Jump to content

Do masks work? See the review of over 150 studies below:


bigbird

Recommended Posts





51 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I’m sure there were many on here that chuckled when they saw the irony of his post. 

There is irony in multiple posts. Particularly the plea of adulthood by those parading as children in diapers.  

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Forward this to all hospitals immediately.  They have been fools for so long.

Just a couple years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2022 at 8:59 PM, bigbird said:

I was always told here not to attack the source...

He critiqued both the sources and the content of what they said. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well you obviously overlooked the key phrases in my post: .... to support an argument of fact (science) which is what this is about.

I have often posted opinion articles to support my opinion. Obviously, I choose authors that are biased in the same way I am. Some of these articles are even supported by data, but I have never presented the claims made from it as scientific fact unless it's been scientifically tested.

I have never represented  anything as a statement of scientific fact that cannot be supported by valid scientific research.  (As the subject at hand was presented.)

That would violate my values and my scientific training.  It would be like an engineer promoting something he knew might not work just because he liked the idea.

And regarding the internet, if you didn't know, you can find links to most scientific research on the internet.

But that doesn't mean "anything" on the internet is scientifically valid.  (I thought that should be obvious.)

No, you post up 50 page "articles" by some near insane howler monkey that has never spent one second in the same zip code as the centerpiece of said screed and will then proceed to bloviate for said 50 pages on some excruciatingly detailed mental diagnosis SANS ANY FACTS, SANS ANY SCIENCE whatsoever. And you do this over and over and over. When called out on it, you call everyone within shouting distance, that does not 100% agree with the idiocy posted a "liar." 

EX: The OP posted up an article by a RW Howler Monkey that is basically sans science, sans facts. 
It mirrors MANY of the articles you have posted TIME AND AGAIN on this forum from some Pop-Psychologist LW Howler Monkey decrying that "Name to be Entered Later" is suffering from "Schizophrenic Nazi Fascistic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Racist Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Islamophobic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Misogynistic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Homophobic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Hallucinated By a LW Howler Monkey Behavior"

DDDEEMMMOOOCCCRRRAAACCCYYYY!!!!!!

RRRUUUSSSSSSSIIIAAANNNSSSS!!!!!!!!

There, I have to go take a bath now. Living in your head for 5 minutes makes me feel all icky inside.

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

No, you post up 50 page "articles" by some near insane howler monkey that has never spent one second in the same zip code as the centerpiece of said screed and will then proceed to bloviate for said 50 pages on some excruciatingly detailed mental diagnosis SANS ANY FACTS, SANS ANY SCIENCE whatsoever. And you do this over and over and over. When called out on it, you call everyone within shouting distance, that does not 100% agree with the idiocy posted a "liar." 

EX: The OP posted up an article by a RW Howler Monkey that is basically sans science, sans facts. 
It mirrors MANY of the articles you have posted TIME AND AGAIN on this forum from some Pop-Psychologist LW Howler Monkey decrying that "Name to be Entered Later" is suffering from "Schizophrenic Nazi Fascistic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Racist Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Islamophobic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Misogynistic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Homophobic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Hallucinated By a LW Howler Monkey Behavior"

DDDEEMMMOOOCCCRRRAAACCCYYYY!!!!!!

RRRUUUSSSSSSSIIIAAANNNSSSS!!!!!!!!

There, I have to go take a bath now. Living in your head for 5 minutes makes me feel all icky inside.

um masks also help you you are fugly for the record.................

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

He critiqued both the sources and the content of what they said. 

Okay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

The OP posted up an article by a RW Howler Monkey that is basically sans science, sans facts. 

And the experiment worked.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

No, you post up 50 page "articles" by some near insane howler monkey that has never spent one second in the same zip code as the centerpiece of said screed and will then proceed to bloviate for said 50 pages on some excruciatingly detailed mental diagnosis SANS ANY FACTS, SANS ANY SCIENCE whatsoever. And you do this over and over and over. When called out on it, you call everyone within shouting distance, that does not 100% agree with the idiocy posted a "liar." 

EX: The OP posted up an article by a RW Howler Monkey that is basically sans science, sans facts. 
It mirrors MANY of the articles you have posted TIME AND AGAIN on this forum from some Pop-Psychologist LW Howler Monkey decrying that "Name to be Entered Later" is suffering from "Schizophrenic Nazi Fascistic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Racist Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Islamophobic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Misogynistic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Homophobic Behavior" or "Schizophrenic Nazi Hallucinated By a LW Howler Monkey Behavior"

DDDEEMMMOOOCCCRRRAAACCCYYYY!!!!!!

RRRUUUSSSSSSSIIIAAANNNSSSS!!!!!!!!

There, I have to go take a bath now. Living in your head for 5 minutes makes me feel all icky inside.

 

And I'm sure you believe your people like Jimmy  Dore, Joe Rogan, and Krystal/Sagaar are absolutely NOT howler monkeys? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Now, just to retroactively figure out what the experiment was...

 

It was to test how long each of them could last in the circle jerkin party they're having in here. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CoffeeTiger said:

It was to test how long each of them could last in the circle jerkin party they're having in here. 

I've got bad news for all of them.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

Thanks?

Just kind of a weird flex.  You post some meta "study" from an oddball site with oddball backers.  People proceed to point out the lack of credibility of the folks backing it and also critique the arguments and conclusions themselves.  And somehow this proves....what exactly?

That the "other side" will play shoot the messenger and that's some kind of gotcha or indication of a double standard?  We've never said a person can't critique a source or point out that it's not very credible or has a history of bias.  What we have said is that you can't JUST impugn the source and that suffice as your argument all by itself.  But of course that isn't what happened here.  Coffee dished on the people involved with this article and then proceeded to take apart the premises of their argument - all in the same post.

Maybe it was to show how quickly the various members of the site would pick a side to be on.  Not sure why that would be revelatory either though.  Not so much a weird flex as a weak one.

But you do you...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never mind the language in the OP that clearly displayed resentment and attempted comeuppance. 

Seems just as likely that the "experiment" bit is just an attempt to rebrand poor judgment as trolling. Sad that trolling would be the better case scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

And I'm sure you believe your people like Jimmy  Dore, Joe Rogan, and Krystal/Sagaar are absolutely NOT howler monkeys? 

I am sure you would dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with your view facts be damned. I didn’t sit here for four f’in years and whine about Democracy!!!!! and Russians!!!!!! and how we were about to see a dozen people or more arrested for Treason, Sedition, Collusion!!!! and then not see one arrest nor actual fact that was anything more than gross speculation. No facts at all. So for four long years we had the SFs here on the board scream over and over about S,D, and C and still next to nothing. 
 

I would say I was the voice of reason here for four years. I never supported trump for a minute but I was at least SANE enough to not be worried to death about pee tapes and a dossier that has long since fallen all apart. We had FBI agents lie to the FISA court about witnesses. We had Strzok, Comey, Rice, Brennan, et al all come forward and say they never found anything worthy of a 4 year investigation just as I predicted. 

Edited by DKW 86
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I am sure you would dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with your view facts be damned. I didn’t sit here for four f’in years and whine about Democracy!!!!! and Russians!!!!!! and how we were about to see a dozen people or more arrested for Treason, Sedition, Collusion!!!! and then not see one arrest nor actual fact that was anything more than gross speculation. No facts at all. So for four long years we had the SFs here on the board scream over and over about S,D, and C and still next to nothing. 
 

I would say I was the voice of reason here for four years. I never supported trump for a minute but I was at least SANE enough to not be worried to death about pee tapes and a dossier that has long since fallen all apart. We had FBI agents lie to the FISA court about witnesses. We had Strzok, Comey, Rice, Brennan, et al all come forward and say they never found anything worthy of a 4 year investigation. 

I disagree that I would dismiss something that had facts to back it up.  The thing is that I usually require actual sources to look at those facts for myself rather than blindly believing something someone says just because they claim all the "facts" say it's true. 

 

I'll just take you're word for all the rest. I didn't start regularly participating in the political forum till early 2021, so I don't know what you and others said or didn't say before then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2022 at 8:59 PM, bigbird said:

I was always told here not to attack the source...

Apparently you can attack the source if you decide you that like the sources data. I doubt anyone on here took the time to go through all 150 studies, yet they are dismissing the data. Keep in mind these same people are the same ones that post articles from bizarro world sites. 
 

Some people can’t distinguish the difference between Science and $cience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I didn't start regularly participating in the political forum till early 2021

It's been a rough couple years for all of us. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Apparently you can attack the source if you decide you that like the sources data. I doubt anyone on here took the time to go through all 150 studies, yet they are dismissing the data. Keep in mind these same people are the same ones that post articles from bizarro world sites. 
 

Some people can’t distinguish the difference between Science and $cience. 

You can attack the source as you also engage with the data/argument/premises.  In the context of this thread, the entire "bbbbut you attacked the source!" thing is irrelevant.  Coffee did nothing wrong.  It's a red herring.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Just kind of a weird flex.  You post some meta "study" from an oddball site with oddball backers.  People proceed to point out the lack of credibility of the folks backing it and also critique the arguments and conclusions themselves.  And somehow this proves....what exactly?

That the "other side" will play shoot the messenger and that's some kind of gotcha or indication of a double standard?  We've never said a person can't critique a source or point out that it's not very credible or has a history of bias.  What we have said is that you can't JUST impugn the source and that suffice as your argument all by itself.  But of course that isn't what happened here.  Coffee dished on the people involved with this article and then proceeded to take apart the premises of their argument - all in the same post.

Maybe it was to show how quickly the various members of the site would pick a side to be on.  Not sure why that would be revelatory either though.  Not so much a weird flex as a weak one.

But you do you...

If you can't see it, then I can't help you, but thanks for your permission anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, bigbird said:

If you can't see it, then I can't help you, but thanks for your permission anyways.

There's nothing to see.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...