pouët.net

Aaaactually, I want you to listen to this 3 hour podcast!1

I never read this much of bullshit in one sentence. Of course there is. It's a whole scientific research field, it's called virology.

v3nom, this is a circular argument. There's also theology.

Well, you can pull up a microscope and actually SEE a virus with your own eyes. You could even touch it, or inhale it if your up for that. You can't see your imaginary friend/god/tentaclemonster with your own eyes, ever.
wtf is wrong with you guys?

There’s no reason to discuss this with people. I was ok the hospital got 5 days in the same room as an anti vaxxer. Even though he almost died of covid he didn’t change his mind. Every argument you bring the counter with three freshly new ones and listing sources always ends up with things like corrupted media or government censorship. It’s just not worth it.

Your body, your choice. Our party, our choice.

No you can’t see a “virus” under a microscope, nor can you touch or inhale it let alone get sick from it. The “genome” of “SARS-CoV2” is entirely computer generated, virologist call this ”In-Silico” genome sequencing, which is a fancy way of saying “in a virtual reality”.

tl;dr: VRChat is killing the scene confirmed!!

in other news: filled out the form.

Yes, you can - using, for example, transmission electron microscopy. Source with DOI, another source with DOI

I'm curious though how your claim is supported. I mean, I expect you researched this yourself somewhere => it would be interesting to know how such a wildly wrong claim is being justified

come on ! We re not here to discuss about the virus itself

There is no empirical evidence for the existence of trolls. Have you guys ever seen a troll? No... you can’t see a “troll” under a microscope, nor can you touch one.

But i have seen a virus. And didn't have to use a microscope, actually - just a common TV.

I've actually seen a few, my fav virus is https://reboot.fandom.com/wiki/Hexadecimal <3

Also: Theology? is this a study of Theo de Raadt's code?

I've actually never seen any definition of freedom under any microscope or in reality whatsoever.

Must mean it's just a theory for the easily gullible. Right?

If that's the actual virus, where is it's genome? Why hasn't anyone bothered to isolate the virus and sequence it? Why do we need computer modelling to "sequence" the virus? Are we looking at pictures of the virus or are we looking at something else, exosomes perhaps?



If you are really interested I would suggest you start with Bechamp or Pasteur by Ethal D Hume. This book is about the "Terrain theory" vs "Germ theory" debate. Long story very short: Bechamp (Terrain theory) believed that people got sick because of their environment (stress, diet, pollution), Pasteur (Germ theory) believed that people got sick because of pathogens which could be transmitted from person to person. Bechamp believed in treating the patient, not the disease. Pasteur believed in treating the disease, not the patient. Two fundamentally different world views. Only one of which is great if you want to sell your "one size fits all" snake oil to the world!

And if you just want to just watch something, I recommend you watch this presentation by Dr. Robert E Willner, who was (in)famous for injecting himself with "HIV", live on Television in 1994. He did this several times and never got "infected". Watch his presentation and judge for yourself whether or not he is telling the truth.



Natural Law

That wikipedia article alone covers so many different view points that one would surely be excused for coming to the conclusion that all of these arguments have the sole quality to spawn more "debate", not solving any earthly problem in a fruitful way?

I have a very earthly and concrete concern, that's an upcoming police and surveillance state, if we play by the current rules for organizing events. That's why I recommend against having parties under these regulations - so as to not further this development. There's little point in solidarity and responsible thinking if you're under mandates and being withheld choices to act in one way or the other. A truly developed society would not mandate this, and you could come up with a party concept yourself. There is a constant trade-off between the risks for human life and health in modern society. Science cannot tell us how we want to live, this is purely political. Science is the strawman here.

I filled out the survey before any debate, and respect for its thoughtful wording.

Is there any empirical evidence for the existance of transistors? Has anyone ever actually seen or touched one? (And all you see under an electron microscope are metal layers anyway, and touching the plastic package of a 2N7000 isn't touching the actual transistor.) And why do we need computers to make these supposed transistors anyway? The professionals call it "synthesized using EDA tooling" and "place & route".

While there might be a theory surrounding them (eg. Ebers-Moll), we just can't be sure computers are real.

Mask on a party ? How can you drink with a mask on ?

this is on the same level as illegal telepathy, except not funny and with actual serious consequences.

If you take the virus out of the equation and look at other possible causes for atypical pneumonia in a city like Wuhan you will quickly notice the horrible air quality. Anyone here who would like to live under a cover of thick yellow smog for a while?

Ironically in all this, the initial lockdowns actually decreased the air pollution in Wuhan significantly.

But no, it must be a novel invisible unicorn bug!

Could you, like, do this somewhere else? You're obviously not convincing anyone.

No, no no, he's strating to convince me that all scientists are wrong, because gabbie is right, because he's much smarter than all of them!
THEY are out there, preparing the new world order, but bifat will save us heroically, by pissing online over all demoparty organizers and then still secretely showing up.
Seriously, I'm so sick of all this!

lol wut

Most scientists are wrong, not all scientists are wrong. This is not a new or special, there are plenty of examples throughout history.



I am not interested in convincing anyone, people can only convince themselves by doing their own homework and coming to their own conclusions. But that involves investing a lot of time and energy into a subject you know very little about. It's much easier to just trust the scientists. But this is nothing more than a belief system, the opposite of what the scientific method is all about.