What's new
PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Covid 19 - counter arguments

Ron Burgundy said:
Better than one of the ones mentioned? Ok, two men at the top of the field one of them who gave rise to the technology that the vaccine comes from.

Question though Phil, what's their agenda coming out and speaking about what is going on? What's their gain? What's their angle? If they're lying like you have said.

McCullough if he is lying like you claim has literally stamped his own prison sentence lying under oath, or do you choose to ignore that because it goes against your opinion?

Does the idea of people being silenced sit well with you as a socialist? Sounds like fascism to me.
Click to expand...
nobody has been silenced, if so it wouldnt be being discussed, would it?

Another CT :)
 
raefil said:
nobody has been silenced, if so it wouldnt be being discussed, would it?

Another CT :)
Click to expand...

Malone has been removed from Twitter, which was discussed on the podcast.

People calling for Rogan's open debate on the subject to be silenced, the white house now putting political pressure on Spotify, that not fishy to you?

What about the McCullough swearing under oath point?

What about their angles?

What about the lack of pre hospitalisation treatment and the change in legislation to drugs that are now known to help reduce the effects of covid?
 
raefil said:
Not in the slightest ron.

As for dangerous, not in the slightest either.

The danger comes from you CTs.

Oh and I know better C theorists than you, by a long way, very close friends, and remain so, with one in particular. What I have learnt that even trying to debate is pointless as you really cant challenge those that believe in alternative facts. A sad fact of life.

Anyway my job in here is done in that Ive moved you to the appropriate thread.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Unlike your recent post on the other Covid thread instructing dissenters to move to this thread..
On this thread we welcome open discussion of everything surrounding Covid... and have done since day 1.
We are already well aware of the official Covid narrative so there really is no need to point it out again.. and again.. and again.
I respectfully suggest you to take your own advice and keep that to your own thread.

On this thread repeating the "conspiracy theory tin foil hat" mantra doesn't gain you many admirers
 
As I've been somewhat of a "Johny come lately" to the Coronavirus threads, I have to say I don't understand how the debate is to be segmented between the 2 threads. Looking at this logically maybe one of the problems is the titles, both of which could be argued to be "misinformation" (to coin a popular, or is that unpopular, phrase of the moment).

The title "This Coronavirus thing..." is a generic title and as such I thought this invited all amd any comments relating to the subject. However, I then saw a comment (may have been outreacher) which noted the thread had been set up to discuss personal health experiences during the pandemic, which is obviously a very different and much more sensitive issue than debating whether Ferguson's latest projections are over inflated again.

The title "Covid19 - counter arguments" (in a literal sense) suggests arguments countering the existence of Covid19, which is very much in conspiracy theory territory and not a debate I'd partake in. However, on further investigation it is essentially a thread of opinions and evidence which counter the official Government-led narrative. As such, it is a political debate.

Thinking aloud, and hopefully logically, I'd suggest there are probably 3 btoad areas for debating Covid19:

1. Personal health experiences

2. Covid19 (inc vaccine) - the science

3. Covid19 - Government response (the politics)

By definition there can only be one debate on points 2 and 3, as they are singular subjects). I think it would be sad, and arguably counter to the purpose of a debating forum, if the different political and scientific opinions were split out into different, ie separate, threads.

I am not sure I have got the history nor the derivation of each thread right, nor am I saying the titles should be changed but I do think a way forward needs to be found for different opinions on the same issue to sit on the same thread.

Clarifications and different views welcome- on either thread!
 
zorro said:
As I've been somewhat of a "Johny come lately" to the Coronavirus threads, I have to say I don't understand how the debate is to be segmented between the 2 threads. Looking at this logically maybe one of the problems is the titles, both of which could be argued to be "misinformation" (to coin a popular, or is that unpopular, phrase of the moment).

The title "This Coronavirus thing..." is a generic title and as such I thought this invited all amd any comments relating to the subject. However, I then saw a comment (may have been outreacher) which noted the thread had been set up to discuss personal health experiences during the pandemic, which is obviously a very different and much more sensitive issue than debating whether Ferguson's latest projections are over inflated again.

The title "Covid19 - counter arguments" (in a literal sense) suggests arguments countering the existence of Covid19, which is very much in conspiracy theory territory and not a debate I'd partake in. However, on further investigation it is essentially a thread of opinions and evidence which counter the official Government-led narrative. As such, it is a political debate.

Thinking aloud, and hopefully logically, I'd suggest there are probably 3 btoad areas for debating Covid19:

1. Personal health experiences

2. Covid19 (inc vaccine) - the science

3. Covid19 - Government response (the politics)

By definition there can only be one debate on points 2 and 3, as they are singular subjects). I think it would be sad, and arguably counter to the purpose of a debating forum, if the different political and scientific opinions were split out into different, ie separate, threads.

I am not sure I have got the history nor the derivation of each thread right, nor am I saying the titles should be changed but I do think a way forward needs to be found for different opinions on the same issue to sit on the same thread.

Clarifications and different views welcome- on either thread!
Click to expand...
We actually do have a thread that was solely for people to share their own experiences of covid.
 
raefil said:
We actually do have a thread that was solely for people to share their own experiences of covid.
Click to expand...
OK - didn't know that. Thanks.

So what is the purpose of the 2 separate Coronavirus threads ie this coronavirus thing and counter arguments, and what does this mean for what should and shouldn't be discussed on each? I genuinely do not understand why there is apparent separation of a debate of the same issue.
 
zorro said:
OK - didn't know that. Thanks.

So what is the purpose of the 2 separate Coronavirus threads ie this coronavirus thing and counter arguments, and what does this mean for what should and shouldn't be discussed on each? I genuinely do not understand why there is apparent separation of a debate of the same issue.
Click to expand...
Ive been trying to find it, hopefully somebody can help with that. Particularly in the early days explaining how the illness was effecting them
 
It's here

www.pne-online.net

Corona Virus Experience and Advice

I've had what I believe to be Covid-19 (spoken with my GP and a friend is a District Nursing Sister who heads my local coronavirus response team) These are some of the posts I put on my FB in the past two weeks, hopefully they will be of use if you're looking for symptoms and unsure. Please...
www.pne-online.net www.pne-online.net
 
zorro said:
OK - didn't know that. Thanks.

So what is the purpose of the 2 separate Coronavirus threads ie this coronavirus thing and counter arguments, and what does this mean for what should and shouldn't be discussed on each? I genuinely do not understand why there is apparent separation of a debate of the same issue.
Click to expand...
One was factual info, government decisions, positive figures etc, useful for the general populous, this one became the discussion thread, with the science and trains of thought that were lacking data back up and scientific evidence but still worth debating, but not of much use to the average earner

That thread got very toxic at one point last year, so this one allowed people to decide what they wanted to see and post, and avoid those conflicts
 
jamesOB said:
One was factual info, government decisions, positive figures etc, useful for the general populous, this one became the discussion thread, with the science and trains of thought that were lacking data back up and scientific evidence but still worth debating, but not of much use to the average earner

That thread got very toxic at one point last year, so this one allowed people to decide what they wanted to see and post, and avoid those conflicts
Click to expand...
Understood - will try to keep debating posts to Counter Arguments and information to "this Coronavirus thing:" Does seem a shame why there are 2 threads as there will be grey areas, cross over and content drift. Thankfully I missed the toxicity of last year but am sure separation was done for good reasons at that point. In time i'd hope the issue could be discussed under a single (new?) thread but maybe not just yet.
 
zorro said:
Understood - will try to keep debating posts to Counter Arguments and information to "this Coronavirus thing:" Does seem a shame why there are 2 threads as there will be grey areas, cross over and content drift. Thankfully I missed the toxicity of last year but am sure separation was done for good reasons at that point. In time i'd hope the issue could be discussed under a single (new?) thread but maybe not just yet.
Click to expand...
We initially split off a thread from the main covid thread where we could discuss the science behind it - partly because it was sometimes insensitive to talk about mortality rates etc., when people have dying relatives, partly because of the toxicity, and partly because not everybody is a science geek.

In the same way, this thread split off to let people discuss the politics - and keep a lot of the name calling off the main thread.

To be honest, I tend to post most stuff on the main thread, now. The debate is now a lot more nuanced and less polarised, so you can express a view without attracting the same level of abuse.
 
Sepp Blatter said:
We initially split off a thread from the main covid thread where we could discuss the science behind it - partly because it was sometimes insensitive to talk about mortality rates etc., when people have dying relatives, partly because of the toxicity, and partly because not everybody is a science geek.

In the same way, this thread split off to let people discuss the politics - and keep a lot of the name calling off the main thread.

To be honest, I tend to post most stuff on the main thread, now. The debate is now a lot more nuanced and less polarised, so you can express a view without attracting the same level of abuse.
Click to expand...
Abuse?

As if!!
 
Libertine said:
Click to expand...

Even I chuckled at that one!

To be fair, there were two sides to that debate. I thought that the other lady who explained why she did not want the vaccine was very articulate, and put forward a very reasonable argument. I felt that they dismissed her arguments (especially natural immunity) far too casually with a 'you should listen to the experts' line.

That attitude is what gets people very annoyed.
 
Sepp Blatter said:
Even I chuckled at that one!

To be fair, there were two sides to that debate. I thought that the other lady who explained why she did not want the vaccine was very articulate, and put forward a very reasonable argument. I felt that they dismissed her arguments (especially natural immunity) far too casually with a 'you should listen to the experts' line.

That attitude is what gets people very annoyed.
Click to expand...
I felt she was being deceitful, let her guard down once or twice.

I would agree she was articulate though but............
 
I wanted to watch that last night but was out. I will put it on my very long list of iPlayer viewing- that I will never get round to doing.
 
Top