Consept

What if you have the debate and are proven right but the person youre debating rejects all logic or reasoning and evidence and throws previously debunked conspiracy theories at you with evidence the only from obscure, questionable websites that are provably false? Should they be allowed to keep peddling false information?

It's not even a case of smart or dumb in terms of an iq test, it's just that we have so many bias', self-delusion, lack of solid epistemology, lack of big picture perspective, survival bias etc etc, that we don't even realise the decisions we make and the consequences of them. Look at 2 of the biggest companies in the world macdonalds and coca cola, essentially selling sugar water and highly processed food that is terrible for you but people make that choice everyday over water which is free and healthy food. People in general do not make the best choices for themselves and I'm including myself in that.

It's a good technology but if you're trying to exploit to make money fir yourself I think you're on to a loser. A lot of people have lost millions in crypto for this very reason.

Nahm is probably a good person trying his best but I found his posts incomprehensible. This either means he's way too advanced and I couldn't understand him or he's just not really making sense. Either way his communication style was not fit for purpose, I've listened to many differenr teachers and there's no one I would say I didn't at least get where they were coming from. I think this is the danger of putting your identity in your 'awakening', it can be a closed loop where even if you're wrong you're convinced you're awake and others probably aren't and therefore you must be right.

You do realise theres literally no innovation thats completely perfect, like its literally impossible. So by your logic every law is an abuse of power. Also the arguments youre proposing against the vaccine are pretty much exactly the arguments that those who didnt want the seatbelt law were arguing as well. But anyway you seem to be someone who is interested in growth as youre on this forum so i would urge to really question the way you look at information. Your current method is literally unworkable, it requires a lot of mental gymnastics and incredible jumps in logic. There is literally nothing to be gained for anyone debating you so it is a good test for us not to be drawn into the superiority of feeling right. On your side though consider that maybe other people on this forum have good perspectives that you shouldnt just outright dismiss and enforce your opinion upon.

I think this is your worst take, you do realise this is how any efficacy has to be tested for anything. Literally nothing would be classed as effective using your chosen metrics. More people die in crashes that wear seatbelts than crashes with people that dont wear seatbelts, does that make seatbelts ineffective?

Can you accept that death rate % of vaccinated vs unvaccinated would be a more accurate metric than just how many people died overall in terms of how effective a vaccine is? Please just answer yes or no as you often obfuscate with your answers, I just want to know clearly if this is the claim youre making

I think overall this thread actually shows the dangers of alt-media as it is. There is so much certainty whilst factually being wrong and the inflexibility of thought, these things are precisely what happens when certain alt-media is consumed as fact. Having said that, the same thing can happen with mainstream media, its just that theres more safeguards and regulation. Similarly alt-media can be a great tool, I just think as it is there are too many bad actors and people basically using it to get rich and famous with certain talking points, this isnt necessarily a problem in of itself but i think people need to and will get better at discerning the information. Its extremely new technology and these are all growing pains of something that hanges how we fundamentally consume information

Men that say masturbating is disgusting probably masturbate as well

OK we cant go any further theres too much bias here, thanks for the convo though

OK so youre dismissing the death rate, do you think that has no bearing on assessing how effective a treatment is? So if there were 100 people and 90 wore seatbelts but 10 didnt and out of the 10, 5 died and out of the 90, 10 died, you would say, following your logic that theres no way to know what wouldve happened to the 90 if they didnt wear seatbelts, therefore seatbelts are not effective because more people died wearing them? Does this make sense to you?

This is so intellectually lazy, the death rate is definitely the most important metric. If there are 100 people and 90 get vaccinated, let's say 10 of the vaccinated people die but only 5 of the unvaccinated die, that means 50% of unvaccinated people are going to die, whereas only 9% vaccinated people will die, obviously you will have a better chance of you're vaccinated. Do you see how you claim others are doing what you're actually doing, you've changed how you look at the numbers to give make your point of view correct, whilst also claiming other people are doing that. You claim to be one of the 'smarter' people that can discern information for himself but you seem to have very strong bias' that I would not associate with an open mind. Based

So if we cant trust them and they have no regulations and are clearly biased by their own admission, how will that help us get closer to the truth, if anything it will make the truth more murky. But even you seem to have trouble discerning what is true and whats not judging by the examples youve provided, so obviously alt-media is not really helping here.

Also this take is just wrong, more deaths will be of vaccinated people because more people are vaccinated but the death rate between unvaccinated and vaccinated is very different. Unvaccinated peoples death rate is much higher, you can find out more about that here - https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Bro, this is ridiculous, the first one is just a random article from the India TV news website, thats not a fact check site. Just to make sure you understand, youre supposed to present an article from a fact check site, snopes or full fact something like that and show where they proved something wrong and it was later revealed they were wrong and most likely paid off by the government. All these links are just proving how necessary fact checking actually is. Also notice your double standard where fact check sites need to be right 100% of the time, if theyre not then we cant trust them but alt-media can be biased, wrong a lot of the time etc but we can trust them

Read the fact check you provided, its about a post that was proved to be quite clearly false, linked to a false website etc. Theyre not talking about the idea that an organisation can exist that talks about sustainability, its literally about the facebook post. So if the fact checkers are claiming a whole bunch of false information, then just link one, this is the crux of your whole argument so i dont know why you sent me such a terrible example

BASED

No i asked for something that was proved wrong and then turned out to be right, you are essentially presenting a facebook post that talks about depopulating the earth from the UN. That post was definitely false, the UN didnt put out a manifesto talking about depopulating the earth if you want to take something else theyve said and make that claim then you can but its not proof of anything its just your speculation. Ill ask again have you got something that was proved wrong by fact checkers that you can prove they were wrong about and it was some government agenda?

The first link disproves a social media (alt-media) post that claims it has hard evidence and website for the objectives the UN is claiming for the a new world order. But first of all that website was proved not to be linked to the UN, it was a one page website with no links working, it also wouldnt make sense for them to put that out if that was their intention. So it is literally provably false. The other link for the World government summit makes no claims to do what was in this nwo manifesto, theyre more talking about sustainability and things like that. If you are a smart person you can clearly see this, I dont see how you can read that first link and not see that the facebook post was nonsense. This actually makes more of a point that fact checking is needed.

Can you give an example of something that was fact checked and proved wrong which wasnt actually wrong and was paid off by the mainstream to say that it was wrong?

I understand your point, but what im saying is that its more likely that some 'smart' people are engaging with alt-media in a healthy way, but I'm sure you can see that most people are not engaging with it in this way. Your point is focusing on the best case scenario to justify something, but this can be used to justify literally anything, 'smart' people wouldnt need any laws because they would make the right decision for example but most people do need laws. The alt-media talks about what the mainstream said that doesnt agree with their point of view, if they agreed they wouldnt cover it. This can be necessary to give different point of views but its not done from a perspective of keeping the mainstream honest and accountable, its usually done to further whatever view theyve got. Flat earth people will probably claim the mainstream omits information about flat earth

What percentage of people consuming alt-media would you class as 'smarter'? Ive never seen alt-media talk about something that they didnt talk about, that literally makes no sense. Ben Shapiro isnt going to talk about things he doesnt want brought up about palestine for example. Just on a practical level they cant cover everything and then the things they dont dont cover they say that they didnt cover lol

They do specifically have to answer for it, they can and do get sued quite often if they report any factually wrong information, defame people etc. They are held to a much higher level of scrutiny than alternative, as in its not even close. People who consume alt-media are usually much more radical and ideolgical than mainstream viewers, usually they are in an echo chamber because that is the nature of social media, hence the rise of things like qanon and incel culture. If you ask these groups whether alt-media is biased, I can bet you whatever you want theyll tell you its not biased or at least whatever they consume is not and it is the absolute truth, I know this from first hand experience. Yes the people that consume alt-media's needs are hearing what they want to hear from their favourite alt-media sources Your claim was that mainstream is a mouth piece for the government, CNN was definitely not a mouth piece for Trumps government so what youre saying doesnt really work. Do you ever concede a point btw? just need to check otherwise this is completely pointless

Bro one of your main points is that the alternative media doesnt claim to be unbiased. So to confirm youre saying the alternative media doesnt have to say theyre biased or unbiased and they have no responsibility to do either but then they are also more clearly defined as biased to people that consume that media than mainstream? How can it be the mouthpiece of the government when different mainstream sources can be for or against the current government?

By the way which alternative media makes a big thing of saying they're bias? Most of them will say this is the truth because of my research, ob both sides as well from vaush to candace owens. You can say that everyone knows which way they lean but that's the same for mainstream, everyone knows cnn is more democratic leaning and fox is republican leaning, like its not a secret.