Two articles that explain everything that is wrong with the world
They're short, funny and well-written. And they're 100%, dead-on-balls accurate. 99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles:
I think it's a little far fetched to think these things are what's wrong with the world, but I did like the part where Cracked said that nearly half the liberals out there are among those causing exactly what you are writing about: "And then there is a hardcore 20 percent or so who believe in pretty much any goddamned thing -- from the U.S. government having staged the 9/11 attacks, to a conspiracy to hide evidence of alien visitors.". Since no right-wingers think the US Government staged 9/11 that means that 20% comes from the group of people who aren't right-wingers or conservatives. That means liberals are one of the top-9 causes of what's wrong with the world. I'm sure that was an unintended consequence of this particular article, but it sure is a telling one. Then, the gullible people watching Oprah ... probably more liberal than not. She is a liberal, so she is a hero to liberals. She got Pres Obama elected, she is getting reading to start her own religion. How more liberal can you get. So, now we got another large faction of that top-9 causing what is wrong with the world being the result of liberals. Are you sure you wanted to point out that list, Eddie? It sure seems that a majority of things wrong with the world are caused by liberals ... according to your lists. As for Crack's crazed denial that vaccines contribute to autism: google Hannah Poling. You would have to be a moron to think that a deadly chemical would NOT have unwanted side effects. Here's a choice for you (who believe vaccines are OK), would you rather your child have the measles or have autism? Because with the immense increase of vaccines (twice yearly cold vaccine to mega-vaccines shortly after birth) it seems your chances of having children diagnosed with autism to increase dramatically from years before. OH WAIT ... THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING!!! Perhaps cracked is right and it is just a conspiracy theory or another way Oprah is responsible for the worlds woes. The good news is that if you choose to get your information from places like Cracked, well, you should expect the kind of reporting that you just highlighted. In all the years I've been posting, here, I don't think I've ever claimed that liberals were very smart ... these two articles virtually prove I'm right about liberals and the deadly actions they cause ... then deny. Michael Savage may be more right about liberals (than you are willing to accept) when he said: "Liberalism is a mental disorder". Because it seems that liberals are behind most of what you say is accurate when you said: "99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles". Well, personally, I'd like to thank you for that long expected admission of how dangerous being a liberal can be to the world today.
"Since no right-wingers think the US Government staged 9/11 that means that 20% comes from the group of people who aren't right-wingers or conservatives. That means liberals are one of the top-9 causes of what's wrong with the world."
That's a false dichotomy; it's not stated that the problem has to be either "liberals" or "conservatives", so that 20% could be independent. Further, the words "from" and "to" in the quote you provided describes a range of topics which isn't restricted to any political ideology.
Even more damaging to your claim, here's the beginning of the article: "We all know a conspiracy theorist. Maybe it's that kid from high school who keeps putting photos of "chemtrails" on his Facebook wall, or an uncle who listens to alternative radio and thinks Obama is a reptilian creature in a human skin suit." To throw your logic back in your face, no left-winger believes that Obama is a reptilian creature in a human skin suit, so conservatives must be a primary cause of what's wrong with the world.
And even better, here's the sentence which immediately precedes your quote: "And you see this everywhere -- 37 percent of Americans think global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of at least 30,000 climate scientists cooperating behind the scenes as part of a secret agenda." Is that 37 percent supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?
As for Oprah, notice that there's nothing political about that article. In both cases, you're over-reaching in order to be partisan, even when there's no catalyst for the behavior whatsoever. That's your problem, not Eddie's.
"Is that 37 percent supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?"
There is no such thing as global warming. So that couldn't possibly be true. If you're saying that Cracked just made up all that shit (like you do), then Eddie's article is just a waste of space and time (like you are). The globe isn't getting warmer, the climate is changing. Get your whines straight.
"There is no such thing as global warming. So that couldn't possibly be true."
Replace "global warming" with "global climate change" if you like. Are the people who claimed it to be a "hoax" supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?
"The globe isn't getting warmer, the climate is changing. Get your whines straight."
I'm just responding to your fallacious commentary, so I'm not responsible for the wording in the article. Get your whines straight.
"Replace "global warming" with "global climate change" if you like."
I can't change the article around like that. I'm not like you ... I don't make shit up and fly with it as if that's what was said.
Do you want to talk about the vaccine--autism connection? Nah, I didn't think so. You just want to whine about me posting, nothing actually on topic, huh? Because I notice in your first response you have already started with the grammar corrections.
You don't have to "change the article". That's the subject they're referring to, so you can use the term that you like. So, for the third time, are the people who claimed it to be a "hoax" supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?
I'll also add that I got a good laugh at the part about how you "don't make shit up and fly with it as if that's what was said", considering this gem from your original comment: "I think it's a little far fetched to think these things are what's wrong with the world, but I did like the part where Cracked said that nearly half the liberals out there are among those causing exactly what you are writing about:..." (emphasis mine). That wasn't "what was said", but you seem comfortable with making it up and flying with it.
"Do you want to talk about the vaccine--autism connection?"
No, I was just pointing out the glaring flaws in your reasoning. I don't have to comply with your random demands in order to do that.
"You just want to whine about me posting, nothing actually on topic, huh?"
Aren't you just whining about Eddie posting? If you can address what he says, then I can address what you say. And considering that I quoted from the articles cited, you can't justify your claim that I'm off-topic. So much for that.
"Because I notice in your first response you have already started with the grammar corrections."
What did I say about grammar? Be specific.
"Anything else, or are you done so quickly?"
I didn't suggest that I was done. If you can't address the point about your false dichotomy, then it stands unscathed. You don't seem up to the task, for some unknown reason.
" That wasn't "what was said", but you seem comfortable with making it up and flying with it."
Yes, it was. I even brought the quote from their article that said so. 20% is nearly half, isn't it? Maybe you need help with math. Half are liberals and half are not. The "hardcore 20%" that believe 9/11 was staged by the government would only include liberals. It didn't say 20% of all people, only the ones who think the government staged 9/11. Those would be the liberals.
"What did I say about grammar? Be specific."
When you started crying about the usage of "from" and "to".
"I even brought the quote from their article that said so. 20% is nearly half, isn't it?"
It didn't say anything about ideology. You made that part up.
"The "hardcore 20%" that believe 9/11 was staged by the government would only include liberals."
No, it would include independents. It's not either conservatives or liberals; that's a framework you introduced all on your own.
"It didn't say 20% of all people, only the ones who think the government staged 9/11."
It said 20% of "only the ones who think the government staged 9/11"? No, it was referring to people who believe that sort of thing when talking about 20% of the population. On that note, it was talking about a range of absurd beliefs, not exclusive to 9/11 being staged. The language very clearly disallows your interpretation.
"When you started crying about the usage of "from" and "to"."
That's the wording in the article, and it's relevant to the meaning of the sentence. That's not an issue of "grammar". Is it supposed to be indicative of weakness on my part when I point out that the phrasing of a sentence doesn't support your interpretation? As if disputing your claim with evidence from the source material is admitting defeat, in this scenario of yours? That's hilariously desperate of you, especially this early in the conversation.
Also, for the fourth time: are the people who claimed global climate change to be a "hoax" supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?
And again, from the article: "...or an uncle who listens to alternative radio and thinks Obama is a reptilian creature in a human skin suit." Since no liberal believes that Obama is a reptilian creature in a human skin suit, the article must be referring to conservatives. That's another application of your argument, and it directly disproves your claim that Cracked was talking about liberals.
Nothing else is really needed, as far as you've shown. Outside of further repetition, naturally, since you'll ignore everything that doesn't conform to your absurd claim.
No, I don't think it would include any independents because no independent believes 9/11 was staged by the government. That would be strictly a liberal thing.
"No, it was referring to people who believe that sort of thing when talking about 20% of the population. "
That's what I just explained. 20% of the population that believe that sort of thing would be liberals. They are just 50% of the population, so 20% would be nearly half of them.
"On that note, it was talking about a range of absurd beliefs, not exclusive to 9/11 being staged."
Yeah, and that would be liberals only. No one else has that kind of hardcore hatred of the government.
"Also, for the fourth time: are the people who claimed global climate change to be a "hoax" supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?"
Ask as many times as you want. The article said "global warming". There is no such thing, so no one would make that claim. If you want to change the wording you go right ahead and do that. But, I'm not responsible for the shit you make up.
"No, I don't think it would include any independents because no independent believes 9/11 was staged by the government. That would be strictly a liberal thing."
You have no basis for believing that, let alone asserting it as fact. Obviously, there's nothing about independents that precludes them from believing that 9/11 was staged.
"That's what I just explained. 20% of the population that believe that sort of thing would be liberals. They are just 50% of the population, so 20% would be nearly half of them."
Neither liberals nor conservatives make up "just 50% of the population". You made that up. Further, you said: "It didn't say 20% of all people, only the ones who think the government staged 9/11." You're now talking, again, about "20% of all people".
"Yeah, and that would be liberals only."
You can't logically assert that, because the other topics aren't all specified. It's a range of absurd beliefs. Note, yet again, that the article also mentioned a belief that Obama is a "reptilian creature in a human skin suit". That wouldn't fall on the liberal "50%", even in this fantasy of yours.
"The article said "global warming"."
Yet, people obviously understood what phenomenon was being mentioned.
"If you want to change the wording you go right ahead and do that. But, I'm not responsible for the shit you make up."
Nobody has to "change the wording", again. The question was based on some tangible issue, or else you couldn't have 37% believing that it was a "hoax". If you don't want to use the phrase "global warming", fine, but that doesn't invalidate the statistic. The people who believe that it's a "hoax" would tend to be conservative. And that, along with the mention of the belief about Obama as a "reptilian creature", utterly destroys your claim about Cracked's supposed claim regarding liberals.
Can you address those points, or will you continue to ignore them simply because they don't conform to your insane beliefs? I'm guessing the latter.
"You have no basis for believing that, let alone asserting it as fact. "
I didn't assert it as fact. If you notice, and you probably didn't, I asserted my opinion.
"Obviously, there's nothing about independents that precludes them from believing that 9/11 was staged."
The "hardcore" independent didn't hate Pres Bush as much as the "hardcore" liberal did (does). So, yes, there IS something that precludes independents from believing the government staged 9/11.
"Yet, people obviously understood what phenomenon was being mentioned."
How do you know that? Do you have something that backs up your assertion of fact?
"If you don't want to use the phrase "global warming", fine, but that doesn't invalidate the statistic. The people who believe that it's a "hoax" would tend to be conservative."
So, you're saying (as fact) that independents would believe something that doesn't exist (global warming) simply because they are independent and yet you refuse to accept that liberals blame the government for staging 9/11. That is not logical at all. If cracked had said 'global climate change' then I could have said nothing about it, but they didn't. That makes you wrong by changing THEIR wording and expecting the article to remain valid. I could just as easily change their statistics to have them saying that 100% of liberals think Bush is responsible for 9/11 because that is obviously what they meant since that would be more accurate, and I would have just as much right for doing that as you for changing their wording of global warming.
Now, if all you're going to do is cry (like a little girl) about my opinion on this article, then I'll leave you to cry alone. If you have something, by the rare chance and between your little girl sniffles, that is logical and intelligent then I'll reply.
"I didn't assert it as fact. If you notice, and you probably didn't, I asserted my opinion."
So the determination of what the article "said" is supposed to rely on your opinion on ideologies? That's quite the magical power that you imagine for yourself. Let's adjust at least one part of your original comment to accommodate this: "Are you sure you wanted to point out that list, Eddie? It sure seems that a majority of things wrong with the world are caused by liberals ... according to (my opinion of) your lists." Surely, you don't expect Eddie to post based on whatever random opinion you might spout out here, do you? That would be rather pathologically egocentric of you. Something for you to ponder, don't you think?
"The "hardcore" independent didn't hate Pres Bush as much as the "hardcore" liberal did (does). So, yes, there IS something that precludes independents from believing the government staged 9/11."
Try looking up the word "preclude". Even if your premise was true, it allows for independents to believe at 9/11 was staged.
"How do you know that?"
Because 37% said it was a "hoax". If they didn't understand what was being talked about, then they couldn't possibly be applying the word "hoax" to it.
"So, you're saying (as fact) that independents would believe something that doesn't exist (global warming) simply because they are independent and yet you refuse to accept that liberals blame the government for staging 9/11."
No, I'm saying that people can recognize a concept even if someone doesn't use their preferred term. For instance, I can understand that when someone in Europe talks about their local "football" teams, they actually mean "soccer". Similarly, you personally demonstrated that you understood the concept at hand by saying "The globe isn't getting warmer, the climate is changing."
And where did you get "because they are independent" from? You clearly made that up, since I suggested nothing about any such causation. On top of that, I never said that no liberals blame the government for staging 9/11. The point is that a range of beliefs which happens to include that theory would also apply to people besides radical liberals, and independents can also believe that the government staged 9/11. There's really nothing stopping radical conservatives from believing it either, especially if they never considered Bush a true conservative.
You seem perpetually inclined to view things in absolutist ideological terms, and it doesn't work out for you. The phrasing of "who believe in pretty much any goddamned thing" especially doesn't lend itself to your mode of thought, because "pretty much any goddamned thing" isn't restricted by ideological lines. Read that twice if you need to.
"That is not logical at all."
Your convoluted misrepresentation of what I said isn't logical? Imagine that.
"If cracked had said 'global climate change' then I could have said nothing about it, but they didn't. That makes you wrong by changing THEIR wording and expecting the article to remain valid."
The wording isn't relevant to the statistic, unless you can explain how people would judge something to be a "hoax" when they don't even know what's being discussed. Whichever phrase is used, the statistic remains the same. I never tried to "change" anything, as you should already know.
"I could just as easily change their statistics to have them saying that 100% of liberals think Bush is responsible for 9/11 because that is obviously what they meant since that would be more accurate, and I would have just as much right for doing that as you for changing their wording of global warming."
No, changing percentages isn't even remotely the same thing as pointing out that the wording is irrelevant. That wasn't even a good effort on your part.
"Now, if all you're going to do is cry (like a little girl) about my opinion on this article, then I'll leave you to cry alone."
If it's your opinion, then Cracked "said" nothing like what you asserted that they did. Nobody else is responsible for your beliefs besides you. Also, if your mere opinion is supposed to prevent Eddie from posting what he likes, then my opinion would also have the power to prevent you from commenting. Or does this magical authority only belong to you, for some reason?
"Surely, you don't expect Eddie to post based on whatever random opinion you might spout out here, do you?"
Umm, he spouted his opinion that those articles explain what is wrong with the world. HIS OPINION!! I posted mine. MY OPINION!! Time for you to stop crying like a little girl. Do you agree?
" If they didn't understand what was being talked about, then they couldn't possibly be applying the word "hoax" to it."
If 37% believe something that doesn't exist, then that means 63% aren't stupid people. My opinion is that those 63% would not be liberals. Because nobody else would be stupid enough to believe something that doesn't exist.
" For instance, I can understand that when someone in Europe talks about their local "football" teams, they actually mean "soccer"."
Still crying? Ok, Football and football are the same term with different meanings. Global warming and global climate change are different terms with different meanings.
"The wording isn't relevant to the statistic, unless you can explain how people would judge something to be a "hoax" when they don't even know what's being discussed."
Done that. See above. Still crying?
"Also, if your mere opinion is supposed to prevent Eddie from posting what he likes, then my opinion would also have the power to prevent you from commenting."
You go ahead and exercise that power whenever you get the opportunity. Like, try right now. Use your magical power and prevent me from posting my opinion.
BTW, you never did tell me what tissue you use so I could take advantage of that and buy stock in that company. Can you take a moment and tell me, now? I really want to become one of those 1%'rs so that your crybaby antics can have some credibility. Otherwise, you're just crying like a little girl about opinions posted on a blog.
"Umm, he spouted his opinion that those articles explain what is wrong with the world. HIS OPINION!! I posted mine. MY OPINION!!"
You asserted that Cracked "said" that liberals were what's wrong with the world. You also acted as if Eddie should have realized it before he posted it: "Are you sure you wanted to point out that list, Eddie?" Why would he not have wanted to cite that list, as if your opinion would have some impact on that? Get over yourself.
"If 37% believe something that doesn't exist, then that means 63% aren't stupid people."
They don't "believe something that doesn't exist", they are addressing the concept that you yourself recognized. Your phrasing doesn't make any sense. If they didn't recognize or accept the phrasing in regards to the concept, then they wouldn't be able to apply the word "hoax" to it. There's just no way around that.
"Ok, Football and football are the same term with different meanings. Global warming and global climate change are different terms with different meanings."
No, not conversationally. You understood that they were referring to climate change, which would strongly suggest that the 37% who called it a "hoax" have the same understanding. So, what's your theory? They're calling it a "hoax" because they're objecting to the term they're presented with? That would make no sense whatsoever. It's not as if people are saying "It's not called 'global warming', it's actually called 'global climate change'. Global warming is a hoax, but the same thing being called by a different name is not a hoax." If they're saying it for one, they're saying it for the other.
"Done that. See above."
No, you didn't explain any such thing.
"Use your magical power and prevent me from posting my opinion."
By the same token, your opinion has no bearing on whether Eddie would ever want to post an article or not. See how that works?
"Otherwise, you're just crying like a little girl about opinions posted on a blog."
Like this? :"The good news is that if you choose to get your information from places like Cracked, well, you should expect the kind of reporting that you just highlighted. In all the years I've been posting, here, I don't think I've ever claimed that liberals were very smart ... these two articles virtually prove I'm right about liberals and the deadly actions they cause ... then deny. Michael Savage may be more right about liberals (than you are willing to accept) when he said: "Liberalism is a mental disorder". Because it seems that liberals are behind most of what you say is accurate when you said: "99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles". Well, personally, I'd like to thank you for that long expected admission of how dangerous being a liberal can be to the world today."
If you can criticize Eddie, I can criticize you. If what I'm doing is "crying", then you're bawling uncontrollably. This is your typical childish reaction whenever you're being held accountable for what you post, and it's no more respectable than it ever was.
" Why would he not have wanted to cite that list, as if your opinion would have some impact on that?"
If Eddie wants to post an article about what is wrong with the world partly based on faulty information, that is his right. If you want to defend that faulty information, that is your right. I certainly won't stop you. Just laugh about it.
"If Eddie wants to post an article about what is wrong with the world partly based on faulty information, that is his right."
That wasn't your point: "It sure seems that a majority of things wrong with the world are caused by liberals ... according to your lists." You weren't questioning the source, you were saying that it condemned liberals.
Of course, Cracked didn't say anything that you claimed that they did, which was my original point. And it remains unscathed. What else would I need to say?
"Your opinion as to what my "point" is is your own opinion. Nothing else."
You: "Since no right-wingers think the US Government staged 9/11 that means that 20% comes from the group of people who aren't right-wingers or conservatives. That means liberals are one of the top-9 causes of what's wrong with the world. I'm sure that was an unintended consequence of this particular article, but it sure is a telling one. Then, the gullible people watching Oprah ... probably more liberal than not. She is a liberal, so she is a hero to liberals. She got Pres Obama elected, she is getting reading to start her own religion. How more liberal can you get. So, now we got another large faction of that top-9 causing what is wrong with the world being the result of liberals."
Unless I miscounted, that's six mention of "liberal" or "liberals" in the comments immediately preceding the previously-cited quote. Plus, your claim itself: "I think it's a little far fetched to think these things are what's wrong with the world, but I did like the part where Cracked said that nearly half the liberals out there are among those causing exactly what you are writing about..."
That's seven mentions of "liberal" or "liberals". Feel free to count how many times you said "faulty information" or anything remotely similar. It hardly matters, since your "Cracked said that nearly half the liberals" phrasing itself makes the nature of your point undeniable.
My first comment: "I think it's a little far fetched to think these things are what's wrong with the world, ... "
and the best you can do is cry about my disdain for liberals. Your reading comprehension abilities have never surpassed my expectations of you. Classic ... truly classic.
"and the best you can do is cry about my disdain for liberals."
I'm pointing out that your claim was that Cracked said that liberals are what's wrong with the world. Your opinion of whether it's "far fetched" or not doesn't change that in the slightest. This should be especially obvious since the quote that I provided included your phrase "according to your lists". You don't have to agree with the lists in order to assert their meaning, which is what you did.
I don't care about your disdain for liberals. You tried to change your point, and I called you out on it. Deal with it.
"You tried to change your point, and I called you out on it. Deal with it."
I've never changed what my "point" was, in this article. It just gave me the opportunity to give another example of how liberals seem to cause most everything Eddie is highlighting: "Two articles that explain everything that is wrong with the world" "They're short, funny and well-written. And they're 100%, dead-on-balls accurate. 99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles:"
I just got to finally agree with Eddie (doesn't happen often;) about those articles being so accurate and giving me the easy explanation as to why. I, however, do not think those are "all that is wrong with the world" ... a lot, but not all.
"I've never changed what my "point" was, in this article."
William, then: "It sure seems that a majority of things wrong with the world are caused by liberals ... according to your lists." William, now: "If Eddie wants to post an article about what is wrong with the world partly based on faulty information, that is his right." And: "Your opinion as to what my "point" is is your own opinion. Nothing else."
"I, however, do not think those are "all that is wrong with the world" ... a lot, but not all."
*skipping all the bullshit above, because I don't have Brabantio's patience to deal with William's bullshit*
Hey, asshat: vaccines don'r cause autism. You know how I know that? Because study after study after study has failed to show an difference in the rate of autism between vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations. *PERIOD* Done. End of story. Proving something *safe* is actually IMPOSSIBLE. But proving it DANGEROUS? Trivially easy. (And if you don't know what a 2-sample-T is, or can explain a P-Value, then you are not even entitled to an *OPINION* as far as am concerned.)
Also? The *ONLY* published, pier reviewed work to show *ANY* link between autsim and vaccines (1) Has since been proven a complete fraud. (2) Was written by a man, the former Doctor Andrew Wakefield, who held patent on the MMR's hypothetical replacement, and (3) Targeted THIMEROSOL, which starting in 1997 has been REMOVED from all but the multi-does FLU vaccines. So you're WRONG. 100% WORNG. As thimersol usage went DOWN, the rate of Autism went UP. If ANYTHING, it was protecting us. But that of course is an absurd conclusion because CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSALITY. And if you knew how to *THINK* I wouldn't have to tell you that! There is *NO* risk of autism due to vaccines. *NONE*. And while were at it, why don't YOU google "Paul Offit." He was personally involved in three separate cases over the years where vaccines were pulled from the market for cause far lesser side-effects that fucking AUTISM, at a far smaller rate than we're observing. (You can read all about it in his fantastic book, "Autism's False Prophets." I HIGHLY recommend it.
Also?
1) Liberals tend to MARGINALIZE the 9/11 Truthers as kooks. (Unlike, say, how conservative treated the Birthers and the Bengaziphiles.)
2) Oprah's a liberal? So what? I'll stand by every point made in the cracked article as well as my own. We're not like you lot. We don't feel the need to agree with each "just 'cuz" the way you lot do. I could care less what good she's done. Just as with Religion, all of that good could have been done all the same, without any of the harm. Oprah's a cancer to our society, and the Cracked articles show why.
3) My TRUE philosophy is not Liberalism, or even Progressivism, so much as it is SCIENCE, SKEPTICISM and CRITICAL THINKING. I wend up on the Left mainly because Conservatives SUCK BIG HAIRY BALLS when it comes to Science, Skepticism and Critical Thinking. Liberals DO occasionally get it wrong (DDT & GMO's come to mind) but Conservatives hardly ever get it RIGHT. (No examples come to mind.)
And Global Warming? It's a FACT. Just like Evolution. Since you lot continually misuse the word "theory" (when you in fact mean to say, still incorrectly, "hypothesis") we'll just cut to the chase: BOTH are proven facts. And there's a word for people who deny this: MORONS.
When you CHOOSE to be WRONG (out of little more than a fear of being Liberal) is spite of *ALL* available evidence, you're a *MORON*. Plain and simple.
And now, having refreshed my memory via google, I must say that I am (or WAS,) in fact, very familiar with Poling case. (Though I had long since forgotten her name.) It's crap. Utter. Fucking. Crap. Her family has my utmost sympathies, but their case is completely, 100% pseudo-scientific bunk. Maybe I'll do a post about it (or anti-vaxxers in general) sometime.
And, Dude? I'm the father of two autistic boys. I'd be surprised to the point of full-on epileptic and anaphalactic *SHOCK* if you could throw a vaccine/autism case my way that I hadn't heard or read about, or a paper that I couldn't provide you with a thourough de-bunking of.
They're. All. CRAP.
But, by all means, keep listening to Oprah and Jenny Fucking McCarthy, rather than those darned Liberal Scientists. I'd sure truth THEM to keep your children safe.
"But, by all means, keep listening to Oprah and Jenny Fucking McCarthy, rather than those darned Liberal Scientists."
I'm not the one listening to them, you are. Apparently you know so much about each of them you could probably tell us what they took a shit, last night. My enjoyment, in this article, is your complaint about everything wrong with this world and how it points out that liberals caused so much from that list. Wow, then you try to separate yourself from being a "liberal". Sorry, too late ... it's way obvious you have liberal written all over you.
"Hey, asshat: vaccines don'r cause autism."
Well, "asshat", NOT getting a vaccine hasn't caused one case of measles or chicken pox. So, why is it that you throw around the word "CHOICE" (as if it's a freedom or a right) then cry about those who CHOOSE not to vaccine. That has not caused ONE case of ANY disease you are crying about. So stop acting as though the people who don't vaccinate their kids are CAUSING any "genocide" by this disease you fear so much. Are YOUR kids vaccinated? Well, then what do YOU care about another family who chose not to? Your kids won't catch the disease, only those who don't vaccinate and that will eliminate the problem for you. So your whining about anti-vaxers is honestly a big waste of time and anger (on your part), since the epidemic that you write about isn't possible. Everyone else gets immunized besides a tiny fraction of people. And, since everyone else is immunized there is no possibility to catch any disease from the anti-vaxers. Funny how you want freedom of CHOICE for everyone except some, who you feel can't handle their freedoms the way you expect them to even though their actions can affect you in no way.
" It's crap. Utter. Fucking. Crap."
So far, the only one saying that is you. And, unfortunately (as barby constantly points out to me), your opinion doesn't count as fact.
I think it's a little far fetched to think these things are what's wrong with the world, but I did like the part where Cracked said that nearly half the liberals out there are among those causing exactly what you are writing about: "And then there is a hardcore 20 percent or so who believe in pretty much any goddamned thing -- from the U.S. government having staged the 9/11 attacks, to a conspiracy to hide evidence of alien visitors.". Since no right-wingers think the US Government staged 9/11 that means that 20% comes from the group of people who aren't right-wingers or conservatives. That means liberals are one of the top-9 causes of what's wrong with the world.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that was an unintended consequence of this particular article, but it sure is a telling one. Then, the gullible people watching Oprah ... probably more liberal than not. She is a liberal, so she is a hero to liberals. She got Pres Obama elected, she is getting reading to start her own religion. How more liberal can you get. So, now we got another large faction of that top-9 causing what is wrong with the world being the result of liberals.
Are you sure you wanted to point out that list, Eddie? It sure seems that a majority of things wrong with the world are caused by liberals ... according to your lists.
As for Crack's crazed denial that vaccines contribute to autism: google Hannah Poling. You would have to be a moron to think that a deadly chemical would NOT have unwanted side effects.
Here's a choice for you (who believe vaccines are OK), would you rather your child have the measles or have autism? Because with the immense increase of vaccines (twice yearly cold vaccine to mega-vaccines shortly after birth) it seems your chances of having children diagnosed with autism to increase dramatically from years before. OH WAIT ... THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING!!! Perhaps cracked is right and it is just a conspiracy theory or another way Oprah is responsible for the worlds woes.
The good news is that if you choose to get your information from places like Cracked, well, you should expect the kind of reporting that you just highlighted. In all the years I've been posting, here, I don't think I've ever claimed that liberals were very smart ... these two articles virtually prove I'm right about liberals and the deadly actions they cause ... then deny.
Michael Savage may be more right about liberals (than you are willing to accept) when he said: "Liberalism is a mental disorder". Because it seems that liberals are behind most of what you say is accurate when you said: "99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles".
Well, personally, I'd like to thank you for that long expected admission of how dangerous being a liberal can be to the world today.
"Since no right-wingers think the US Government staged 9/11 that means that 20% comes from the group of people who aren't right-wingers or conservatives. That means liberals are one of the top-9 causes of what's wrong with the world."
DeleteThat's a false dichotomy; it's not stated that the problem has to be either "liberals" or "conservatives", so that 20% could be independent. Further, the words "from" and "to" in the quote you provided describes a range of topics which isn't restricted to any political ideology.
Even more damaging to your claim, here's the beginning of the article: "We all know a conspiracy theorist. Maybe it's that kid from high school who keeps putting photos of "chemtrails" on his Facebook wall, or an uncle who listens to alternative radio and thinks Obama is a reptilian creature in a human skin suit."
To throw your logic back in your face, no left-winger believes that Obama is a reptilian creature in a human skin suit, so conservatives must be a primary cause of what's wrong with the world.
And even better, here's the sentence which immediately precedes your quote: "And you see this everywhere -- 37 percent of Americans think global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of at least 30,000 climate scientists cooperating behind the scenes as part of a secret agenda."
Is that 37 percent supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?
As for Oprah, notice that there's nothing political about that article. In both cases, you're over-reaching in order to be partisan, even when there's no catalyst for the behavior whatsoever. That's your problem, not Eddie's.
"Is that 37 percent supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?"
DeleteThere is no such thing as global warming. So that couldn't possibly be true. If you're saying that Cracked just made up all that shit (like you do), then Eddie's article is just a waste of space and time (like you are). The globe isn't getting warmer, the climate is changing. Get your whines straight.
"There is no such thing as global warming. So that couldn't possibly be true."
DeleteReplace "global warming" with "global climate change" if you like. Are the people who claimed it to be a "hoax" supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?
"The globe isn't getting warmer, the climate is changing. Get your whines straight."
I'm just responding to your fallacious commentary, so I'm not responsible for the wording in the article. Get your whines straight.
"Replace "global warming" with "global climate change" if you like."
DeleteI can't change the article around like that. I'm not like you ... I don't make shit up and fly with it as if that's what was said.
Do you want to talk about the vaccine--autism connection? Nah, I didn't think so. You just want to whine about me posting, nothing actually on topic, huh? Because I notice in your first response you have already started with the grammar corrections.
Anything else, or are you done so quickly?
"I can't change the article around like that."
DeleteYou don't have to "change the article". That's the subject they're referring to, so you can use the term that you like. So, for the third time, are the people who claimed it to be a "hoax" supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?
I'll also add that I got a good laugh at the part about how you "don't make shit up and fly with it as if that's what was said", considering this gem from your original comment: "I think it's a little far fetched to think these things are what's wrong with the world, but I did like the part where Cracked said that nearly half the liberals out there are among those causing exactly what you are writing about:..." (emphasis mine). That wasn't "what was said", but you seem comfortable with making it up and flying with it.
"Do you want to talk about the vaccine--autism connection?"
No, I was just pointing out the glaring flaws in your reasoning. I don't have to comply with your random demands in order to do that.
"You just want to whine about me posting, nothing actually on topic, huh?"
Aren't you just whining about Eddie posting? If you can address what he says, then I can address what you say. And considering that I quoted from the articles cited, you can't justify your claim that I'm off-topic. So much for that.
"Because I notice in your first response you have already started with the grammar corrections."
What did I say about grammar? Be specific.
"Anything else, or are you done so quickly?"
I didn't suggest that I was done. If you can't address the point about your false dichotomy, then it stands unscathed. You don't seem up to the task, for some unknown reason.
" That wasn't "what was said", but you seem comfortable with making it up and flying with it."
DeleteYes, it was. I even brought the quote from their article that said so. 20% is nearly half, isn't it? Maybe you need help with math. Half are liberals and half are not. The "hardcore 20%" that believe 9/11 was staged by the government would only include liberals. It didn't say 20% of all people, only the ones who think the government staged 9/11. Those would be the liberals.
"What did I say about grammar? Be specific."
When you started crying about the usage of "from" and "to".
Anything else?
"I even brought the quote from their article that said so. 20% is nearly half, isn't it?"
DeleteIt didn't say anything about ideology. You made that part up.
"The "hardcore 20%" that believe 9/11 was staged by the government would only include liberals."
No, it would include independents. It's not either conservatives or liberals; that's a framework you introduced all on your own.
"It didn't say 20% of all people, only the ones who think the government staged 9/11."
It said 20% of "only the ones who think the government staged 9/11"? No, it was referring to people who believe that sort of thing when talking about 20% of the population. On that note, it was talking about a range of absurd beliefs, not exclusive to 9/11 being staged. The language very clearly disallows your interpretation.
"When you started crying about the usage of "from" and "to"."
That's the wording in the article, and it's relevant to the meaning of the sentence. That's not an issue of "grammar". Is it supposed to be indicative of weakness on my part when I point out that the phrasing of a sentence doesn't support your interpretation? As if disputing your claim with evidence from the source material is admitting defeat, in this scenario of yours? That's hilariously desperate of you, especially this early in the conversation.
Also, for the fourth time: are the people who claimed global climate change to be a "hoax" supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?
DeleteAnd again, from the article: "...or an uncle who listens to alternative radio and thinks Obama is a reptilian creature in a human skin suit."
Since no liberal believes that Obama is a reptilian creature in a human skin suit, the article must be referring to conservatives. That's another application of your argument, and it directly disproves your claim that Cracked was talking about liberals.
Nothing else is really needed, as far as you've shown. Outside of further repetition, naturally, since you'll ignore everything that doesn't conform to your absurd claim.
"No, it would include independents."
DeleteNo, I don't think it would include any independents because no independent believes 9/11 was staged by the government. That would be strictly a liberal thing.
"No, it was referring to people who believe that sort of thing when talking about 20% of the population. "
That's what I just explained. 20% of the population that believe that sort of thing would be liberals. They are just 50% of the population, so 20% would be nearly half of them.
"On that note, it was talking about a range of absurd beliefs, not exclusive to 9/11 being staged."
Yeah, and that would be liberals only. No one else has that kind of hardcore hatred of the government.
"Also, for the fourth time: are the people who claimed global climate change to be a "hoax" supposed to be liberals, or generally more conservative?"
Ask as many times as you want. The article said "global warming". There is no such thing, so no one would make that claim. If you want to change the wording you go right ahead and do that. But, I'm not responsible for the shit you make up.
Anything else?
"No, I don't think it would include any independents because no independent believes 9/11 was staged by the government. That would be strictly a liberal thing."
DeleteYou have no basis for believing that, let alone asserting it as fact. Obviously, there's nothing about independents that precludes them from believing that 9/11 was staged.
"That's what I just explained. 20% of the population that believe that sort of thing would be liberals. They are just 50% of the population, so 20% would be nearly half of them."
Neither liberals nor conservatives make up "just 50% of the population". You made that up. Further, you said: "It didn't say 20% of all people, only the ones who think the government staged 9/11." You're now talking, again, about "20% of all people".
"Yeah, and that would be liberals only."
You can't logically assert that, because the other topics aren't all specified. It's a range of absurd beliefs. Note, yet again, that the article also mentioned a belief that Obama is a "reptilian creature in a human skin suit". That wouldn't fall on the liberal "50%", even in this fantasy of yours.
"The article said "global warming"."
Yet, people obviously understood what phenomenon was being mentioned.
"If you want to change the wording you go right ahead and do that. But, I'm not responsible for the shit you make up."
Nobody has to "change the wording", again. The question was based on some tangible issue, or else you couldn't have 37% believing that it was a "hoax". If you don't want to use the phrase "global warming", fine, but that doesn't invalidate the statistic. The people who believe that it's a "hoax" would tend to be conservative. And that, along with the mention of the belief about Obama as a "reptilian creature", utterly destroys your claim about Cracked's supposed claim regarding liberals.
Can you address those points, or will you continue to ignore them simply because they don't conform to your insane beliefs? I'm guessing the latter.
"You have no basis for believing that, let alone asserting it as fact. "
DeleteI didn't assert it as fact. If you notice, and you probably didn't, I asserted my opinion.
"Obviously, there's nothing about independents that precludes them from believing that 9/11 was staged."
The "hardcore" independent didn't hate Pres Bush as much as the "hardcore" liberal did (does). So, yes, there IS something that precludes independents from believing the government staged 9/11.
"Yet, people obviously understood what phenomenon was being mentioned."
How do you know that? Do you have something that backs up your assertion of fact?
"If you don't want to use the phrase "global warming", fine, but that doesn't invalidate the statistic. The people who believe that it's a "hoax" would tend to be conservative."
So, you're saying (as fact) that independents would believe something that doesn't exist (global warming) simply because they are independent and yet you refuse to accept that liberals blame the government for staging 9/11. That is not logical at all. If cracked had said 'global climate change' then I could have said nothing about it, but they didn't. That makes you wrong by changing THEIR wording and expecting the article to remain valid. I could just as easily change their statistics to have them saying that 100% of liberals think Bush is responsible for 9/11 because that is obviously what they meant since that would be more accurate, and I would have just as much right for doing that as you for changing their wording of global warming.
Now, if all you're going to do is cry (like a little girl) about my opinion on this article, then I'll leave you to cry alone. If you have something, by the rare chance and between your little girl sniffles, that is logical and intelligent then I'll reply.
"I didn't assert it as fact. If you notice, and you probably didn't, I asserted my opinion."
DeleteSo the determination of what the article "said" is supposed to rely on your opinion on ideologies? That's quite the magical power that you imagine for yourself. Let's adjust at least one part of your original comment to accommodate this: "Are you sure you wanted to point out that list, Eddie? It sure seems that a majority of things wrong with the world are caused by liberals ... according to (my opinion of) your lists."
Surely, you don't expect Eddie to post based on whatever random opinion you might spout out here, do you? That would be rather pathologically egocentric of you. Something for you to ponder, don't you think?
"The "hardcore" independent didn't hate Pres Bush as much as the "hardcore" liberal did (does). So, yes, there IS something that precludes independents from believing the government staged 9/11."
Try looking up the word "preclude". Even if your premise was true, it allows for independents to believe at 9/11 was staged.
"How do you know that?"
Because 37% said it was a "hoax". If they didn't understand what was being talked about, then they couldn't possibly be applying the word "hoax" to it.
"So, you're saying (as fact) that independents would believe something that doesn't exist (global warming) simply because they are independent and yet you refuse to accept that liberals blame the government for staging 9/11."
No, I'm saying that people can recognize a concept even if someone doesn't use their preferred term. For instance, I can understand that when someone in Europe talks about their local "football" teams, they actually mean "soccer". Similarly, you personally demonstrated that you understood the concept at hand by saying "The globe isn't getting warmer, the climate is changing."
And where did you get "because they are independent" from? You clearly made that up, since I suggested nothing about any such causation. On top of that, I never said that no liberals blame the government for staging 9/11. The point is that a range of beliefs which happens to include that theory would also apply to people besides radical liberals, and independents can also believe that the government staged 9/11. There's really nothing stopping radical conservatives from believing it either, especially if they never considered Bush a true conservative.
You seem perpetually inclined to view things in absolutist ideological terms, and it doesn't work out for you. The phrasing of "who believe in pretty much any goddamned thing" especially doesn't lend itself to your mode of thought, because "pretty much any goddamned thing" isn't restricted by ideological lines. Read that twice if you need to.
"That is not logical at all."
Your convoluted misrepresentation of what I said isn't logical? Imagine that.
"If cracked had said 'global climate change' then I could have said nothing about it, but they didn't. That makes you wrong by changing THEIR wording and expecting the article to remain valid."
DeleteThe wording isn't relevant to the statistic, unless you can explain how people would judge something to be a "hoax" when they don't even know what's being discussed. Whichever phrase is used, the statistic remains the same. I never tried to "change" anything, as you should already know.
"I could just as easily change their statistics to have them saying that 100% of liberals think Bush is responsible for 9/11 because that is obviously what they meant since that would be more accurate, and I would have just as much right for doing that as you for changing their wording of global warming."
No, changing percentages isn't even remotely the same thing as pointing out that the wording is irrelevant. That wasn't even a good effort on your part.
"Now, if all you're going to do is cry (like a little girl) about my opinion on this article, then I'll leave you to cry alone."
If it's your opinion, then Cracked "said" nothing like what you asserted that they did. Nobody else is responsible for your beliefs besides you. Also, if your mere opinion is supposed to prevent Eddie from posting what he likes, then my opinion would also have the power to prevent you from commenting. Or does this magical authority only belong to you, for some reason?
"Surely, you don't expect Eddie to post based on whatever random opinion you might spout out here, do you?"
DeleteUmm, he spouted his opinion that those articles explain what is wrong with the world. HIS OPINION!! I posted mine. MY OPINION!! Time for you to stop crying like a little girl. Do you agree?
" If they didn't understand what was being talked about, then they couldn't possibly be applying the word "hoax" to it."
If 37% believe something that doesn't exist, then that means 63% aren't stupid people. My opinion is that those 63% would not be liberals. Because nobody else would be stupid enough to believe something that doesn't exist.
" For instance, I can understand that when someone in Europe talks about their local "football" teams, they actually mean "soccer"."
Still crying? Ok, Football and football are the same term with different meanings. Global warming and global climate change are different terms with different meanings.
"The wording isn't relevant to the statistic, unless you can explain how people would judge something to be a "hoax" when they don't even know what's being discussed."
Done that. See above. Still crying?
"Also, if your mere opinion is supposed to prevent Eddie from posting what he likes, then my opinion would also have the power to prevent you from commenting."
You go ahead and exercise that power whenever you get the opportunity. Like, try right now. Use your magical power and prevent me from posting my opinion.
BTW, you never did tell me what tissue you use so I could take advantage of that and buy stock in that company. Can you take a moment and tell me, now? I really want to become one of those 1%'rs so that your crybaby antics can have some credibility. Otherwise, you're just crying like a little girl about opinions posted on a blog.
Anything else?
"Umm, he spouted his opinion that those articles explain what is wrong with the world. HIS OPINION!! I posted mine. MY OPINION!!"
DeleteYou asserted that Cracked "said" that liberals were what's wrong with the world. You also acted as if Eddie should have realized it before he posted it: "Are you sure you wanted to point out that list, Eddie?" Why would he not have wanted to cite that list, as if your opinion would have some impact on that? Get over yourself.
"If 37% believe something that doesn't exist, then that means 63% aren't stupid people."
They don't "believe something that doesn't exist", they are addressing the concept that you yourself recognized. Your phrasing doesn't make any sense. If they didn't recognize or accept the phrasing in regards to the concept, then they wouldn't be able to apply the word "hoax" to it. There's just no way around that.
"Ok, Football and football are the same term with different meanings. Global warming and global climate change are different terms with different meanings."
No, not conversationally. You understood that they were referring to climate change, which would strongly suggest that the 37% who called it a "hoax" have the same understanding. So, what's your theory? They're calling it a "hoax" because they're objecting to the term they're presented with? That would make no sense whatsoever. It's not as if people are saying "It's not called 'global warming', it's actually called 'global climate change'. Global warming is a hoax, but the same thing being called by a different name is not a hoax." If they're saying it for one, they're saying it for the other.
"Done that. See above."
No, you didn't explain any such thing.
"Use your magical power and prevent me from posting my opinion."
By the same token, your opinion has no bearing on whether Eddie would ever want to post an article or not. See how that works?
"Otherwise, you're just crying like a little girl about opinions posted on a blog."
Like this? :"The good news is that if you choose to get your information from places like Cracked, well, you should expect the kind of reporting that you just highlighted. In all the years I've been posting, here, I don't think I've ever claimed that liberals were very smart ... these two articles virtually prove I'm right about liberals and the deadly actions they cause ... then deny.
Michael Savage may be more right about liberals (than you are willing to accept) when he said: "Liberalism is a mental disorder". Because it seems that liberals are behind most of what you say is accurate when you said: "99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles".
Well, personally, I'd like to thank you for that long expected admission of how dangerous being a liberal can be to the world today."
If you can criticize Eddie, I can criticize you. If what I'm doing is "crying", then you're bawling uncontrollably. This is your typical childish reaction whenever you're being held accountable for what you post, and it's no more respectable than it ever was.
" Why would he not have wanted to cite that list, as if your opinion would have some impact on that?"
DeleteIf Eddie wants to post an article about what is wrong with the world partly based on faulty information, that is his right. If you want to defend that faulty information, that is your right. I certainly won't stop you. Just laugh about it.
Anything else?
"If Eddie wants to post an article about what is wrong with the world partly based on faulty information, that is his right."
DeleteThat wasn't your point: "It sure seems that a majority of things wrong with the world are caused by liberals ... according to your lists."
You weren't questioning the source, you were saying that it condemned liberals.
Of course, Cracked didn't say anything that you claimed that they did, which was my original point. And it remains unscathed. What else would I need to say?
"That wasn't your point:"
DeleteYour opinion as to what my "point" is is your own opinion. Nothing else.
So I take it you're done now?
Thanks for the laughs.
"Your opinion as to what my "point" is is your own opinion. Nothing else."
DeleteYou: "Since no right-wingers think the US Government staged 9/11 that means that 20% comes from the group of people who aren't right-wingers or conservatives. That means liberals are one of the top-9 causes of what's wrong with the world.
I'm sure that was an unintended consequence of this particular article, but it sure is a telling one. Then, the gullible people watching Oprah ... probably more liberal than not. She is a liberal, so she is a hero to liberals. She got Pres Obama elected, she is getting reading to start her own religion. How more liberal can you get. So, now we got another large faction of that top-9 causing what is wrong with the world being the result of liberals."
Unless I miscounted, that's six mention of "liberal" or "liberals" in the comments immediately preceding the previously-cited quote. Plus, your claim itself: "I think it's a little far fetched to think these things are what's wrong with the world, but I did like the part where Cracked said that nearly half the liberals out there are among those causing exactly what you are writing about..."
That's seven mentions of "liberal" or "liberals". Feel free to count how many times you said "faulty information" or anything remotely similar. It hardly matters, since your "Cracked said that nearly half the liberals" phrasing itself makes the nature of your point undeniable.
Run away, now.
My first comment: "I think it's a little far fetched to think these things are what's wrong with the world, ... "
Deleteand the best you can do is cry about my disdain for liberals. Your reading comprehension abilities have never surpassed my expectations of you. Classic ... truly classic.
ROTFLMAO@U
"and the best you can do is cry about my disdain for liberals."
DeleteI'm pointing out that your claim was that Cracked said that liberals are what's wrong with the world. Your opinion of whether it's "far fetched" or not doesn't change that in the slightest. This should be especially obvious since the quote that I provided included your phrase "according to your lists". You don't have to agree with the lists in order to assert their meaning, which is what you did.
I don't care about your disdain for liberals. You tried to change your point, and I called you out on it. Deal with it.
"You tried to change your point, and I called you out on it. Deal with it."
DeleteI've never changed what my "point" was, in this article. It just gave me the opportunity to give another example of how liberals seem to cause most everything Eddie is highlighting:
"Two articles that explain everything that is wrong with the world"
"They're short, funny and well-written. And they're 100%, dead-on-balls accurate. 99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles:"
I just got to finally agree with Eddie (doesn't happen often;) about those articles being so accurate and giving me the easy explanation as to why. I, however, do not think those are "all that is wrong with the world" ... a lot, but not all.
"I've never changed what my "point" was, in this article."
DeleteWilliam, then: "It sure seems that a majority of things wrong with the world are caused by liberals ... according to your lists."
William, now: "If Eddie wants to post an article about what is wrong with the world partly based on faulty information, that is his right."
And: "Your opinion as to what my "point" is is your own opinion. Nothing else."
"I, however, do not think those are "all that is wrong with the world" ... a lot, but not all."
So what?
*skipping all the bullshit above, because I don't have Brabantio's patience to deal with William's bullshit*
ReplyDeleteHey, asshat: vaccines don'r cause autism. You know how I know that? Because study after study after study has failed to show an difference in the rate of autism between vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations. *PERIOD* Done. End of story. Proving something *safe* is actually IMPOSSIBLE. But proving it DANGEROUS? Trivially easy. (And if you don't know what a 2-sample-T is, or can explain a P-Value, then you are not even entitled to an *OPINION* as far as am concerned.)
Also? The *ONLY* published, pier reviewed work to show *ANY* link between autsim and vaccines (1) Has since been proven a complete fraud. (2) Was written by a man, the former Doctor Andrew Wakefield, who held patent on the MMR's hypothetical replacement, and (3) Targeted THIMEROSOL, which starting in 1997 has been REMOVED from all but the multi-does FLU vaccines. So you're WRONG. 100% WORNG. As thimersol usage went DOWN, the rate of Autism went UP. If ANYTHING, it was protecting us. But that of course is an absurd conclusion because CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSALITY. And if you knew how to *THINK* I wouldn't have to tell you that! There is *NO* risk of autism due to vaccines. *NONE*. And while were at it, why don't YOU google "Paul Offit." He was personally involved in three separate cases over the years where vaccines were pulled from the market for cause far lesser side-effects that fucking AUTISM, at a far smaller rate than we're observing. (You can read all about it in his fantastic book, "Autism's False Prophets." I HIGHLY recommend it.
Also?
1) Liberals tend to MARGINALIZE the 9/11 Truthers as kooks. (Unlike, say, how conservative treated the Birthers and the Bengaziphiles.)
2) Oprah's a liberal? So what? I'll stand by every point made in the cracked article as well as my own. We're not like you lot. We don't feel the need to agree with each "just 'cuz" the way you lot do. I could care less what good she's done. Just as with Religion, all of that good could have been done all the same, without any of the harm. Oprah's a cancer to our society, and the Cracked articles show why.
3) My TRUE philosophy is not Liberalism, or even Progressivism, so much as it is SCIENCE, SKEPTICISM and CRITICAL THINKING. I wend up on the Left mainly because Conservatives SUCK BIG HAIRY BALLS when it comes to Science, Skepticism and Critical Thinking. Liberals DO occasionally get it wrong (DDT & GMO's come to mind) but Conservatives hardly ever get it RIGHT. (No examples come to mind.)
And Global Warming? It's a FACT. Just like Evolution. Since you lot continually misuse the word "theory" (when you in fact mean to say, still incorrectly, "hypothesis") we'll just cut to the chase: BOTH are proven facts. And there's a word for people who deny this: MORONS.
When you CHOOSE to be WRONG (out of little more than a fear of being Liberal) is spite of *ALL* available evidence, you're a *MORON*. Plain and simple.
And now, having refreshed my memory via google, I must say that I am (or WAS,) in fact, very familiar with Poling case. (Though I had long since forgotten her name.) It's crap. Utter. Fucking. Crap. Her family has my utmost sympathies, but their case is completely, 100% pseudo-scientific bunk. Maybe I'll do a post about it (or anti-vaxxers in general) sometime.
DeleteAnd, Dude? I'm the father of two autistic boys. I'd be surprised to the point of full-on epileptic and anaphalactic *SHOCK* if you could throw a vaccine/autism case my way that I hadn't heard or read about, or a paper that I couldn't provide you with a thourough de-bunking of.
They're. All. CRAP.
But, by all means, keep listening to Oprah and Jenny Fucking McCarthy, rather than those darned Liberal Scientists. I'd sure truth THEM to keep your children safe.
Idiot.
"But, by all means, keep listening to Oprah and Jenny Fucking McCarthy, rather than those darned Liberal Scientists."
DeleteI'm not the one listening to them, you are. Apparently you know so much about each of them you could probably tell us what they took a shit, last night. My enjoyment, in this article, is your complaint about everything wrong with this world and how it points out that liberals caused so much from that list. Wow, then you try to separate yourself from being a "liberal". Sorry, too late ... it's way obvious you have liberal written all over you.
"Hey, asshat: vaccines don'r cause autism."
Well, "asshat", NOT getting a vaccine hasn't caused one case of measles or chicken pox. So, why is it that you throw around the word "CHOICE" (as if it's a freedom or a right) then cry about those who CHOOSE not to vaccine. That has not caused ONE case of ANY disease you are crying about. So stop acting as though the people who don't vaccinate their kids are CAUSING any "genocide" by this disease you fear so much. Are YOUR kids vaccinated? Well, then what do YOU care about another family who chose not to? Your kids won't catch the disease, only those who don't vaccinate and that will eliminate the problem for you. So your whining about anti-vaxers is honestly a big waste of time and anger (on your part), since the epidemic that you write about isn't possible. Everyone else gets immunized besides a tiny fraction of people. And, since everyone else is immunized there is no possibility to catch any disease from the anti-vaxers.
Funny how you want freedom of CHOICE for everyone except some, who you feel can't handle their freedoms the way you expect them to even though their actions can affect you in no way.
" It's crap. Utter. Fucking. Crap."
So far, the only one saying that is you. And, unfortunately (as barby constantly points out to me), your opinion doesn't count as fact.