Youtube comments of betabenja (@betabenja).
-
571
-
493
-
488
-
343
-
246
-
159
-
149
-
117
-
97
-
91
-
73
-
61
-
61
-
59
-
I'm not. Their arguments are always terrible.
It's always:
'this important fact does not matter because he won, so suck it'' or
'you're just crying, so your facts don't matter' or
'these facts are wrong because Donald said so, despite video evidence' or
'Hillary was worse than Trump so that excuses everything bad about him now' or
''I don't care, my candidate won so I'm turning a blind eye to everything he does.'
'no, your'e fake news; no, you're doctoring those images; no, your'e inciting violence; no your're alt-facts; no you're triggered - what ever you say is what you are, no backsies'
.. and so on.
ugh. It's like trying to reason with 5 year olds. Worse, they think this is some sort of valid debating style, with no points or facts or valid challenges to the criticisms, no supporting citations, nothing.
57
-
57
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Brix Broox I don't understand why republicans keep saying "there's no way that biden beat trump". What have you guys been watching? do you believe all that? You say fake news so often, but you never think it's your news which is fake? on raw data, polls, averaged over bipartisan sources, show that trump is historically unpopular. how can you all be so brainwashed? reality slaps you in the face, showing how you've been following false media for years, and you still think Trump is loved by over half the country. even when the thoroughly unlikable Clinton was running, more people overall voted for Clinton than Trump. He is thoroughly disliked.
I have some time shares, if you'd like to buy them. Also, your computer has a virus, I'll fix it if you just give me access. And I need to transfer $1Bn out of africa - could you pay the upfront fee to get the money into your account?
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tonycook7679 Elites are not to be trusted! apart from in everything we do, in our electricity supply, water cleaning, our communications, our health, our education, our entertainment, our economy, our defense, apart from all that, don't trust them! Essentially, don't trust anyone who is more successful than you! BREXIIIIIT!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SuperMannurse no, he got 3 months for killing someone. It's not decided whether it was self defense (you did watch the trial, right!?!). It's not victimhood, it's accountability; you kill someone violently, you get put in holding - that's the law, he did something bad, people make sure he can't do anything more bad until court. The time was not 'taken' from him without him doing something bad first. Not sure you understand the concept of 'Victim".
And he "got his name dragged through the mud" for going looking for trouble with an illegal weapon. (which he did - you did watch the trial, right?)
You aslo can't be a victim of something that didn't happen, the rape you talk about. That only happened in your imagination. So again, nothing lost.
he was called a white supremacist without full justification. What a terrible price, you're right, what a victim.
I bet that dead guy will agree.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Voodoo Child on re-reading, it strikes me that you might have taken the original post seriously, despite the phrase "I'm not potty trained". I can't quite tell where you're coming from.
Anyway. Fauchi had a job before the pandemic, in co-ordiating the nations departments to identify and research diseases, roll out standard vaccines, coordinate public responses to outbreaks of anti-vaxxer measels, keep hospital standards up, combat super bugs in hospitals, increase safety precaustions and equipment, co-ordinate funding and co-operation for disease control abroad, fund virology research, combat the overuse of antibacterials, and their impending failure, develop better antibacterials, and monitor the overall health of the population looking out for new dangers to health.
He still does all that, he's not a cheer leader.
in terms of the corona virus, he's co-ordinating and overseeing the development of a vaccine, and, it would seem, the most important thing of not losing his job while trying to explain to the most idiotic and petulant president on earth that he's wrong.
so, I think perhaps, you might be underestimating what his job entails, and thinking that it's just telling you to wear a mask. perhaps, that just because that's the bit you can see in front of you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's called a narcissist. He's got the classic victimhood of narcissism too, where everyone's out to get him and it's not his fault he
- achieved the worst infection in world,
- through inaction and misinformation caused more deaths than vietnam did,
- lost a trade war he started,
- got caught trying to bribe a foreign nation,
- lost the house,
- was impeached by the house,
- built next to no wall,
- caused a government shutdown by his own admission,
- imprisoned children and orphaned them,
- sacked nearly everyone he employed,
- undermined journalism, by his own admittance so that he could get away with lying so much,
- doomed the US's allies the Kurds, to death,
- made no progress with North Korea after sucking up to the (other) worst man in the world,
- pulled out of climate agreements that the rest of the world were in,
- restarted Iran's Nuclear program,
- personally gave state secrets to Russians in the whitehouse,
- is the most unpopular president statistically since polls began,
- failed to deliver a health plan,
- failed on his promise to repeal ACA,
- used his office to make money personally,
- physically pushed world leaders aside to preen himself on the world stage,
- looked directly into the sun,
- encouraged white supremacy,
- lied about critical weather warnings to cover up his mistakes,
- left his own country without aid after hurricanes,
- has presided over the biggest falls in the stock market ever,
- has presided over the biggest rise in unemployment ever,
- tried to use the nation's own armies against its people,
- suggested injecting bleach,
- suggested using a nuclear weapon against a hurricane,
- massively increased taxpayer's debt and is now trying to steal an election with zero evidence. What a poor weak loser. so much losing. I'm tired of losing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
here's a transcript. I'm a bit worried you keep saying he's intelligible but it's just dialect. It is understandable by a lot of people. Saying it's intelligible underestimates the impact that walker is actually having and comes across as a bit upper-class-elitist
1:09 "and he even paid himself childcare" - he's saying warnok benefitted corruptly from benefits warnok put in place
"all that stuff" - and et cetera;
"and why doesn't he keep his own kids; dont have nobody keep your kids, you keep your kid; he's got somebody else" - warnok got child care to look after his children and is a bad father because he didn't look after them himself
"I keep my own, even though he lied about me" - I looked after my children and warnok lied saying I didn't
"but it's ok! its ok because he's trying to get your vote - don't let him trick you trying to get your vote" - they're lying about my children to get your vote, but don't let them trick you
3:03 " I can promise you, Iran-Russian, they're not talking about charging a tank right into a dessert, they're talking about war" - Russia's looking to have war with the US, not just attacking minor local powers
"and let me tell you this here" - and another thing:
"if we was ready for the green agenda I would raise my hand right now" - I agree with green ideals in principle
"but we're not ready right now" - but technologically the USA does not have the ability to fully switch to a green economy
"so don't let them fool you that this is a new agenda, this is not a new agenda, we're not prepared we're not ready right now" - democrats are using an old trick of promising a green economy when it's not possible
"what we need to do is having those gas guzzling cars" - fossil fules are still a necessity
"we've got good emission out of those cars" - western petrol/diesel cars have been advanced enough to significantly reduce their emissions impact
"we're doing the best thing that we can" - given the necessity of fossil fuels, the west are at least doing their part for the environment by reducing car emissions
"but we need help, and those other people not helping us, china not helping us, india not helping, but yeah, we gotta do it all" - other countries are not contributing to help the climate crisis
"cos they're spending your money" - usa taxpayers are bearing the burden of alleviating the climate crisis, and india and china are effectively spending your money to do it instead of contributing themselves
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, I would - and it appears most of the UN also support some sort of action. Sanctions do not mean war.
War is usually, something like, annexing by force. Or a sharp rise in attacks on information infrastructure. Or flying nuclear bombers barely into european airspaces. Or entering a warzone with an ally then turning on their ally's ally. Oh, have you been paying attention? Russia already did these. Europe and the US are already in a cold war, with NATO actually stationing troops in the Baltics at the request of the governments there because they believe Russia will invade them.
Sanctions are the peaceful option to discourage material aggression. Especially when they are targeting individuals in the government rather than the country, which is easier because Russia is an oligarchy. It give more power to less corrupt opposition.
Trumps response? More nuclear. "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?" "Let there be an arms race". That is real war, where people die on masse and the world ends up inhabitable.
Despite Russia's poor economy, Putin has been expanding their military capacities, if you had been paying attention. NATO have declared that they now would not be able to hold off Russia without the US. Putin can easily take on the the post-soviet states to recreate the USSR, against their wishes.
Russia will not be USA's overlords through war, they will now only have to bribe or blackmail the president, or make a deal with the new cabinet to make them richer. Putin can fight the US now with it's own sanctions directed at Trumps empire, leaving him free to get away with bullying Europe and the post-soviet states using real armies. (which they are already doing. If you had been paying attention.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"right, we have a Russian spy we can exchange in an expensive and costly diplomatic process. How about ... vVadimir? give me his file"
"yes sir, let's see...
he courageously greatly angered Putin, Russia's violent dictator, known for poisoning and imprisoning people that greatly anger him.
he goes to the dictator's home, gets poisoned
then he goes back to the dictator's home again, gets poisoned again
then goes back to the dictator's home, gets arrested, and presumably poisoned."
"well, I'm sure he's not going to just do it all over again if we get him out!"
"yes, that'll stop us getting criticised for doing absolutely nothing"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrDaddy-yg2ki if you look carefully, the video is astoundingly well referenced. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4646082/ in particular came to the conclusion that they are 95% effective at removing viruses, from 2013. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/ gives many varying sizes for droplets, but most droplets are the same in size, whether or not they are carrying flu or covid. As you are informing me, presumably after watching the youtube video, since it makes the same exact point, you have a reponsibility to wear the mask properly, and ill fitting masks will bypass the filter.
Suffice to say, the masks are certainly trapping the majority of viral particulates; that in combination with social distancing, (since the second study also comes to the conclusion that unless you are coughed or sneezed on from some dick not wearing a mask), you have a very good chance of being protected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well. Who would have seen that a totalitarian super power would not keep their promises when hongkong was turned over to them, only for those they are repressing to be terrorists that that same despotic superpower now has to eradicate, as it is the victim?
What are the chances?
You're going to tell me next that those in hong kong who don't like their freedoms stamped on by a totalitarian state, given no other option, fight back and give the super power reason to disappear all those who oppose them, and enforce a police state there too, which only benefits those in power; then those in power use that fear to indoctinate love of those in power to keep them more in power, and fold the profits into their own to live off the hard work of the many.
No one can foresee that coming! what would the odds of that be? relax, it'll be fine, that's not going to happen at all. We should all do nothing.
Or give them the south China sea! what's the worst that can happen, eh? I can't think of one thing that will go horribly wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
tbh, the fox guy did well. sorry.
edit: again, I think he did well. I'm watching it, he's shrugging off things that should rile him, obvious baits, and not losing temper, and asking the next question.
edit: again still listening, he lets you speak, he obviously by his face doesn't enjoy doing it but he does. He's broadcasting this, he's confident enough that his debate counters will surfice without shouting you down. sorry, I think he did well even if I don't agree with him
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@policbolsha7064 'sell your assets and get a job' is the non- socialist world of conservative patriotic america. Or do you want everyone to get hand outs too, and not work? Are you suggesting just because these farmers are rich with their assets that republicans should be socialist only to the rich? no. If the poor don't get benefits, neither should the rich, whether they're rich in money through hard work, or like these bums without jobs who got massive wealth just handed to them through their family. No buyers for land? are you joking?
if you're going to be socialist, at least be a socialist to the poor, not the rich. if you're not going to be socialist to them, then the rich should not have a free ride either. FAIRNESS not CORRUPTION
"oh, poor farmers, they got massive wealth and a job handed to them at birth, we should give them money so they can keep that privilege when it turns out they're useless drains on society. we'll take money from the poor to do it." you make me sick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3blue1brown If I knew you were going to respond in person I'd have put a bit more effort into my random youtube comment. Your post does make sense. It's still a bit uncomfortable though, since the hilbert curve in the limiting value must have no gaps between the lines, which by definition it always does until you do it infinitely many times.
I'd guess it's also similar to the idea that the an interval line can be fully created by placing a point at half way through and then two points half way between them to infinity. I've always felt that despite hitting all the points, it still doesn't equate to a line because it's still a collection of 0D points, which never would some how jump to a 1D entity when you have enough of them.
I think I'm uncomfortable since, in the line version, the sum of the space between the points does not tend to 0 as the number of points tends to infinity, it never decreases, and is always the size of the line segment. Similarly, with the hilbert curve, the space between the curve on the 2D plane never decreases, even as the curve has more iterations. As the curve tends to larger, the space does not tend to 0. You end up with a curve that hits all the points in 2D but the space between those points is always the area of the 2D space you were trying to fill.
It's like the limiting process does not work and you need to explicitly jump to infinity rather than tending to infinity to end up with that result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ultrabellok this is the classic 'I give up' post. 'I have not provided any sources or evidence, you have, but I'm not going to look at them, I'll repeat what I said even though it has been debunked I have no evidence, so this is my last post on the matter and here's an insult'. great stuff.
Pandemic: A pandemic (from Greek πᾶν, pan, "all" and δῆμος, demos, "people") is an epidemic of an infectious disease that has spread across a large region, for instance multiple continents or worldwide, affecting a substantial number of people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic
"if you need a government to legislate wearing a mask, instead of you having the capacity for acting like an adult in your own life and making decisions accordingly... you already have bigger problems"
we do have bigger problems. it's people saying masks do not work. that is why the government needs to step in. because people can't act like adults.
1
-
@ultrabellok the second sign off! we're progressing to full abstension. I'd point out that wikipedia is generally relatively accurate. For a different source, from the oxford dictionary of epidemiology: “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”. sound familiar? pretty much the same. https://pestcontrol.ru/assets/files/biblioteka/file/19-john_m_last-a_dictionary_of_epidemiology_4th_edition-oxford_university_press_usa_2000.pdf
Maybe you might provide some counter evidence from disparate sources before trying to mock mine. My safe space is the space of all information available, with some critical thinking added. Not so safe, huh? What's yours? Right wing media? Hard to tell when you never back yourself up.
But you're right, 'worldwide' includes all first world countries, but 'over a wide area' does not. However, this IS over the whole globe. so DOES include all first world countries. not by definition, by fact, in this case. And that is why they are wearing masks outside of hospitals where before they were not; an epidemic, for instance, might not affect countries on the other side of the world, so doctors in those countries don't need to wear masks. Plus, this virus kills at a higher rate. It is not the flu.
this is not rocket science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3:05 some of these experiments were out there, we know about the, we can see them in scientific papers" - so, everything up til this point is well known, even publicised.
3:15 "American investigators tell us that they started working on a secret project with the military" - this is news - where is the source for this?
3:44 (paraphrased): a strain they were working on, sourced like any other strain of corona virus, looks like the one that escaped - this might be a fact, but said as if it relates to the military project.
People with weak minds might think you said they were related... you know, because you say them very close to each other.
Interesting how the comments here are confused about the indication here. there are two points, 1) was it a lab leak? (probably) 2) was it a biological weapon? (probably not). One implies incompetence, the other malice. Interesting how you've managed to pander to the latter, while only really saying the former. But I guess that's your business model.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ravenrock541 so, I've not looked too hard into this, but there are a couple of points. The article that this is based on is not a study, but a perspective, not based on an experiment: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372 . In it, it discusses whether all medical staff should wear a mask, not jut those in ppe equipment. It states
"First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection." -
this is an admittance that masks do indeed provide a level of protection; their argument seems to be that masks don't provide enough protection in a hospital setting:
"A mask alone in this setting will reduce risk only slightly, however, since it does not provide protection from droplets that may enter the eyes or from fomites on the patient or in the environment that providers may pick up on their hands and carry to their mucous membranes"
although, this is not actually backed up by any referenced study. But, given this is concerning ppe usage in a hospital setting, it's probably good to back to what they say about using masks outside of a hospital:
"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes .. The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal."
the argument here is that masks are not worthwhile because you're unlikely to catch the disease anyway. So, firstly, this does not say that they don't work; secondly, it suggests that the virus spread is so unlikely that masks are not needed - this is demonstrably not true.
either way, it looks like this is one article in a bunch of opinion pieces which are discussing the effectiveness of masks, e.g
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748920302005?via%3Dihub#bib0001
"Mass-masking, no less than altruism, would work more than an individual level in community settings. It may lead to a significant reduction of the basic reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 and consequently may portray an effect parallel to herd immunity"
and
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30918-1/fulltext
But, again, these are just opinion pieces.
Generally, they all agree that masks do work for protecting against breathing in the virus, but they need to be properly fitted, and overall risk reduction is achieved by hygiene, facial protection and distancing.
one article attempts to use studies:
http://www.ijrc.in/article.asp?issn=2277-9019;year=2020;volume=9;issue=2;spage=149;epage=152;aulast=Sharma
and concludes: "Therefore, social distancing, meticulous hand hygiene and respiratory etiquettes have significant role in curbing the infection transmission rather than use of face mask alone. However, people may use multilayer cloth face covering especially in the areas of significant community based transmission but it should not be used as substitute for social distancing. .. Frontline health care workers caring for confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 must use N95 mask at least when they have a risk of exposure to aerosols."
i.e masks work to reduce risk of overall transmission but are not a substitution for all other measures.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaitanlavey well, this is an old response.
I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. The "SQUIRREL!" argument is saying you're not addressing the main point, instead you're trying to bring up another point to distract from the main point. The main point being that it's ironic that Sidney wants to fix justice, but she is currently telling lies to subvert it. Not supplying evidence for this is not a distraction technique. I'm not trying to distract you from the argument merely by not supporting it. Neither am I accusing you of not supplying evidence, I'm accusing you of trying to bring up a different argument rather than tackling the stated one.
Either way, let's try to get to some specifics. Let's check the court case for Georgia: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7332984-Sidney-Powell-Georgia-Lawsuit.html
It states that the dominion systems weighted deleted and double counted votes, in favour of Biden. But only one printed copy of the vote is ever supplied by the voter, which the voter can then check to be correct; these are checked against registered voters. These votes have been counted, three times now. Even if the they are correct that the first count was not supervised by republicans, (it was), the recounts were, and they verify the results of the first count. From Paper Ballots. Checked By Republicans. Checked Against Real Voters.
It's a Lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ginganinga1010 I agree, people should scrutinise evidence, I apologise for insinuating you were coming down on one side or the other. However, the study here says it has no evidence one way or the other:
From the link above: "Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group" also, "Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts"
this suggests that this meta study itself is a study of potentially inaccurate studies, some with little control over the subject's use of masks, nor having large enough sample sizes for a statistical conclusion.
Still; it is a significant paper. here is a more recent study from the same source, suggesting "Although evidence is limited for their effectiveness in preventing transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, either for source control or to reduce exposure, the wearing of masks by healthy persons may prevent potential asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission (3). This marginal reduction in transmission may produce substantial results, particularly when it is implemented early." https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1498_article#r2
but again, the methodology is not tightly locked down. That study also references one specifically including the corona virus: "Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 but again, sample sizes seem small, even if the study looks to have have randomised its samples and performed the study in a controlled manner.
I guess, it is up to us to evaluate these sources, but at least you are providing some for scrutiny. For that, thanks. we need more like you on the side of the discussion, otherwise it's like shining a torch into a void.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benjaminallen105 Wow, a massive bailout for the banks, just like Obama did, except with the GOP causing the issue twice in a row? How irresponsible. We all know how irresponsible that was from Obama, right? Trump should not be borrowing so much money and cutting taxes causing one of the most fiscally irresponsible meteoric rise in Debt, then, I guess! Or removing regulations for banks holding capital so the banks don't collapse when the market collapses. But HEy! Trump had a great economy!
It's all the GOP have ever done. Destabilise the system, steal the money, leave the democrats to pick up the pieces. Pity for Trump it's come just too early. Don't worry, the Dems will dig you out again, like Obama had to. And all the GOP can suck up the money while you're complaining about too much regulation. The cycle continues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1