search results matching tag: Alter

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (272)     Sift Talk (16)     Blogs (8)     Comments (960)   

Trump's Covid 19 Plan, Get Cancer Then Poison Yourself

newtboy says...

Only a fool believes he didn't really believe it would work and that he just had a genius idea nobody thought of, just like his other idea, massive doses of uv. Nobody knew that wouldn't work, nobody. *facepalm
He's now claiming it was sarcasm since someone apparently told him how stupid he is, but that's obvious bullshit, he meant every word. No wink, no smirk, no "just kidding", he was dead serious.
Edit: now he's claiming it was a genius practical joke on the press not revealed for 18+ hours, putting his worshipers lives at risk to trigger the fake media....uh....yeah, that's much better.
Technically he didn't actually say people should inject it, he said doctors, actual real medical doctors this time, should test direct injection....but when he says that his moronic cultists just do it because he knows more than doctors....they didn't get their hydroxychloroquine through a doctor for the most part, they went black market because reputable doctors wouldn't prescribe it. They took it because Trump said it was perfect, a miracle cure with no downside. Turns out it may double the likelihood of death along with multiple life altering side effects.
Wait and see, people will do it. Probably drinking bleach or rubbing alcohol, but some morons will inject it. Trumpsters are not rational. Just look at homeless cocaine dad here, or you thinking he's convincing in any way. Remember, some Trumpster idiots took fish tank chloroquine because he said "chloroquine good". You think more morons won't inject rubbing alcohol because Trump said "injecting disinfectants good"?!

The president absolutely suggested it might be a way to fight the virus. That's exactly what he did. This whole video was a lame frantic attempt to deny it, then he played the audio that proves he did.

bobknight33 said:

Only fools think Trump suggest injecting disinfectants like bleach and rubbing alcohol might be a good treatment to kill Covid,


Shit load of Fools on the sift.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Who is this? Bob has never once replied with such decent English or well researched arguments. Makes me think this is a cut and paste except the last line. What's your source? OAN? Breitbart?

$100?! Try millions in donations to his campaign that he's consistently treated like a private piggy bank. Despite his promise to fund his own campaign, he does the opposite and funds himself with his campaign. Pharmaceutical companies stand to make billions if everyone takes it, he knows who butters his bread, and so do we.
Before you say it's not enough money for him to sell out, remember he sold out a career ambassador for $300000 from Russian backed Ukrainians.

Exactly what anti Trump media am I believing? You don't know where my information comes from, do you? It must drive you crazy to not know which reputable source to discount, deride, and denigrate.

97% of all media is ANTI TRUMP? You're not that dumb and must realize this can't be true. Could it be that 97% of all fact is anti Trump because his actions are indefensible? Seems more reasonable and likely.

Trump is pushing it like a cure, and Giuliani was thrown off Twitter for saying it was one that's 100% effective, a pure dangerous lie. Check his portfolio, I bet he's got stocks in it too.
Talk to ex or current military, the biggest customers, they'll tell you they would rather have malaria than take it again. In the private medical world, it's a drug of last resort because of the life altering bad effects (and which are you implying aren't bad with the quotes?). When you're going to die without it, it can't hurt. When you're thinking it's a cure and taking it when you aren't even sick, like many are based on Trump's sales pitch, it definitely will hurt many that might otherwise be fine.

Con man bad.

bobknight33 said:

The report cited by the HuffPost is from a New York Times story that said: “Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine.”

Trump’s personal financial interest, however, does not include a stake in Sanofi–and the New York Times did not claim it did. Instead, Trump’s financial disclosures show that his three family trusts each had investments in a $10.3 billion Dodge & Cox mutual fund that owns shares in Sanofi, the world’s fifth-largest drugmaker by prescription sales. As of its latest disclosures, those holdings amount to just 3.3 percent of the fund’s holdings.

Trump’s most recent financial disclosure forms lists holdings in the Dodge & Cox International Fund valued between $1,001 and $15,000. That means Trump holds a maximum stake in the mutual funds of $45,000, giving him an indirect interest in Sanofi of $1,485 at the most.

His “financial interest” in Sanofi, which has a market capitalization of nearly $58 billion, could be as low as $99.10.






Fuck your right! Trump can make $ pushing the drug $100 bucks --WOW

Why do you believe EVERY THING the media pushes about Trump? 97% of all media is ANTI TRUMP . Your not dumb and must realize this cant be true.


Also the drug is an alternative that is being investigated. All the "BAD" effects are the same for its original intended use but still prescribed?

Orange man GOOD. MSNBC etc BAD.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson says...

collusion
[kəˈlo͞oZHən]
NOUN

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

synonyms:
conspiracy · connivance · complicity · intrigue · plotting · secret understanding · collaboration · scheming

law
illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

-------------------------

Is asking another country for help to hurt a political opponent illegal?
See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/

"any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election"

"to have directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election"

"the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization"

"the term “United States election” means any election for Federal office"

" the term “foreign interference,” with respect to an election, includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful actions or attempted actions of a foreign government, or of any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, undertaken with the purpose or effect of influencing, undermining confidence in, or altering the result or reported result of, the election, or undermining public confidence in election processes or institutions"

Whatever you have to tell yourself, traitor.

bobknight33 said:

No collusion!

Cart Narcs Catch A Dumb Hag

moonsammy says...

Eh, I agree in theory but think that in practice it's a rather pointless endeavor. The type of person who is self-centered and entitled enough to make the "it's someone else's job to clean up my shit" argument is not the type of person who, in my experience, is remotely likely to change. Narcissism precludes negative judgments on one's self. Plus most of the time calmly explaining anything to a person who already feels you've wronged them is not going to result in the outcome you'd like. You might say that some of the time it'll have a positive impact, but I think on balance the amount of strife I'd put myself through for that rare "win" isn't nearly worth it.

I do feel this approach might work if there's a friend or family member with the offender, but even then at best it's a dice roll. Maybe the other party will point out that the asshat was in fact in the wrong, and that may alter their behavior in the future just to avoid an argument. However, if the 3rd party spends a lot of time around the entitled asshole in question then there's a good chance they either behave similarly themselves, or are well aware of the asshattery and know it's pointless to fight them on it. So... yeah. Maybe a semi-public shaming? Don't think filming would ever help things stay cool though.

newtboy said:

I think you help people by showing them their mistakes, calmly explaining them if needed, and you help the public by exposing those who angrily deny any obligation to be responsible, civil, or accept established social obligations so others don't rely on them or trust them to do the obviously right thing so the public has the information needed to know to distrust and shun them.

You don't help by excusing inappropriate behavior.

The Truth About the Sri Lanka Attacks

newtboy says...

Fuck this hyper Islamophobic lying nut job.
Why has Trump never said the words Right Wing Terrorism, even though they're by far the most active terrorists in America? Why doesn't he label the black church burnings as attacks on Christianity? Why does Trump stand with the neo-Nazi terrorists, calling them "good people"? You won't hear PJ ask that, will you?

Some background on this liar and provocateur....Paul Joseph Watson's career emerged through his work for liar, conspiracy theorist, disingenuous character, snake oil salesman, and radio host Alex Jones. As editor-at-large of Jones' website InfoWars.com he helped promote fake news and conspiracy theories such as the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati. Subsequently reaching a significant audience, both Watson and Jones altered their focus. Presently their commentary is mainly focused on criticizing feminism, Islam, and left-wing politics.Watson also contributes to Infowars' talk radio program The Alex Jones Show, where he occasionally either hosts or co-hosts. Watson has been working on Infowars.com since October 2002.
Skankhunt33 strikes again....obviously a trolling attempt.

A Scary Time

BSR says...

Thanks for your reply bcglorf,

To clear up my analogy, I was actually speaking about the power, tolerance and bravery of women and the thick headedness and cowardice of men who are abusers.

Sometimes you need to find a language that can be understood.

I also think reasonable people believe that any action taken against them should be met with equal and opposite reaction.

Somewhere I posted a quote from the movie Tora, Tora, Tora, which I altered to fit the present conversations.

The quote was said to have been made by Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto regarding the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

It's debated if he actually said it but it was something that I remembered and thought it fit well with recent events with the altered quote.

My altered quote is:

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giantess and fill her with a terrible resolve.


Women (giantess) are coming together, along with men, more than ever before and rightly so.

I never said or implied anything about ridicule or attacks.

Thanks again for your reply and I think we both are on the same side.

bcglorf said:

Not sure that's the analogy you want to go for, what with the counter being to describe how we behave once we grow up...

You are describing women as powerless and perpetual victims, which I think is offensive to women. You then basically say that two wrongs make a right because victims should be allowed to create new victims if it helps them...

Reasonable people disagree with you. If that puts me in the 'wrong' camp, and means I deserve ridicule and attack, you're the problem, not me.

A Scary Time

Mordhaus says...

Yeah, the bad thing about the entire situation is it seems the facts vary wildly depending on who you go with. I guess just like any statistic analysis with such a charged subject, people probably alter the methodology of getting the information to support their viewpoint. I found super low stats and higher ones, so I tried to go with the ones that seemed to have the least reason to alter the stats. Maybe they are wrong, I can't say.

Same for Dr. Ford, I can only go off my personal take on it. She seemed credible until I read the letter from her Ex, but maybe he lied or was a plant by the Republicans. I certainly can't go by her polygraph since I agree with everyone so far that they are pretty much junk science as you said. I'm torn, but like I mentioned, I am still leaning towards her account being false. I might be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

The worst thing is that no one here really won except Kavanaugh. The Republicans are going to take a hit in years of coming elections, the Democrats are stuck with a conservative majority court, Dr. Ford is going to be praised or vilified depending on individual opinion, and we as a nation look like we are ready to basically go to war with one another over our political split. We look dumber than ever to the rest of the world and I don't see a quick resolution in sight.

ChaosEngine said:

Lots of good comments here... this might take a while so bear with me.

@Mordhaus, I haven't read that book but I'd be interested to see his sources. Everything I've googled suggests the rate is really low.

As for Ford, obviously, I can't say for certain whether she is telling the truth. She may even believe she is telling the truth and still be wrong. I think she was entitled to the benefit of the doubt in terms of an investigation. Of course, it's possible she was doing this for political reasons, but that feels like a stretch to me.

@bcglorf
In some ways, I can understand the desire to remove the vexatious complaints cause. Coming forward with a report of sexual assault is traumatic enough already.
A) you may not be believed
B) even if you are, you're in for an experience many assault survivors have described as "being raped a second time"
If you add the possibility that your complaint could potentially get you sanctioned if no one believes you, that's a pretty awful situation to be in.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this stance, but I can understand it. I think you would need to clear a very high bar to prove a complaint is malicious. Presumption of innocence applies to the complainant also.

"The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. "
100% fine with this. You can be a creepy sleazebag without touching someone and it's still not ok.

"lots of people are very much arguing that lives should be destroyed then and there"
Sorry, I just don't see it. That said, if there are people arguing for that... I'm against them.

"We'll even right songs to laugh at them when they complain."
This song was mocking the bullshit "it's a scary time to be a man" line, and deservedly so. I'm a man, and I'm not scared of being accused of sexual assault. None of my male friends are scared either. But it fucking crushes my soul to think of how many of the women in my life have ACTUALLY experienced some form of sexual assault (and that's just the ones I know of).

@scheherazade
Completely agree that eyewitness testimony is borderline useless in terms of evidence. Go back through my comment history... you'll see I even said I doubt you could prove Kavanaugh's guilt. All I've ever said is that it warrants an investigation. (sidenote: I totally agree with @vil and @Mordhaus on this... polygraphs are junk science, but Kavanaugh's boorish behaviour should have been grounds not to confirm him).

Regarding your friend that was raped by a girl: that's awful, and yes, we really have to stop this childish attitude of somehow thinking female on male rape is either funny or that the guy was lucky. But it is unrelated to this discussion.

@MilkmanDan, I pretty much agree with everything you've said.

Being falsely accused of rape would be terrible, even if you weren't convicted. No disagreement there at all.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh Testify

bobknight33 says...

The rule of law is being followed. Nothing being stolen-- Politics is a nasty business. It was on full displayed yesterday.


Democrats sprung an 11th hour attack "October surprise" on Kavanaugh to smear him in public opinion and delay the vote, A week later Democrats want to delay more for an FBI investigation.. What hog wash. just a political stunt -- I'm sure they will bring about another false claim before the senate vote .
Bottom line no one corroborates her testimony ..


Republicans are not insisting on and FBI -- only Flake is -- A political cover for him to vote yes today and get it out of committee.

FBI HAS looked 6 times into Kavanaugh character and background. Now another one for a 40 yr old repressed "memory" ?


Are your you or any friends alter boys?

If this was true, all that was done was some tit grabbing by foolish boys.
You want to disqualify a man of sexual fumblings when he was 17 boy? Is that the society you want to live in? 50 -90% of men would be guilty.

An old girl can call the police and say you wrongly fondled her when you were 17? And you lose your career of over it? BS.
NO cop department would even giver her the time of day.


Justices should be above reproach and their morality unquestionable. Kavanaugh wins on both counts.

newtboy said:

It's far more honest and honorable that outright stealing a nomination, neglecting their constitutional obligations for pure partisan gains, degrading and abusing our system of government. Wanting a full vetting of a lifetime appointment to the highest court is the norm, making these appointments pure political spectacle and obstructing procedure is 100% the methodology of Republicans....you're just pissed the Democrats are finally learning to play the game republicans have been playing for decades. I can only hope they continue that MO when the Democrats seize congress next month.

Republicans are now insisting on an FBI investigation or they'll vote no. We will have a new justice, but it may not be Kavanaugh....it might not be a right winger.

I believe there's a question about who to believe. I believe that question disqualifies the nominee. Justices should be above reproach and their morality unquestionable, he fails on both counts. If you have just a reasonable doubt about his innocence, and no reasonable person wouldn't at this point, that's enough to disqualify any nominee.

College student falsely accused of rape speaks out

newtboy says...

I look at it this way....in the time they would likely serve in prison for aggravated rape and kidnapping, (that time likely made much longer due to the racial components), the likelihood they would both be raped themselves nears 100% (that likelihood also higher due to the racial components, racial revenge rape), assuming they survive. Add to that the 15+- years in prison and lifelong stigma of being a class 1 sex offender. Considering all that, the rape accusation carries far worse consequences than a one evening kidnapping and rape would, although both are excessively egregious. Also, keep in mind that every false accusation effects the likelihood of successfully prosecuting real rapists. I have no stats about that, but I would guess easily 5 rapists go free for every proven false accusation....to pull a number right from my ass. The consequences of the false accusations can easily be the more serious of the two, imo, when all is considered.

I see your point and agree, and I think there should be stringent requirements to prove an accusation was false before pursuing prosecution, but in cases where there's no question like this one, convict and send a strong message with a long....long sentence, not one year (in most places meaning no prison, local jail, and probably under 1/4 of that time actually served since it's considered non violent).
And yes, major compensation is in order. This accusation will follow and haunt them for life, even though it was retracted.

I agree, this is an outlier, but it's a devastating, life altering crime and needs to be treated as such when it's proven. Because rape is much more prevalent than false rape charges is not an excuse to ignore this or in any way hinder aggressively prosecuting it, in my mind it's a reason to go after it harder.

Edit:also, I'm completely irrational in my hatred of liars.

ChaosEngine said:

While what she did was undeniably wrong, I don't think you can equate rape with a false accusation of rape.

Sorry, they are simply not equivalent, any more than scamming someone online is the same as an armed home invasion. Both are wrong, but one is much more serious.

Plus, there's a far more serious issue with what you're suggesting.

Rape is already one of the most under-reported and poorly prosecuted crimes in the country. So much so that many rape victims feel like they've been violated twice, once during the crime and then again trying to get a conviction.

It's a harrowing experience and adding the possibility of a criminal sentence if someone decides you're lying will only make it worse.

This woman definitely deserves a severe punishment (and more appropriately the guys she accused deserve some kind of compensation from her), but this is definitely an outlier case.

Rape is far more common than false rape accusation.

How to Debunk Transgender Madness in 2 Minutes

Mordhaus says...

Researchers found that disabling the fucose mutarotase (FucM) gene in laboratory mice – which influences the levels of estrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the female mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up.

"The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental programme in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference" said Professor Chankyu Park of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejon, South Korea, who led the research.

- https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-11-62

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study shows Transgender brains more closely resemble brains of the sex they align with, rather than what they were born with.

Julie Bakker, who led the research, utilized 160 MRI scans of transgender people diagnosed with gender dysphoria when they were either kids or in their teens. These scans also measured the brain’s microstructures with a technique called diffusion tensor imaging.

After all of these scans were made, they were then compared with people of the same age who had not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The study found that transgender boys’ and transgender girls’ brain activity corresponded to both cisgender boys and girls. The MRI tests examined brain activity after an exposure to a steroid and measured gray matter as well.

Bakker believes that this research could be used to help children at an earlier day who’re diagnosed with gender dysmorphia. Bakker stated:

"Although more research is needed, we now have evidence that sexual differentiation of the brain differs in young people with GD, as they show functional brain characteristics that are typical of their desired gender.”

- https://bigthink.com/mike-colagrossi/transgender-brains-more-closely-resemble-brains-of-the-sex-they-align-with-rather-than-what-they-were-born-with

[This study is also in line with multiple previous studies done since 2011, with MRI results showing differences. The major change with this study is that it involved children who had not been exposed to hormone treatment and that were pre-pubescent. - Mordhaus]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as they aren't hurting anyone and any sexual interactions are between consenting adults, who cares if it is genetic or behavioral? Personally, I don't even give a fuck if people use different bathrooms. If a cis gender woman wanted to use the Men's restroom, I would say "Go for it, just don't flip out if you see a dick or two." Same goes for vice versa.

This lady is welcome to her opinion, but science is starting to weigh against her in increasing degrees. At a certain point, this is going to be equivalent to the Flat Earth people, if it isn't already.

The Harms of Marijuana

Mordhaus says...

I think it can be linked more to tobacco being a carcinogen. While smoking 'anything' may cause other issues with your respiratory system (bronchitis, emphysema, COPD, etc), smoking a carcinogen means you are exposing cells to a substance that can alter their genome.

An easier comparison would be chewing gum and nicotine gum. Since nicotine is a carcinogen, you run the risk of developing cancers of the mouth, throat, and gums by chewing the gum. Regular chewing gum does not contain a carcinogen, so it wouldn't affect you in that way.

As far as the smoke itself, I know that cigarette smoke has additional carcinogens other than nicotine. I do not know if these transfer to weed simply because it is smoked as well. One would assume you could bypass this, just in case, by vaping or using edibles.

MilkmanDan said:

I wondered if your use of the past tense should be taken to mean that they are no longer in business, so I googled. It appears that they are still going.

Interesting stuff in the Wikipedia article. It notes that the Surgeon General warnings about tobacco still apply, and in fact they have to include a disclaimer that says "no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette".

So now I guess I'm back to being surprised and a bit suspicious about the lack of evidence for smoked marijuana causing cancer, as opposed to tobacco being very clearly linked to cancer...

Yanny or Laurel

entr0py says...

Here's the simplest and seemingly most correct explanation I've seen.

https://twitter.com/MBoffin/status/996562598815416321

Basically, the two sounds are overlaid with each other. If you have good hearing in high ranges, your mind will filter out one or the other, with a pretty strong bias to hear the higher pitched "Yanny". If your hearing is not so good, you're left only with the "Laurel" bit.

AsapScience is just totally wrong in their conclusion that the "Original" recording says "Laurel". Every bit of Laurel can be removed without altering the Yanny part and visa versa. They don't intersect.

NVIDIA Research - AI Reconstructs Photos

bremnet says...

As hamsteralliance says, ContentAware uses proximity matching and relative area matching. If you tried to fill in the white space with ContentAware, it'd be full of everything except eyes. They nVidia folks used thousands of images to train the neural net (ie generate the model using training data) which has more discrete sequential or spatial relationships between features (ie. eyes go to either side of the nose, below the eyebrows, level, interpupilary distance etc etc). The neural approach ALWAYS needs training data sets - it doesn't appear to (from reading the paper) any adaptive or learning algorithm outside of the neural framework (so, it's not AI in the sense that it learns from any environmental stimulus and alters its response... that I can see anyway. The paper doesn't get into the minutiae). But I'd still date her, if only she'd have me.

hamsteralliance said:

I think one of the key things is that it was filling in the eyes with eyes. It was using completely different color eyes even and it knew where they needed to go. Content Aware only uses what's in the image, so it would just fill in that area with flesh and random bits of hair and mouth. This seems to pull from a neural network database thingymajigger.

Have We Lost the Common Good?

shinyblurry says...

You're not reading the verse correctly

Maybe this will help..here is 3/4ths of the verse:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,

Jesus is saying here that nothing in the law will be altered until Heaven and Earth pass away..which is basically a way of saying it won't ever happen. Its the same as saying that something won't happen until pigs fly. Now comes the exception:

till all be fulfilled

Jesus is saying here that the law can be done away with when all is fulfilled. You are putting the fulfillment together with Heaven and Earth passing away for some reason. It doesn't say Heaven and Earth passing away is when the law will be fulfilled, does it? He just said in the previous verse that He came to fulfill it!

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

So if the law can't pass away until all is fulfilled, and He fulfilled it, that means He can establish a New Covenant, which He did. God told us this would happen in the Old Testament:

Jeremiah 31:31-32

31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

The bible tells us that Jesus followed the law perfectly. It doesn't mean that He killed anyone. When the Pharisees brought a women caught in Adultery and told Him to stone her..He confronted them with their sins and then forgave the woman. Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sins.

Now that I've answered your questions, could you answer mine?

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

newtboy said:

I didn't breeze over it, just pointed out that's not what it said at all.
However, you breeze over the part that contradicts you that I went in depth on...."till earth passes". That didn't happen. Law on. Ignore that at your peril, or do mental gymnastics to convince yourself that doesn't mean till earth passes, I think it's all nonsense so not my problem.

But...you said Jesus was perfectly moral, so he must have followed the Law, so how many heathens did Jesus stone? Even by your measure, he was obligated to murder infidels until he died or he would be immoral, so how many murders did Jesus perform?

ChaosEngine (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon