This reminds me of something I was going to say with respect to the question about the existence of viruses:
Neither side, (viruses do exist/viruses do not exist), IMHO, has been willing to engage in an open/public discussion/debate about this topic. The one attempt I am aware of resulted in a back and forth with respect to ground rules which was never settled or agreed upon (there seemed to be truculence on both sides) and therefore, it never transpired. Instead, there have been a great deal of ad hominem attacks which are totally counterproductive.
There are many committed proponents of the "viruses don't exist position" who can cogently present the evidence which they purport proves their position. There are few if any of the opposite persuasion who are willing to grant that the question is even worthy of debate. Their position seems to be that it is either self-evident or akin to "settled dogma", which is unscientific. Rather it is more akin to divinely inspired revelation (theology) rather than empirically derived scientific evidence. Unlike the effect of gravity, which can be demonstrated by everyone, anywhere on earth, this topic requires materials/methods/special equipment/experiments as well as the expertise to interpret them.
If one hopes to settle this question, it would be necessary to find proponents of each position who are able and willing to engage in a detailed public presentation of all the evidence for and against the idea that viruses exist. A set of pre-agreed upon ground rules would have to be clearly stated and adhered to in order for each side to be satisfied and willing to proceed. For example, each side must agree about the definition/prerequisites for something to be called a virus and what materials/methods/evidence will be considered dispositive by both sides, (there appears to be an insurmountable fundamental disagreement over terminology currently). Without this, proponents of each position might never engage on the actual question but instead resort to arguing past each other. I get the impression that many people are more interested in expressing their opinion on the matter than actually debating it properly. Otherwise, it would have occurred already. It may be that the ptb will not allow it as too much of their agenda is tied to it being true.
A similar situation exists with respect to the question of whether advanced nanotechnology is being used against all life forms on earth, including human beings. While the ptb have clearly stated their intention to transform/catalogue all life on earth, they apparently do not want anyone proving that they are actually doing it and detailing the methods being used.
Great points...and yes, it is just another divisive issue that will never see a resolution. We have been brilliantly set up to never get to the truth. Even throwing this covid con into the field of medicine was a head fake...should have always been seen as a DS military wetwerk Op...
Big LOL at the "vulture as a support animal" idea. And when this virus/no-virus argument is finally over (we can still hope, right?) the support animal can also double as the clean up crew for the vanquished. No undertaker required! ☠️😱
Have a clue as to whether or not viruses exist -- but it is merely a guess from myriad input, arguments for and against. What HAS been corroborated is that Meryl Nass refuses any input into her association with Bruce Ivins prior to his 'suicide.' Nass accepted an invitation to The Duke Report (Rumble) and to answering questions posed by Duke and George Webb (@realgeorgewebb1 and georgewebb.substack.com), then canceled her appearance -- last minute. Nass does NOT want to answer CERTAIN questions regarding Anthrax and her MANY years association with the subject of Ivins (leading expert on Anthrax with PATENTS) and Anthrax. Nass knows particulars and could, if forthright, clear the smear incorrectly placed on Bruce Ivins. How dare you (not dare to tell the truth), Meryl Nass. Limited Hangout.
Look, God is taking all in Him outta here, as in rapture you know-get with it! Delusion is now on the world, are we able to speak through it? No!
Man is destroying himself. Period. Nada we can do... love Jesus before He blasts us to smithereens, just as the vultures strike & in their timing-the devil appears to run things these days- ah, he does not! Love God all youse, we are done for, got it? Arguments do not fulfill the will of God, which is our one desire, capiche?
This reminds me of something I was going to say with respect to the question about the existence of viruses:
Neither side, (viruses do exist/viruses do not exist), IMHO, has been willing to engage in an open/public discussion/debate about this topic. The one attempt I am aware of resulted in a back and forth with respect to ground rules which was never settled or agreed upon (there seemed to be truculence on both sides) and therefore, it never transpired. Instead, there have been a great deal of ad hominem attacks which are totally counterproductive.
There are many committed proponents of the "viruses don't exist position" who can cogently present the evidence which they purport proves their position. There are few if any of the opposite persuasion who are willing to grant that the question is even worthy of debate. Their position seems to be that it is either self-evident or akin to "settled dogma", which is unscientific. Rather it is more akin to divinely inspired revelation (theology) rather than empirically derived scientific evidence. Unlike the effect of gravity, which can be demonstrated by everyone, anywhere on earth, this topic requires materials/methods/special equipment/experiments as well as the expertise to interpret them.
If one hopes to settle this question, it would be necessary to find proponents of each position who are able and willing to engage in a detailed public presentation of all the evidence for and against the idea that viruses exist. A set of pre-agreed upon ground rules would have to be clearly stated and adhered to in order for each side to be satisfied and willing to proceed. For example, each side must agree about the definition/prerequisites for something to be called a virus and what materials/methods/evidence will be considered dispositive by both sides, (there appears to be an insurmountable fundamental disagreement over terminology currently). Without this, proponents of each position might never engage on the actual question but instead resort to arguing past each other. I get the impression that many people are more interested in expressing their opinion on the matter than actually debating it properly. Otherwise, it would have occurred already. It may be that the ptb will not allow it as too much of their agenda is tied to it being true.
A similar situation exists with respect to the question of whether advanced nanotechnology is being used against all life forms on earth, including human beings. While the ptb have clearly stated their intention to transform/catalogue all life on earth, they apparently do not want anyone proving that they are actually doing it and detailing the methods being used.
Great points...and yes, it is just another divisive issue that will never see a resolution. We have been brilliantly set up to never get to the truth. Even throwing this covid con into the field of medicine was a head fake...should have always been seen as a DS military wetwerk Op...
Big LOL at the "vulture as a support animal" idea. And when this virus/no-virus argument is finally over (we can still hope, right?) the support animal can also double as the clean up crew for the vanquished. No undertaker required! ☠️😱
x-cellent! Bird Burials...
You're busting my new 'delay of gratification' resolution. When I saw yours, I had to post mine right away, referencing you and your great argument memes: https://open.substack.com/pub/thirdparadigm/p/how-to-have-a-better-argument
Also, thanks for posting the link to Outraged Human. On fire!
🤣 You are so funny! I needed these memes and your commentary. ❤️💞❤️
Have a clue as to whether or not viruses exist -- but it is merely a guess from myriad input, arguments for and against. What HAS been corroborated is that Meryl Nass refuses any input into her association with Bruce Ivins prior to his 'suicide.' Nass accepted an invitation to The Duke Report (Rumble) and to answering questions posed by Duke and George Webb (@realgeorgewebb1 and georgewebb.substack.com), then canceled her appearance -- last minute. Nass does NOT want to answer CERTAIN questions regarding Anthrax and her MANY years association with the subject of Ivins (leading expert on Anthrax with PATENTS) and Anthrax. Nass knows particulars and could, if forthright, clear the smear incorrectly placed on Bruce Ivins. How dare you (not dare to tell the truth), Meryl Nass. Limited Hangout.
Look, God is taking all in Him outta here, as in rapture you know-get with it! Delusion is now on the world, are we able to speak through it? No!
Man is destroying himself. Period. Nada we can do... love Jesus before He blasts us to smithereens, just as the vultures strike & in their timing-the devil appears to run things these days- ah, he does not! Love God all youse, we are done for, got it? Arguments do not fulfill the will of God, which is our one desire, capiche?
it takes a twisted mind to appreciate a twisted mind...!