Jump to content

dirtydog

Members
  • Posts

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by dirtydog

  1. So dumb. But you know, the government loves when the plebs bicker over STUPID SHIT amongst themselves, it makes them easier to rule over.
  2. Let's say that all the world governments made the entire thing up, it's a huge hoax. Don't you think they would have also made up some sort of test that would 'find' the virus and convince some judge in Alberta that the virus does in fact exist? Or maybe they didn't think of that? Now we hear apparently that the common cold, polio, measles etc. don't exist either! Fuck me, what a relief.
  3. Who is doing that? Are you perhaps under the confused misconception that I am in fact doing that? You know, there can be a bit more nuance than having to believe every mental bitchute video or you completely agree with the government on everything. It is pretty embarrassing that people are so quick to believe that silly video and the claims in it. Has common sense gone out the window? A bit of basic critical thinking? It does sadly appear so. Then again, they do say that common sense ain't very common.
  4. Is this your position? None of these viruses exist, including the common cold?
  5. What likely happened, he won his case on a technicality or because the prosecution didn't do its homework or probably more likely, decided it wasn't worth the hassle to comply with his demand so he won by default. The idea he has 'proven' that Covid is a 'hoax' is bollocks. As is the notion that restrictions are being lifted because of what he did.
  6. So as news of this Patrick King business propagates on the web, I see the narrative he is spinning is not standing up to much scrutiny. Why anyone here should be surprised by this, I don't know. He is misrepresenting what happened in court and the significance of it (or lack thereof). https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/oxsgq7/alberta_lifts_all_covid_restrictions_because_they/ Also Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.
  7. Either way, it is being used to shock people into getting the jabs. Like, wow if this totally healthy fit bloke died, what chance have I got. I can almost guarantee there are middle aged men right now making an appointment after reading that, either because they decided to or their wife told them to I guess.
  8. Re the Mail article earlier about the 42-year-old man who supposedly died of Covid and wished he'd been vaccinated etc. I notice that the article originally made no mention that the man had asthma. It was archived: Earlier: https://archive.ph/klEvg Now: https://archive.ph/pSrcr Later it was quietly changed. Comments are premoderated so nobody can point out the deception. Also the sister's twitter page spreads this same disinformation where she says he has NO underlying conditions and does not mention he had asthma. It is not possible to reply and point out the untruth.
  9. Same here basically. I am sceptical of Covid. I have not been jabbed and don't intend to be. I do wear a mask in shops which ask their customers to do so though, ie. the supermarket. Simply to blend in better. Now, you or others may disapprove and that's fine, but sometimes it's better to pick your battles I think.
  10. Or call them 'shill' or 'sock puppet' without a shred of evidence other than 'he asked for proof of an unverified claim on a bitchute video, and he only signed up recently, so look everyone, HE MUST be a shill, don't you see?' The logic of the witchfinder.
  11. I imagine a lot of people signed up over the last 18 months to post in this very thread. Your post is another personal attack rather than addressing what I actually said. You can do better than this. Asking questions = 'disruption'. Really?
  12. There is ample evidence that they are. It doesn't mean it's because of the reasons in that video though. The above link to court cases is very instructive. If this court case happened then such a detailed report as is provided on a site such as that will clear up the debate one way or the other.
  13. You (that video) can't just claim something and then call people shills when they ask if evidence for it being true exists beyond the video itself. People here believe the video. Okay, fine. I am just asking, did you verify it yourself? Or do you adopt the position that a video must be true unless someone else, like me for example, proves it isn't? That isn't logical mate. By the way, calling me a shill is very silly and childish, please stop it.
  14. Yes my position is that I try to think rather than just automatically believe what a random bitchute video with two unknown people says mate. Sorry if that offends you, I thought we were supposed to be independent thinkers here who question, rather than just another echo chamber.
  15. How do YOU know what is being said in that video is true? That the restrictions are being lifted because of the reasons THEY say? I'm going to assume you have no idea but you like the sound of it so you've decided it must be true. If you have actually independently verified the veracity of what they are saying though, then be forthcoming with that evidence.
  16. It's a big conspiracy by world governments, but they somehow let one obscure judge in a court somewhere decide an entire country's restrictions must be lifted, and this is true because it's in a bitchute video. This is what confirmation bias looks like.
  17. See the answer I gave to Morpheus above. Try to read what I actually say and then it will make more sense to you.
  18. I do try to think pal. Just provide me with evidence of what that video says happened, other than the two random people in a bitchute video saying it. That's the first step to convincing people outside this echo chamber.
  19. I already answered this point preemptively which you either missed or ignored, I don't know which. I expected someone would mistake correlation for causation because of confirmation bias, as you are doing, and point to the already long announced lifting of restrictions and link it to some obscure court case for which you can provide no direct evidence of happening, or the outcome, or the reasons for the outcome.
  20. Yes friend, I am English and I speak it natively. I don't need to prove anything, the onus is on those making wild claims to do that isn't it. You misunderstand about the MSM. I don't trust the MSM, of course. But it doesn't mean I trust everything I see on a random bitchute video either. The point is simple: if what that video said was true then we would know about it and it would be impossible to keep secret. If it is still secret that restrictions have been lifted then guess what, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LIFTED have they? Think.
  21. Looks like he abused steroids potentially, judging by the size of him in some of the photos. I agree the ventilator usage is also questionable as it is known to have been directly responsible for many deaths as it puts too much strain on people's lungs.
  22. Those videos of people waffling won't convince anyone of anything that they aren't already convinced of beforehand. Information needs to be imparted in simple language, succinctly in as few words as possible, not a five minute load of waffling in a sensational tabloid TV channel style. The video is easily debunked - I assume, and feel free to prove me wrong, I would love to be - by the fact there is no MSM news saying it. If it had actually been 'proven' that Covid was a 'hoax' and all restrictions were dropped as a result of this court case...... that is not something the powers that be would be ABLE to keep secret, is it? So let's hear it. Bear in mind, if the powers that be do not say all restrictions are dropped, then they aren't. I am well aware (I googled!) that they are withdrawing some restrictions anyway. But not as a result of this court case. And not ALL restrictions.
  23. Okay I'll be that guy... I watched it for a while (not every minute) and was waiting for some amazing facts which never came. It was just two people talking, without any other proof or links? Did I miss them? Just because someone won in court because the government failed to present appropriate evidence is not the same as saying it's proof of a hoax. This is the sort of thing which makes Covid sceptics look easily fooled and debunked.
  24. Typical doublespeak then, it literally is the very definition of discrimination to treat one group worse than another in this way. "We're PROBABLY not venturing into discrimination" - probably not? Shows that the 'law' can be made up as they go along and is highly subjective and malleable, depending on whatever outcome they want.
×
×
  • Create New...