adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,017 
Likes: 5,146
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 22, 2022 8:50:07 GMT
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,044
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 22, 2022 10:13:08 GMT
Sky were covering the death of Meat Loaf yesterday, noting that he died from covid. He had previously said he would rather die than face lockdown, and described face masks as a “nuisance” and said he was happy to hug people “in the middle of Covid”.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,044
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 22, 2022 10:21:21 GMT
I don't mind them protesting. I do mind them spreading misinformation, wasting scarce resources, and jeopardising the health of others. I do not have a problem with that as everyone is entitled to their opinion - the rest I agree with. In the UK, defamation allows freedom of speech to prosper but keeps a check on telling lies that could damage someone's reputation or business.
I suspect that most of the anti vac brigade would fall foul of this.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 22, 2022 11:08:48 GMT
I don't mind them protesting. I do mind them spreading misinformation, wasting scarce resources, and jeopardising the health of others. I do not have a problem with that as everyone is entitled to their opinion - the rest I agree with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2022 11:26:07 GMT
"the reason of unreason" perfect
others might not think so ;-)
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 2,983
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 22, 2022 11:58:32 GMT
But i am not using the phrase in the context that the wiki article objects to. Your argument is not a general purpose argument about something to which I respond "everyone is entitled to their opinion". Or indeed "lets agree to to disagree". No. Your argument is a direct attack on the notion that some people may not hold some opinions. My use of the phrase is in that context which is not addressed by your link. In simple terms, it was you that begun the debate by saying that some people are not entitled to hold an opinion about such and such. This puts us in quite a different place to which that article is referring to.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 22, 2022 12:07:48 GMT
No Michael. My argument is that whilst people are entitled to their opinions, they need to be able to justify them, and that justification needs to stand up to scrutiny. If it fails to do so then those opinions should, rationally, be modified.
The logical extension of your position would seem to be that I can state that 1+1=3, because it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to hold it.
Surely that's nonsense, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 22, 2022 12:55:26 GMT
No Michael. My argument is that whilst people are entitled to their opinions, they need to be able to justify them, and that justification needs to stand up to scrutiny. If it fails to do so then those opinions should, rationally, be modified. The logical extension of your position would seem to be that I can state that 1+1=3, because it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to hold it. Surely that's nonsense, no? well quite. If I declare that "the moon is made of cheese", and it is pointed out that we are able to show that is not the case, and by the way here are some lunar rock samples, and the retort is "I'm still thinking 'cheese'", do we label that even as an opinion, let alone one that carries with some 'entitlement'. Likewise if I declare that all the worlds different vaccines - no doubt including those made in Russia and China - contain microchips which will enable Bill Gates to control the world. Of course anyone is able to have a belief, but lets not confuse that with an "entitlement" to rationalised and arguable opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 22, 2022 13:29:28 GMT
And given that the list of 'perpetrators' in the court application has muddled up the company CEOs, let's hope it will be thrown out on a technicality... " Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca STEPHANE BANCEL, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna PASCAL SORIOT " Whoops.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 22, 2022 13:46:39 GMT
Furthermore, has Piers Corbyn really been a police officer? I'd be staggered if that were true...
"The applicants state that they have tried to raise their case through the local English police and the English Court system without success. The team is represented by lawyer, Hannah Rose, with co-applicants including: (1)
Dr. Mike Yeadon, who is a former vice-President and Chief Scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer n respiratory pharmacology, former Vice President and Chief Scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer.
Piers Corbyn – Astrophysicist and activist, retired police officer,
Mark Sexton – Retired Constable
John O’Loony – Funeral Director and activist,
Johnny McStay – Activist and
Louise Shotbolt – Nurse and human rights activist (1)"
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 22, 2022 13:53:23 GMT
And given that the list of 'perpetrators' in the court application has muddled up the company CEOs, let's hope it will be thrown out on a technicality... " Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca STEPHANE BANCEL, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna PASCAL SORIOT " Whoops. I think people - including the anti vax FB nutter I referred to earlier - may be getting a bit too excited about this. As I understand it - I may be wrong - this is not a "case" that has been "accepted" by the ICC for consideration. Pretty much anybody can "file a complaint". Doesn't mean anything at all is going to happen to it in terms of it being looked at. Its a bit like going to the cloakroom at a theatre, handing your coat over and getting a ticket with a number on it, and then waving it around while loudly proclaiming "look, look, they've accepted my coat".
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,017
Likes: 5,146
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 22, 2022 14:02:11 GMT
I think people - including the anti vax FB nutter I referred to earlier - may be getting a bit too excited about this. Amused, rather than anything else...
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 22, 2022 14:19:02 GMT
And given that the list of 'perpetrators' in the court application has muddled up the company CEOs, let's hope it will be thrown out on a technicality... " Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca STEPHANE BANCEL, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna PASCAL SORIOT " Whoops. I think people - including the anti vax FB nutter I referred to earlier - may be getting a bit too excited about this. As I understand it - I may be wrong - this is not a "case" that has been "accepted" by the ICC for consideration. Pretty much anybody can "file a complaint". Doesn't mean anything at all is going to happen to it in terms of it being looked at. Its a bit like going to the cloakroom at a theatre, handing your coat over and getting a ticket with a number on it, and then waving it around while loudly proclaiming "look, look, they've accepted my coat". Cloakroom ticket....or indeed the issue of a Crime Number doesn't mean a crime is being investigated, as in p2pindependentforum.com/post/444948
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 22, 2022 15:04:06 GMT
I think people - including the anti vax FB nutter I referred to earlier - may be getting a bit too excited about this. As I understand it - I may be wrong - this is not a "case" that has been "accepted" by the ICC for consideration. Pretty much anybody can "file a complaint". Doesn't mean anything at all is going to happen to it in terms of it being looked at. Its a bit like going to the cloakroom at a theatre, handing your coat over and getting a ticket with a number on it, and then waving it around while loudly proclaiming "look, look, they've accepted my coat". Cloakroom ticket....or indeed the issue of a Crime Number doesn't mean a crime is being investigated, as in p2pindependentforum.com/post/444948exactly.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Jan 22, 2022 15:23:40 GMT
The logical extension of your position would seem to be that I can state that 1+1=3, because it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to hold it. Surely that's nonsense, no? Not sure if anyone is curious since its way OT but alternative set theories exist, as do other non set-based foundations of mathematics. It sounds like you claim both that 1+1=2 is true and that no alternative exists - but can you prove that? Or is there another bunch of axioms that can be used to build maths on? Some people worry about this kind of thing a lot it turns out!
|
|
