Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Great Reset

Options
1…1415171920…105

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    For producing disinformation.



    For producing disinformation.



    No, they deplatform people who produce false information.

    I'm sure it'd be news to those two highly respected professors that they were producing disinformation.


  • Options
    #483
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,267 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fodla wrote: »
    I'm sure it'd be news to those two highly respected professors that they were producing disinformation.

    being a highly respected professor does not give you immunity from becoming a quack.


  • Options
    #484
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Fodla wrote: »
    I'm sure it'd be news to those two highly respected professors that they were producing disinformation.

    They are quacks. I know people with PhD's who believe in ghosts.

    I explained this to you in this post.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115408169&postcount=476

    What part of that explanation did you not understand?


  • Options
    #485
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They are quacks. I know people with PhD's who believe in ghosts.

    I explained this to you in this post.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115408169&postcount=476

    What part of that explanation did you not understand?

    The Director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine is a quack? And the guy running WHO, who isn't even a doctor, is a more authoritative voice on matters health?


  • Options
    #486
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,267 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fodla wrote: »
    The Director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine is a quack? And the guy running WHO, who isn't even a doctor, is a more authoritative voice on matters health?

    in the case of the WHO it is not the single opinion of the person running the organisation. It is consensus opinion from the experts in the organisation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    in the case of the WHO it is not the single opinion of the person running the organisation. It is consensus opinion from the experts in the organisation.

    True, but would you trust Professor Heneghan more than the man who runs WHO when it comes to health?


  • Options
    #488
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,267 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fodla wrote: »
    True, but would you trust Professor Heneghan more than the man who runs WHO when it comes to health?

    I would trust the consensus opinion of all the WHO experts over one individual as a general rule.


  • Options
    #489
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Fodla wrote: »
    True, but would you trust Professor Heneghan more than the man who runs WHO when it comes to health?

    1,000 scientists say X, and 1 scientist says Y.

    Which do you trust? the answer that appeals to you the most?


  • Options
    #490
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    1,000 scientists say X, and 1 scientist says Y.

    Which do you trust? the answer that appeals to you the most?

    At this stage the scientist who says Y.


  • Options
    #491
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    James Delingpole's articles on Breitbart about the Great Reset are interesting. He describes the plan well.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Fodla wrote: »
    At this stage the scientist who says Y.

    Exactly. Which is completely devoid of logic or reason. You aren't thinking rationally about this subject.


  • Options
    #493
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fodla wrote: »
    At this stage the scientist who says Y.

    You make appeals to authority and then say this.


  • Options
    #494
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Exactly. Which is completely devoid of logic or reason. You aren't thinking rationally about this subject.

    The majority isn't always right.

    The so-called experts have spent the past 8 months contradicting one another every other day.


  • Options
    #495
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    You make appeals to authority and then say this.

    I believe the scientists and doctors behind the Great Barrington Declaration to be correct in their assessment of the severity of the virus and what the response to it should be. That means I'm in the "scientist who says y camp".


  • Options
    #496
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Fodla wrote: »
    The majority isn't always right.

    I'll give this a shot but I think this might be hopeless.

    If 1000 historians state that the Holocaust happened, and one states that it didn't. The historical consensus (a different type of majority) is that it happened.

    You're not a historian, you don't have any details, you haven't done any research on it, you don't know much about the Holocaust, are you in a position to judge which theory is correct? No you aren't.

    But you don't have to. In this example, consensus does it for you. It means, "to the best of our knowledge this is what we know". All of those historians who have spent years and decades researching the Holocaust, interviewing people, examining evidence and papers, 99.9% of them have come to the conclusion that indeed it did happen.

    You will always find individual experts saying all sorts of things, you have to look past them and look at what all the experts are saying.


  • Options
    #497
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    At this stage the scientist who says Y.

    All scientists claim the world is round. One claims that it is flat because it says so in the Bible.
    According to you we should be flat earthers.

    That's ridiculous.


  • Options
    #498
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I'll give this a shot but I think this might be hopeless.

    If 1000 historians state that the Holocaust happened, and one states that it didn't. The historical consensus (a different type of majority) is that it happened.

    You're not a historian, you don't have any details, you haven't done any research on it, you don't know much about the Holocaust, are you in a position to judge which theory is correct? No you aren't.

    But you don't have to. In this example, consensus does it for you. It means, "to the best of our knowledge this is what we know". All of those historians who have spent years and decades researching the Holocaust, interviewing people, examining evidence and papers, 99.9% of them have come to the conclusion that indeed it did happen.

    You will always find individual experts saying all sorts of things, you have to look past them and look at what all the experts are saying.

    This is largely true but of course there are also occasions when the contrarian view, the lone dissenting voice is proved correct.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #499
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    This is largely true but of course there are also occasions when the contrarian view, the lone dissenting voice is proved correct.

    Yup, isolated cases.

    Conspiracy theorists and deniers (faulty thinkers) systematically rely on the views of single experts over the consensus of many.


  • Options
    #500
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I'll give this a shot but I think this might be hopeless.

    If 1000 historians state that the Holocaust happened, and one states that it didn't. The historical consensus (a different type of majority) is that it happened.

    You're not a historian, you don't have any details, you haven't done any research on it, you don't know much about the Holocaust, are you in a position to judge which theory is correct? No you aren't.

    But you don't have to. In this example, consensus does it for you. It means, "to the best of our knowledge this is what we know". All of those historians who have spent years and decades researching the Holocaust, interviewing people, examining evidence and papers, 99.9% of them have come to the conclusion that indeed it did happen.

    You will always find individual experts saying all sorts of things, you have to look past them and look at what all the experts are saying.

    But I don't think you're comparing like with like. It's clearly crazy to deny the existence of the Holocaust. But science is, or used to be, open to interpretation. Thousands of doctors think what is going on all over the world is crazy. Professor Sucharit Bhakdi was interviewed recently and he said COVID was no worse than the flu. He said the death numbers were inflated and that the obsession with case numbers was mad. He urged people to take off their masks. Now, if you go on Wikipedia you'll read that he spreads "misinformation" (what Wikipedia decides is misinformation, of course). This is an eminent professor we're talking about. Is he, like Professor Heneghan, a quack?

    And there are others from Stanford University, Oxford University, Harvard and Yale who think the trashing of the economy, the neglect of all illnesses apart from Covid, and the destruction of society and civil liberties is diabolical. All quacks?


  • Options
    #501
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    But I don't think you're comparing like with like. It's clearly crazy to deny the existence of the Holocaust.
    And it's crazy to suggest there's a giant global conspiracy to install a global communist government within ten years.
    Yet here we are.
    And that's just the vanilla version without out all the microchips/DNA altering/Nwo/mark of the beast stuff that's been claimed.


    What a lot of Holocaust deniers are suggesting is way more reasonable than what you guys are suggesting.
    They're still wrong for the same reasons though.
    Fodla wrote: »
    But science is, or used to be, open to interpretation.
    Lol.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    King Mob wrote: »
    And it's crazy to suggest there's a giant global conspiracy to install a global communist government within ten years.
    Yet here we are.
    And that's just the vanilla version without out all the microchips/DNA altering/Nwo/mark of the beast stuff that's been claimed.


    What a lot of Holocaust deniers are suggesting is way more reasonable than what you guys are suggesting.
    They're still wrong for the same reasons though.

    Lol.

    And is it crazy to dismiss the Great Reset as nothing, 'new normal' and 'build back better' being said as mere coincidence, the trashing of the economy and civil liberties as nothing to worry about, the deaths of millions more people, from starvation or other illnesses, because of crazy lockdowns?

    To dismiss Schwab talking about implantable microchips capable of reading people's thoughts as a 'conspiracy theory', even do he said it?

    How can society and the economy be reset and built back better without being destroyed first?

    I'd love to know why WEF retweeted a link to an article about communism a couple of months before their Great Reset, during which they are set to propose gigantic changes.


  • Options
    #503
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    And is it crazy to dismiss the Great Reset as nothing, 'new normal' and 'build back better' being said as mere coincidence,
    .
    No that's a pretty rational thing to do considering you guys can keep your story straight and have to keep relying on dishonest arguments and outright lying.
    Fodla wrote: »
    To dismiss Schwab talking about implantable microchips capable of reading people's thoughts as a 'conspiracy theory', even do he said it?
    Did he say that? You've a habit of misrepresting things.

    Also read his book yet?
    Fodla wrote: »
    I'd love to know why WEF retweeted a link to an article about communism a couple of months before their Great Reset, during which they are set to propose gigantic changes.
    And this is a lie youve been called out on less than a day ago.
    It's baffling you're still repeating this...


  • Options
    #504
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/Panorama/Articles/Avoiding-a-climate-lockdown

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1334816/climate-change-rules-lindsay-hoyle-G7

    Calls for climate lockdowns. But the good news is that it can be avoided as long as we do capitalism differently. Or reset capitalism if you prefer.


  • Options
    #505
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/Panorama/Articles/Avoiding-a-climate-lockdown

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1334816/climate-change-rules-lindsay-hoyle-G7

    Calls for climate lockdowns. But the good news is that it can be avoided as long as we do capitalism differently. Or reset capitalism if you prefer.
    And shock, neither article says anything about "resetting" capitalism. Nothing about abolishing ownership.
    Nothing that lines up with your other claims.

    In fact they state the opposite:
    Because markets will not lead a green revolution on their own, government policy must steer them in that direction. This will require an entrepreneurial state that innovates, takes risks, and invests alongside the private sector. Policymakers should therefore redesign procurement contracts in order to move away from low-cost investments by incumbent suppliers, and create mechanisms that “crowd in” innovation from multiple actors to achieve public green goals.

    More dishonesty on your part.

    And it's also doubly dishonest to try and deflect to new points so you can try and run away from the points you haven't addressed.


  • Options
    #506
    zom
    Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭zom


    Judging from what I read here there is no other way but get reset? Resistance is futile.


  • Options
    #507
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    zom wrote: »
    Judging from what I read here there is no other way but get reset? Resistance is futile.

    We're going to be reset. Some of us believe it will be a push for global communism behind a green mask. Others believe it will be a discussion during which recommendations will be made.

    I think that's what the position of both sides.

    James Delingpole has been writing about the Great Reset for weeks now. A link to his latest article on it: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507336-great-reset-world-economic-forum/

    An interview with James Delingpole: https://newstalk955.com/the-great-reset-explained-our-chat-with-james-delingpole/

    Neil Clark has written that "The World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ and associated Fourth Industrial Revolution would, if implemented, mean far deeper changes to our everyday lives than Brexit, yet is being pushed through without any proper debate.": https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507336-great-reset-world-economic-forum/

    A timeline of the Great Reset: https://sociable.co/government-and-policy/timeline-great-reset-agenda-event-201-pandemic-2020/


  • Options
    #508
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,124 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Some serious paranoia on this thread.

    Anyway when will the World Economic Forum be calling around to take away all my stuff? I just want to have everything ready for them to take away when they come knocking.


  • Options
    #509
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Some serious paranoia on this thread.

    Anyway when will the World Economic Forum be calling around to take away all my stuff? I just want to have everything ready for them to take away when they come knocking.

    But you haven't explained what the paranoia is. Everything I say I can back up with evidence. Not proof, evidence. The distinction is crucial.

    WEF retweeting a link to an article about owning nothing by 2030 is evidence. It may prove to be much ado about nothing, but it is evidence.


  • Options
    #510
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    We're going to be reset. Some of us believe it will be a push for global communism behind a green mask. Others believe it will be a discussion during which recommendations will be made.

    I think that's what the position of both sides.
    And one side has to keep lying and dodging difficult questions.
    But you haven't explained what the paranoia is. Everything I say I can back up with evidence. Not proof, evidence. The distinction is crucial.
    You have not supplied any evidence. You have run away from and ignored any requests for evidence.

    The only thing you have provided is "they tweeted this one article".
    Which is laughable and is entirely fueled by your paranoia.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Fodla wrote: »
    We're going to be reset.

    We aren't. It's a fantasy you have based on a misunderstanding.

    We've had global forums before, a bunch of countries agree to suggestions and things like trying to cut emissions, etc. This won't be much different.


Advertisement