re: US child deaths on the rise, partly blamed on ‘immune overreaction’

quote:

---

do you not know what an example is?

---

Yes

quote:

---

Dumb bitch; retard

---

quote:

---

Example

---

quote:

---

DisplacedBuckeye

---

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

quote:

---

Who cares about the source...

---

This is a pretty fricking stupid thing to say.

It'll be fun to watch others latch onto you, Hank. They might not know, but I do.

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.

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.