One Farmers point of view

[Jacob]

Yes I already said that. You cherry pick yours, others will theirs. I’m not alarming myself at all. I’d calm down if I were you, you seem to be getting upset again.

I read this just recently.

“By early 2021 doctors and scientists knew a great deal about the virus, and how small a statistical risk it posed to healthy people under the age of around 70. Once they knew that a small number of people were likely to develop potentially fatal blood clots, why didn’t they simply revert to the original plan, and focus on vaccinating the elderly and vulnerable?”

As an older person I can understand why you’re so desperate to continue. I just don’t know why you want to pressure others so vehemently?

It’s already been stated by doctors and scientists that the vaccine won’t stop anyone getting Covid OR passing it on to others. They also say it doesn’t offer lasting protection and needs to be variant specific to offer any help to the elderly and vulnerable. In short most people under 60 would see no benefit at all, and a small number may die from it or become extremely unwell.

Of course, the drug companies have powerful legal council so it’s understandable why so many are reluctant to speak out - at the moment. Covid isn’t going away but we’ll see what happens with Government policy when the vaccine contract runs out in I believe 2027?

Seems to be complete nonsense.

 

[DrPhill]

Methane is a natural gas the planet produces it not just cows and we also produce it esp if eat lots of veg!.
The sea is major source of Methane all the weed washed up makes methane along with Marsh land etc.
Also Landfill/rotting plants/greenery also don't empty your dustbin for a week well your creating Methane!.
Just Co2 another bogus scam to make us pay more.
If Co2 was such an issue that we was all going to die as our brains are fried! We do they make and bottle it and pump into greenhouses to force grow crops it's also pumped into packaged foods,beer,fizzy drinks and made into dry ice to chill for likes of body parts and much more.
Also if you cycle you produce more Co2 than if drove as i found an app that gave mileage and routes between point A and B but also gave things like costings and fuel used but also gave Co2 and if you cycled you produced more Co2.

The thing that will cause planet issues is the massive increase of Electrical installations/Circuitry/Grids/Linking across countries.
why the planet is shifting more out of it's orbit so places that had say cold weather are now warmer so gulf stream changes.
The earths core is a magnetic electrical field that reacts with the moon and sun which electro magnetics created by us interferes with it and before anyone say's much of the planet is water yes but if you say cover half of it like if you place a weight on a revolving wheel it becomes unstable and stops at the bottom with the weight heavier that the rest.

Also Electric vehicles are making people ill and it is known about but like many things Kept stum about!.
Friend of mine got one of those 1 BMW's every time hes driving it on electric hes having issues feeling sick and migraines etc.
Can see male fertility taking another hit from it.

That is such a brilliant parody of the sort of nonsense spouted by conspiracy theorists. Well done, gave me a good laugh.

Edited to make it clear that I was responding only to Homeless Squirrel.

 

[artie]

.

 

[DrPhill]

.

 

[artie]

,

 

[DrPhill]

.

 

[RobinBHM]

Courage of convictions.



Google it, It makes perfect sense. It's using expertise in an apparently closely related field and using your valid expertise in that related field to claim expertise slightly outside your field.




No it isn't - see later below - you may not possess the required tools to be able to include yourself in a valid or credible discussion, and at some point you really need to accept that experts hold the answers in their fields of expertise.



If we're discussing Fallacious Arguments, then I'm going to drop on you that proposing that you cannot trust any expert because some may be bad actors, then this is a Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy.



I didn't say that. I said that disagreeing with an expert, (indeed, disagreeing with all experts from what you said above) without having the necessary expertise to do so is immature.

If you go through life believing that all experts are to not be trusted, on account that you believe that some of them are being untruthful some of the time, and therefore requiring of them that they provide proof to you at every juncture, that is a bizarre way to approach experts in particular and life in general, imho. ymmv, but I'm suggesting that you might be asking for too much, all of the time.



Philosophical discussion - how would you propose to "seek the truth" without "proving AND disproving" the appropriate material questions?
Second sentence - about showing that proof to all - this is what Peer Review research does. Why do you propose that this method is distinctly named as "PEER review", rather than "layman review". Doesn't that title of PEER review back up what I've been saying all along? And doesn't it bring into question whether experts must ALWAYS provide you, as a layman, their workings, as you have been insisting? Peer review has a reasoning behind it - in that it allows those people who possess the required equipment to contribute towards the output of the research endeavour - in whatever that field might be - it is there specifically and purposefully to provide counterargument. It isn't there to gather consensus - it aims to uncover whether the research can be criticised - and to take on board criticisms and go back to square one. Which begs the question about established scientific consensus (see below) - whether a layman always must be provided with proof - and the basis of scientific consensus being above the challenge of "Argument from Authority"



Fallacious Argument:

Several resources exist which describe and explain Argument from Authority or Appeal to Authority Fallacious Arguments;

Excerpts:

" an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside of the authority's special field ..."


"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."



It is also extremely important to note that an expert will almost always use a technical lexicon within their field that layman do not have the tools or understanding to decipher. Oftentimes the concepts being discussed do not lend themselves to non-technical speak, and putting them into layman's english loses meaning or context.

As a simple example, in discussing GPS satellite orbits, the term sidereal day is required to be used. GPS satellites have a re-visit time of exactly twice per day on their inclined orbit, yet they orbit the earth once in 11hrs58min. A layman might notice that 2 x 11hrs58min is not "exactly 1 day" and argue they have found fault.

Laymen are most often not equipped to discuss within expert jargons and this is the genuine reason that Argument from Authority is not a real claim against an expert within their field of expertise.

Another important point for you to note is that you are not really free to debate my solutions to triple partial differential equations in my calculation of aerodynamic phenomena even if I don't provide my workings, if you have no expertise in solving triple partial differential equations yourself. So when an expert says that X = True, and you want to dispute that, it is not for the expert to instruct you into developing the skills to solve triple partial differential equations. The layman needs to do that for themselves if they wish to dispute or, alternatively, put up and shut up. This is not Argument from Authority Fallacy. And you can't just wave your hand and say "I don't believe you, therefore I'm claiming Argument from Authority as my credible counterargument". That's just deliberately deceitful - and rendering yourself, at all times, just as bad versus on the rare occasion that you encounter an expert who is being a bad actor.

You are wasting your time, Artie is a covid sceptic / anti vaxxer

He is also a made made climate change denier.

You are trying to argue with a MAGA.

 

[RobinBHM]

Methane is a natural gas the planet produces it not just cows and we also produce it esp if eat lots of veg!.
The sea is major source of Methane all the weed washed up makes methane along with Marsh land etc.
Also Landfill/rotting plants/greenery also don't empty your dustbin for a week well your creating Methane!.
Just Co2 another bogus scam to make us pay more.
If Co2 was such an issue that we was all going to die as our brains are fried! We do they make and bottle it and pump into greenhouses to force grow crops it's also pumped into packaged foods,beer,fizzy drinks and made into dry ice to chill for likes of body parts and much more.
Also if you cycle you produce more Co2 than if drove as i found an app that gave mileage and routes between point A and B but also gave things like costings and fuel used but also gave Co2 and if you cycled you produced more Co2.

The thing that will cause planet issues is the massive increase of Electrical installations/Circuitry/Grids/Linking across countries.
why the planet is shifting more out of it's orbit so places that had say cold weather are now warmer so gulf stream changes.
The earths core is a magnetic electrical field that reacts with the moon and sun which electro magnetics created by us interferes with it and before anyone say's much of the planet is water yes but if you say cover half of it like if you place a weight on a revolving wheel it becomes unstable and stops at the bottom with the weight heavier that the rest.

Also Electric vehicles are making people ill and it is known about but like many things Kept stum about!.
Friend of mine got one of those 1 BMW's every time hes driving it on electric hes having issues feeling sick and migraines etc.
Can see male fertility taking another hit from it.

Please could you provide links to support the various assertions you have made here.

 

[Vulcan]

Ha ha Ha, people wanting to choose the type of milk they want to drink are now “Far Right”. We should have expected this.

 

[Jacob]

Ha ha Ha, people wanting to choose the type of milk they want to drink are now “Far Right”. We should have expected this.

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/milk-boycott-conspiracy-arla-bovaer-trials-b1199339.html

 

[Vulcan]

The Norwegians are Right Wing as well it seems?!

 

[Vulcan]

“Climate Milk” Coming to a store near you soon? If the public accept this sort of thing, what’s next?
This product was available in Norway but the public are pushing back.

 

[Jacob]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rjdgre3vpo

Why pick on this particular additive, when milk (and a host of other foodstuffs) are already subjected to all sorts of treatments, additives, at various stages in their production, in order to make them safer or better quality.
Is it just that it's related to climate change?

 

[MikeJhn]

Back to the thread subject matter and a comment on Farmers not produce. With the recently announced relaxation in planning laws the Farmers will be able to hoard their future inheritance tax by selling off land, poor farmers.

 

[Vulcan]

 

[Jacob]

If you like getting a kick out of yet another conspiracy theory just don't drink any milk!
Don't worry about the rest of us.
Your little chap in the vid is not very convincing, have you got anything scarier or more comical to show us?
Why are conspiracy theories such a feature of right-wing "thought"?

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/milk-boycott-conspiracy-arla-bovaer-trials-b1199339.html

 

[woodieallen]

.... With the recently announced relaxation in planning laws the Farmers will be able to hoard their future inheritance tax by selling off land, poor farmers.

I can't decide whether this post is supposed to be sarcastic, an attempt at humour or just very naive.

 

[MikeJhn]

Choose two.

 

[ey_tony]

If you like getting a kick out of yet another conspiracy theory just don't drink any milk!
Don't worry about the rest of us.
Your little chap in the vid is not very convincing, have you got anything scarier or more comical to show us?
Why are conspiracy theories such a feature of right-wing "thought"?

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/milk-boycott-conspiracy-arla-bovaer-trials-b1199339.html

I've not looked into it sufficiently to draw my own conclusions but clearly others have so from a safety aspect, can you or others point me to a valid and unequivocal series of studies of sufficient numbers of cows tested which supports the theory that the chemicals used in Bovaer will not infiltrate the food chain?

I don't normally watch such videos or look at social media petitions etc but in this instance surely in the video they have a valid point if 'only' four cows were used in a study/trial?
How factually correct that information is, is anyone's guess but in any case I would like to see a sufficient number of independent studies/trials supporting the argument that milk from chemically treated cows by using Bovaer will not enter the food chain and that the milk is safe to drink.

As for conspiracy theories only coming from the right, perhaps that's because those who have left leaning ideologies don't have the capacity to question what they are told whereas those who vote to the right do!
After all, one man's conspiracy theory is simply another man's legitimate questioning of information we are told by government.
Would you honestly trust anything implicitly that this man who is in charge of our country says?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

As for conspiracy theories only coming from the right, perhaps that's because those who have left leaning ideologies don't have the capacity to question what they are told whereas those who vote to the right do!

Socialists don't indulge in conspiracy theories, they KNOW they are right, and non-believers (the right wing and balanced centre ground) are always wrong.