artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
If something is added but not disclosed, then it was secretly added.
That's not a theory
Please let us know the other half.
Your choice
Is that the only alternative?
One Farmers point of view
- Thread starter Vulcan
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
That's not a theory
RobinBHM
Established Member
it mustve been disclosed otherwise you wouldnt know about it
Well, you could spend a decade or so becoming somewhat competent in the field and from there, formulate your own informed position. But short of that, you just have to trust in others who have done the work. You can choose to rely on scientists advising the government (who have done the work), or you can choose to rely on social media.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Or just listen to a drunken buffoon in a pub!
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
Why have a government at all, just have panels of experts.
That actually might be a good idea. If "we" pay them they might just might put our interests first, to keep the money flowing.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
It's somehow an idiotic question but still not easy to answer.
It's the sort of thing asked by famous idiots; Michael Gove, Liz Truss, D Trump, spring to mind
For @artie it's just a rhetorical question but maybe he should also try to answer it for himself?
They have a go here: https://www.civiced.org/lessons/why-do-we-need-a-government#:~:text=Protecting Natural Rights,situation a state of nature.
Or here https://online.york.ac.uk/the-fundamental-role-of-government/
carry book
Member
Maybe include a 100 page book
Shallow.
Superficial.
(There are also a plethora of other definitions - which, since we're discussing fallacious arguments, implies your post falls under the category of fallacious argument of entitled Cherry Picking)
There are also resources that separate the two types of argument thus - first "Appeal to Authority" - and second "Argument from Authority".
I believe that I was specifically tackling the second type.
Yet your post singularly depicts the former. (Which reinforces the potential for your post to be Cherry Picking.)
This "Appeal to" isn't what we are talking about, in the main. We were discussing the expert themselves giving their point, or an extended version of a person using the experts actual material point, not just referring to the person as an expert to justify an opinion other than their actual point. You even said that my example of spaceflight dynamics "didn't make sense" as an example - and yet all of your examples from above do worse.
I'm beginning to suspect that you're being deliberately obtuse.
Anyway, I believe that you were arguing for a different viewpoint. You seem to have said above that you would be justified to: disbelieve an expert, in their field of expertise, face-to-face and in person, if they don't give you their workings.
I don't know whether you've entirely back pedalled on that position or whether you have subtly changed your position, or whether you still believe that taking a different "opinion" than what an expert within their field claims to be true is in some way justifiable?
I think the point that Jacob was trying to make was that the info artie was portraying was grossly misleading.
I'm sure that you already knew that the "VERY RARE side effect was a known issue as much as 3 years ago" ("Very Rare" has a specific meaning in the classification of side effects, as you probably already know and understand.
The point is that anybody who says that the vaccine was "recently withdrawn due to blood clotting" is being either deliberately, or accidentally, misleading. This is one of those discussions, however, that doesn't really lend itself to being "accidentally" misleading, since it is such a powerful and emotive subject for some - you'd think that people would get their fact ENTIRELY straight before committing to writing their piece?
I thought that I might have been the only one to spot that "lifetime as farmer" nonsense....
In a "lifetime of farming" - consider how much fertiliser and pest control substances have been used during a typical farmer's lifetime - is this a staggering lack of self awareness, or simply a backlash to the one thing that they have found to disagree upon? I do wonder...
Also consider how land use has been fundamentally altered by farming and the resultant ecological impacts - and the taming of the land in things such as canalisation of rivers and de-forestation... (For instance, is it common knowledge on here, or largely unknown, that almost the entirety of Scotland used to be a huge, continuous, mixed deciduous forest, that was laid bare for sheep farming - and is now a ecological disaster, being mainly heather and gorse with a few homogenous stands of coniferous trees?)
You haven't actually thought that through, have you?
Listen to your own arguments from prior posts about "experts", lol, and who funds them... and would you personally choose to bung your own personal money in one particular direction over another, or not pay anything at all?
So many questions and hopefully one that you might reflect upon in good faith.
ey_tony
Established Member
He didn't mention left wing now did he Sherlock? I know what he was referring to when he mentioned right wingers so stop being a......
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
That took you a long time to fabricate.
But you have said nothing new, have a nice day.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
I'm sorry, I know I should respond to the point, and not attack the person,
I promise I will, if you make one.
Well, let's analyse, shall we?
When someone says I've noticed a lot of "this" in right wing thinking.... This doesn't say whether "this" is prevalent in any measure in any other type of thinking, or whether it is entirely absent.
Assuming from the original post that "this" is entirely absent from other's thinking is just plain wrong. It reflects your personal interpretation and not the intent of the writer.
So to object to the writer on the grounds of your probable misinterpretation is not tackling the writer's post. At all.
So you didn't understand that I did make an obvious point?
That's not on me.
To spell it out for you: I was asking you to be guided by "your own previous words"?
(Which would then contradict the point that you were trying to make!)
Try it here:
On the one hand you appear to disagree with experts in their own fields of expertise, claiming absolutely incorrectly before and later that this is "Argument from Authority" and therefore is fair game to disagree with - and go on to say that you think someone being paid for research is a "shill".
Then, on the other, you later propose that:
After claiming <just above> that experts can freely be disagreed with (because "Argument from Authority" and "knob heads with a degree"), you then suggest that a panel of experts might be a positive step...? facepalm.
And then suggesting that "we" could pay some experts -
- wouldn't that make them "shills"?
On a broader level, there is the fundamental misunderstanding that "why have a government?" (LOL), while at the same time suggest that "we" pay some experts. Oh, I don't know, maybe some kind of collective body which gathers payment from all citizens (maybe government could do that?) such that selected individuals or groups don't pay researchers for the answers that they want to receive - which would be more like, oh, let's think, oh yeah, the TOBACCO industry. facepalm.
I won't actually do this but your contradictions and points make me want to ask you whether you are eight years old, such is what your argument might appear to be from an onlooker's perspective.
ey_tony
Established Member
Let's not bother, I haven't got time to waste on keyboard warriors trying to prove their manhood!
RobinBHM
Established Member
Artie is an anti vaxxer / covid sceptic, he produced the same talking points back in 2021 and hasn’t moved on since.
You really are wasting your time
The Venn diagram of covid sceptic / Brexit supporter / climate change denial / culture war believer / Trump supporter and the belief that Farage is a jolly good chap…….is a bunch of overlapping circles
