Athias

You should have led with this unmitigated disaster of a straw man (this is not the argument anyone uses to justify vaccination data) with your first reply

If the true chance of death due to Covid in a population - P(death) is 95%, if you are part of that population - you have a 95% chance due to Covid.

(If 95% of balls in box are blue, any given ball from the box has a 95% chance of being blue.)

So if the sample is valid, and satisfies all the conditions above, yes - without knowing anything else about you - your risk is 95%.

Firstly, you continue to make the constant and repeated error of assuming risk statistics apply or are being applied explicitly to you personally

Some get more granular, and therefore are more likely to be accurate - but all of them apply to you, not as Athias the individual personally, but as a ball plucked from a population.

Secondly - your reasoning here invalidates the entire field of statistics.

The very concept of risk as measured can’t work with this reasoning; your argument suggests you can’t apply population probability to individuals at any level - which given the general predictive success of many such statistics at predicting outcomes at the individual level- is clearly patently false - making this a case is proving too much, as well as a straw man above.

Indeed, you invalidate a very basic example of high school probability: if 95% of balls in a bucket in a warehouse are blue - the chances of a ball picked from someone random part of the warehouse will be blue is 95%.

Your argument invalidates that basic maths.

The ecological fallacy doesn’t cover this application of statistics

but covers statements such as - the chances of picking a blue ball from the west of the warehouse is 95% - which is the ecological fallacy.

The fallacy is typically used in relationship to a variety of correlations in the population that appear at the level of a population, but disappear because of subdivision within the population. It’s about structural trends that are missed or overlooked in population data: for example, assuming that thin people have the same risk of diabetes as fat people because the statistics incorporate both sets. The ecological fallacy disappears in cases when those subdivisions can be largely ruled out, or are mostly accounted for - which is the entire purpose of all the rigorous data sampling employed.

It is why granular subsets - obesity, age, race, etc, are factored in to your these risk factors; your risk of death as a 64 year obese old black man is not the same as a 16 year old Caucasian. Sampling to determine these risk factors as noted above - is a big part of the statistics - statistics break down risk to the various at risk groups for the purposes of avoiding a big part of the ecological fallacy

And disappears with my first point - that their level of applicability to an individual is generally caveated to known risk factors.

It would be valid to say (given the above) that UFPMs generally have a 95% chance of death to Covid

but the ecological fallacy to say that all UFPMs taller than 6’3 also have a 95% mortality rate - and not the ecological fallacy that you, as a UFPM have a 95% mortality - even if you happen to be taller than 6’3.

I don’t care what you welcome or not

your style is disjoint

incoherent

and seems intended to discussion because you’re making a 1000 individual empty objections (you seem not to be making arguments) rather than a single cohesive counter argument.

You seem

Case in point: you define a difference between humans and dice : and then claim that this invalidates everything I said. No explanation of how and why: simply an empty objection you use to dismiss almost everything I said.

Why? How? Without any explanation this is an empty argument.

Probability is not rendered invalid because of unknown conditions and factors

Non sequitur.

Probability is both

the two statements mean the same thing

an estimation of an event given known conditions by summing the impacts of [all known] factors that cause the results of an event to be different.

Empty objection. Does it matter? How does it impact what I said, or how it works? Just object to a statement for some reason with no argument - without dealing with content.

By analyzing the sample for corrections between an occurrence and various traits.

I can spoon feed you on this if you wish.

An empty objection - I substantiate this in detail in the next paragraph (which you arbitrarily dismiss with another empty objection)

Empty objection - And?

How representative the sample is of the population it is sampled from.

And? This is irrelevant to the point being made; given that is neither dependent upon, nor an assumption of anything I’m saying.

This is literally explained in the paragraphs above - which you ignored. Indeed, the entirety of my exceptionally large posts I made is almost entirely geared towards explaining that risk is not an explicit prediction of what will happen to you personally, but an expression of the risk you have as a member of a group.

As I keep saying, your issue - as typified by this response is that you don’t seem to grasp the meaning of the statistics.

The above describes in detail the mechanism by which we can make valid statements about individuals despite not being able to reproducible and why we can consider them valid.

And? Feel free to tell me which part of that argument is untrue in the context of the example. Another vacuous, empty objection.

Unless you actually know what that predisposition is, and whether you have it - it’s only possible to express it as a probability determinable by a population

Given that it’s description - not an argument presents reasoning

Actually it does speak to it - it’s covered in the argument above that you dismissed.

An actuary’s income - and insurance in general - depend on the principle you think is clearly false - being true;

it’s not an appeal to authority as much as pointing out you’re proving too much.

Firstly, if that were true -it would make what I said a straw man, not a nonsequitor (you keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means).

What you say your contention is, and the contention you’re objecting sort of mean the same thing. 

If the properties and outcomes of an individual are accurately expressed in the sample - sampling results will be predictive.

See above. Yes it does.

I’m calling it absurd because you can clearly make specific probabilistic statements about an individuals based on the population - the justification for which has not yet been addressed.

Firstly the reasoning is clearly presented above, and other than your collection of empty objections  - has not been challenged.

Also; this dispute is indeed about whether statistics can account for individual factors.

Indeed, in paragraphs above you literally said “sampling results are dictated by the parameters of the sample AND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL HIM OR HERSELF” below you literally say your objection to the statistics

is “It does not take my immunology into account, it does not take my xx into account”.

So please don’t accuse me of making a strawman by accurately representing a portion of the dispute.

Your argument now appears to be the following :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2. It is false that the nonexistent can be perceived.

P3. A false premise is irrational.

P4. Therefore, the premise that the nonexistent can be perceived is irrational.

P5. A claim based on an irrational premise is irrational.

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.

Is that indeed your argument ?

[68] It is complicated due to the triple negation.

The position is : “Atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible position.”

You hold the negation of that position : “It is false that the position of atheism being irrational is not a rationally defensible position.”

in other words, you hold the position : “Atheism is irrational is a rationally defensible position.”

You don't defend that position of yours because “sustaining a belief isn't necessarily measured by its being rationally defensible.” The belief in question is your position and the reason you don't defend it is because it is not rationally defensible. So you disagreement is not rationally defensible. You merely sustain that belief because you place value on it.

Hence we agree that the position that “atheism is irrational being a rationally defensible position” is not a rationally defensible position.

That comes close to what I said in post 289.

[69] You just mentioned another contention that you couldn't rationally defend. You also said that “God does not exist.” is irrational.

I was alluding to both.

Spino is also the spinosaur that walked three times around the city walls of Jerusalem to make them fall. How does his nonexistence prevent me from knowing Spino does not exist ?

If you also exclude that the history of something can define it, then your criticism of the claim “God does not exist” being irrational my not apply, for those who make that claim may consider that anything that failed to do the actions ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible is not God. God is also said to be omnipresent.

P1. Nothing is better than a cold beer.

P2. A warm beer is better than nothing.

C. Therefore, a warm beer is better than a cold beer.

Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. If X is imperceptible, then the opposite of X is perceptible.

P2. Everything is the opposite of nothing.

P3. Nothing is imperceptible.

C. Therefore, everything is perceptible.

Is that indeed your argument ? If so, please demonstrate P1.

You forgot to answer my second question : Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?

Putting aside the obnoxious quote ladders that make it near impossible to engage In a discussion for a moment;

the above post entirely, and the quoted section specifically illustrates that your understanding of statistics is profoundly failing you at a fairly fundamental level - so much so it’s hard to know where to begin. But let me try.

A regular dice with six sides, has a 1/6 chance of turning up any of the individual numbers.

Just because I don’t know what the true probability of rolling a six given the specific conditions at the time, or for a specific dice for which the probability of its population is known does not alter the fact that the chance is 1/6;

Probability is not rendered invalid because of unknown conditions and factors

probability is literally an expression of those unknown conditions and factors when only composite data is known

Or to be more specific to vaccines, given that I can smell a strawman coming :  You could take a warehouse full of random second-hand dice; each of which you can only roll only once; take a large random sample; weight half and roll them all. You have to make generalizations about an individual based on population without being able to control for outcome at an individual level.

The most important thing is we know people vary so we need to know whether a sample is appropriate. If I take from one side of the warehouse, I may not get an accurate representation of the dice. Likewise the age of dice, may play a role, top or bottom of a box, Color, size; but we can adjust for factors we know make a difference

if we do that and randomly sample account for this; the remaining subset of randomly chosen dice should be representative - and will include  enough of various factors of all individuals to be representative -

This is not to say the sampling is perfect;

but it’s testable

and, thus far, is based on known biological factors yielding predictive power - scientific.

The second weighted sample allows you to establish the change in baseline probability after the controlled parameter has been added. Both samples will contain similar populations of weighted dice, or ones for which the weighting will not work - you’ve corrected for age and size and colour, so providing picking any random 100 large black dice from the bottom of boxes at the far end of the warehouse is equally likely to turn up loaded size as any other random selection of 100 large black size from the bottom of boxes at the far end of the warehouse - those numbers won’t be appreciably different

If you pull a new random dice from the pile ; you can say with some confidence that the chance of you rolling a six increases by a certain amount if you weight the dice. This is true even if you don’t know the specific conditions of that dice. This is because the possible specific conditions and their probability of that dice being non standard is part of the baseline.

The increase in chances of rolling a six incorporates both of the possibility of you picking up a dice for which weighting has no impact, and one for which it does.

For example - if there are no weighted dice in the warehouse, weighting would improve chances of rolling a six by 100x, if there are weighted dice that are unaffected by more weighting - that number would go down to say - 80x.

Rolling Any given dice would be 80x more likely to turn up a six: a probability which incorporates the probabilities of a.) a weighted dice not rolling a six by chance, b.) a weighted dice turning up a six because of the intended action of weighting and c.) a weighed dice not showing a 6 because of some ineffectiveness if the weighting process due to the dice. The statistics applied to the individual is based on the principle that this dice is a member of the broader sample population; and is an expression of the break down of various conditions in that population. When you talk about the probability of the individual - that probability incorporates all those unknowns due to that sampling.

For Covid, if the illness and survival rate for your risk group (age, weight, etc), is 10% to become sick, and 0.1% to die, and that same risk group reduces to 1% and 0.01% - then your risk has dropped by a factor of 10.

You could have some unknown predispoition that means you will die with or without the vaccine; but it’s also more likely you have a predisposition that means you will live with the vaccine and die without; the statistics tells us that the prevelance of the former is at most 0.1% and latter is around 0.9%. 

Unless you actually know what that predisposition is, and whether you have it - it’s only possible to express it as a probability determinable by a population - a probability incorporated into the quantified risk reduction. Your risk has still reduced by 0.9% because that is the probability of having a vaccine preventable disposition - even while the 0.1% remains.

Likewise with seatbelts. Seatbelts will improve your chances of survival. Not because any specific crash you are in yield less chance of dying, but because some types of crashes you can get in will be survivable with a seatbelt;

the chances of occurrence of those types of crash can be determined, with the probability of risk incorporating your chances of getting into one of those, vs one where a seat belt will not help. As it is not possible to tell or control all the individual factors - it must be expressed as a probability based on occurrence within a population controlled for known factors.

Likewise, drunk driving ; the absurdity I point out here is down to your failure to appreciate the meaning of the numbers.

The statistics do not imply that on a given drive home on Sunday, where a specific accident - say a truck plows into you from behind - would be more or likely to occur whilst drunk or sober; but because there are a subset of accidents which can be caused by being drunk or prevented by being sober that have a given probability of occurring based on population statistics. The increase in risk from drunk driving incorporates that general change in risk given that it’s not possible to calculate or know all the factors to know the exact per journey risk - in exactly the same way that you can’t calculate all relevant physics for a dice.

That’s how probability works. The boiling down of unknown events in terms of a likelihood of occurring. For risk statistics - it’s all baked into the numbers. It’s the mechanism by which insurance companies can consistently and reproducibly make billions of dollars; by accurately assessing risk of an individual by virtue of analyzing the population they are part of.

I would highly suggest you find an actuary, and suggest that the risk to an individual cannot be determined by assessing occurrence in a population. If you’re lucky, they will be incapacitated from laughter so long you could steal their jaguar.

You can’t complain

that your specific set of conditions that determine whether you will live or die are unknown so you cannot speculate as to the efficacy of a vaccine

because expressing things you don’t know based on their chance of occurrence in a particular scenario is the whole freaking point of having probability and statistics in the first place.

We are given a choice of two doors with the information that behind one door lies a hungry tiger ready to pounce and behind the other is $100,000.  You and I both observe 100 other people choosing between door A and door B.  I note that 97 times out of 100, the tiger lies behind door A and the money lies behind door B and only 3% of the time does it happen the other way around.   Based on that observation, I decide to go for door B since that is almost always the door with the money behind it.  You state that those 100 people do not reflect your individual circumstance and choice and so you will ignore that data and choose door A.  While we both agree that there are no guarantees, which of us is more likely to get eaten?

Thank you for that.

being that I am talking to a grown up who believes in the tooth fairy

I don't "believe in" the tooth fairy--i.e. subscribe to the ideas and values associated with the tooth fairy; I acknowledge the tooth fairy's existence.

I see no reason to continue.

Have a good day.

Is there a reason you won’t answer with a simple yes or a no?

That's it in a nutshell.  Well said.

Do you believe that there exists a being who goes around here on actual planet earth where the human race resides and replaces children’s teeth left under their pillows with money?

Limited options do not speak to fact. And that's part of my point. There are conclusions being made about the effects of the drunk driving that are beyond anyone's pay-grade--educated or not. Stating that driving sober will prevent injury is non-factual and irresponsible; stating that a drunk driver is putting others at an unquantifiable "risk" is non-factual and irresponsible; Stating driving sober  "reduces" an unquantifiable risk of killing others is non-factual and irresponsible. And that has little to do with limited technology, and more to do with a limited grasp on reasoning. Statistics have not informed the aforementioned because it's impossible to provide sufficient controls. 

Any one who tells you that driving sober  will save your life is categorically lying to you. And this is not a matter of political division, or even being "Anti-sober." It's a subject of logic: in order for someone to tell you that driving sober would save your life, they would have to observe that a given drive would kill you. And in order for them to determine that, they would have to observe the drive you take,. So how would a person be able to determine drunk driving risk while having to sufficiently control for both your survival and your death? They can tell you that Drunk driving has killed this many people in this span of time, and I know of a driving sober is sufficient for post hoc rationalization make me feel confident you will survive a sober drive, but that's not Science. That's guesswork. 

And this is why you’re argument is absurd

and I don’t believe you fully understand what statistics mean.

In two randomized sample of people, one vaccinated and one not - if data shows the one side has higher rates of survival and lower rates of infection - it means the vaccination is saving peoples lives across that population, and reducing infections across that population m - or that the study just so happens to have chosen a broad selection of people who are at inherently lower risk.

But given the data we have fairly decent data on the risk factors of death and disease, much of this can be controlled for;

and with large enough sections of the population, with so consistent results in vaccination studies that the probability of just so happening to get less at risk populations across every single vaccine study - bias in selection can be ruled out.

Whenever anyone says the vaccine will reduce your risk of contracting Covid, or dying; it’s on that basis of that population. We can’t tell your personal change in risk - only the change in broader comparable controlled populations who are like you.

That’s not bad science, or guess work - that’s the logical application of statistical analysis.

I cannot tell you for certain whether your actual secret hidden risk of dying goes down or up after taking the vaccine because you maybe special,

but I can tell you that a population of people similar to you died 99% of the time before the vaccine, and only 1% of the time with;

Indeed, the very fact that you’re complaining that statistics of a population don’t take into consideration granular unknowable individual personal risk changes or you specifically

completely misses the entire point of statistics in the first place.

they they're asking others to consider their beliefs but have they considered the beliefs of others ?

they didn't considered the chance that their religion could be the wrong one while the others are right

and let us not forget about self-deception 

You should watch a few minutes of this prophet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X29lF43mUlo

We have all made ourselves compromised by relying on medicine over improving our immune systems.

Yep, decades of excellent peer-reviewed studies

We can agree that a statistic cannot account for your individual circumstances but its a choice between some information that reflects reality as accurately as possible

Its not like there's some option to have science calculate your individual odds based on DNA testing or something.

The choice is some real information on which to make a decision or no real information on which to make an decision.  And that absence of real information is a vacuum that sucks up a whole lot of stupid, money-grubbing bullshit.

Anybody who is telling you that getting a vaccine doesn't improve your chances of surviving a virulent infection by that disease is lying to you.

I do not watch as much anime as you guys, but I have seen Cowboy Bebop

and I thought it was great, great feel and atmosphere to the show. It's one I think could have been recaptured in live action too, keeping with whiteflame's idea about medium. Still, I saw this shit on Netflix and it was an instant nope. Probably down to my experience with Ghost in the Shell. Maybe also I've had enough of everyone looking Asian for a while after Squid Game and that other one, hot girl, criminal dad dies, whatever it was called.

1. Fullmetal Alchemist is the best anime. That belongs here only insofar as I never talk about anime with anyone. But it just is. The whole mad scientist thing. The atmosphere. The magic system. The way the homunculi are inserted into a government conspiracy by means of that magic system thereby permeating the whole story, from the boys' original sin to world's end. Really, I'm just a little bit in awe of how the whole story coheres. It's an entire world spun out from a sin, no departures from that. I think it's one of the most impressive pieces of worldbuilding in all media. 

Imagine a Doctor telling a fat person that he is at risk at dying from Covid, and being labeled Fatphobic or Fat-skeptic...

Or a Doctor telling a Trans person he has a 40% chance of killing himself...

Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

many religions have that claim and 99% of religious people which became religious due to their parents indoctrination remain and die on that religion

do you have any Idea how near impossible it's to make those people change their faith/beliefs ?

some of the people who get out expect the people they are preaching to, to question their own beliefs , without  holding the same expectation towards themselves 

organized religion divides people . what's far worse is that after the religion part , you'll get sects and then sects within sects , and sects within sects within sects ........etc

you might feel like they are united when facing an atheist/agnostic but as soon as they begin facing each others , you'll find them extremely divided -even within one religion- with each division claiming to be the only way to heaven 

the irony lays at the fact that many of those sects didn't exist at the origination of the religion but came many years later , and they still manage to divide people 

It says that you are intelligent.y

Nothing in medicine is certain.  The  second dose of measles vaccine is 97% effective at preventing the kind of virulent manifestation that took my hearing.  It's like having a shield in battle- it doesn't guarantee you'll survive but when arrows are raining down you will always wish you had one.  I wish I'd had a chance at taking those 97% odds.

why should god care about us :

1. we are less than 1% of our planet

2.our planet is less than 1% of our solar system 

3.our solar system is less than 1% of our galaxy 

 4.our galaxy is less than 1% of our galaxy cluster 

5.our galaxy cluster is less than 1 over a billion of our universe  

and we are god's favorite planet's people

===================================

would god punish people based on where they were born or who there parents are ?

would you claim that you're not  following a certain religion just because you're parents choose that religion for you ?

wouldn't you be defending an entirely different religion had god choose a different pair to be your parents ?

the same way you're defending your current one ?

I admit that there are few converting from religion to another from time to time but usually those people weren't religious to begin with 

most people stay under the effect of the brainwashing which was done to them when they were children

more 90% of people stay on the religion they were born at and die believing in it , what does that indicates ?

 now let me repeat the first question would god punish people based on where they were born or who there parents are ?

you didn't choose you own religion it was chosen for you before you were born 

The label you want to give to me is transphobe but I'd sooner defend a transgender person against a bully than be a bystander or join in (though in certain scenarios I'd just run to authorities or get backup ASAP if it's a fight I'm not sure I win that can end with both of us breathing through a straw).

I lost the majority of my hearing to a childhood case of measles for which a vaccine was available.  I guess that is where my appreciation of the risks stems from.  

Yes to the second part, I don't understand the first question.

It could hurt them to know, offend and anger them.

I've also come across some (especially the they/them queer/genderfluid type) who agree with my reasoning and get where I'm coming from. I won't reveal how I met them or what the conversations contained.

Now what I don't get about the vaccine skeptics is why they think politicians and doctors all over the world are conspiring to poison or needlessly jab their citizens just for the hell of it. There are other ways to keep Big Pharma profitable. Why would every single country, including our enemies,  be espousing the same lies -- and how did they convince the overwhelming majority of the science community across the globe to go along with it? (I get that Sweden was one very unique country, as in small and homogenous, that avoided lockdowns; however, they are nearly 90% vaccinated against Covid now.) 

Transphobes use pronouns and say and do things that hurt the feelings of transgenders.

Trans-skeptics act sympathetic and empathetic but maintain that there seems to be a disorder at play, not just a 'way of life'.

The logic is the loyalty test.  Anti-vaxxers get extra credit on their conspiracy theory credentials for risking their family's life and well-being in order to demonstrate club membership.  Club membership gets you a feeling of belonging in an age of alienation and gives less educated folks the opportunity to speak authoritatively and expertly (if inaccurately) on a topic they can understand.  Anti-vax belief reinforces the losers' conviction that they would be winners if society were not out to get them and grants them justification for just about any anti-societal act or belief those losers care to demonstrate.

then what is the struggle that Feminism is fighting against?

If a woman can take hormones, present butch and then say 'I am a man' then is all her struggle as a female beforehand negated in the eyes of affirmative action quotas and other such official measures taken to safeguard females against sexism?

JK Rowling has already clashed with Hermione's actress Emma Watson (Watson on the cancelling side, Rowling on the TERF side). This is a real clash, a genuine complete battle of viewpoints.

I am not being transphobic

I am being what we can call trans-skeptical here.

If I tell you tomorrow that I am a woman, did I grow up with all the setbacks in my life that a girl who becomes a woman had?

Well the reference points are A and B and Me

And I am travelling from A towards B whilst facing A.

So  my ambulatory mode  would be regarded as backwards, but in terms of my journey I will still be moving forwards.

And relative to B, I would be facing backwards, but my body position would imply that I was facing forwards.

So relative to myself, I bow to the axiom, but relative to my reference points A and B , I'm not so sure.

And I believe that instantaneous velocity can be both positive and negative, and if the path I take is well defined, then I am unlikely to go sideways.

[65] Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2. The nonexistent cannot be perceived.

P3. A claim made based on a false assumption is irrational.

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.

Is that indeed your argument ?

[66] How does the nonexistence of Spino, the spinosaur fishing in my bathroom sink, prevent me from knowing Spino does not exist ?

[67] Can you prove that everything is perceptible ? Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?

The meaning of the term existence or the verb to exist for physical things like God is clear.

For abstract concepts like numbers is it not.

Whether numbers exist

is as much a question about the nature of numbers

I haven't seen zedvictor4 claim that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent.

What is tee ?

Christians sometimes make seemingly inconsistent claims about God. For example,

- God being perfectly loving.

- God is perfectly just.

- God is love.

- God is omnipotent.

- God is omniscient.

- Despite the above two God is allegedly incapable of mitigating lots of problems.

- God cannot lie.

The above claims seem hard to reconcile. Moreover, God supposedly can violate the laws of physics.

Nonexistence is not irrational either.

You keep missing the point. The question is whether it is (ir)rational to claim such a god does not exist.

Does this also work to establish the existence of the tooth fairy?

Not being a smart ass, I’m genuinely trying to understand what the argument here is.

Did Athias just speak about himself in third person? 

What principals of individualism do you exhibit exactly? 

Recording of Wylted's ban appeal

https://youtu.be/iHAfW8rjVhg?t=66

I assume Athias is on the right. He seems like it. 

It seems to me that it's literally not to all be on the same page. That does not seem conducive to good discussion.

I think I'd prefer strict and principled modding.

You kind of ruin the fun of the offhand comment, once you start analyzing it to death. 

If God tells me to cut off my right arm, I’m not doing it.

my bad n word

my bad [Nigger]

Nigger starts with an N, silly. Why are you begging me to post the word LOL

my bad [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger]

I don't think I'll be punished for saying it, but I think this election will be close, and I don't want to risk losing my vote. 

my bad n word

Eh, I found out 3RU7AL won't do Twitter. Airmax has at least promised to try. The bottom line for me is what's best for the site.

I am the only person who cares more about the truth than just parroting popular headlines.

There was a study done, where people would be in a room full of others, and they would have the teacher declare that 2 plus 2 equals 5. all the plants in the room agreed with it. The study participant, would mostly just go along with the crowd and agree that 2 plus 2 equaled 5.

That's you athias. The media, your friends your relatives all parrot some bullshit peddled to them by the establishment, and you just sit there and agree, because in your mind "If everyone is saying it is true, than it definitely is

You mean that staged event? One of my siblings birthday is today. And I'll be reflecting and celebrating the day of my sibling's birth, rather than the nonsense that ensued both on and after that day.

I saw Athias post something about promiscuity fucking with the ability to pair bond the other day, and I am definitely too far gone. 

I gave you the real basis, if you are going to pretend they aren't real, then you can get a block. I am tired of interacting with you and have other issues on this website right now than why I don't support muting everybody just because I block some from @ing me.