- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US child deaths on the rise, partly blamed on ‘immune overreaction’
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:02 am to Norbert
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:02 am to Norbert
quote:
Author clearly doesn’t understand sepsis
I thought the same thing, but I looked it up and they're all blaming the immune system instead of infection.
quote:
Sepsis is a serious condition in which the body responds improperly to an infection. The infection-fighting processes turn on the body, causing the organs to work poorly.
Any infection could lead to sepsis. Go to a health care provider if you have symptoms of sepsis or an infection or wound that isn't getting better.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:05 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
do you not know what an example is?
Yes
quote:
Dumb bitch; retard
quote:
Example
quote:
DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:09 am to Norbert
She literally cites the clinical definition. How is that not understanding it?
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:11 am to Paddyshack
Thought not. Don't worry about the definition. Let's just give you some simple instructions.
What you're looking for is a quote from one of those two that supports your idiotic assertion of "same language."
If that doesn't work, bring your crayons, because we're going to have to get really simple to make sure you get this.
What you're looking for is a quote from one of those two that supports your idiotic assertion of "same language."
If that doesn't work, bring your crayons, because we're going to have to get really simple to make sure you get this.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:16 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
I asked you a question, and your response was "read the article".
Right...you don't think you should read the article? If you can't be bothered to do that, why would I waste time on your inane questions?
quote:
"Data" is just a word. Commonly referred to as a collection of values that convey information. It's not a source.
Data isn't a source?
Holy. fricking. shite.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:20 am to DisplacedBuckeye
DisplacedBuckeye - sorry for your low IQ. But I did read the article. That's why I asked YOU to point out specific points within so maybe we can unpack what it is you think is wrong with it.
You've offered nothing. As I suspected.
And that you really truly believe that "data" is in and of itself a 'source' only furthers my point.
Which 'data'?? Be specific.
You've offered nothing. As I suspected.
And that you really truly believe that "data" is in and of itself a 'source' only furthers my point.
Which 'data'?? Be specific.
This post was edited on 3/23/24 at 8:21 am
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:21 am to TigerDoc
quote:
social systems where people try to come up with reasons to believe things in exchange for money or social approval.
Might this apply to "safe and effective"?
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:26 am to idsrdum
Yes, I think so. People search for information that rationalizes the beliefs they want to continue to hold. and there are information providers available to serve those needs.
Search behavior in this environment leads to a lot of belief polarization. If you get in an argument, what do you do? Go to google and search for what you believe and voila, in the information rich world, and you will find evidence for what you wish to continue to believe.
But are you justified in that belief?
*BTW, I don't think this the only dynamic behind our beliefs.
Search behavior in this environment leads to a lot of belief polarization. If you get in an argument, what do you do? Go to google and search for what you believe and voila, in the information rich world, and you will find evidence for what you wish to continue to believe.
But are you justified in that belief?
*BTW, I don't think this the only dynamic behind our beliefs.
This post was edited on 3/23/24 at 8:36 am
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:28 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Who cares about the source when they're just giving data from the CDC . You make yourself look stupid fighting over it. We all know people who got vaccinated are scared to death not knowing the true side effects. You can put your fingers in you ear like a little kid saying nah nah nah . But we all know your scared shitless.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:29 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
I did read the article.
OK, good job.
quote:
And that you really truly believe that "data" is in and of itself a 'source' only furthers my point.
If you're wondering why I'm not engaging in any serious discussion, this is why.
I won't give any credibility to someone who says "data isn't a source." I think you realize how ignorant that assertion is, which is why you're trying to pivot to "in and of itself."
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:29 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
My "beef" is with garbage sources.
I personally don't care much for arguments by authority.
Those stats were either correct or they weren't, regardless of the source.
I'm as big a ball-buster as there is on this board about believing wild populist conspiracy theories, but there's nothing far-fetched about a new vaccine introduced into the market without an extensive timeline of testing producing some unintended negative consequences that were not apparent until after the fact. Especially on the scale that was reported in that OP.
Those kinds of numbers would be absolutely normal—if not expected—in the medical world.
If we're talking about Biden importing illegals to enslave Americans or the government controlling the weather, count me in for piling on that kind of stupidity.
This isn't that.
An argument by authority is a classic logical fallacy.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:30 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Data is a word. It's laughable to think you can just toss out 'data!' and claim you have any substantive argument.
WHAT frickING DATA??? You god damn moron.
WHAT frickING DATA??? You god damn moron.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:31 am to Bamadog75
quote:
Who cares about the source...
This is a pretty fricking stupid thing to say.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:32 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Data is a word. It's laughable to think you can just toss out 'data!' and claim you have any substantive argument.
WHAT frickING DATA??? You god damn moron.
Admit that you're a fricking dumbass for saying data isn't a source. That's the only way this goes anywhere. If you can't do that, you can't have a discussion.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:33 am to wackatimesthree
It'll be fun to watch others latch onto you, Hank. They might not know, but I do.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:33 am to DisplacedBuckeye
You don't want a discussion. I get it. You've got absolutely nothing of substance and you're too much of a coward to admit when you've been called out. So you clam up and run away.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:34 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
You don't want a discussion. I get it. You've got absolutely nothing of substance and you're too much of a coward to admit when you've been called out. So you clam up and run away.
Yeah, I thought you'd decline. You're not here for discussion, either. You're here to run your mouth, so don't get indignant about it, sport.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:36 am to DisplacedBuckeye
I’m not convinced just yet that this one is Hank.
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:39 am to roadGator
Yeah, I don't think it's him either. Example from post below: "You're stupider (in general) than I thought you were if you really think that." A little too blunt an insult for Hank.
What makes this story effective anti-vax prop is it is an immune-system related condition and so you associate where your feels want to take you.
What makes this story effective anti-vax prop is it is an immune-system related condition and so you associate where your feels want to take you.
This post was edited on 3/23/24 at 8:43 am
Posted on 3/23/24 at 8:40 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It'll be fun to watch others latch onto you, Hank. They might not know, but I do.
Appeal to ridicule.
Another classic logical fallacy.
You want to try the true Scotsman next?
And if you think you're going to convince anybody here that I am Hank, good luck.
You're stupider (in general) than I thought you were if you really think that.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News