I think the real problem is that Trump tells so many lies that nobody bothers to fact check them any more. They then become "alternative facts".

^ yeah, that's the real problem, champ.

I read Obama defended Joe by saying it is hard to debate against Trump because he tells such big lies.

I'd always understood debating somebody was easy then they told big, obvious lies. To debate them you just highlight the lie, explain in simple terms why it is such a big lie and imply if that is a lie then everything else they sat is as well.

I'd have thought the person who it was difficult to debate was the person who mumbled nonsense and said nothing. Other than a personal attack on their congnative fiunction how do you respond to mumbled jibberish ?

So you need to spend a lot more time and energy having a well researched and thought out response to a one sentence lie.

Can you have those well researched and thought out responses ready to go for all the wild claims your opponent makes?

Thi gets inordinately more difficult if your opponent is misrepresenting or embellishing key details enough to support a false message.

This is the basis of Brandolinis Law/Principle:
It takes an order of magnitude more effort and time to counter Bullshido

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
So you need to spend a lot more time and energy having a well researched and thought out response to a one sentence lie.

Can you have those well researched and thought out responses ready to go for all the wild claims your opponent makes?

Thi gets inordinately more difficult if your opponent is misrepresenting or embellishing key details enough to support a false message.

This is the basis of Brandolinis Law/Principle:
It takes an order of magnitude more effort and time to counter Bullshido

Well I just learnt something, worth a read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
how do you respond to mumbled jibberish ?

This is likely by design to get the public to not concern themselves with anything political.

The poor guy can barely put a sentence together that makes sense yet he is supposed to have political clout.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
^ yeah, that's the real problem, champ.

I read Obama defended Joe by saying it is hard to debate against Trump because he tells such big lies.

I'd always understood debating somebody was easy then they told big, obvious lies. To debate them you just highlight the lie, explain in simple terms why it is such a big lie and imply if that is a lie then everything else they sat is as well.

I'd have thought the person who it was difficult to debate was the person who mumbled nonsense and said nothing. Other than a personal attack on their congnative fiunction how do you respond to mumbled jibberish ?

Well bud, Trump rarely responded to Biden's mumblings, he would deflect from the question and start lying about something else.

Hillary made the mistake of sticking to party talking points while Trump stood behind her looking at her arse.

Speaking of arses, Karmala would rip him a new arsehole on the debate stage.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
So you need to spend a lot more time and energy having a well researched and thought out response to a one sentence lie.

Can you have those well researched and thought out responses ready to go for all the wild claims your opponent makes?

Thi gets inordinately more difficult if your opponent is misrepresenting or embellishing key details enough to support a false message.

This is the basis of Brandolinis Law/Principle:
It takes an order of magnitude more effort and time to counter Bullshido

Yes, that's why scientists are generally poor debaters, especially when going against creationists. Scientists stick to the facts while creationists just make stuff up.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..

This is likely by design to get the public to not concern themselves with anything political.

The poor guy can barely put a sentence together that makes sense yet he is supposed to have political clout.

When Reagan lost the plot he surrounded himself with smart, dedicated people and followed their guidance. Trump imagines he is smart and does his own thing. Wast it something like 44 out of his previous cabinet that refuse to endorse him this time around? Even his wife, daughter and son I law have done a runner.

Select to expand quote

fangman said...
Well I just learnt something, worth a read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

mmm, never heard of it before but it seems a bit ... err a bit something to me.

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshi t is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

I am not sure it is a bullshi t limited theory. If you replaced a word or two and said :

The amount of energy needed to prove a hypothesis is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

It would sound equally true.

If somebody said 'The world is round', then the effort required to prove it would seem to me to be very similar to the effort required to dis-prove if they had said 'The world is flat'.



Carantoc's seventeenth law :
The amount of energy needed to change an opinion is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to reinforce it.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
Well bud, Trump rarely responded to Biden's mumblings, he would deflect from the question and start lying about something else.

Hillary made the mistake of sticking to party talking points while Trump stood behind her looking at her arse.

Speaking of arses, Karmala would rip him a new arsehole on the debate stage.

From what I heard if it Trump did what he always does. Tell the world how much of an egotistical, narsaccistic lunatic he is.

I guess if you believe the winner would be the one who says the biggest lies Kamala might indeed well win...

www.tiktok.com/@harlan.report/video/7371988127042276626?lang=en

and if Sleepy Joe did a a good job of answering every question then Kamala would nail it..

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

fangman said...
Well I just learnt something, worth a read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

mmm, never heard of it before but it seems a bit ... err a bit something to me.

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshi t is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

I am not sure it is a bullshi t limited theory. If you replaced a word or two and said :

The amount of energy needed to prove a hypothesis is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

It would sound equally true.

If somebody said 'The world is round', then the effort required to prove it would seem to me to be very similar to the effort required to dis-prove if they had said 'The world is flat'.



Carantoc's seventeenth law :
The amount of energy needed to change an opinion is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to reinforce it.

In terms of countering misinformation and lies on a particular topic, it is relevant.

Someone can make a claim that Vaccines cause spontaneous combustion and just make up some numbers as "evidence".

For someone in a debate to counter this, they can't just say "that's wrong and not supported by evidence, you're lying".
They would have to instead "highlight the lie, explain in simple terms why it is such a big lie " and be able to quote accurate numbers and specific evidence that completely and utterly refutes the claim.

And heaven forbid they, themselves incorrectly quote stats or misremember what a specific source stated about that issue. They'd get reamed later on and accused of lying themselves.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

In terms of countering misinformation and lies on a particular topic, it is relevant.

Someone can make a claim that Vaccines cause spontaneous combustion and just make up some numbers as "evidence".

For someone in a debate to counter this, they can't just say "that's wrong and not supported by evidence, you're lying".
They would have to instead "highlight the lie, explain in simple terms why it is such a big lie " and be able to quote accurate numbers and specific evidence that completely and utterly refutes the claim.

And heaven forbid they, themselves incorrectly quote stats or misremember what a specific source stated about that issue. They'd get reamed later on and accused of lying themselves.

That's Carantoc's raison d'?tre.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

When Reagan lost the plot he surrounded himself with smart, dedicated people and followed their guidance. Trump imagines he is smart and does his own thing. Wast it something like 44 out of his previous cabinet that refuse to endorse him this time around? Even his wife, daughter and son I law have done a runner.

See, that makes sense. You don't need to be the one man in charge, you need to outsource it to capable people. Unlike Morrisson taking on all sorts of things, smart people assign experts to their areas of expertise.

I have seen so many idiots in business that think they know it all and take on every area and ignore the specialists that they have working for them.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

See, that makes sense. You don't need to be the one man in charge, you need to outsource it to capable people. Unlike Morrisson taking on all sorts of things, smart people assign experts to their areas of expertise.

I have seen so many idiots in business that think they know it all and take on every area and ignore the specialists that they have working for them.

Not just business, science as well.

Peer review publication is supposed to call them out. But that is working less well with the growth of predatory journals and "publish or perish" employers.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
In terms of countering misinformation and lies on a particular topic, it is relevant.

Someone can make a claim that Vaccines cause spontaneous combustion and just make up some numbers as "evidence".

For someone in a debate to counter this, they can't just say "that's wrong and not supported by evidence, you're lying".
They would have to instead "highlight the lie, explain in simple terms why it is such a big lie " and be able to quote accurate numbers and specific evidence that completely and utterly refutes the claim.

And heaven forbid they, themselves incorrectly quote stats or misremember what a specific source stated about that issue. They'd get reamed later on and accused of lying themselves.

Meeh, I am still not convinced it is any different to proving truths.

If somebody said Vaccines don't cause spontaneous combustion then the effort to prove it true would be very similar as the argument and logic to prove that they don't cause spontaneous combustion.

I still contend it has more to do with changing somebody's opinion on a subject than the truth or untruth of the subject itself.


I am quite happy to accept that proving a claim of something takes an order of magnitude more effort than than making a claim of something, just not convinced that is only true of debunking false claims. It is just as valid to proving any claims, because the evidence required to be presented in each case is going to be very similar.

They all seem about equal to me :

Claim 1 Vaccines cause spontaneous combustion : prove it
Claim 2 Vaccines don't cause spontaneous combustion : prove it

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshi t is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it
The amount of energy needed to prove a hypothesis is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

That's all accurate.

Testing a hypothesis is a (should be) rigorous process, so it is quite involved.

But to call someone out on a lie, is something much harder than saying the lie.

In a debate, stating a bold lie with confidence is much easier and usually more persuasive than any effort needed to refute that lie .
Spending time to clearly, calmly, coherently and simply refute a lie made by your opponent, is generally time and effort not spent on your talking points and key topics.

It's actually a very effective tactic to throw out a lie or deliberately twist/omit facts on a minor or barely related topic, so as to force your opponent to address them before they can proceed with their points. If your opponent isn't full bottle in that topic you can have the added bonus of watching them fumble and potentially trip up, making you look even better.

Unlike dis/proving hypothesis, it's unlikely that either debater will have the correct facts/evidence on hand so as to easily point out their opponents errors on the full range of topics available. And unlike the rigorous process of testing a hypothesis, debaters just don't have the time to commit to fully refuting lies in an effective manner while still getting all their own arguments and points across.
Unless they've specifically prepped themselves for just going on the attack on the range of lies their opponents usually throw out. (But I imagine that's a risky move as presidential candidate)

This poor lady isn't stable. Amazing to see the former head of the AMA sitting there. Not sure why she's complaining, it's safe and effective.

But according to remery its safe and effective.

Why should i take her opinion when we have a never wrong stable genius....

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
This poor lady isn't stable. Amazing to see the former head of the AMA sitting there. Not sure why she's complaining, it's safe and effective.

Sorry, I think I have lost which thread I am in. It must be my hearing and reading after the covid shots.

Where is Kerryn's list of problems? Surely they are just the same? I will be very disappointed if she just says 'nah, I just had a headache and felt poorly all day'.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
But according to remery its safe and effective.

Why should i take her opinion when we have a never wrong stable genius....

Every person I know personally has had the covid vaccination. None have had serious side effects from the vaccine. None have had serious effects from covid infection.

But, as with any safe and effective vaccine, there are people who can have very serious side effects. The speaker above was a known anaphylactic. Her doctor has told her she might die if she catches covid. So she likely elected to have the vaccine because she knew she would be surrounded by anti-vaxx loons and covid deniers who refused to wear masks.

74% of COVID Vaccine Autopsy Deaths Caused by Covid-19 Vaccine, a study shows - but this study has been Censored by Lancet!

"A total of 240 deaths, which is 73.9%, were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination."

x.com/diedsuddenly_/status/1684274479176773632?s=46&t=1GB2TIBB90HpGgoUCFAO5w

Select to expand quote

japie said..
74% of COVID Vaccine Autopsy Deaths Caused by Covid-19 Vaccine, a study shows - but this study has been Censored by Lancet!

"A total of 240 deaths, which is 73.9%, were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination."

Seriously, you are feeding me this stuff? I feel like I am being setup.

If I read this right "74% of COVID Vaccine Autopsy Deaths" were caused by "Covid-19 Vaccine". Is that right?

I must be reading too much into the notion of Covid Vaccine Autopsies. It sounds like to me that they are autopsies of people where they think the vaccine killed them. Surely I must be mistaken and it means anyone where Covid is expected? Yes?

Are the other 25 or so percent caused by something else? Which begs the question why they are classed as Covid Vaccine autopsies.

AFP Factchecking:
"The paper in question, "A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination" (archived here), was not published in The Lancet, but instead appeared on a preprint server associated with the journal where researchers can upload their work before it has received peer review.According to its website, The Lancet collaborates with the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) to offer authors a dedicated preprint area called "Preprints with The Lancet", but a study appearing on this server does not necessarily mean the journal is reviewing the paper.The Lancet Group told AFP the paper was removed from the server because its conclusion was not supported by the methodology."

Full article here: factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33NL9BK

I read the quoted paper before I fact checked, and have to agree that what the researchers looked at vs what they concluded was a long bow to draw at the very least.

Also interesting to note that three of the authors have interests in the Wellness Company which sells alternative medicines to treat COVID. www.twc.health/products/long-haul-formula

Select to expand quote

remery said..

But, as with any safe and effective vaccine, there are people who can have very serious side effects. The speaker above was a known anaphylactic. Her doctor has told her she might die if she catches covid. So she likely elected to have the vaccine because she knew she would be surrounded by anti-vaxx loons and covid deniers who refused to wear masks.

You have mentioned repeatedly the covid shots are safe and effective, yet you are now saying there are people who can have very serious side effects after taking them.

The two are not consistent with each other.

You go on to use the term antivax loon, yet previously you admitted there are SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS.

How can you describe those who prefer to not take vaccines as loons when you have just admitted yourself you can have VERY SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS to taking them?

It's one thing to have discussions with people who have opposite opinions but when their opinion changes one hundred and eighty degrees and they are still adamant of their previous belief then surely they cannot be taken seriously.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
74% of COVID Vaccine Autopsy Deaths Caused by Covid-19 Vaccine, a study shows

97% of idiots are actually idiots, a study shows.

Select to expand quote

fangman said..
AFP Factchecking:
"The paper in question, "A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination" (archived here), was not published in The Lancet, but instead appeared on a preprint server associated with the journal where researchers can upload their work before it has received peer review.According to its website, The Lancet collaborates with the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) to offer authors a dedicated preprint area called "Preprints with The Lancet", but a study appearing on this server does not necessarily mean the journal is reviewing the paper.The Lancet Group told AFP the paper was removed from the server because its conclusion was not supported by the methodology."

Full article here: factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33NL9BK

I read the quoted paper before I fact checked, and have to agree that what the researchers looked at vs what they concluded was a long bow to draw at the very least.

Also interesting to note that three of the authors have interests in the Wellness Company which sells alternative medicines to treat COVID. www.twc.health/products/long-haul-formula

You and your dang alternative facts. MAGAAAAaaaa..ggggh.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..

You have mentioned repeatedly the covid shots are safe and effective, yet you are now saying there are people who can have very serious side effects after taking them.

The two are not consistent with each other.

You go on to use the term antivax loon, yet previously you admitted there are SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS.

How can you describe those who prefer to not take vaccines as loons when you have just admitted yourself you can have VERY SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS to taking them?

It's one thing to have discussions with people who have opposite opinions but when their opinion changes one hundred and eighty degrees and they are still adamant of their previous belief then surely they cannot be taken seriously.

Intelligence and you are not consistent with each other.

You are an antivax loon.

A serious side effect of education is logic and understanding.

Nobody takes you seriously.

(oops sorry, I forgot... you are are liar... and an idiot)

In my reading today I came across a new PC term for those that haven't 'done their research' to any meaningful depth or use a limited number of sources for information: "epistemologically crippled" Not as good as 'omnishambles' but still a contender for Word(s) of the Year. ( at least compared to last year's winner "cossie livs" )

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Pcdefender said..

You have mentioned repeatedly the covid shots are safe and effective, yet you are now saying there are people who can have very serious side effects after taking them.

The two are not consistent with each other.

You go on to use the term antivax loon, yet previously you admitted there are SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS.

How can you describe those who prefer to not take vaccines as loons when you have just admitted yourself you can have VERY SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS to taking them?

It's one thing to have discussions with people who have opposite opinions but when their opinion changes one hundred and eighty degrees and they are still adamant of their previous belief then surely they cannot be taken seriously.

Intelligence and you are not consistent with each other.

You are an antivax loon.

A serious side effect of education is logic and understanding.

Nobody takes you seriously.

(oops sorry, I forgot... you are are liar... and an idiot)

Resorting to ridicule when you and your safe and effective lie you pushed on this forum for years is exposed.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..

Resorting to ridicule when you and your safe and effective lie you pushed on this forum for years is exposed.