🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@kuken

I actually have pretty close ties to helping a few people which schizophrenia. Its important to understand there is a big difference between the paranoid schizophrenia like Akeno here is displaying and regular schizophrenia.

Paranoid schizophrenia assumes everyone is lying if they dont see what they see (which he pretty much just did).. and that large masses of people must all be in on conspiracies about most things.. their gut impressions become twisted into realities and they loose the ability to weight evidence. When you think anything or anyone is part of a conspiracy any counter evidence is just dismissed as part of the conspiracy and makes it easy for them to stick to a fictional reality of their choosing.

This guy pretty much has every indicator of paranoid schizophrenia and seems obvious to me... shame really, but not much we can do about it, they very rarely respond to reason, if anything it just makes them get worse.

@akeno @ohellno

@ohellno

> Real intelligence comes from the ability to learn things from anywhere.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA including 100 year old random dude in his basement that turned out to be wrong and consistently disproven for 100 years..

Thats not learning, thats called cherry picking. When you try to evaluate something is true or not so you side with weak, disproven evidence and ignore mountains of counter evidence all because the weaker evidence makes your case.. no thats not learning, thats reinforcing your stupidity.

There would be nothing wrong with learning from someones insight 100 years ago in and of itself, but not when it means ignoring much stronger evidence from the 100 years that followed.

>There were dozens of comments from people saying how much of an idiot and how wrong he was etc.

> I decided i was going to give it a look and there it was. Right on Wikipedia.

Except there is one big, and very important, difference between this example and the one from earlier.. In this case you didnt just see some crazy theory and accept it. You went on to wikipedia, did **research** to confirm it, looked at the history, the evidence, and actually changed your mind.

Your earlier example I pressed you for exactly that, to show the evidence in the 100 years that followed that supported or denied the claim (which would potentially actually make a case for you if you werent making easily debunked nonsense claims), you provided none... So what you have here is a very different situation, you heard some crazy sounding nonsense, and without aquiring any evidence to support it just assumed it was true cause it make your assumptions sound correct...

> So it's up to you, you can pick up bits and pieces from places that don't spell it out for you and run with it. Or you can continue waiting for everyone to do the research for you and telling you what to believe.

Been there, done that. Already heard people claiming the nonsense like people like you. Gave them all the consideration, heard all their evidence, researched every point made.. it turned out to be a bunch of morons who didnt know a damn thing and was easily debunked.

The problem is you dont accept that, you just assume because someone doesn't believe the same stupid uneducated bullshit as you that they "didnt do the research".. beleive what you like, doesn't make you any less of a moron.

> See you later. Muted

Thank you, very much appreciated that you are saving me the time (and proving your inability to back up your bullshit)... Please be sure to carry through on this, I dont want to see you messaging me and this turning out to be a lie.

@akeno

@ohellno

When did I say I didnt?

More importantly though, I'm not the one trying to make a convincing case, you are. Do you really expect people to go off and invest time in researching an outlandish claim that relies on the entire world of scientists being in on some perpetual conspiracy theory for 100 years without strong evidence to back that up?

Your evidence is one random guy from 100 years ago who claimed to observe something, before they even had the tools to make good tests in the first place. No one is going to go research your flat-earth level bullshit off of one random dude 100 years ago saying he saw something as your "evidence"

@akeno

@ohellno

And has that experiment been proven or debunked? quoting an observation from 100 years ago doesnt get you very far unless you can show that int he 100 years since experiments have consistently proven it to be true... you do realize 1919 medicine without any reflection on the 100 years of evidence after that is not proving anything right? What do the other 100 years of experiments say?

@akeno

@akeno

spoken like a true moron and psychopath, congrats.

@ohellno

@akeno

never said you needed to be admited against your will.. only that you should be in a hospital. Your response confirmed that.

@ohellno

@akeno

> you have presented none for your outlandish bullshit!

I have not put forth any theories, what would I possibly need to present.. **you** are the one putting forth a laughable theory in disagreement with the existing evidence, **you** are the one who has to prove it.

You really expect to be able to make up whatever nonsense you want, with no basis in reality, and then its everyone elses job to prove you wrong.. sorry, doesnt work that way.

> Pathological liars like you always claims moral high ground.

You sound like your a paranoid schizophrenic and need to be in a hospital.

Your links are some dude rambling and saying bullshit.. be specific, what **exactly** is the **EVIDENCE** him or anyone is presented.. give me the specific experiment I can do right now that proves you right, otherwise shut the fuck up.

@ohellno

@ohellno

> "They can't all be wrong"

No I'm not. I'm basing it on the fact that I have seen and understand what they do in the lab, how they verify things, the scrutiny that goes on, and seeing with my own eyes and repeating some experiments on my own to know that what they say works, works. things that would never and could never work if viruses werent real.

> There are plenty of references and resources available on my site. So if you want to believe in viruses rather than dig in and find answers then do be it.

As I already said, I've already dug in plenty of resources, and they are all written by morons who dont know the first thing about logic or how to "prove" even the most basic things. I have no expectation that your claims are anything new that I havent already seen. However if you wish to bring your evidence into this conversation, go for it. I've done enough digging to know its idiocy, but if you happen to be the one person arguing this shit who has some real evidence, feel free to try to bring it.

> I would rather base what i know to be true from evidence, so enjoy your day.

Clearly not, there is a mountain of evidence and you seem to be pretending like it doesnt even exist, meanwhile you have presented none for your outlandish bullshit.

Good day, I certainly have no time for shoveling your bullshit

@akeno

@ohellno

As for all the "evidence" disproving germ theory.. I've spent a lot of time int he past reading through many people who have came and claimed that and debated it.. all of it was complete idiotic nonsense, and not one bit of it held up to existing knowledge or understanding.

The hundreds of thousands of scientists working with viruses every day already prove its legitimate, most of what they do wouldnt work or make any sense if viruses werent real

@akeno

@ohellno

I am not the one making outlandish claims, so I have no need to test their absurd theory... They indicated a theory without absolutely no evidence to back it up, evidence that would be trivial to gather. The lack of evidence and effort means the theory is not based on observed evidence but pulled out of their ass. That pattern alone is more than enough for me to discount it.

Now if they actually bothered to do **science** and test their assertions and presented that as part of their claim, then it would be less outlandish and would be a legitimate reason to expect scientists to repeat the test and see if the theory of acidic secretions has any basis in reality.

Its like me saying "Oh by the way unicorns are real, I can prove it because a bunch of poop you find in the woods has rainbows shooting out of it!"... and the nthem demanding scientist show we have done extensive studies disproving poop with rainbows coming out of it.. Its not mine or any other scientists wackadoo theory, so its not my obligation or that of other scientists to put any effort into it.

You can beleive whatever you want, but you are wrong and you look like an idiot for thinking otherwise.. Of course you think you are right, so feel free to do a study and get it peer reviewed. You will fail (Because your ideas are bullshit) but if you happen to gather any actual evidence then youll prove me wrong.

@akeno

@ohellno

The claim is that the liquid oozing out of the sores is an acid burning the skin. Therefore testing the liquid to see if it is an acid would very clearly prove or disprove the theory (which would obviously be disproved).

@akeno

@akeno

Thank you for so perfectly proving my point, much appreciated it.

QED

@ohellno

@akeno

This whole bit of unintelligent dribble can be disproven in all of 2 seconds.. take a pH strip touch it to a chicken pox sore quickly, and see if it shows an extremely low pH, which of course, it will not.

People love to make up whatever bullshit sounds right to them and fits the world they want to make up in their head and really have no intention of taking even a moment to verify it, if they did they might find out they were wrong and their ego can't handle that.

@ohellno

@anonymoose

While I agree with your defence of firearm ownership in general this logic seems flawed to me. If you have a gun and manage to defend your own home you still need to call the police and they still need to go through all the steps they normally would. In fact, it probably takes them more man hours to handle a case where a civilian shot an intruder than a case where a cop did (since there are more unknowns for them to investigate.

So owning a gun for home defense doesnt actually save tax payers as you would suggest.

Now with that said the healthcare argument is also weak. Having insurance doesnt in any way reduce costs nor does it effect the out of pocket money of tax payers.. the point of insurance is that instead of paying a 10K bill in one shot you pre-pay by paying smaller bills (insurance) over the course of years which by the time you need 10K in medical bills the amount you put into insurance has exceeded the amount you had to pay. So all it really does is amortize the cost, it doesnt reduce them, in fact it increases overall cost.

@arh@toots.alirezahayati.com @realcaseyrollins @Locksmith

@openrisk I see, let me ask a similar question then.. do you or anyone profit from "openriskmanagement.com" in any way and if so how (this would include contract work, advertising, etc).

We have very strict rules on allowing non-individuals accounts on the server and there is some debate whether you qualify. Keep in mind even if you are non-profit and derive no profit of any kind there is still a good chance you may not quality, and even if you derrive some profit there is a chance that you may... but I need to dig a little deeper so I can let you know what criteria you may need to meet to quality and give you a chance (if possible) to adjust your account to meet that criteria.

@louiscouture

Not exactly how I would word it.. The vaccine skipped otherwise critical safety trials that under normal circumstances would never be allowed for obvious safety reasons. There are quite a few doctors who arent happy about this and countless efforts to block the approval of the vaccines due to safety concerns (and in some cases doctors even resigned in protest to make that point known). So there is no doubt a legitimate concern there.

But that does not mean the vaccines are dangerous.. what it means is we have no idea how dangerous the vaccines are, they could turn out to be very dangerous they could turn out to be perfectly safe. The fact that their safety is not garunteed to the same extent as vaccines that go through the full safety tests is the real issue, and the consequences of that wont be known until people start dying in a year (or not).

@angelobottone

@electrona

C, then C++, then anything else.. there is no C#, forget it exists.

@zpartacoos If thats what drew you in then you found the right place indeed :) We have a good bunch here. Great tinkerers, hackers, and scientists, but the sort that actually love to have a good conversation and explore contradictory ideas.. none of that elitism you sometimes get from scientists (well as long as you arent a flat earther or something way out there)

@icedquinn

If astrazeneca was approved and is actively being administered then that is news to me. Possible I just missed that though.

@angelobottone

@angelobottone yes i was refering to the link to that topic you provided, it was worth mentioning.