User Tag List

Page 2919 of 3192 FirstFirst ... 1919241928192869290929172918291929202921292929693019 ... LastLast
Results 29,181 to 29,190 of 31911

Thread: "Currants Bw..."

  1. #29181
    ***** Niall_Quinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    65,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Letters View Post
    By the way, this is literally the opposite of the Christian message. It's about God reaching out to us despite us being unworthy.
    That's right.
    Für eure Sicherheit

  2. #29182
    Administrator Letters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    37,364
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn View Post
    I don't care about your imaginary friend.
    Holy shit, are you now claiming I'm making up my own nephew?
    Dear me.

    We are talking about the trustworthiness of the source based on the easily verifiable historical record and the inability of the "data" it provides to stand up under scientific (or even logical, common sense) scrutiny.
    The data I'm talking about are the government stats on hospitalisations and deaths. I don't know what scrutiny one can apply to that.
    My point was and remains, you were happy to use that data when it backed up what you wanted to believe.
    Later, when it didn't, you called it in to question. Now, to be fair you didn't give a source for your data in the posts I linked to, but if it wasn't official data then I don't know what else it could have been, you talked about hospitalisations and deaths, where else can you get national statistics from?

    "The Data" is not to be questioned because it can't be.
    Question it if you like, but have some basis for doing so. If the statistics show that hospitalisation rates are going through the roof and you know some ICU doctors in major cities who are sitting around playing Candy Crush then that would be a reasonable basis for questioning the official line. As I said, the ICU doctor I spoke to very much backed up the official line, there was a situation going on - unprecedented in his career. Is he a "crisis actor"?
    It's like when the BBC were reporting that things were getting grim in India. I have many colleagues in India and when I spoke to them they all confirmed that yes, things were bad there. If they'd said "What are you talking about? Everything is fine" then that would be basis for questioning the story.
    If you have an alternative data source then I'd be keen to see it.

    saying stupid things like being "allowed" to go clubbing is proof this is about health and not control. You can't even see how your own words explode your argument. Allowed to go to church? Allowed to go to the pub? Allowed to travel?
    But your argument was always that these things were not going to be allowed.
    You said they'd shut my church down. They demonstrably haven't.
    You said the stuff in Birmingham with army going door to door was to "get us used to troops on the street". That hasn't happened.
    You said that a general curfew "wasn't far off". That was over a year ago. That didn't happen.

    And there is a reason you were wrong about these things - you are a bit paranoid and think that the government are out to control us.

    In normal times you're right, I don't think of it as being "allowed" to go to church. But these are not normal times.
    Stopping people going to church makes no sense in the context of trying to control us - unless you're living in a proper authoritarian regime and you surely agree we are not.
    You might not like government and might have ideological issues with it but you surely agree that as these things go it's hardly an oppressive regime,

    In the context of a pandemic where they're trying to limit people meeting in large groups a ban on gatherings like church does make sense.
    All the measures they've taken have made sense in that context. You can argue about whether they were consistent (they weren't), whether they implemented them at the right time (they didn't).
    But they haven't done anything like say, I dunno, mandate hopping on Tuesdays. I'm being silly, but I'm trying to think of a rule which would make no sense in the context of a pandemic.
    All the rules have been about preventing people from mixing - in the context of an airborne pandemic they made some sense.

    As we've discussed, in the War you couldn't buy anything you wanted, you were rationed. You couldn't open your curtains at night with the lights on.
    Were these measures about control or were they an extreme response to an extreme situation? Clearly the latter. When the situation changed the restrictions were removed. As I've noted previously, rationing lasted long after the War. I can only imagine the 1950s Wengerbabies saying it would never end. But it did. And most of the Covid restrictions have already ended. You keep going on about "two weeks to flatten the curve" months after every restriction was lifted.
    I reckon this winter they might have to take some measures, I don't think it will be full lockdown again, I certainly hope not.
    But it depends on the data. If they're faking the data then what, do you think they also faked low numbers of cases/hospitalisations/deaths so they could remove restrictions too? That makes no sense.

  3. #29183
    ***** Niall_Quinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    65,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    WTF? They DID shut your church down! Has that been erased from your memory somehow? Or is it a natural gift?

    And now they have ALLOWED you to go back to your church.

    Did you stay away from your church when ordered to do so? Did all your Christian Soldiers do the same?

    Did you go back to your church when permitted to do so? Did all your Christian Soldiers do the same?

    Do you even know what the definition of control is?

    And then you say, you know, if the uncensored data produced by the establishment warrants it, we may not be allowed to go to church in the future. But it has nothing to do with control, it's the data. The state has their uncensored data and the state is better placed to make personal choices for the rest of us. Let's call this thing that is certainly not control, "measures". Which is handy, because that's the word the state uses too. So we're all on the same page, as is always the case when choice is removed.

    How do we analyse this? We could say the state has a problem with churches and wants to stop people attending them. So it created a pandemic to shut churches down. Mission accomplished. But... you would have to be me to believe something like that, right? Crazy me who relies on in-control you to set me straight on the realities.

    The debate thus framed and reduced to a ridiculous proposition so the protagonist can be mocked, we can go home now (and stay there if the state has its way). Internet points in the bag, fawning fan club satiated. (Where is Mac btw, doesn't he usually chuck up a grovel smilie by this stage?)

    But what if I don't go home, then what?

    What if I insist on revisiting the actual point of this debate? Control.

    The churches are an incidental symptom. They can be dismissed in terms of the fundamental principle, though in a wider context they are significant because breaking social bonds and the ongoing assault on religion is a prominent weapon for the resurgent communists. That's a different argument, not THIS argument. But you did, in your haste to argue both sides, inadvertently touch on some relevancy.

    Churches aside though. Let's talk about "allowed" and "not allowed".

    When was the last time the state told you you weren't allowed to go to church (for example)?

    When was the last time the state told you you WERE allowed to go to church?

    How would you signify the relationship between you and your church, in terms of availability and attendance, you and the state and your church and the state? Who holds the whip hand, would you say?

    Would you think it unreasonable for people to decide for themselves whether they wished to go to church (for example), or leave their home, or ride a train, or do any of the things that constitute typical daily life - without direct intervention by the state?

    If you are afraid of getting sick you can hide indoors, Yes? Your choice. These days you can take a vaccine, right? Or wear a mask. Or stand 2 metres away from everyone, or only go to isolated places, or whatever the fuck you want really. Lots of choices.

    If you feel there's little risk from a disease with a 99.9% survivability rate you might make other choices. All about the choices.

    The state could and ought to give timely and accurate advice. Useful. The media could do the same. Help people to make informed individual choices.

    Does this seem like an unreasonable hypothetical world? Who is in control in this hypothetical world?

    Tell me again why we might be expecting the state to "allow" or "not allow" personal choice based on uncensored data it has collected? Has the disease become more dangerous, is the what the data is saying? Do the vaccines not protect people? What about vaccines plus boosters? No good?

    Ah, I know! We have to protect the NHS? Right? So we ditch the data and instead go for a practical argument based on resources.

    In the 600+ days this has been unfolding, I assume the state, being so concerned with the public health, has finally sorted out all those problems that historically beset the NHS every winter? It's okay, we can pretend none of that ever happened and we can limit the focus from 0BC (Before Covid) to the present.

    They built those Nightingale hospitals, right? No good. Once the contractors were paid off they shut the hospitals down. Because there was no money to pay staff. I guess there's no money left after paying AZ and Pfizer and all the other humanitarian corporations that have rushed to the rescue with medicine... that we already said might not work? Bummer.

    But, this being a health crisis, the state has done everything to bolster staffing and beds in public hospitals. That would be an obvious move, a no-brainer. But that one must have slipped off the pile. In fact, regrettably, they've had to chuck a bunch of health care professionals out the door because they wouldn't get their vaccinations, that might not work.

    Okay. You seem to have a point. The NHS is in CRISIS! The old ones are still the best ones.

    Personal choice and a sane and reasonable response MIGHT have to be abandoned (at the state's discretion, even though this is NOT about control) because the state did fuck all to improve hospital capacity, spunked all our cash on vaccines that don't work but, happily, at least managed to put in place several parliamentary bills that expanded their power and diminished ours.

    Seems reasonable.

    So it's not about the churches. The churches are a symptom and your distraction. And, as we all know too well, it's not about the NHS either which is half sold to the yanks, packed full of pen pushers and haunted by diminishing underpaid, overworked actual healthcare workers who shuffle in zombie fashion from one 14 hour shift to the next. Making it about the NHS is like saying, now I've sold the umbrella we are going to get wet. Just take one look at the NHS for a wake-up slap in the face and a clear picture of just how much the state cares about public health. Or must we keep pretending?

    It's about graft. And corruption. And lies. And criminal behaviour. And a total disregard for public health and science. It's about control. Controlling the narrative (through ever increasing censorship), controlling the citizen (through emergency powers that are renewed to the laughter of a dozen MPs in an otherwise deserted parliament), controlling the fear (through media mouthpieces).

    14 trillion transferred from all of us to a few of them. (That's who "they" are btw, the next time you are mocking the observant. "They" are the ones with our extra 14 trillion dollars.) That doesn't happen without guiding hands. Controlling hands.

    They'd never lie about the data though. "The Science" can't be refuted, not if you want to stay on Twitter or Facebook, at least. It was only the other day Fauci reminded us... he IS the science. And with men like him in charge, how could we ever doubt the data? Vallance and Whitty will be appreciating the data for sure, on stocks.com.

    All, so, very, reasonable. Nothing to see while we frolic in our liberty. It's at times like this complacency comes in handy.

    Which leaves me. The cynic. Paranoid. Coming up with these imaginary notions that the powerful want to control the rest of us to enrich themselves. I honestly don't know where I get it from. I need help. From the BBC. To make it all go away. To go to sleep.
    Für eure Sicherheit

  4. #29184
    Member WMUG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,943
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVOTPAxrrP4

    TL;DW: We're all screwed.

    Maybe.
    You used to be everything to me
    Now you're tired of fighting

  5. #29185
    Administrator Letters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    37,364
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Joke's on you, I'll probably be dead by then

  6. #29186
    Member Mac76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    London
    Posts
    13,266
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WMUG View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVOTPAxrrP4

    TL;DW: We're all screwed.

    Maybe.
    i like this one in the comments

    Sean Whearty
    5 days ago
    Hey guys. If we work really hard, we can achieve that goal by 2030

  7. #29187
    Administrator Letters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    37,364
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn View Post
    WTF? They DID shut your church down! Has that been erased from your memory somehow?
    Well...a common Christian cliché is that a church is the people, not the building. So in that sense the government didn't shut it down, nor do they have the ability to. But yes, the rules meant that services had to move online and we had lots of Zoom meetings, we couldn't meet physically for a time.

    Did you stay away from your church when ordered to do so? Did all your Christian Soldiers do the same?
    Did you go back to your church when permitted to do so? Did all your Christian Soldiers do the same?
    We met online when we had to, we met in person when we were able.

    Your issue seems to be ideological. Which is fine. You don't believe that there should be a government which can tell people they can't meet up.
    We've had this conversation - it's the price of living in a society.
    But almost all the time the government do basically just leave us alone to get on with things. Sure, you pay your taxes but you get services and infrastructure. Which aren't perfect, but they're necessary and they're better than nothing.
    There's a clear difference between a government in somewhere like China and here.
    In China when they shut down the church they shut down the church.
    Here they mostly let us get on with things. It's not the controlling or authoritarian regime you seem to imagine.
    We've been facing an extreme situation which required an extreme response. One can argue that the response was wrong, but I think it's hard to make a case that no response was required.

    Would you think it unreasonable for people to decide for themselves whether they wished to go to church (for example), or leave their home, or ride a train, or do any of the things that constitute typical daily life - without direct intervention by the state?
    All those things seem perfectly reasonable, and almost all the time we do have those freedoms.

    The state could and ought to give timely and accurate advice. Useful. The media could do the same. Help people to make informed individual choices.
    Does this seem like an unreasonable hypothetical world? Who is in control in this hypothetical world?
    That all seems reasonable up to a point. And that point is when the NHS starts to get overwhelmed - and no, not in a way it is most winters, the admission stats last winter in London were out of the ordinary. So were the death numbers, last April they were 220% the average for the time of year. That suggest some action was required. And actually the state and media did give people advice. Before lockdown it was all "wash your hands and sing happy birthday twice, keep your distance where possible". But people are idiots, they're not going to follow advice - some will of course but you're the one who declared lockdown over way before it officially was when you noted that a lot of people going about their business.
    So they did start by giving advice, when the numbers started to grow exponentially they took further action.

    Tell me again why we might be expecting the state to "allow" or "not allow" personal choice based on uncensored data it has collected? Has the disease become more dangerous, is the what the data is saying? Do the vaccines not protect people? What about vaccines plus boosters? No good?
    Are you talking about the mask thing here? If so then it seems to be a response to the new variant. It seems like a sensible precaution when a new variant emerges which little is known about. Last year the government were far too late to take action, if they're not making the same mistake this year then I regard that as a good thing. And all they've done is ask people to wear masks - most supermarkets aren't going to enforce it anyway. Is it really so onerous? I mean, I don't like them but I've had to get over it. As we've noted it's far less draconian than the measures some governments have taken like in Australia.

    The government make mistakes, they're corrupt and self-serving. But they're not totalitarian.
    And sure some people will use a situation like this to enrich themselves. That doesn't mean it's not a real situation.
    There's a difference between a government who implement temporary measures to deal with an extraordinary situation and one which actually oppresses the population. Ours is the former

    In dealing with this every government has had to balance liberty with containing the pandemic. Australia have gone very hardline - I don't believe they're right to, but I don't believe that any of their measures are permanent either. Nor are ours - in fact most of them have already been lifted.
    When you start talking about curfews and checkpoints - and yes, you were talking about this country - and you keep going on about "two weeks to flatten the curve" months after basically every restriction was lifted then yes you do come across as paranoid.

    One danger I do see is the vaccine stuff - the thought of mandating it, or only being able to properly participate in society if you have had it. That is something I agree we do need to collectively guard against.

  8. #29188
    ***** Niall_Quinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    65,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That was a party political message from the Conservative Party.

    And now the BBC weather.
    Für eure Sicherheit

  9. #29189
    Administrator Letters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    37,364
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  10. #29190
    ***** Niall_Quinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    65,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WMUG View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVOTPAxrrP4

    TL;DW: We're all screwed.

    Maybe.
    Seems like if we take the one and only option, Build Back Better, we'll all be saved. Good to know.

    I wonder what the data would be like if they added human corruption to the analysis?

    I like the injection of comedy though, to lighten the mood. All they had to work with back then was the actual problem, pollution. But things have moved on and now we can replace and ignore that with something far more ominous and sexy.
    Für eure Sicherheit

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •