Coronavirus Pandemic

[Niall_Quinn]

Here's more from your authoritative "rational" wiki - I followed the link in their hit piece to their definition of anarcho-capitalism. Here's what I found:

Anarcho-capitalism (with its proponents being referred to as anarcho-capitalists or ancaps), is a complete joke fringe political ideology that prioritizes the irresponsibility freedom of the individual from responsible state coercion

Yes, very rational.

And their definition for conspiracy theorist:

A conspiracy is a secret plan to achieve some goal, whose members are known as conspirators. A conspiracy theory originally meant a pre-formed conclusion an idea that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy. However, since the mid-1960s, it has often been used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational speculations theories.

Oh dear, English Oxford Dictionary beware, there's a new kid on the block.

It's fortunate that juvenile definition was not adhered to when BCCI or Enron ruled the roost.

The proper definition of conspiracy theory, in the modern "rational" world:

Go back to sleep, look here's the X-Factor, go back to sleep, there's nothing to see here.

You actually try to debunk information you most likely didn't even review by providing information you probably didn't even review. I'll have forgotten about this in about 10 minutes. But you should think long and hard on it.

[Letters]

Corbett is one of the most well researched and level headed commentators in the world today.

All you mean by that is he says things you agree with

In your world the mainstream media are fake because they're mainstream. People like this are good because they're not and they say things you agree with.

And that's fine to an extent, we all latch on to things we agree with I guess. But just because the people you believe are less mainstream and say things which fit your worldview, that doesn't mean you have some hotline to "the truth" like you seem to think you do. You're not an independent thinker, you just parrot different sources.

I haven't watched the video admittedly, but I thought having a look at who the source was would be interesting. If it was from, say The Daily Mail or the BBC or David Icke then I'd have a feel for what the source was like, with this dude I have no idea so I had a look.

Will try and have a look at the video later but people seem to be embracing this whole online event thing and my evenings have started to fill up again, and I have a load of techie stuff to do for church.

As always, David Mitchell shows us the way

[Niall_Quinn]

Flat earth. Dear me. What a cheap and unimaginative shot. The Graham Norton show.

I haven't watched the video admittedly...

But you immediately tried to assassinate the messenger despite the fact you had no idea what he said or who he is. That's indicative. In order to find out who he is (not what he's saying) you relied on a publicly open wiki that's demonstrably biased, based on the pejoratives alone. Yet you say this is "my world", despite the fact you've just done precisely what you are trying to accuse me of. Classic reflection.

There are two aspects here, the information itself (which you ignored out of hand), and your behavioural pattern that's seemingly automatically triggered when you encounter anything you suspect runs contrary to YOUR world view. It's an unedifying spectacle. Which you just demonstrated in the clearest possible way.

[Niall_Quinn]

Your video counter-argument was very funny btw. I genuinely found it amusing. An talking head hosting a vicious war criminal and her spawn and a guy who gets paid to be on message. Not sure what any of it has to do with the information Corbett is reporting, mostly culled from the mainstream media that it would be "bullshit" to consider impeachable, according to the the guy who gets paid to be on message. And once he's established the mainstream media is trustworthy beyond question, by delivering his scholarly thesis and considered evidence presented in one word - bullshit, he then demonstrates why everything non-approved cannot possibly have any credibility because... flat earth.

It's a compelling argument. No wonder you don't want to watch Corbett, who has a very different, old fashioned way of making his case.

[Niall_Quinn]

Another tragic consequence of COVID19 and the lockdown.

[Niall_Quinn]

[Letters]

Flat earth. Dear me. What a cheap and unimaginative shot. The Graham Norton show.

Not a fan of Norton or the show (I hear he's one of those gays, you know )
But the point Mitchell was making wasn't to do with flat earth per say, more the point that these days anyone can shout anything from any corner of the internet without much scrutiny.
One could argue that is a good thing, freedom of speech and all that. But the lack of scrutiny makes it potentially dangerous.
Things the MSM say aren't false because it's them saying it. And the things they say do have more scrutiny than "some bloke" on YouTube.

But you immediately tried to assassinate the messenger despite the fact you had no idea what he said or who he is.

I didn't "try" to do anything, I simply looked up who he is because I don't know who he is.
I'll ignore the amateur psychology

Your "behavioural pattern" is to think you know better than us poor saps and that you have some hotline to "the truth". Actually all you do is look at different sources which you have decided fit your world view and declare them "the truth" and deride everything which doesn't fit your world view as "fake news"
You could argue I do the same and maybe we all do to an extent. But twice recently you've criticised the BBC for "fake news" when the articles you said that about were both true. It doesn't inspire confidence in your judgement and betrays your biases.

Your video counter-argument was very funny btw

Well that's a strange thing to say when I didn't make a counter argument
I quite openly said I hadn't watched it yet although I intend to. I simply looked up who the person was which is fairly reasonable.
I mean, if you go to a doctor you probably don't check their qualifications because you would rather hope the employer did that when they hired them. If you look up medical advice online then you might want to check who the person spouting advice on YouTube is because any idiot can start a YouTube channel.

So that's all I've done so far, just looked up who he is and posted a link I found. I have made no counter argument to his video.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'll ignore the amateur psychology

Upon which you launch into an amateur psychology session.

I didn't "try" to do anything, I simply looked up who he is because I don't know who he is.

Deceit, of course. Nothing wrong with checking the source. Properly. But when you check the source and then fail to read the material and instead respond with a hit piece summary, that inevitably leads to questions about intent. You are stating the sad fact that unless a source has been approved in your mind you will not even consider it. Which makes you ignorant and uninformed by your own admission. You self censor and only ever receive information that you've run through your own self-imposed filter.

1. Video gets posted.
2. Letters sees title.
3. Letters looks for the first derogatory article about that PERSON (not the information contained in the video).
4. Letters posts up the link in the hope other seals want a fish.

So I posted a video, you posted a character assassination of the person who produced that video. Do you see the fundamental disconnect? And apparently this is my fault, not yours?

Then you say:

Well that's a strange thing to say when I didn't make a counter argument

So coy. Habitually dishonest. What's the title of the video visible in the thumbnail? Flat earth.

Video posted. Title upsets Letters. Letters posts a hit piece. Letters gets called out for not even reviewing the material before he condemns it. Letters doubles down with the tired old conspiracy theory, UFO, lizard people, flat earth commentary that's free of charge and requires zero thought. Very lazy. But I'm the guy who's not a free thinker?

And then you award yourself a medal for not having watched the material you have condemned. I have to hand it to you, you are entirely shameless. No need to check what was being said, you disagree with it automatically and for no reason at all - and if that's not the case, why go to the trouble of trying to assassinate the author? Just don't read it, just say nothing. But you did say something and it's clear what you said, and you even congratulate yourself for saying it.

The difference between me and you, or let's be fair, ONE of the many differences, is that I do trawl liberally through sources I fundamentally disagree with, such as the corporate, for profit, mainstream media. You have to do that, at the very least, before you can legitimately make any sort of judgement or criticism (unless you go by the name Letters, I guess). But here you are, admitting you watched nothing, patting yourself on the back for your negligence, concluding anything outside your repeater list must be flat earth theory because random web site said so, and surmising that the deceit and ignorance lies anywhere but with yourself.

It's very odd. Was it today or yesterday people were berating me for reading the Daily Mail? Well how can I point out the fake news in the Daily Mail if I don't read it and don't have the wit to understand it? And yes, I know reading and analysis upsets you. You've often remarked that I "think" I know more than you, as if that's not entirely self evident and some sort of a crime. I only know more than you because I'm prepared to read. You could do the same and then you might end up informed too, if that wouldn't be off-putting or in contravention of the self imposed ignorance you are so boastful of.

[Niall_Quinn]

I overlooked this:

But twice recently you've criticised the BBC for "fake news" when the articles you said that about were both true.

Details, if you'd be so kind. Because I already know, if I said they were fake news then they most certainly were. But let's see why they were "both true".

[Letters]

This is pretty funny tbf

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-...virus/12204836

China