Comments by "joe public" (@joepublic3933) on "TED"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juliobaylac3002 Well thanks! That took some doing, didn't it? The burden of proof was indeed on you, "buddy", since you were the one making the original claims. That's why people responded to your post, asking for a bit of justification.
Unfortunately of course your list is only books, which I'm not about to go out and buy just for the fun. Nothing against books: they constitute interesting references, but are not in themselves sources. They may contain sources: I hope they do! What would have been more immediately useful here in the youtube comments section would be direct links to scientific papers, for example. I know that may sound a bit "convenient", but that's the way it is; I'm not spending a single cent on what will probably be just someone else giving their opinion without any hard data to back them up.
I do know "how it works", I'm not "new to this", but considering how you've chucked insults around up til now, behaving rather childishly, I don't have enough interest in your claims to buy those books.
I've got a degree in Ecology, from a university that houses the UKs Climatic Research Centre (UEA Norwich), the first of its kind in Britain, back in 91. So no, I'm not new to this. Books will just give me more opinions, I want data. I also asked you to sketch out briefly why you think Gates has a depopulation agenda (working very badly apparently since the population has gone up by a billion since his 2010 talk) and why you think vaccines are more profitable than treatments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juliobaylac3002 Funny how you're so aggressive about all this. I did say, didn't I, that in your second post you'd put links which were more of immediate use to me than the books? I also said "Nothing against books: they constitute interesting references, but are not in themselves sources. They may contain sources: I hope they do!" So the "books are no good" that you misquote me as saying ( just like many misquote Gates on population) is false.
This is just the youtube comments section, not a commission, so relax a bit and give us an idea of why you think the "mainstream" view on climate is wrong, and why you think Gates wants to depopulate the Earth.
Again, the burden of giving proof is on you, because you're the one expressing an opinion/idea. If I make lots of claims about the Easter Bunny, giant spaghetti monsters and the Loch Ness Monster it's up to me to prove they exist, not up to you to prove they don't. Many things cannot be disproved; that's just the way stuff works. I can give no evidence to say the Easter Bunny does not exist... but why should I anyway? He doesn't exist. If you come along and claim he does.... you need to prove it.
"And you are right, you should not buy books that go against your prejudice and established understanding of a subject. You don’t want to go through that experience. I get it"
You don't get it though, do you? You're putting words into my mouth.If I'm debating here it's precisely because I'm interested by what information others may have. You must be aware that youtube and google in general use algorithms which guide you in the same direction once you've started looking into something.To break free of that, you need outside links. Hence the importance of debating in the comments section.
I sort of get the impression that you're trying to drown me in references, a bit like Kennedy does on his site... but I will look into them. Quality not quantity is important. You could've just given one or two of each topic for a start. Doesn't matter though; I know how to sort through all that. Would be curious to hear it all summed up briefly in your own words though.
Something tells me I will be disappointed; much as I may try to keep an open mind, your tendency to misquote and jump to conclusions isn't encouraging. It shows a pretty blinkered attitude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@niccolodentesani8441 No it's not the same thing. A combination of living conditions and religious influence (acceptability of contraception) make for the smallest families in Europe. Sub-Saharian Africa has the largest.
The difference between children dying or not being born is huge; in the one case, there's immense suffering, and in the other..... well, nothing. If you're talking about a purely statistical effect, then yes, there is still a difference. To make the example, if a family has ten children due to lack of contraception and/or the need for hands to work for the family, maybe three or four will survive (that's just an estimative example, don't take that as hard stats). In European society where survival is pretty much guaranteed, where mechanisation has reduced the need for labour, and religion (or lack of) has permitted contraception, families CHOOSE to have less children, thus bringing down the general expansion rate of the population.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1090668/average-household-size-worldwide-by-region/
1
-
@jessedew26
I've just watched this video, and although I haven't gone through all the links provided for it, I've started going through some of them (placing more importance on reading the scientific papers rather than the news articles which just interpret).
The problem with the links provided on polio is that they indicate an overall success of the vaccination programme! If mutant strains cause more effects than wild polio, it's precisely because the vaccination has worked to eradicate wild polio.Here's what they say (briefly; you can read the whole articles to complete):
Correlation between Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis Rates with Pulse Polio Frequency in India
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121585/pdf/ijerph-15-01755.pdf
"5. Conclusions
The polio eradication programme succeeded in drastically reducing the global spread of this disease, which was achieved through the use of immunization with OPV. While commending this enormous effort at eradication, our observation supports the hypothesis that the frequency of pulse polio administration is directly or indirectly related to the incidence of NPAFP. It is hoped that this finding will help continue efforts at optimizing the dose schedule of OPV administration and result in a reduction in NPAFP—which is a feasible hope, as the incidence of wild polio is currently at an all-time low."
And this one:
Mutant Strains Of Polio Vaccine Now Cause More Paralysis Than Wild Polio https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/28/534403083/mutant-strains-of-polio-vaccine-now-cause-more-paralysis-than-wild-polio
"That eradication effort has been incredibly successful. In 1988, when the campaign began, there were 350,000 cases of polio around the world each year compared with the six so far this year.
Zaffran credits the oral polio vaccine with getting the world incredibly close to wiping out a terrible disease.
"Four regions of the world have totally eradicated the disease with the use of the oral polio vaccine," he notes. "Of course we need to recognize that there have been a few cases of children paralyzed because of the vaccine virus, which is regrettable. But, you know, from a public health perspective, the benefits far outweigh the risk."
This one, with regards to malaria:
First Results of Phase 3 Trial of RTS,S/AS01 Malaria Vaccine in African Children https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1102287
"Conclusions
The RTS,S/AS01 vaccine provided protection against both clinical and severe malaria in African children. "
"A malaria vaccine, deployed in combination with current malaria-control tools, could play an important role in future control and eventual elimination of malaria in Africa."
So these papers basically say the opposite of what's being said in the video, which leads me to wonder why they've been included.... unless it's because the poster of this video didn't actually read them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Noartist If you'd followed my comments, I already said I'm not here to dispute about what Bill Gates may or may not be. When you start watching a video after having seen an article, or read a paper or whatever, you do so to get a bit more of an idea of what the subject is, right? So when you watch a video, you go check on the comments to see what other people think; if there's a conflicting view, it might have a link to follow. What I hate about youtube is the algorithms creating the suggestions, which guide you despite yourself towards the same old opinions again and again. The comments section is useful for breaking out of that. But it's only useful if used intelligently. If I do my own quick fact check on the things being said, I come up time and time again with blatant lies, sneaky editing and misconceptions. I'm ranting about what people say he says.When you're confronted with rubbish like this, it puts you off looking up the rest, and discredits anything true which could well be buried under that mound of crap.
What I consistently do in any debate I have is to encourage the use of cited sources, with links, so that the debate can stay interesting and useful. Sometimes I chuck in a bit of my twisted humour, which you either like or don't. Doesn't matter..........in my opinion! By the way, my computer runs on Linux. A detail, because I'm on this very platform talking about how bad it is, but a significant detail none the less. You've got to see the irony of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1