A new level of absurdity, which is really saying something. You can't just make stuff up like that. Of course I've never argued that bitcoin doesn't work, why would I? Bitcoin is a great idea. Also, why would a member of this forum be a "none Bitcoiner"?

You miss the point of my post quite spectacularly; whether deliberately or not, who can say?

Utterly ridiculous. Let's pluck one example from the cesspool:

Okay. Some double-vaccinated people have died, yes, agreed. Let's pick some numbers to illustrate your point. We'll start with a population of 100 people..
Scenario A) 0 people get vaccinated. 100 people catch the virus. 30 die.
Scenario B) 100 people get vaccinated. 30 people catch the virus. 2 die.

You are arguing that because something is non-zero, that means it can't have reduced. I don't know how to argue against such poor logic.




And it doesn't matter how many times you call it "gene-therapy". You can want something as much as you like; it doesn't make it true.

Certainly. And the best way to observe is to look at the data, rather than shouting a random and inexplicable "20%".

We are a year and a half into this thing. There are vast vast quantities of data available to anyone who cares to look.

Here you go, an interactive chart measuring Covid vaccinations against Covid deaths: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccinations-vs-covid-death-rate
Go to the link, look at the data, hover over a particular country to see it in isolation. Click to view the data sources and see how the chart is put together. Analyse trends. Consider any complicating factors (such as the rise of the Delta variant). Try to decide whether vaccination against Covid is a good thing. Knock yourself out.*







* Just don't claim it's a side effect of the vaccine.

Okay, but how does this work in a society? An individual is not isolated, they exist in relation to other individuals, around and among other individuals. Each individual has their own ideas and their own desires.
You can't have a situation where everyone is in total control of everything that affects them, but where, simultaneously, people interact with one another.

This would resolve into a society where there are no laws, which is simply government by the richest/strongest/most powerful. Give capitalism free rein without the democratic element, and you end up with an entrenched elite running monopolies and cartels, and everyone else doing as they are told, and with no prospect of this ever changing.

Democracy isn't perfect at all, but it does provide at least an element of accountability for those at the top.

Another oddity with perceptions of "freedom" and "liberty" is that they are often invoked in an attempt to justify individual actions (or rail against the curtailment thereof)... with the emphasis being solely on the individual, and ignoring the fact that the individual in question is invariably an individual within a society. For example, someone living in a city complains about being forced to wear a mask or to social-distance, because it impinges on their "freedom"... whilst simultaneously utterly failing to consider that not wearing a mask and not social-distancing impinges on the far more important freedom of their neighbours to not be exposed to a deadly virus.

Murray certainly has the talent to beat Tsitsipas, and for a couple of sets he had the physical ability, too. But although he can still play almost at his best for a while, he can no longer do it over the full course of a 5 set match. I think Tsitsipas knew that the longer the match went on, the more likely it was he'd find a way back in... which is what happened.

Even if Murray had won, he'd not have been able to sustain that level physically for many more matches. Even if he played people outside the top 50 every round, after a few matches in quick succession he'd no longer have the physical strength to get through to the later rounds. But still, this match was a reminder of just how talented Murray is... if not for his career coinciding with the big three, he'd have won a lot more slams.

This is a good point. The rain actually completed the full race distance; no-one else came close to matching that.

If they'd awarded 25 points to the rain and 18 points to the safety car for a valiant second place (it was leading Verstappen every lap), then the result would have been only slightly more ridiculous than what actually happened.

Democracy is only really democracy to the extent that everyone's opinion is their own, to the extent that everyone who votes has carefully and impartially weighed the pros and cons and thoroughly reasoned it all out.
Of course in the real world, there are several issues with this. Sometimes people are lazy, sometimes they are stupid or ill-informed. It is easy for those with influence and money to subvert democracy by misleading the public and playing to voters' prejudices.

Democracy is by no means perfect, but the alternatives are all worse.

I hate to have to ask this yet again, but do you have any data to back this up, or is this claim entirely baseless? Your assertion is that effectively everyone who enters a hospital is murdered in there?


I'm pretty sure that's not the reason. Ivermectin is that one where the claims were based on a single paper, which was then pulled due to "ethical concerns", right? The plagiarised one, where the authors appeared to have copy/pasted the text from press releases and websites and then changed a few key words, hilariously even altering "severe acute respiratory syndrome" to "extreme intense respiratory syndrome"... almost as if they didn't know what they were talking about.
https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/



By all means have an opinion and attempt to justify it. Just be aware that hysterical shrieking about murder factories doesn't particularly encourage people to take your claims seriously.

In this instance, with these two, things they are "certain" about may bear no relation to reality.

But given that the ruling stated that the Powell/Wood lawsuit was a "historic and profound abuse of the judicial process"... then you'd certainly not bet against them raising another frivolous, fact-free claim.

Keep thinking that attorneys are pure when they fight for a Trump victory despite there being no evidence.

Part of the judge's ruling was that Powell and Wood have to complete additional legal training. Because they are either dishonest or incompetent. Or... both?
"We disagree with the decision and will appeal" was the response of Powell's attorney. Can't wait for the devastatingly compelling appeal claim.  


This Kraken is diminishing by the day...

I think it was okay for the lead car, and not too bad for the others trailing behind in the spray... but they were driving cautiously and at low speeds behind the safety car. A race at full speed is completely different, particularly the idea of getting close enough to overtake someone. I think they made the right call in abandoning the race. However the two lap procession to award points was stupid.


I think a lot of that two lap farce was to ensure they fulfilled contractual obligations by technically holding a race, with points awarded and a podium finish. Clearly absurd. I really hope the spectators get their money back, and aren't shortchanged on a technicality.

One memorable WW2 perspective on freedom is Sartre's comment on early '40s France: "We have never been freer than under the German occupation". There are some great explorations of this idea in his "Roads to Freedom" trilogy. It's a long time since I've read those books, but the themes of existential freedom and authenticity are quite compelling.

A simple example to illustrate the general point is that you are free to go to the shop to buy a toothbrush. If you are ordered to remain at home, and there are armed soldiers patrolling the streets, and using deadly force against transgressors, then you are still free to go to the shop to buy a toothbrush... it's just that the consequences of your exercising that freedom may be far more dramatic in the second example than in the first. So the freedom remains in both scenarios, but in the second, the greater weight of consequence confers on that freedom an increased meaning.

Then what did these three people die from?

Marc Bernier, Florida radio host who called himself ‘Mr Anti-Vax’ dies of Covid-19
Dick Farrel, Anti-Vax Radio Host Urges Friends to Get Vaccinated Before Dying of COVID
Phil Valentine, Conservative Radio Host Who Regretted Vaccine Skepticism, Dies of COVID

Here's a quote from your link.


Science is impartial. His use of the phrase "so-called" is telling. Here is a person with an agenda, a person who has decided what his results and conclusions will be prior to even performing any experiment. He may think he's written a scientific paper, but this isn't science, he's simply written a polemic. Emphasis on the "simply"... if Dr Robert Young and his team are unable to correctly spell "vial", a word which, if they are scientists performing experiments with vials, they should be extremely familiar, then you have to question their competence.

I actually think awarding points in the way they did was a joke, too. If you can't hold the race, and you can't postpone it or reschedule it, then just give half points based on qualifying order, and forget about sending the cars out. The idea of having a "race" which is a two lap procession behind the safety car, then everyone back into the pits again, is absolutely ridiculous. By all means give Max first place, Russell second, Hamilton third etc, because that's where they qualified and that's what they deserve... but don't send them out for two laps and call it a race! I think the sport made itself a laughing stock today.

Ah, Stew Peters and his go-to non-expert of choice, Karen Kingston, who may have worked at Pfizer, but did not work on the Covid vaccine.
I think their previous interview was the one where she lied about graphene oxide?

Too many links. I'll pick one and random and see if the claim is stupid. Let's try this one...


Well, we can see immediately that this one is stupid. It says absolutely nothing other than that numbers get bigger as numbers get bigger. The more people that are vaccinated, the higher the total number of cases in vaccinated people. This is self-evident. Let's use some example numbers to illustrate the point:

1 million people. 10% vaccination rate.
100,000 vaccinated, with 10 Covid cases.
900,000 unvaccinated, with 900 Covid cases.

Increase the vaccination rate... 1 million people. 80% vaccination rate.
800,000 vaccinated, with 80 Covid cases.
200,000 unvaccinated, 200 Covid cases.

So as the number of people vaccinated increases, so do Covid cases amongst the vaccinated. But still, in this example, 10x less likely to get infected.

From Hamilton's perspective yes, Bottas is perfect because he isn't a threat in the way that Rosberg was. But for Mercedes the picture is more complex. If they are facing a team like they are this year with Red Bull, they need to get as many points as they can to hope to win the Constructors championship. This means the second driver scoring highly consistently. This is likely one reason why they are considering an upgrade on Bottas. If they are running away with the title, the second driver doesn't matter so much.  But if it's tight, the second driver is vital.

This is it exactly. It was certainly a great lap, but Williams ran a different strategy than the other teams. Most teams went for two attempts at a fastest lap. Williams with Russell did a lap to get the tyres in the right window, and then an all-or-nothing single qualifying lap right at the end when the track was driest. The gamble paid off with second on the grid. It was a brilliant drive, but let's not forget it was also a great team decision.


Yes. Norris has been fantastic all season, and has exceeded all expectations. Let's hope he's okay and racing at 100% again.