When did the term "woke masculinist" get created? I hope you are being sarcastic, because that is one of the most idiotic terms I have ever heard. Imagine trying to insult a man by calling him masculine, lol.

Honestly, I have no idea what point Horizon's posts are even trying to convey. I assumed they are a poorly written AI. Maybe if they used gpt-3 it might be a little more comprehendible.

Now Roach, there was a fun, worthy (lol) adversary. I've primarily lurked here over the years to glean info from people much more knowledgeable than myself in the crypto space, but rebutting every single dumb post he made was some of the most enjoyable times on this board. They also made up the vast majority of my posts, haha. We could use more people like him, it's been rather stale lately.

As someone who enjoys trolling the trolls, there's not a lot of work for me here in recent months. Step your game up horizon!

pizazz is everywhere, jazz hands are in the aiiiiirrrrrr

If you consider the truth a narrative, then you would be correct; your belief in it is irrelevant.

I compared nothing, I stated examples showing the high amount of defensive uses of firearms. These numbers would then be compared to the number of "mass shootings", showing your line of thinking is incorrect. Words matter, use them appropriately.

This would be another comparison:
EU
"More than one in four Europeans were victims of harassment and 22 million were physically attacked in one year. But crime victims typically do not report their experiences. They often have difficulties accessing their rights and may feel voiceless. These are the results of the first-ever EU-wide survey on the general population’s experience of crime"
"Nearly one in 10 people in the EU (9 %) experienced violence within five years of the survey"
Only a third (30 %) of victims report their physical attack and a tenth (11 %) their incident of harassment to the police"
https://fra.europa.eu/en/news/2021/violence-and-harassment-across-europe-much-higher-official-records

USA
"From 2019 to 2020, the NCVS rate of violent crime reported to police decreased from 8.6 to 6.6 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older (down 23%), while the UCR SRS violent crime rate increased marginally from 3.8 per 1,000 persons in 2019 to 4.0 per 1,000 in 2020."
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/nations-two-crime-measures-2011-2020

EU - 9%
USA - 0.4% (or 0.66% if you prefer). Obviously all those 300,000,000+ guns owned by law abiding citizens are causing widespread mayhem not seen elsewhere in the world  

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007588410221

Data from a 1993 survey published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” over the previous five years. This amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year and excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9591354/

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million….”
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence


Don't like the USA as an example? How about Brazil?

After the relaxation on gun laws in 2019 by President Jair Bolsonaro, the number of deaths registered by homicide was 19% lower compared to 2018 (51,558), while in 2019 the registered number was 41,635 being the lowest number of homicide deaths since 2007
https://g1.globo.com/monitor-da-violencia/noticia/2020/02/14/numero-de-assassinatos-cai-19percent-no-brasil-em-2019-e-e-o-menor-da-serie-historica.ghtml

You have convinced me; I'm out of any reason I can think of as to why we can use VAERS data to determine vaccine deaths, I'll agree with you there.

That's why I know these 9 deaths can not have been determined due to an adverse vaccine event from the 12,000 VAERS reports;
- That number can not be determined, by their own admission, yet they state it matter of fact;
- This is intentional deceit, which means I can not trust the article;
- Video from a previous post shows the reported covid death totals can not be trusted either, a second deceitful act by said organization;
- Why would they intentionally try to deceive me and falsify/pad/incorrectly label the numbers of deaths in multiple areas?

This is why I have always questioned the reported cases numbers. This inflation of numbers was admitted in press conferences as far back as April, 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw9Ci2PZKZg


Another thing about asymptomatic people that seems to have been memory holed: the WHO Technical Lead saying, according to the studies and data they have, it's "very rare" for asymptomatic people to pass on the virus:https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/06/08/who-coronavirus-patients-who-dont-show-symptoms-arent-spreading-new-infections.html

They came out a day or two later trying to walk back her statement, and the only thing they could say was, "computer models make it look way worse", but according to the data they have in the real world, it is very rare.

---------------------------------




1. It can detect patterns of adverse events, but can not be used to to determine if adverse events occur? This is GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage out). Either the entire system is useless, or the data is valid (mostly valid? whatever sliding scale you'd like to use) => may, or may not be valid...
2. The statement "VAERS shows 18,000 people died" is a true statement. Did 18,000 people actually die? Maybe; maybe more, maybe less. VAERS is limited, but that doesn't make it inherently false.

Unless, the data is valid:


Has anyone with access to the Gov, updated version invalidated the claims made by "conspiritards"? Or do you use a blanket statement that contradicts itself to "debunk" it? The updated data is there, why hasn't it been shared?

How does that unsubstantiate the claim, I don't see any numbers of deaths in that statement?
 
The entire thing is one big CYA essentially saying the data may or may not be valid. If anything, that statement confirms his claim that the data contained in VAERS is underreported.

I snagged your spot in the game. If for some reason that range actually hits, I have no problem splitting it with you.

9851-9900

TA shows that this a newly opened spot, just in time for someone with (barely) the proper koalafications to choose  





- Will update later when I'm more awake and can find a way to further justify this position  

Once again you change the subject  

Not ironic; I don't care about him or what he says (you should try it); if anything, I use my brain and reaffirm my arguments against him. Don't be such a pansy. You mocked me, patronized me, all because I called out the ridiculousness of people complaining about someone they can completely ignore. You can ignore me, just like I'm putting you on ignore. Yes, I am an asshole, and so are you (probably most of us here, whether we admit it or not), and the fact that you are legendary shows just how far this thread has fallen over the last 7 or so years I've been a part of it.

Now I remember why I stopped coming here; if you're not part of the echo chamber, you're told to gtfo and your opinions are invalid (to get off of roach, jbreher has been subject to this multiple times)... it's pathetic.

Haha, I'm sorry you keep losing the argument and have to continually change the focus of this conversation. It's like arguing with my girlfriend when she knows she is wrong, eye rolls included.

Who gives a shit about flags and tags (why even bring them up?)? People are literally asking for roach to be banned and/or his posts deleted because they disagree with him and find him annoying. If that's not censoring, tell me your definition of it so we're on the same page.

I'm not sure if you're trolling, or (sadly) just can't see it.

You made the error due to not understanding the distinct difference between disagreeing with someone and calling for the censorship of said person. Let me know when you do, and we can continue this conversation.

I never said I was against it or him; I'm calling out the irony/hypocrisy of everyone complaining about him, all while perpetuating his existence. If anything, find it humorous and entertaining, just like your misinterpretation of my post.

You are like the people who claim to hate Trump, and then go on to complain about him for 2 hours. If you really disliked someone that much, you wouldn't let them effect you so. By the end of the diatribe, I'm not sure if they do hate him or would rather suck his dick.


_{edit: spelling}

I feel like a lot of you have a love-hate relationship with roach. I would love to see the stats on roach's posts compared to the amount of posts about roach. It's probably a 1:5, maybe even 1:10 ratio. He posts what, maybe a few times a day? Followed by 30 posts of people complaining about him in one way or another.

"roach , you didn't even answer the question..."
"roach is wrong in his fundamentals..."
"roach should be banned..."
"just ignore roach, he'll go away..."


He's made his points clear, we all know what he is, and what he thinks. So... stfu. You know what I can't stand? Olives. You know what I don't talk about (barring this example)? Olives. If someone else posts about them, I just scroll on past and ignore it. Guess what I never have to worry about on here? That's right, having to think about those gross, little, round things.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs

When you're on WO, and roach says something ridiculous, stfu.
When roach says "Something, something, jew, something, metals, something", stfu.
If you stfu and ignore him, you'll never have to worry about roach.

I honestly don't care about his posts, if anything it makes me think about why I disagree with him, further cementing my own beliefs. 

Interesting watch on nuclear power if you're afraid of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak

To follow up on that, this only talks about the richest people that report their wealth. I have friends working with people who essentially own various industries (i.e. oil) who are worth so much more than Bezos (in the order of 2-3x, maybe more) that it is staggering to think about, but you will never see it printed anywhere. Makes you think...

(about what, IDK, but it makes you think haha)

Lulz @ "We use a term incorrectly, thus you using it correctly is incorrect."

edit- grammar

$7132

Good luck errrrbody!

Even if cryptocaps are backed by the appropriate amount of physical hats, it's abundantly obvious they have no schelling point and thus we're setting ourselves up for hatastrophe