Overall life expectancy is increasing, it's just increasing at a decreasing rate of increase...
That seems quite logical to me, surely at some point we will hit a sweet spot at which medical advances can do not more to prolong life (or not so much anyway). Eventually something will get us all
When I worked at Bristol Royal Infirmary 15 years ago we had a lecture by a heart surgeon who basically said there's a limit to human life and it's around 80 to 90. At this point something will get you. It used to be heart disease but that's become much less of a risk. Now it's cancer.
|
|
|
Overall life expectancy is increasing, it's just increasing at a decreasing rate of increase...
That seems quite logical to me, surely at some point we will hit a sweet spot at which medical advances can do not more to prolong life (or not so much anyway). Eventually something will get us all.
Surely pensions get more affordable if life expectancy eventually peaks, which seems to be the logical conclusion?
Just wait until the effects of the pandemic response (including authoritarian measures that were /are being slipped in) REALLY start to kick in globally, especially in Western nations.
There's a good reason why other 'crises' are being invented by those in power (and I don't just mean politicians, I means those who really pull the strings) - to either keep the populus distracted, away from the truth and/or scared into saying and doing nothing, until it's too late.
What's the difference between many a modern conspriacy theory and the truth? About 6 - 12 months...it's not as though those doing it are keeping quiet about it any more.
|
Overall life expectancy is increasing, it's just increasing at a decreasing rate of increase...
That seems quite logical to me, surely at some point we will hit a sweet spot at which medical advances can do not more to prolong life (or not so much anyway). Eventually something will get us all.
Surely pensions get more affordable if life expectancy eventually peaks, which seems to be the logical conclusion?
Just wait until the effects of the pandemic response (including authoritarian measures that were /are being slipped in) REALLY start to kick in globally, especially in Western nations.
There's a good reason why other 'crises' are being invented by those in power (and I don't just mean politicians, I means those who really pull the strings) - to either keep the populus distracted, away from the truth and/or scared into saying and doing nothing, until it's too late.
What's the difference between many a modern conspriacy theory and the truth? About 6 - 12 months...it's not as though those doing it are keeping quiet about it any more.
For feks sake Andy take your nonsense elsewhere. Plenty of suitable websites for you to meet like minded souls.
|
|
|
|
"What's the difference between many a modern conspriacy theory and the truth? About 6 - 12 months...it's not as though those doing it are keeping quiet about it any more."
Any example of this please, Andy?
Edited by Xileno on 25/11/2022 at 14:17
|
|
|
There's a good reason why other 'crises' are being invented by those in power (and I don't just mean politicians, I means those who really pull the strings) - to either keep the populus distracted, away from the truth and/or scared into saying and doing nothing, until it's too late.
You seem to have great problems identifying what is the truth. It seems like your version of the truth is that spouted on extremist internet sites, no doubt funded by foreign governments. You dismiss the efforts of the WEF to steer the course the world is taking to calmer waters as some form of "cabal" with the anti-semitic connotations thereof presumably being intended.
|
|
|
|
<< ... to either keep the populus distracted, away from the truth and/or scared into saying and doing nothing, until it's too late. >>
I'm not sure anyone can determine the 'truth' of this matter. Just that Andy believes his version must be the right one. I'm not sure of that either.
|
|
|
|
In view of previous occasions where I have crossed swords with Andy and have been accused of various things, I've deliberately delayed responding to yet another instance of what appear to be conspiracy theories introduced as if they were uncontested facts. If he doesn't expect controversy I don't know why he keeps doing it.
"Just wait until the effects of the pandemic response (including authoritarian measures that were /are being slipped in) REALLY start to kick in globally, especially in Western nations."
- Please explain exactly what "effects of the pandemic response" you are talking about, in particular what "authoritarian measures" you have in mind.
"There's a good reason why other 'crises' are being invented by those in power..."
- Please explain what "other 'crises' are being invented by those in power".
"... (and I don't just mean politicians, I means those who really pull the strings)..."
- In your view, who are the people "really pull[ing] the strings"?
If we could get straight answers to the above (preferably with some kind of reasoned support) it might restore some credibility to what are otherwise bizarre ramblings.
|
If we could get straight answers to the above (preferably with some kind of reasoned support) it might restore some credibility to what are otherwise bizarre ramblings.
We won't - at least we haven't yet.
|
|
Later today when I've got a bit more time I will split this threads into two, I thought the link to the report groaver made was interesting and the basis for discussing a subject that we will all face. The rest can sit in its own thread. The whole thread will disappear for a while during the process as it has to be taken off-line.
Edited by Xileno on 26/11/2022 at 10:45
|
|
Or just delete the second half to feed the conspiracy theory?
|
|
That's by far the quickest and easiest action of course, as splitting threads is more time-consuming and not without risk of deleting something that was supposed to be kept. But it's not my preferred option (and ORB was in agreement as well), people should be free to express their views provided their is no breach of forum policy. Andy's views may not align with the many here but he is entitled to express them. However, if anyone expresses views like that then they should expect to have to justify them when challenged, that is what Discussion is all about.
Then if the second thread just descends in a way that's achieving nothing it can be locked but it keeps the original thread going.
|
|
|
|
If we could get straight answers to the above (preferably with some kind of reasoned support) it might restore some credibility to what are otherwise bizarre ramblings.
We won't - at least we haven't yet.
a) They aren't 'bizarre ramblings'
b) When I do post facts to justify my opinions, you, FP and certain others just rubbish them, despite many of them showing on camera people saying the very things you lot continue to deny.
More straw-manning, but then I've come to expect that. And on cue, the thread is going to split and/or stopped as a result.
Xileno - if you allow what are centious issue to start, why only lock threads when once side of the conversation speaks? Either this site allows free speech on general issues, or doesn't allow discussion of them at all, where members can make their own decisions about what that means. We can't have it both ways, because all it does is just benefit the FPs of this world and their agenda.
|
|
I fail to see how the UK's morbidity rate development between 2010 and 2017 has 'sides'.
|
a) They aren't 'bizarre ramblings'
Perhaps not to you and a tiny minority but they are to any sane person.
More straw-manning, but then I've come to expect that.
What is "straw-manning"?
Andy, I said it above and I will say it again. Why come on here posting your bizarre views when nobody else shares those views. Your time would be better spent sharing your time with like minded persons.
|
|
<< Andy, why come on here posting your bizarre views when nobody else shares those views. Your time would be better spent sharing your time with like minded persons. >>
Presumably he hopes to persuade us all to his line of thinking ?
I assume 'straw-manning' is an epithet used by like-minded conspiracy theorists.
Edited by Andrew-T on 26/11/2022 at 12:42
|
|
Straw-manning is the practice of introducing irrelevant points of debate to distract from the main issue. Like having people in the battlements of a castle and erecting straw men to draw fire.
|
Straw-manning is the practice of introducing irrelevant points of debate to distract from the main issue.
So basically Andy is accusing people of introducing irrelevant points to distract from his totally irrelevant points.
|
Straw-manning is the practice of introducing irrelevant points of debate to distract from the main issue.
So basically Andy is accusing people of introducing irrelevant points to distract from his totally irrelevant points.
Or arguing against things he never actually said to undermine his credibility.
|
|
Thank you for that Adampr, I wasn't quite sure what the phrase meant either.
Like BIG said above, I can't see anything contentious in the original post by groaver - or more specifically the link given.
Also I (and previously ORB) do let people have their say whatever their views as long as they are within the forum Policies. Splitting threads is not denying an opportunity to reply, it's trying to keep subjects separate.
Locking threads obviously does deny an chance to reply but that generally only happens when the thread has got to a point where nothing of any value is being added and it's just got tedious, silly spats, too much Moderator time being spent, that sort of thing.
Moderators do their best to try and steer a path that is acceptable to the majority.
|
... the practice of introducing irrelevant points of debate to distract from the main issue.
Happens all the time on this forum ..... I'm a regular ... :-)
|
|
|
b) When I do post facts to justify my opinions, you, FP and certain others just rubbish them, despite many of them showing on camera people saying the very things you lot continue to deny.
That's how debate works.
I might make an assertion and support it from my chosen sources. If one of those is, say, the Guardian then those with a different viewpoint can rubbish it and produce a contrary argument from, say, The Spectator.
Can you exemplify the authoritarian measures and invented crises or the people really pulling the strings as per your 13:31 post yesterday?
I can see our own government bringing in some pretty authoritarian measures, for example around the right to protest but somehow I don't think that's what you have in mind.
|
|
"More People in the UK Are Dying Than Expected"
I expect it's the weariness of it all. ;-)
|
|
Repurposing a now-inappropriate old joke;
"Why are British people dying younger? Because they want to".
|
|
|
|
|
<< b) When I do post facts to justify my opinions, you, FP and certain others ... >>
This is the nub of it. What is the definition of 'fact' ? If what you refer to is only an assertion which you happen to favour. To me, 'fact' is verifiable, anything else may be speculation or pure invention.
|
|
|
|
"When I do post facts to justify my opinions, you, FP and certain others just rubbish them, despite many of them showing on camera people saying the very things you lot continue to deny."
- I have never "rubbished" anything you have posted. However, I have asked probing questions and have disputed some of your statements. There is a difference.
- If you introduce controversial points as if they were proved, accepted facts others will challenge you and ask you to defend those points. (Offering a video as evidence may well not provide anything convincing. People can and do post all kinds of rubbish, including deliberately misleading or inaccurate videos.)
"More straw-manning, but then I've come to expect that. And on cue, the thread is going to split and/or stopped as a result."
No-one in this discussion, as far as I can make out, has introduced "straw-manning" and I suggest in using this accusation you have simply reached for a stereotypical response to genuine, probing questions and objections.
"... benefit the FPs of this world and their agenda."
- I strongly object to this. I object to being cast as a stereotype of a certain sort of person and I object to the suggestion that I have an agenda. I do not. My political opinions are probably just to the right of centre. I have no interest in any particular point of view of the world. All I do in these sorts of discussions here is to question doubtful and misleading thinking and to counter ideas that DO seem to come from people with an agenda.
|
"When I do post facts to justify my opinions, you, FP and certain others just rubbish them, despite many of them showing on camera people saying the very things you lot continue to deny."
- I have never "rubbished" anything you have posted. However, I have asked probing questions and have disputed some of your statements. There is a difference.
- If you introduce controversial points as if they were proved, accepted facts others will challenge you and ask you to defend those points. (Offering a video as evidence may well not provide anything convincing. People can and do post all kinds of rubbish, including deliberately misleading or inaccurate videos.)
"More straw-manning, but then I've come to expect that. And on cue, the thread is going to split and/or stopped as a result."
No-one in this discussion, as far as I can make out, has introduced "straw-manning" and I suggest in using this accusation you have simply reached for a stereotypical response to genuine, probing questions and objections.
"... benefit the FPs of this world and their agenda."
- I strongly object to this. I object to being cast as a stereotype of a certain sort of person and I object to the suggestion that I have an agenda. I do not. My political opinions are probably just to the right of centre. I have no interest in any particular point of view of the world. All I do in these sorts of discussions here is to question doubtful and misleading thinking and to counter ideas that DO seem to come from people with an agenda.
Funny how you seem to like giving it out but not receiving it. perhaps you may then put yourself in my shoes as a result. it also appears that you are also trying to gaslight me as well, given your previous responses, including on other General threads.
All perhaps to either only have 'debate' on your terms (ot those on the other side just get fed up and leave the forum, as many have done) or make it so polarised and personal that it gets shut down by the mods, as several others have done? Any time someone has a contrary viewpoint to you and those of a similar mind, especially one that obviously discredits it, you go after them.
Several times over the past few years I have given evidence tp back up my comments, but you and others have then dismissed them out of hand (despite it being very credible) and then personally attacked me for being some ist/phobe nutjob (despite no actual evidence other than it 'offended you').
I also don't accept you're "'Im a bit right of centre" comment, given your views on many subjects. They just don't track with that at all. Blairitie, perhaps, but that isn't right-of-centre.
|
|
@ Andy,
Keeping it on this thread subject and not past debates:
Can you exemplify the authoritarian measures and invented crises or the people really pulling the strings as per your 13:31 post on 26-11-22?
|
|
|
|
This is a very disappointing response. I’m not “giving out” anything. I asked you to answer some specific questions.
“Gaslighting” means “a form of psychological abuse in which a person or group causes someone to question their own sanity, memories, or perception of reality.” – I have no idea how this applies to this discussion or any in the past.
I asked some specific questions, so how this amounts to a “’debate’ on [my] terms” is something I don’t understand.
People leaving the forum has nothing to do with anything. I could just as easily argue that people are leaving the forum because they are fed up with what you say.
“Several times over the past few years I have given evidence tp back up my comments, but you and others have then dismissed them out of hand (despite it being very credible)…” – That is called debate and discussion; disagreement is part of that.
“… then personally attacked me…” – What have I said that is personal? I try very hard to avoid personal comment, because it devalues the discussion.
“I also don't accept you're ‘Im a bit right of centre’ comment, given your views on many subjects. – I would love to know what I have said that leads to that conclusion. By the way, I voted for Brexit and voted Tory at the last general election. Does that qualify for being right of centre? But believe what you wish; it makes no difference to the discussion.
So what do we have in this latest post from Andy? Clearly, a determination to avoid answering the questions I asked; people will have to make up their own minds as to why. Comments about my alleged wish to make the discussion personal, including bringing in stuff that I am accused of saying or doing in the past, in fact only serve to make this latest post in itself personal.
Disappointing, but not surprising.
|
So what do we have in this latest post from Andy? Clearly, a determination to avoid answering the questions I asked; people will have to make up their own minds as to why. Comments about my alleged wish to make the discussion personal, including bringing in stuff that I am accused of saying or doing in the past, in fact only serve to make this latest post in itself personal.
Disappointing, but not surprising.
You're a fine one to talk. Hypocritical, buut not surprising.
I tried doing the honourable thing time and again and going into a lot of detail on my opinion, including showing facts and figures, photo and video evidence, but you and your chums (amazing how many of them have left wing views, despite [like yourself] denying being that way inclined) dismiss them out of hand with the usual tired accusations of 'conspiracy theories' etc etc.
Just like the one, for example when I and others said that the COVID 'vaccines' were never designed to 'stop the spread' and yet you and yours parroted the line from officials, 'experts' and the pharma companies themselves that taking it was 'to stop killing granny'.
Funny how the likes of Pfzier and Co have publicly said that was all bunk,as it appears many of their other claims (and are growing in number by the day). It also appears that IMHO their 'trials' weren't exactly kosher either, especially regarding proper double-blidning, and testing on the young and pregnant women before recommending they be released for that use.
Funny how no under 50s / pregnant women are now being recommended any more doses? Funny how the Yellow Card system and US / other equivalents are not reporting properly and that the 'enquiries' into COVID are not going to be dealing with any of the numerous (and growing) bad outcomes, all of which were predicted by people on my side of the argument right at the start, despite us not being 'experts' (IMHO a blind man could see them).
This WILL seriously affect both mortality rates, birth rates (and the level of serious fetal deformities and miscarriages [already begun]), the level of serious illness that cannot be properly attributable to delays in diagnosis/tratment becuase of lockdowns (i.e. in otherwise healthy people just so happen to start within weeks/months of getting the MRNA COVID jabs).
Of course, all those extra (unvaxxed) future barristas and Amazon delivery drivers will help to fill the gaps, all very grateful and ready to put their X as directed by Uncle Klaus and his merry band of 'honourable members' of all persuausions in that place.
Well, at least I won't be one of those suffering an early demise due to jab 'complications', whether now or a few years down the road.
|
|
Not interested in changing your mind here, Andy, but genuinely interested.
When did Pfizer say that their vaccine didn't stop the spread? What are the known bad outcomes of the vaccines? What growing number of miscarriages? Which serious illnesses have become more prevalent?
And, most importantly, who is Uncle Klaus?
I am reasonably convinced that the vaccines made me unwell for several months (ongoing), although I did also contract COVID and it was fairly mild, so I at least got the plus side too.
|
|
The vaccine was to create immunity. If it's given to Granny it means Covid is less likely to killher.
Funny how no under 50s / pregnant women are now being recommended any more doses?
Booster doses, at least in the UK are available to people at risk. That includes pregnant women:
www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronav.../
Funny how the Yellow Card system and US / other equivalents are not reporting properly and that the 'enquiries' into COVID are not going to be dealing with any of the numerous (and growing) bad outcomes, all of which were predicted by people on my side of the argument right at the start, despite us not being 'experts' (IMHO a blind man could see them).
How exactly is the yellow card system failing?
What exactly are the numerous (and growing) bad outcomes
This WILL seriously affect both mortality rates, birth rates (and the level of serious fetal deformities and miscarriages [already begun]), the level of serious illness that cannot be properly attributable to delays in diagnosis/tratment becuase of lockdowns (i.e. in otherwise healthy people just so happen to start within weeks/months of getting the MRNA COVID jabs).
Of course, all those extra (unvaxxed) future barristas and Amazon delivery drivers will help to fill the gaps, all very grateful and ready to put their X as directed by Uncle Klaus and his merry band of 'honourable members' of all persuausions in that place.
What are the real numbers for these abnormalities and miscarriages? Does the use of 'fetal' rather than foetal as in UK spelling suggests you're drawing on US 'sources'?
I've no idea who Uncle Klaus is or of why barristas and Amazon drivers matter. Can you explain?
|
|
"Uncle Klaus" is, I presume, Klaus Schwab the founder of the WEF, considered by the conspiracy theorists to be plotting world takeover, population reduction, and for some US extremists, baby eating.
|
|
<< I tried doing the honourable thing time and again and going into a lot of detail on my opinion, >>
Now that is something I cannot disagree with, Andy. You have always been most generous with your opinion, sometimes so generous that I have to move on to the next contribution before finishing yours. :-))
|
|
To remind Andy or anyone else interested of what I had hoped he would respond to:
"Just wait until the effects of the pandemic response (including authoritarian measures that were /are being slipped in) REALLY start to kick in globally, especially in Western nations."
- Please explain exactly what "effects of the pandemic response" you are talking about, in particular what "authoritarian measures" you have in mind.
"There's a good reason why other 'crises' are being invented by those in power..."
- Please explain what "other 'crises' are being invented by those in power".
"... (and I don't just mean politicians, I means those who really pull the strings)..."
- In your view, who are the people "really pull[ing] the strings"?
His post dated Mon 28 Nov 2022 13:56 avoids (once again) giving a straight answer to any of these questions.
Instead it includes an accusation of hypocrisy on my part, followed by a couple of paragraphs which seems air his grievances how badly he has been treated in the past when he produced evidence that I and others disagreed with.
Then he moves into further allegations of problems with covid vaccines, including a prediction about the future. There is a strange reference to “barristas… Amazon delivery drivers… [and] Uncle Klaus”, which apparently I’m not the only one here to be puzzled by.
He ends with a piece of self-congratulation for being an anti-vaxxer.
In view of all this I don’t think there is any point in my continuing what is not really a discussion at all. I’ll leave it to others to dissect the points presented about covid vaccines if they wish.
Apparently Andy wishes to put his controversial ideas out there on this forum, but not to discuss or explain precisely what he means and has said. People here will no doubt come to their own conclusions.
|
|
|
Funny how you seem to like giving it out but not receiving it. perhaps you may then put yourself in my shoes as a result. it also appears that you are also trying to gaslight me as well, given your previous responses, including on other General threads.
You've mentioned being gaslighted on a few occasions now on different posts - yet can never point out where this is being done. Someone asking you a question and you ignoring them is not what being gaslighted means.
|
Funny how you seem to like giving it out but not receiving it. perhaps you may then put yourself in my shoes as a result. it also appears that you are also trying to gaslight me as well, given your previous responses, including on other General threads.
You've mentioned being gaslighted on a few occasions now on different posts - yet can never point out where this is being done. Someone asking you a question and you ignoring them is not what being gaslighted means.
Funny, that's exactly what you've just done to me now. Perhaps you need to look a bit more carefully, preferably with your eyes open this time.
|
Funny how you seem to like giving it out but not receiving it. perhaps you may then put yourself in my shoes as a result. it also appears that you are also trying to gaslight me as well, given your previous responses, including on other General threads.
You've mentioned being gaslighted on a few occasions now on different posts - yet can never point out where this is being done. Someone asking you a question and you ignoring them is not what being gaslighted means.
Funny, that's exactly what you've just done to me now. Perhaps you need to look a bit more carefully, preferably with your eyes open this time.
Where are they gaslighting you?
|
Funny how you seem to like giving it out but not receiving it. perhaps you may then put yourself in my shoes as a result. it also appears that you are also trying to gaslight me as well, given your previous responses, including on other General threads.
You've mentioned being gaslighted on a few occasions now on different posts - yet can never point out where this is being done. Someone asking you a question and you ignoring them is not what being gaslighted means.
Funny, that's exactly what you've just done to me now. Perhaps you need to look a bit more carefully, preferably with your eyes open this time.
You don't understand what the term gaslighting means:
' Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a person or group causes someone to question their own sanity, memories, or perception of reality. People who experience gaslighting may feel confused, anxious, or as though they cannot trust themselves.'
How is me saying you don't ever point to an example of being gaslighted linked to the meaning above? My eyes are open and ready to see you highlighting where this is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
