zurew

@mr_engineer At this point you are beyond help, your view on this has many contradictions in it, you are ideologically driven and all that is proven by your inability to change your stance on any topic that doesn't align with your already existing political beliefs. You would rather take the most absurd and the most improbable stances , so you don't have to change anything . You act like you care about free speech, but what you actually care about is machinegunning your biased political takes without any interest or possibility that you could be wrong or to properly weight and analyse the given information and narratives. By doing all that your are poisioning the whole information ecology and we have to talk about surface level bullshit thats already be proven to be false, and we can't talk about more important and deeper and more complex problems and wasting everyone's time who actually care - hence you are unironically destroying free speech, that you claim to care about.

Just to reiterate one last time how ridiculous your narrative is and how dishonest you are, and how shit your epistemic process is: - You are proposing an "argument" that all these countries and companies have been working together behind the scenes collaborating and creating vaccines and hiding information about vaccines that are dangerous but no one said anything and no one could prove that those vaccines are dangerous not even any private company nor any institution , literally no one. -There was no one in any of those companies and countries who could have leaked any information about the dangers of these vaccines, no one could leak any information about the collaboration process. - All of these countries are rivals and enemies and want to destroy each other and dominate each other and politically and ideologically are opposites, but this one time they did all of this high risk lying and information hiding in order to make some money, while on the surface spending millions and billions to fight each other. - Some of the most nationalist countries are fucking over their own people and work together with the collaboration of their enemies in order to make some money - All of these companies and countries know the exact fine line what to not step over in order to maintain the illusion that they don't work together, so they can shit on each other but not too much in order to not piss off any other companies and countries and still make some money. - In your head this somehow makes sense - even though the vaccine marketing war is literally lost by Russia, because the sputnik vaccine is not famous at all and most countries don't accept that vaccine, and Russia is being damaged by the sanctions , and Russia's image is literally worse than shit since they started their war in Ukraine, Russia still doesn't say anything bad about the Western vaccines, while also saying a bunch of bad things about the West and claim that the west is evil and the West is the reason for the war. So they could gain enormous narrative and political control by displaying information about the dangers of western vaccines but they still don't do it for some magical reason(s). - China literally refused to accept and distribute western mrna vaccines for a long time, but thats just must be for creating the scene in your narrative. - The WHO literally suspended approval process for the russian (sputnik) COVID vaccine and there were other countries who didn't accept the sputnik vaccine - but I guess in your narrative somehow all these things don't have any significant effect on the market - There were also a bunch of countries who didn't accept the Sinovac vaccine, but that again in you narrative , thats just must be to create a scene and to make people believe that none of these countries are collaborating together. -All of these countries have their own allies and by working together with their allies they could have gained political and narrative power by showcasing evidence about the vaccines, and all these countries and allies are collaborating against their enemies all the time, but just this one special time they said no to all that. -You are acting like even within certain countries especially in democratic countries there are no internal battles regarding to the vaccines, you are acting as if there is no incentive there to showcase evidence- especially when it comes to the west (left vs right), the right has a bunch of antivaxxers but according to you they probably just refuse to show any evidence for whatever magical reasons even though they could paint the libs, the democrats and socialists as devils or dumb people. You believe all that, and you have 0 evidence to show the collaboration, 0 evidence to show how the vaccines are dangerous, 0 leaks or evidence by any party or any institution or anyone. So all of these companies and countries managed to hide everything for 3 years now, so they are that powerful, but at the same time they can't control nor hide the negative political narratives or news about themselves. All of these companies and countries together has produced literally billions of doses of these vaccines and billions of people got the vaxx, but still no one can show any concrete evidence how they are bad.

You are being dishonest again. Firstly your narrative was that there wasn't or that there would be no fight for the net benefit of all these companies (because they would fear other participants will do and how they will fire back and they would create their own disinformation campaing), and now you are changing your position, and now you are demanding some of these countries and companies to actually say disinformation about other vaccines in order to win the competition. What effects do you think the saying of "Chinese vaccines are ineffective" causes on the market? You didn't adress any of my points in my previous posts, I think you are dishonest and very obtuse and you are unwilling to change any of your positions, because you are ideologically driven and you are wasting everyone's time here.

@mr_engineer Waiting for your response to address my points. https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-urges-under-vaccinated-china-to-include-mrna-vaccines-as-it-battles-omicron-surge/. I could find many other articles like this, its very easy, but it doesn't really matter, because you won't change your position even if I post 1000 articles that goes against and disproves your narrative.

But they didn't present all vaccines as safe and effective. China's vaxx wasn't effective and the west and other countries started to shit on the effectiveness of China's vaccine + there was the astrazeneca vaccine and there was a lot of bad news about that one as well. So the idea, that there wasn't any war this time on the market and in the news field about the vaccines is simply not true and not aligned with your narrative. Also, why is that, that after all this time they still don't publish anything bad about pfizer vaccine even though they basically lost the war on the vaccine market? The idea that suddenly only this one time there was a big collaboration between these countries and all the other times they shit on each other and spend millions and billions on war and on other gepolitical stuff and on narrative warfare is just a ridiculous narrative to me and requires big mental gymnastics and a lot of assumptions.

Its incredible what mental gymnastics you need to go through to maintain your narrative. So again you are trying to defend a position where you say that nor China nor Russia would have jumped on the opportunity to expose the west, even if they would have had hard evidence to prove their point and dominate the market and they could have made America look really really bad - which would have ended up in Russia or China gaining more political power. "Its not smart to dominate the market and make everyone rely on your service/product, its smarter to stay quiet and let them to dominate the market"- because the west ended up dominating the market, and nor Russia nor China published anything that would prove that the Pfizer vaccine is unsafe.

Such as bullets coming from a pistol towards a human head. Is that a good argument to not avoid any danger?

So you are telling me that Russia or China wouldn't have published the holes about pfizer even if they would had the opportunity to paint west even more as the bad guy + they could have totally dominated the market and could have earned a bunch of money doing so?

What you are missing here is that there is and there was not only pfizer vaxx but other vaxx as well, that was produced by other companies and countries than the west. We are talking about for example China who has absolutely all the incentive to find dangerous points about the pfizer vaccine, you have Russia as well but they didn't publish anything that would prove that pfizer is bad or ineffective or dangerous. You have a market where everyone wants to and wanted to build the best vaccine to dominate, so each participant has all the incentive to find holes in the other participants methods and vaccines, but they didn't, now what does that tell you?

its pretty clear after 3 years of collecting stats - what worked and what didn't. Social distancing actually worked, vaccines actually works, but if you don't look at the data I guess its still a mystery for you. "maybe the cure was worse than the disease", but you have nothing to build that argument. if your definition of trick is = to prevent a bunch of people from dying and saveing hospitals from breaking down, then yeah, "they tricked us".

No its not, your definition of democracy is very flawed, because the logical extension of your definition is that even if people have ebola or even more dangerous and infectious diseases they can just run around in public and tell others "just go home dude if you don't want to catch my disease". If you have a dangerous disease the minimum you can do is to isolate yourself from others and you don't get to say to others to do this and that when you are the one who are limiting everyone. No, you are living in a society and if you want to participate in that society you have certain resposibilities that you have to fulfill. Its only a sin in your mind if you are thinking about these problems in a very selfish and 1 dimensional way. Social distancing statistically worked, and its interesting that you want to talk about morality and sin, when you would have proposed a "solution" where you would have let covid run through everyone, kill a bunch of people, flood hospitals with people, break down the medical system everywhere and then at the end of that you can shout that "finally we achieved herd immunity".

"democracy is when you let people to be deadly infection bombs running around in public in large gatherings"

Okay, let me ask it this way, would you want to live in a society where there is no government? It is a separate entitiy in a way, where people are collectively behaving and working in a systematic and predictable way (and taking care of many things that wouldn't be taken care of if there is no system established) and without it we are going back to a world where everyone can do whatever the fuck they want -hence chaos in a world where people are unconscious. Thats not totally true, there is a lot of interest to actually help the collective in some ways(because the government can benefit from that too) and sometimes the incentives are coupled with society or with people in that particular country and not opposites - so I can't agree that no government is anywhere near close as liveable as a society with government. I don't think its this black and white, sometimes the incentives are aligned with people, also if corruption is the main problem, don't you think totally unregulated markets create almost the same effects if not worse ? Okay, then this clears it up, I assumed you made your arguments because you actually hold a "no government is better than having a government" belief/position.

So do you think its a good idea to always let things escalate to the absolute highest level before society actually regulates itself? Depending on the problem the government can absolutely start the effect. So if a business fucks you ower, whats better: to have a system that can help you to deal with it or no system at all where you are purely relying on your own self?

It would be hard to say if sex work is perfectly moral or ethical, but as I said generally speaking I am okay with most sex work stuff, and I don't have problem with cam work , I have problem with how he engaged with the girls working for him and with how he built that cam business up ( he wasn't forthcoming with the girls what they will need to get into once they get to Tate's place, and he lied to them claiming they need to pay taxes , when in reality he didn't pay any taxes at all, he just took more of their money - this part is of course would be considered illegal, and he admitted to this himself) Yeah sure there is stuff like girlfriend experience and things like that, but when you pay for a girl to fly to your place and she never gets there, and your repeat that step multiple times, then I wouldn't call that a transaction or a girlfriend experience, its just a scam not a business. When a simp pays you for videos and pictures and they get those videos and pictures there is no problem there, because they get what they paid for, and thats the main part that is important - do you give the service that you claim to sell or its just a scam?

Its just shows that sometimes his brain is turned off, and he can't engage critically with any new information or happening, because he has to tie back every bad thing to the "matrix" and to the bad guys behind the curtain. The problem with this is that this way of thinking and this way of doing epistemology radically poisions young people and their thinking process, so in the end he actually do the opposite what he preaches to do (he doesn't give to tools how to be a critical thinker, he teaches how to be a sheep on the opposite side). I don't agree with this, yes its true that he become famous mostly because of bodybuilding but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have become famous otherwise. He has and had other tools not just bodybuilding. I don't want to derail this thread into debating these things, but yeah generally speaking I agree don't take these things , because in most of the cases they are not neccesary, but you can be pretty safe about it if you do the necessary blood work and other stuff with doctors beforehand and during you take the stuff. I think Goggins can push and motivate his followers really hard when it comes to physical activities. I am not demonizing sex work, I am judging the process of him creating his "workplace" and I don't need to assume the allegations to be true, I just need to take Tate for his words (luring the girl to Romania with lies, lie to them about tax stuff and stealing that money from them , and he actually admitted that he was a pimp). So the logic of just because in the end you can gain something from a process doesn't mean, that its all okay or good and we don't even know how much money those girls made. I think thats a big cope, there are many women who make tones of money alone, its not like Tate was an essential part of their sexwork, women very good at manipulating guys(and its not even hard), so they don't need a guy to do it for them. Tate's ability to chat with those people is not special, even if you want to go with the argument that women wouldn't have time, they could have hired typers for themselves. Yes it is, just the tax fraud alone and pimping and other stuff and this is just going by his own words.

Tate is the opposite of that, you can predict all his takes just by putting anti before the word mainstream. He acts like he thinks, but he doesn't, he just rejects blindly everything that is mainstream. Thats a quick way to find something to dismiss all the values arnold had/has. I don' t think Arnold nor Joe are pushing the message that everyone should use steroids, also Joe doesn't even use steroids - he uses TRT which is not the same. I could say the same logic about Tate, that people shouldn't fight at a professional level , because you don't need to, and you will fuck your brain and body up, so just because of that he is not a good role model. A 21st century role model have to be a professional or good physical fighter for you? Its interesting that your definition of a male role model nowadays have to contain that skill, when its less and less necessary and often just a proxy for other things that you can get without being an impressive fighter. Are you a "the end justify the means" kind of guy? Because I can challenge that kind of logic and "moral" framework with a lot of examples.Also Its almost like you are saying that the girls couldn't have made their money doing cam work on their own. Also the notion that those girls made so much money and all of the working was willingly and not coerced and not forced is very debatable (lets see first the end of the invesigation of his case and lets talk about these things after that). Of course he does like to think that 70+ women were constantly in love with him, but the reports doesn't align with his narcissistic thinking at all.

or his asthma

Right, but trying to link everything to the vaccines without any tangible evidence is the smart move, got ya buddy. Even if we couldn't tell what caused what incident, you would be still very very far away from proving your dumb theory.

If you read these articles, these should be more than enough to become an efficient googler. https://www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/20-tips-use-google-search-efficiently.html https://moz.com/blog/mastering-google-search-operators-in-67-step

Yeah I agree, but being able to pass a turing test that is 6-8 hour long talk with a professional AI engineer(who will ask it a very broad set of questions and tasks) is a really hard task imo, if that engineer can be fooled in the end by the AI then we can assume a human level or very close to human level understanding of most things. Currently the AI still fails with some common sense tasks and questions, but once that part will be solved it will be very interesting to see what it will be capable of. Looking forward to gpt4.

Even if it turns out that the allegations are true, this is how its going to go down for his delusional followers and fans: Stage 1: He didn't do it Stage 2: Okay he did do it, but its not that bad Stage 3: Okay maybe its bad, but look at these other bad things that other people do that are worse Stage 4: Okay but they deserved it Stage 5: Okay he did it, but look how much he has helped young men

What year do you predict, when an AI will be able to pass an 6-8 hour long turing test done by an AI engineer?

"I am so smart guys, I see a random graph with more excess mortality rate, and I know that it must be because of vaccines, and that graph alone without a doubt proves my point about vaxx being bad" "FDA needs 75 years to release the data, therefore I can make up whatever fucking numbers and stats I fucking want about the vaccine and conclude that the vaxx is bad" - another salient and smart point.