Covid-19 Revisit

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Black Americans are NOT the "First People" in America. That would be the American Indians. Their representation in the prison population is so small, that it is listed as "others". Aboriginals ARE the "First Nation People" of Australia(3.3% of the population). Yet, Aboriginal males make up an average of 30% of of the prison population in Australia. This is an extremely over-representation of Aboriginals in the prison system. There must be a reason. Three percent of the population just can't be this unlucky. And, considering that there are only two sitting Aboriginal trial judges in all of Australia, you damn right it's all about racism. So when you say,

"I disagree with your sentiment that judges here don't take into account the reasons why people break the laws.".

You are only talking about WHITE judges taking into account why WHITE people break the law? Just to be clear. Or, are there separate laws here for Aboriginals, like the "Jim Crow" laws were for Black Americans?

The Aboriginal incarceration rate (aside from being a national shame) is a really complex issue. For instance, a considerable number of Aboriginals in jail are there for driving offences, simply because living remotely makes one reliant on vehicles it is difficult to attend to the bureaucracy of running legally, so unlicensed/unregistered etc end up in jail when they can't afford their fines. This doesn't happen in the cities. It doesn't happen to non-Aboriginal people really at all.

Also, socio-economic factors result in higher crime, universally and across all races and countries. We know this. Many Aboriginal communities are extremely disadvantaged and suffer from higher incidents of both violent and non-violent crime.

Then there is the scourge of alcohol. Once again, this is more a representation of the effects of generational grief and loss and hopelessness felt by socio-economic factors and systemic racism than genetics, contrary to what the racists say.

It is also true that there is systemic racism in the court system. Many racists argue that Aboriginal people are more leniently dealt with; the data does not evidence this in the slightest. Aboriginals are not only more likely to get a custodial sentence, they are more likely to get harsher ones.

Then of course is the quality of legal aid to the disadvantaged. Further to that, the ability to evidence stable living conditions into which to be released.

A complex issue.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
In reply to Q 1 .. that whole reply is utter nonsense.

Measures were taken to deal with the FLU. Not WW1. That was over. We won yay.
But all those returning soldiers stretched this Country to the max... we were fighting the FLU, whatever the fuck you think.

But now..? there are a lot more of us A hell of a lot more people...


I could say more about that time for you.
But American times.

Did you know....?

Two populous cities took distinctly opposed tactics to manage the so called Spanish Flu , in the US, at that time.

The facts have been widely disseminated.. ( well Hey I saw it !! ) .

Do you know about that. and the relative outcomes.?

Really? Well the next time when you want to talk about the flu in your post, you might just want to at least mention it in your post". Other than, "Except, this is not the flu". And, NOT about gas masks, WW's, locking down borders, or wearing protective gears. Hence why my statement was phrased as a question. But, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Okay let's talk about the Spanish flu. We are talking about a time when antibiotics didn't even exist to fight the secondary infections. We are talking about a time when poverty and poor hygiene were the norm. We are talking about a time where the techniques to store, capture, cultivate, and to analyze any viruses didn't exist yet. When you add to this how fast the Spanish flu virus replicated, and its bad habit of triggering an intense immune response("Cytokine Storm"). it is no wonder why millions of people died. We have learned a lot in the treatment of viral pandemics since.

But if you are just going to conflate the realities of this 1918 pandemic to simply say, that states/cities that practiced lockdowns and distancing, and states/cities that didn't, had different mortality rates, then I am not going to argue with you. You may be 100% right. I certainly don't know for certain. But considering all the other variables, I seriously doubt it.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Really? Well the next time when you want to talk about the flu in your post, you might just want to at least mention it in your post". Other than, "Except, this is not the flu". And, NOT about gas masks, WW's, locking down borders, or wearing protective gears. Hence why my statement was phrased as a question. But, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Okay let's talk about the Spanish flu. We are talking about a time when antibiotics didn't even exist to fight the secondary infections. We are talking about a time when poverty and poor hygiene were the norm. We are talking about a time where the techniques to store, capture, cultivate, and to analyze any viruses didn't exist yet. When you add to this how fast the Spanish flu virus replicated, and its bad habit of triggering an intense immune response("Cytokine Storm"). it is no wonder why millions of people died. We have learned a lot in the treatment of viral pandemics since.

But if you are just going to conflate the realities of this 1918 pandemic to simply say, that states/cities that practiced lockdowns and distancing, and states/cities that didn't, had different mortality rates, then I am not going to argue with you. You may be 100% right. I certainly don't know for certain. But considering all the other variables, I seriously doubt it.
The Spanish Flu was made massively worse by the huge amounts of movement around the world at the time because of the war. It moved effortlessly through countries and cities.

If anything, it is an excellent cautionary tale against mass movement.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The Aboriginal incarceration rate (aside from being a national shame) is a really complex issue. For instance, a considerable number of Aboriginals in jail are there for driving offences, simply because living remotely makes one reliant on vehicles it is difficult to attend to the bureaucracy of running legally, so unlicensed/unregistered etc end up in jail when they can't afford their fines. This doesn't happen in the cities. It doesn't happen to non-Aboriginal people really at all.

Also, socio-economic factors result in higher crime, universally and across all races and countries. We know this. Many Aboriginal communities are extremely disadvantaged and suffer from higher incidents of both violent and non-violent crime.

Then there is the scourge of alcohol. Once again, this is more a representation of the effects of generational grief and loss and hopelessness felt by socio-economic factors and systemic racism than genetics, contrary to what the racists say.

It is also true that there is systemic racism in the court system. Many racists argue that Aboriginal people are more leniently dealt with; the data does not evidence this in the slightest. Aboriginals are not only more likely to get a custodial sentence, they are more likely to get harsher ones.

Then of course is the quality of legal aid to the disadvantaged. Further to that, the ability to evidence stable living conditions into which to be released.

A complex issue.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. And, this is a complex issue, except to a racists. For Black Americans, it is called, a "rape of the mind". This can affect even future generations.

I remember an episode of "60 minutes". Bill Bradley was the reporter. His assignment was to go back to the south and see how Black Americans were doing 20,30, or 40 years( I forget) after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He went to a doctors surgery in a city in the deep south(I also forget now). Bill Bradly(a Black American) noticed that there were no Black Americans sitting in the very ornate, very well decorated, and very well furnished waiting room. There was music, windows, and plenty of magazines. So he asked the receptionist if the surgery treated Black Americans? The receptionists said that the surgery does. Bill then asked were there any Blacks here today? She said, "yes", and pointed to a door near the back of the surgery. Bradley and his crew went down the steps to a kind of basement room. It had only a bench, and no furnishings, windows, magazines, or music. Sitting on the bench was an elderly Black lady. Bradley asked her, if she was allowed to go upstairs and wait in the waiting room? She said, "Yes sir". He then asked her, "Well, why don't you?". She told him, "Well sir, it is just not allowed."

I then understood the damage that had been done.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The Spanish Flu was made massively worse by the huge amounts of movement around the world at the time because of the war. It moved effortlessly through countries and cities.

If anything, it is an excellent cautionary tale against mass movement.
We must first understand, that viruses DO NOT KILL THEIR HOSTS. This would be an evolutionary disadvantage for its survival. A virus is neither dead nor alive. It is only alive when it can replicate itself. But, it needs the DNA/RNA from a LIVING host to do this. If it allows the host to die, it will prevent itself from replicating. It would also prevent the host from living long enough to infect others. Thus, preventing itself from spreading to new hosts. This is the goal of a virus. In fact, this is the ONLY goal of a virus. To Replicate Itself.

In 1918, there were no influenza vaccines to protect against infections. And, there were no antibiotic to protect against secondary infections. Therefore, when a person was infected with the flu virus, the immune system simply responded to attack and kill the virus. Unfortunately, the immune system uses different types of cells, that have different functions. Some cells actually destroy tissues to get to the virus. Some cells produce cytotoxins that kill healthy uninfected cells to get to the virus. The immune response is NOT a surgical response. Bacteria then invade the dead tissues and cellular debris. Without antibiotics, the body is subjected to both viral and bacterial infestation.

Tens of millions died, from the hundreds of millions who were infected with the Spanish Flu. Since antibiotics didn't exist then, only the strongest were able to survive from this dual-onslaught. Today, we have very powerful antibiotics to fight against these secondary bacterial infections. This gives the immune system more time to destroy all of the virus. Thus, more people are able to make a full recovery. Without the antibiotics, tens of millions would have died. Of course mass concentrations and movements of people didn't help either.

So, the treatment of the H1N1 Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, is not that relevant to today's treatment of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Back then, health professionals could only isolate, quarantine, and practice preventative hygiene. As more people died, the virus could not spread. As more people survived, again the virus could not spread. Eventually, there would be no infected people left to spread the virus. It would just become dormant again.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
The Spanish Flu was made massively worse by the huge amounts of movement around the world at the time because of the war. It moved effortlessly through countries and cities.

If anything, it is an excellent cautionary tale against mass movement.
Damn it. I just remembered I said to myself, and him, and everyone I wasn't going to respond to his posts on this thread anymore, even tho I started it.

Gawd Dang it.! :tweed:censored:
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
We must first understand, that viruses DO NOT KILL THEIR HOSTS. This would be an evolutionary disadvantage for its survival. A virus is neither dead nor alive. It is only alive when it can replicate itself. But, it needs the DNA/RNA from a LIVING host to do this. If it allows the host to die, it will prevent itself from replicating. It would also prevent the host from living long enough to infect others. Thus, preventing itself from spreading to new hosts. This is the goal of a virus. In fact, this is the ONLY goal of a virus. To Replicate Itself.

In 1918, there were no influenza vaccines to protect against infections. And, there were no antibiotic to protect against secondary infections. Therefore, when a person was infected with the flu virus, the immune system simply responded to attack and kill the virus. Unfortunately, the immune system uses different types of cells, that have different functions. Some cells actually destroy tissues to get to the virus. Some cells produce cytotoxins that kill healthy uninfected cells to get to the virus. The immune response is NOT a surgical response. Bacteria then invade the dead tissues and cellular debris. Without antibiotics, the body is subjected to both viral and bacterial infestation.

Tens of millions died, from the hundreds of millions who were infected with the Spanish Flu. Since antibiotics didn't exist then, only the strongest were able to survive from this dual-onslaught. Today, we have very powerful antibiotics to fight against these secondary bacterial infections. This gives the immune system more time to destroy all of the virus. Thus, more people are able to make a full recovery. Without the antibiotics, tens of millions would have died. Of course mass concentrations and movements of people didn't help either.

So, the treatment of the H1N1 Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, is not that relevant to today's treatment of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Back then, health professionals could only isolate, quarantine, and practice preventative hygiene. As more people died, the virus could not spread. As more people survived, again the virus could not spread. Eventually, there would be no infected people left to spread the virus. It would just become dormant again.

None of that, much of it incorrect, speaks to the fact that the Spanish Flu was spread far and wide by the mass movement of people and is a cautionary tale as to what happens when there is mass movement.

It's an argument for lockdowns.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I'm not certain what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that we should not trust the facts? Or, not to trust our interpretation of the facts? The goal of facts is to verify/validate an opinions/hypotheses.
No, but how significant those facts are may certainly create differing opinions about how we should react to them.

Look at the debate over guns. Fact: There were about 10,000 murders committed in the U.S. in 2019 using firearms.
Fact: Those murder victims represent .003% of the total population (about 320,000,000).
Fact: 42% of the U.S. population has at least one gun in the home which is about 134,000,000 people.

So should the U.S. repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban the private ownership of guns?

I have cited facts.

But how we react to those facts, the conclusions we reach, the opinions we form - all differ, even though the facts are not debatable.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
None of that, much of it incorrect, speaks to the fact that the Spanish Flu was spread far and wide by the mass movement of people and is a cautionary tale as to what happens when there is mass movement.

It's an argument for lockdowns.
It was simple coincidence, and not by design, that the Spanish Flu started in the spring of 1918, and that WWI ended in November of 1918. The movements of massive numbers of troops and civilians throughout the world, was unavoidable, and unpreventable. There is no doubt that the concentration, and movements of people, did contribute to the spread of this virus. But concentrations and movements of people don't kill people. I think that this is what's important.

Since the 1918 Spanish Flu, the world has faced 3 other flu pandemics before the CoV-SARS-2 virus. The Asian Flu(H2N2) in 1957-58, the Hong Kong Flu(H3N2) in 1968-69, and the Swine Flu(H1N1pdm09) in 2009-10. There was no distancing, lockdowns, business closures, shutting down of our borders, suspension of individual liberties, and the arrests and fining of those who refused to comply. What do you think the difference was, between those earlier pandemics, and the Spanish Flu? Could it be the advancements in early detection of the virus, early understanding of the virus, early medical treatment for the virus, advancements in technology, better hygiene practices, and the most advanced antibiotics to treat the infections, caused by our immune response? Or do you think that it is only important how the virus spreads, and NOT how the virus is treated?

As long as you eat, drink, breath, and touch, you can become infected. Our bodies have dealt with viruses, and other micro-organisms since the dawn of creation. This is not rocket science. NO ANTIBIOTICS, MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE!! That is why the Spanish Flu pandemic killed more people, than any other pandemic. NOT because of the movement of massive numbers of people.

If you are going to say that, "..much of it incorrect..", then at least tell me which parts ARE incorrect!!

The Lockdowns began in Australia on March 23rd, 2020. Between Jan. 25th-March 23rd, there were 800 Covid-19 cases and 9 Covid-19 deaths. After the lockdowns started(Mar. 23-Mar. 3rd, 2021) there were 28.8K Covid-19 cases and 909 Covid-19 deaths. This means a daily average of 13.8 Covid-19 cases and 0.12 Covid-19 deaths, BEFORE the lockdown. AFTER the lockdown started, and until now(Mar. 3rd), there have been a daily average of 81.2 Covid-19 cases and 2.6 Covid-19 deaths. This means that after the lockdown, 6 times more daily Covid-19 cases had occurred, and 22 times more daily Covid-19 deaths had occurred. So, I really wouldn't peddle that argument. Except to the choir. All you can say, is that "IF WE DID NOTHING, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.". But of course that is just speculation. You really don't know!
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
No, but how significant those facts are may certainly create differing opinions about how we should react to them.

Look at the debate over guns. Fact: There were about 10,000 murders committed in the U.S. in 2019 using firearms.
Fact: Those murder victims represent .003% of the total population (about 320,000,000).
Fact: 42% of the U.S. population has at least one gun in the home which is about 134,000,000 people.

So should the U.S. repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban the private ownership of guns?

I have cited facts.

But how we react to those facts, the conclusions we reach, the opinions we form - all differ, even though the facts are not debatable.

Seth, if something looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck, then the evidence(facts) would suggests that it is a duck. By anyone's interpretations. Facts can be defined, measured, observed, and proven. But interpretations can be wrong, and subjective. Hence why we have discussions, that are based on the facts, and not on opinions. If your interpretation of the facts are different, then let's here your interpretation. for example,

If I told you, that there is a disease that if you are infected, that you will have a 95%+ chance of surviving. And, that if you are fit and healthy, then you will have a 100% chance of surviving. I then tell you, that you also have a 0.0003% chance of even meeting someone in Australia who is still infected(74 active cases) with Cov-19. A disease that well over 99% of the entire population don't even have. With these facts, would you consider this a lethal and dangerous disease? Is it dangerous enough, that we should destroy the lives of our citizens, destroy business dreams, end social relationships, suspend personal freedoms, destroy our own national economy, and arrest an fine the citizen's that don't comply?

I don't think so. Now if these facts are interpreted by you differently, then please, lets hear it. What facts are incorrect? Where is the interpretation flawed?

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, that ship has already sailed. Even if there were a million homicides involving firearms each month, gun owners still wouldn't give a shit. They will simply parrot the platitudes they don't understand, and cling to the power that they don't even need. And, no amount of reasoning and logic is ever going to change that. So in your analogy, FACTS ARE JUST IRRELEVANT! People want their guns, just like in the B movies.
 
Last edited:

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth, if something looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck, then the evidence(facts) would suggests that it is a duck. By anyone's interpretations. Facts can be defined, measured, observed, and proven. But interpretations can be wrong, and subjective. Hence why we have discussions, that are based on the facts, and not on opinions. If your interpretation of the facts are different, then let's here your interpretation. for example,

If I told you, that there is a disease that if you are infected, that you will have a 95%+ chance of surviving. And, that if you are fit and healthy, then you will have a 100% chance of surviving. I then tell you, that you also have a 0.0003% chance of even meeting someone in Australia who is still infected(74 active cases) with Cov-19. A disease that well over 99% of the entire population don't even have. With these facts, would you consider this a lethal and dangerous disease? Is it dangerous enough, that we should destroy the lives of our citizens, destroy business dreams, end social relationships, suspend personal freedoms, destroy our own national economy, and arrest an fine the citizen's that don't comply?

I don't think so. Now if these facts are interpreted by you differently, then please, lets hear it. What facts are incorrect? Where is the interpretation flawed?

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, that ship has already sailed. Even if there were a million homicides involving firearms each month, gun owners still wouldn't give a shit. They will simply parrot the platitudes they don't understand, and cling to the power that they don't even need. And, no amount of reasoning and logic is ever going to change that. So in your analogy, FACTS ARE JUST IRRELEVANT! People want their guns, just like in the B movies.
And yet the same principles of the arguments you make about the lethality of Covid can be used to make an argument about the drawbacks of having guns in private hands in the U.S.

So we have 500,000 deaths attributable to some extent to Covid in the U.S. Granted, some, maybe many of those victims were already gradually dying of something else. But Covid isn't just the flu either, according to the facts. For people whose ability to fight disease is compromised by other ailments, Covid is far more lethal than the flu which only kills 20-50,000 people per year in the U.S. But only about 10,000 people died from murders with guns per year in the U.S.

Covid is far more likely to kill you than the possibility of being murdered by a gun in the U.S., and even the flu is more likely to kill you than murder with a gun.

All of these things are facts.

The facts are facts. You have no debate with me about that. But what we do about those facts, how we interpret those facts into formulating policy, what laws we pass, how much they effect our thinking about things - all of that is the human factor. And that human factor is why we debate and argue.

Seth
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
So they are in jail because they are Black? Okay RACIST, exactly what are the elements of the crime of being Black? Being not White?
since when have the 'elements of the crime' ever been a factor? How many times have we seen cases where a white guy walks for exactly the same crime as a black guy, but the black guy goes to jail?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
since when have the 'elements of the crime' ever been a factor? How many times have we seen cases where a white guy walks for exactly the same crime as a black guy, but the black guy goes to jail?
Sorry, I now get it. You were just being sarcastic. I take it back. You are absolutely correct.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
And yet the same principles of the arguments you make about the lethality of Covid can be used to make an argument about the drawbacks of having guns in private hands in the U.S.

So we have 500,000 deaths attributable to some extent to Covid in the U.S. Granted, some, maybe many of those victims were already gradually dying of something else. But Covid isn't just the flu either, according to the facts. For people whose ability to fight disease is compromised by other ailments, Covid is far more lethal than the flu which only kills 20-50,000 people per year in the U.S. But only about 10,000 people died from murders with guns per year in the U.S.

Covid is far more likely to kill you than the possibility of being murdered by a gun in the U.S., and even the flu is more likely to kill you than murder with a gun.

All of these things are facts.

The facts are facts. You have no debate with me about that. But what we do about those facts, how we interpret those facts into formulating policy, what laws we pass, how much they effect our thinking about things - all of that is the human factor. And that human factor is why we debate and argue.

Seth
I think that there is only one common thread between your analogies. And, only one common outcome. The common thread is "conditioned beliefs". And, the common outcome is to ignore the logic, and dismiss the facts. They only get in the way of the truth.

As I've said before, the facts don't matter to people who only WANT to believe that something is true. Especially, if it benefit them, or disadvantages others. It gives them a sense of superiority.

It doesn't matter If the government allowed each state to oversee their own version of the "purge". It doesn't matter if women and children are slaughtered in the millions, it will always be the bad guy that did it(out of 72M potential bad guys who own guns). It will never be the good guy that is responsible. Gun owners would still not give a shit. They are just boys clinging to their toys, that gives them a false sense of empowerment. What about the over 62% of gun related deaths by gun owners, who take their own lives? Does the NRA, or the gun industry, or their lobbyists give a shit?

If people are conditioned to depend on the government as their source of truth(without filters or scrutiny), then even if there were only 1 person in Australia, that died from the virus, they would still support any decision the government makes. It doesn't matter if the facts clearly show, that those decisions are unreasonable and impractical. They don't care about what damages are being done to an entire nation. Facts just don't matter to these people So both analogies are irrelevant on those 2 topics.

I believe that the lockdown is unnecessary, impractical, and extreme. I used the facts to support my belief. If you believe that the lockdown is necessary to this extreme level, then what specific facts can you deposit to support this?

The facts are facts. You have no debate with me about that. But what we do about those facts, how we interpret those facts into formulating policy, what laws we pass, how much they effect our thinking about things - all of that is the human factor. And that human factor is why we debate and argue.
Unfortunately, it is not WE who are interpreting the facts. It is not WE who are formulating the policy. It is not WE who are passing the new laws. And, it is not WE who are controlling the information that is dissimilated to the public. IT IS THE GOVERNMENT!!!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I think that there is only one common thread between your analogies. And, only one common outcome. The common thread is "conditioned beliefs". And, the common outcome is to ignore the logic, and dismiss the facts. They only get in the way of the truth.

As I've said before, the facts don't matter to people who only WANT to believe that something is true. Especially, if it benefit them, or disadvantages others. It gives them a sense of superiority.

It doesn't matter If the government allowed each state to oversee their own version of the "purge". It doesn't matter if women and children are slaughtered in the millions, it will always be the bad guy that did it(out of 72M potential bad guys who own guns). It will never be the good guy that is responsible. Gun owners would still not give a shit. They are just boys clinging to their toys, that gives them a false sense of empowerment. What about the over 62% of gun related deaths by gun owners, who take their own lives? Does the NRA, or the gun industry, or their lobbyists give a shit?

If people are conditioned to depend on the government as their source of truth(without filters or scrutiny), then even if there were only 1 person in Australia, that died from the virus, they would still support any decision the government makes. It doesn't matter if the facts clearly show, that those decisions are unreasonable and impractical. They don't care about what damages are being done to an entire nation. Facts just don't matter to these people So both analogies are irrelevant on those 2 topics.

I believe that the lockdown is unnecessary, impractical, and extreme. I used the facts to support my belief. If you believe that the lockdown is necessary to this extreme level, then what specific facts can you deposit to support this?



Unfortunately, it is not WE who are interpreting the facts. It is not WE who are formulating the policy. It is not WE who are passing the new laws. And, it is not WE who are controlling the information that is dissimilated to the public. IT IS THE GOVERNMENT!!!
And you apparently don’t believe “conditioned beliefs” apply to you?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
And you apparently don’t believe “conditioned beliefs” apply to you?
I think to some extent, everyone is conditioned by evolution(herding instincts) or is indoctrinated(repetition) by society. They will believe/accept most things without any evidence at all. It will always be their default position. We are no longer dependent on our herding instincts, where independent thinking would be an evolutionary disadvantage for survival.

Many people are conditioned to believe, that an all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent sky daddy, will take away all of the sins he gave to them, for tempting them to disobey. And, only after creating a part of His own self, he could give them the hope of redemption and life eternal. Facts are totally irrelevant, to what people want to believe.

Many people are conditioned to believe, that if we don't keep 26M people 2 meters apart, sacrifice our individual freedoms, and destroy our nation's economy, that the entire population will die or become infected by a flu virus. This is historically and biologically impossible. Again, facts are totally irrelevant to what people want to believe.

I believe in the convergence of evidence. How do different facts lead me to the truth? And, why hearsay and consensus are NOT facts? So, again, when I say "conditioned beliefs", I am referring to those whose default position will always be on their own beliefs, and not on the facts. So, if you want to change MY beliefs, just give me the facts, and I will champion your cause immediately.

The truth apparently really is relative. And culture specific.
 
Top