your question, Yvonne,” responded Dr. Alyward, prompting Tong to say she would ask the question again. But Dr. Alyward indicated that he didn’t need the journalist to ask the question again: “No that’s okay, let’s move on to another one then.”
12-23-2021 | 07:58 AM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: 777 Captain in Training
12-23-2021 | 08:53 AM
#103
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 643
Likes: 13
From: Currently freeloading
Showing a page where 80% of the studies mention that the source is unreliable and cannot or should not be used in the way that previous posters have been implying it should be, is in fact citing it as a source. You got me.
12-23-2021 | 09:38 AM
#105
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
12-23-2021 | 09:42 AM
#106
Gets Weekdays Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
From: Economy Minus
Ok, that's fair. The "goal posts" were ground level, 50 yards wide, and two feet in front of him. With an underinflated football set on a slope leaning downfield.
Showing a page where 80% of the studies mention that the source is unreliable and cannot or should not be used in the way that previous posters have been implying it should be, is in fact citing it as a source. You got me.
Showing a page where 80% of the studies mention that the source is unreliable and cannot or should not be used in the way that previous posters have been implying it should be, is in fact citing it as a source. You got me.
He gave you several examples - including by your estimate, at least 20% of those listed where the source was not called unreliable and/or the use was endorsed.
You could have said thank you. You could have said, “oh, ok, well maybe flying an airplane doesn’t mean my knowledge extends to how VAERS data is used in medical research”.
Instead, you ventured out with your opinion on how VAERS data should be used and an insipid football analogy that I have read three times and still don’t understand what you were trying to say, other than it was incredibly easy to see that you were wrong (the goal posts were that obvious and you still missed? Was that your point?)
You don’t get to be right every time. Sometimes you should just say thank you.
12-23-2021 | 10:03 AM
#107
Config 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 184
He said VAERS is used as a source for many professional studies. You said (did you mean to imply it wasn’t?) “…for example?”
He gave you several examples - including by your estimate, at least 20% of those listed where the source was not called unreliable and/or the use was endorsed.
You could have said thank you. You could have said, “oh, ok, well maybe flying an airplane doesn’t mean my knowledge extends to how VAERS data is used in medical research”.
Instead, you ventured out with your opinion on how VAERS data should be used and an insipid football analogy that I have read three times and still don’t understand what you were trying to say, other than it was incredibly easy to see that you were wrong (the goal posts were that obvious and you still missed? Was that your point?)
You don’t get to be right every time. Sometimes you should just say thank you.
He gave you several examples - including by your estimate, at least 20% of those listed where the source was not called unreliable and/or the use was endorsed.
You could have said thank you. You could have said, “oh, ok, well maybe flying an airplane doesn’t mean my knowledge extends to how VAERS data is used in medical research”.
Instead, you ventured out with your opinion on how VAERS data should be used and an insipid football analogy that I have read three times and still don’t understand what you were trying to say, other than it was incredibly easy to see that you were wrong (the goal posts were that obvious and you still missed? Was that your point?)
You don’t get to be right every time. Sometimes you should just say thank you.
12-23-2021 | 10:34 AM
#108
Gets Weekdays Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
From: Economy Minus
I will admit that it annoys me when people argue this way:
Mr. White: I think “A” is correct
Mr. Pink: actually, “B” is correct - here is proof (links to proof)
Mr White: well “B” has nothing to do with “C” which is what I have been saying all along, it is of course “C” even an idiot like yourself can see that and I never even said “A”
12-23-2021 | 12:18 PM
#109
Banned
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 0
From: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Too funny. Your side is so twisted in it's nexus of lies, this crap writes itself
12-23-2021 | 12:20 PM
#110
Banned
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 0
From: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
You I obviously have know idea about cog D as you totally botched your analogy.
Nice work cowboy
