For reference,
deleted by creator
It’s exactly like that damn
wait…
Musk will not allow any criticism of him. Not the first time.
Rules for thee, but not for me… squared.
Hehe, Musk straight-up “cancelled” Twitter :-D
deleted by creator
Lmao how is it misinformation? He didn’t make any claims about risk compared to getting covid. The note was just the same irrelevant talking points you people love to bring up all the time
Musky Boy asked what is known as a leading question.
The community provided further information to answer that question, backed by statistical analysis.
How was it a leading question?
Because it leads the reader to believe that they would be safer not to get the vaccine shot.
How so?
Because Musky Boy conveniently leaves out the fact, that, according to the community provided resource he had deleted, whatever the risk is to have the side effect he was referring to, the risk is doubled for the actual disease the vaccine is protecting against, making it seem like the vaccine is more dangerous in at least this aspect as the disease itself.
Don’t bother, they’re sealioning you.
How do you tell the difference between someone asking you to show evidence for your claims, or clarifying your point, or having a normal conversation with you - and sealioning?
Can you give examples of both cases?
Obviously so, even.
But he never made any claims regarding the risk of the disease. Why is it relevant to a discussion about potential side effects? Do you think everyone who discusses plane crashes is convieniently leaving out car accidents?
Humans are bad at making judgement calls. They suck at weighting chances and risks evenly. So yes, in a discussion about plane crashes, it should be noted at least once, that traveling by plane is the safest mode of transportation.
So that you, someone who might be afraid of flying, is not erroneously led to believe that they would be safer to not fly and instead travel by car, for example.
To bring this analogy back around, the community provided resource served the purpose of educating vaccine-sceptic people about the risk of getting the vaccine compared to not getting the vaccine and getting diseased instead.
The community provided resource did not detract or hamper informed discussion in any way, it merely served as context. Therefor deleting it can only be seen as petty.
And as a side note, please don’t try to tell me that Musky Boy was actually interested in having an informed debate. That would be a laughable claim, given his childish temper.
Why isn’t Musk apologizing for gassing six million Jews in WWII, and drink the adrenochrome from murdered babies to stay young for the last 80 years?
See? I didn’t make any claim. I asked why he isn’t addressing [obviously bullshit claims], all without saying that he actually did those things. The question implies a lot, but doesn’t directly make a claim. That’s what Musk is doing.
Meanwhile, what you are doing is called sea lioning.
We can’t ascribe everything to your consumption of dog cum, but we can’t ascribe nothing.
I guess the question is how much dog cum do you really drink?
Do you genuinely believe that to be a comparison of equal value to concern for side effects in medicine?
I find the fact that you’re not willing to give a straightforward answer really worrying. I’m simply asking a question, there’s no need to whatabout medicine when we’re talking about your dog cum consumption habits.
I seriously hope you don’t actually think this is remotely clever
Just answer the question man, it’s not that hard, u less you’re scared of the woke media and it’s censorship of dog cum lovers?
deleted by creator
How so? I’m genuinely concerned.
You’re far to dim to grasp anything clever.
Didn’t take long for this place to turn into Reddit I see.
Don’t think that just because you’re not welcome on reddit that you’ll be welcome here.
If you want to debate the safety of vaccines, fuck off and get a medical degree and publish a paper.
To put it bluntly, you don’t have what it takes.
He’s doing the “just asking questions” thing but we know the answer to his question. It’s not common and it’s more common from the virus than from the vaccine. He’s also responding to a tweet, which is cropped here, about Bronnie James having a heart attack implying that it’s caused by the vaccine.
you people love to bring up all the time
If you willingly typed in the web address to this server, you are part of the “You people”.
Lmao how is it misinformation?
It draws a conclusion that is false. The most notable logical fallacy of this is the old campaign during WWII where propaganda posters were put up that said “If you ride alone, you ride with Hitler.”
Obviously, no one in WWII was doing that, but America needed gas and oil during war time, it worked to guilt people in drawing a conclusion when the premise was false to begin with.
He didn’t make any claims about risk compared to getting covid.
Then why remove the information? If I was making an argument that was based on a scientific method, I would want more information that disproved my claim, not removing them.
deleted by creator
My question is why do you assume that the default conclusion to be “and therefore the vaccine is worse than the disease” instead of “and therefore we should focus on the safety of vaccines recommended for literally billions of people worldwide”.
I will give you that, I don’t think it is wrong to ask questions about health safety, that being said, I don’t think people understand what things like MRNa have done to speed up the medicine industry. Or what it will do going forward.
We are going to see cures for cancers using this method.
So do the populace have a point? Of course. Safety should be the backbone of science.
Does that mean the vaccine is unsafe because we can produce it faster? Not at all. That is progress. it means humans are getting better at fighting these kind of diseases.
Because it isn’t relevant to the claim. Would you consider it reasonable to (mind the dated reference, it’s an easy example) go under a tweet about the 737 max being grounded to tell everyone that car accidents are more prevalent?
It might be a footnote, but it is relevant to the science observer who is trying to take your safety question seriously. That means looking at all facts, even the ones that are deemed “pointless” or “Inappropriate” by most people.
Information is how we understand conclusions. And when information is hidden the conclusion has a chance of being wrong.
Which is not fair to you or me who just want to know the truth. Even if it is an ugly truth.
deleted by creator
Irrelevant talking point is when peer reviewed meta analysis.
