Elliott

I still don't get how europeans let all these goatfuckers in. It's just nonsense, they rape your women, take your money, behead the dissenting voices from islam.

This is what you have to pay for letting progressivism take over your lifes.

Fact checking sites hold about as much truth as MSM does in its reporting. 

Anyone telling the truth gets smeared and ostracized. And the louder and more direct they are in doing it, the more credence they have in their truth. 

Awesome use of the genetic fallacy right there.

It's not Carlson you need to hear from, it's the female Chinese scientist that you need to listen to. 

What more evidence do you need than from an actual scientist who actually worked in the Wuhan lab and has inside info.

I mean really. You cannot discount a cited source just because you do not like the name. And you don't have to watch the entirety of a video cited. You are allowed to fast forward, FFS!

https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/scientist-with-ny-non-profit-tied-to-wuhan-lab-says-covid-man-made-virus/amp/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-turn-in-the-wuhan-leak-story-journal-energy-department-lab-gain-of-function-nih-ae9baed4

https://www.youtube.com/live/S8EFg_VkK-I?feature=share - scientist says US to blame for virus and man-made. 

https://youtu.be/yMb2Hgztntw

Tucker Carlson interviewed a scientist who worked in the Wuhan lab and she made it explicitly clear that Covid was man made and intentionally released by the CCP to hurt the Western world. 

The animal to human transmission has been discounted. It was a lab leak. Man made. It was known all along. The left and demonrats lied about it. 

What evidence? 

You have literally lost the point of my post and created some red herrings for yourself. Argue against the thesis of the statement 

As I said, America includes Canada and Latinamerica, no matter what the US americans say about it. 😆

I am driven by conspiracy theories and disagree. I will explain how you can change my mind from being less conspirational.

Premise 1- bad people in general are good at obtaining power due to morals not being a handcuff on them. 

Bad in this context is defined as people who may have good goals but no moral hindrances to achieve those goals even when the goals are altruistic.

I have personally been close to powerful people who have shown me their dark side, but there are studies that support these people are less inclined to help a stranger in need for example, drive more aggressively etc. It's just much easier to get power if you aren't held back by normal morals. 

Premise 2- these people behave in a type of silent agreement. They have similar goals and will not call out anybody pursuing their same goals for having an ends justify the means philosophy. 

We can see this by looking at the collective effects of their policies. For example the numerous policies which are working in concert to slow population growth or reverse it such as the promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism which sterilizes children, euthenasia, abortion, bill gates efforts to slow population growth in 3rd world countries via more ethical behaviors than ones mentioned prior to that. 

Conclusion- conspiracies happens as a result of collectively staying out of each other's ways for to meet similar ends. 

You could prove me wrong in the following ways.

1. Show that the people in positions of power are either equally as moral as society in general which would require disproving studies I have access to as well as explaining how morality is helpful at obtaining power and money. 

2. Show that powerful people working towards the same ends often will try to prevent people with a similar end goal from achieving that goal from unethical means.

For example bill gates wants to slow population growth, showing him opposing abortion, gender reassignment surgery etc. I would need to also see the individual powerful person is not just a lone operator and it is normal to oppose those wanting the same ends as them. 

3. You could also change my mind by showing that powerful people have less power than they project.

Just as an insight into how a conspiracy theorist picks up knowledge if it helps.

Since powerful people can control things often through a silent conspiracy than things like media cannot be trusted to so we would use the concept of "cui Bono" to determine the goals of those in charge. 

For example studies on man made global warming can't be trusted because of ideology driving the scientists and the fact that contrarian opinions are hidden or cause people to lose their careers instead of being met with actual arguments and rebuttals. Typically the truth can win arguments and not need to silence contrary opinions. 

I am not stuck on any belief. I just have an extreme distrust of those who have power, wealth and status because I think to get those things you have to be a bad person 

There is no savinggrace-areas on Earth, if nukes start flying, as the dust in atmosphere will cease all food production from lack of sun and cold temps year round.

Woke = enlightenment = knowledge-able = ecological integrity, that, sustains humanity, or what few would remain after hydrogen bombs have fallen, for some relative short period of time. 

Is it social justice if humans save themselves. or destroy themselves? Maybe its ecological justice and needs a differrent label other than ' woke '.

' Wake : 2.dialect•Irish

hold a vigil beside (someone who has died). '

But hey, as Zed points out, eventually we all die, and humanity taking itself, out instead of waiting for sun to become a red giant is an option, intentionally or not. How many fingers on how many humans does it take to fire off the first hydrogen bomb?

I am going to disagree here. Those who are referred to as woke normally are the ones using "social justice" to avoid debate. 

Bring up an argument and you are white splaining or man splaining. Use cancel culture tactics to maintain a bubble of just one opinion on social media platforms. Think it was 5 million people dead in the Holocaust and not 6 million than they use that wrong think to shut you up. Wokism is a crusade against debate. 

It's not much different than the moral outrages of conservatives in prior decades who heavily censored television and comics. 

Take a look at any woke movement such as fat acceptance and you can see exactly how it's most vocal advocates debate. 

Being too heavy can lead to a lot of negative health outcomes.

FA woke person- well actually BMI was created by a white person for white bodies so it is racist to think thin is better. *proceeds to ban sensible medical professional from chat. 

Perhaps woke is becoming meaningless as a catch all for anybody with leftist leanings, but I don't think it's there yet and can still be a useful term. 

For the same reason lots of europeans migrated to the US during wwii.

I think americans shouldn't worry about that. I would be worried about europeans, they are so fucked up that I foresee a massive migration of them to America. Seriously.

I don’t think we find Biden that interesting here in the UK but there was an element of surprise that the Republicans couldn’t find a better candidate, the only thing in his favour seemed to be that he wasn’t Trump. Trump on the other hand was seen as a buffoon right from the start, I don’t think we could believe it when he got elected and it gave us some cause for amusement when he was .   

True, but it's a different kind of humor.

Trump is funnier because of the way he speaks. 

Biden is funny because of the fact that he can't speak. 

How does one who is rational, logical, intelligent and exercises common sense, engage in a legit debate with someone proselytizing wokeness? They do not want to hear truth. They do not want to acknowledge fact-based truths. They do not want to accept evidence that contradicts their wokeness. They're basically stubborn and unmovable in their state of mind. 

"Woke is problematic for two primary reasons. First, it’s an offensive cultural appropriation. As is disturbingly often the case, White people (or any racial group outside the term’s origin) will sometimes begin using a term that originated in a community of color often as a term of pride, endearment, or self-empowerment years or decades later while either willfully or inadvertently distorting the original meaning of the term.

Second, the term’s use often prevents the deep, honest, sometimes uncomfortable conversation that arguably is our only pathway to real reconciliation. Let’s face it – engaging in sensitive, nuanced conversations around race is challenging enough without the irresponsible insertion of the term “woke” providing an ideological off ramp that shuts down any real listening, learning or self-reflection on issues that really require all three for authentic progress."

Exhibit A Bill Maher: Why White People Should Stop Using The Term ‘Woke’…Immediately (forbes.com)

“Wokeness is a problem and everyone knows it. It’s hard to talk to anybody today – and I talk to lots of people in the Democratic Party – who doesn’t say this. But they don’t want to say it out loud,” Carville, who made his name helping to elect Bill Clinton president, said in an interview with Vox this spring. Asked why his party won’t admit the wokeness problem, Carville responded bluntly: “Because they’ll get clobbered or canceled.”

Why 'wokeness' is the biggest threat to Democrats in the 2022 election | CNN Politics

"Wokeness also implies that those not in the club are asleep, deluded or wrong. This instant judgement forms a dividing line, forcing the other side to become defensive and further entrenching the debate. The moral superiority platform is hardly a way to bring sceptics on board, especially when wealthy and privileged campaigners who have co-opted wokeness do not even follow their own standards..."

Why ‘woke’ became toxic | LGBTQ | Al Jazeera

Wokeness replaces fact with fiction. "My truth" for [the] truth. It's divisive. It's problematic. It's destructive on multiple levels.

Indeed, but do you not think that writing may  have reduced our memory capacity/recall somewhat?

I don’t see why it should, we have to remember what we read

But it will always be written down and be at hand to refer to at any time. The idea of writing in many cases is to save us having to remember everything said or done or to be said and to be done.. An example would be the Mrs Stephen's  shopping list.

and we still have to remember the events that affect our daily lives,

We do but routine is easily remembered if it is done on a daily basis i.e. repetition. Darts players are not necessarily mathematicians but they have no trouble remembering what treble 18 is without having to do the math but through repetition.

Indeed, but do you not think that writing may  have reduced our memory capacity/recall somewhat?

Well we are in a debate arguing over the BOP so that kinda ruins the whole conversation lol.

I can't.

But I do base it off of a lot of factual evidence. And when one sees a pattern, one tends to follow.

The proof is that a lot of things point to the idea of a God, a lot of things point to the idea of Jesus rising from the dead, and faith is the only requirement for heaven, and I have faith. Faith being described in the bible like that is evidence within itself, because if there were actual evidence, then we wouldn't need faith, proving the bible to be false.

It's obvious that people can choose not to perceive reality in truth, the fact that there is one reality, doesn't mean people can't choose to perceive it falsely. 

There is no version of reality. There is one reality. Some just choose to not see it. 

Not gonna try to force people to see it though. It's there choice. 

So you don't focus on the details and just look at the "big picture" and general notions?

Christianity explains the reality. 

Blocking information is one version of autism, yes.

Obviously I can’t speak for you or any other atheist (hence why your ideology still ponders me) but for me the constant fear of hell is why I don’t take life for granted, but I’m sure you could’ve guessed that.

You said yourself that evolution selected those traits, but from where evolution selected those traits? Where did those traits come from.

But if nothing is of value then that applies to everything including alternatives. Meaning in other words existence and nonexistence aren’t valuable, you’re not doing any favors by only addressing the latter especially since it wasn’t apart of the argument to begin with.