3. Here's the important part. He is focused on deaths from mask use in spite of a low death rate from COVID. Including mask use for pollution has nothing to do with that point and it's irrelevant.
So? That's the important part?
4. Here's the second important part. He's making the mistake of positing that the only reason people wear coats is to prevent hypothermia.
This is my point! You're making the EXACT same mistake you're claiming he's making. You're suggesting that the only reason people wear masks is to prevent viruses.
ie. "why do people wear coats when only 1500 people die from hypothermia" -> "because people also wear coats for other reasons, including comfort and style". That's why these are relevant, while talking about pollution prevention with masks isn't.
People also wear masks for other reasons too, including comfort and style. So with your skewed sense of logic, it's ok for you to call him out claiming he's making a mistake because "people also wear coats for other reasons" and say it's relevant. But then somehow it's ok for you to make the SAME mistake about masks, but then claim it's not relevant.
It's very hypocritical and you sound incredibly conceited lol Oh and good job ignoring all the other purposes I listed and focusing specifically on pollution. I suppose I could do the same to you considering you were also talking about pockets and random other coat purposes.
No seriously, it's not a tactic, I just passionately hate speaking to dumb people about important things that think they're smart.
"Overconfident people are often quite insecure, and they cover up their insecurities through dominating and controlling others. They find it hard to admit being wrong, and they will often cling to a belief even in the face of evidence that it's outdated or wrong."
That can be forgiven, but what can't is as Hubba pointed out, you deflect on every point after asking for data and stats then getting it..
..but more than that, your whole argument is based on dumb bullshit, you can't use basic logic at all, you're not interested in the objective truth and you can't deal with this conversation in an honest way.
I provided you guys with EVIDENCE of being wrong and/or providing/quoting inaccurate information. Maybe I'm "mentally challenged" or whatever you're suggesting, but that doesn't change the fact that you haven't been able to refute anything I've said.
Instead, it somehow makes sense for you to act like you've refuted someone's evidence simply just by ignoring them or attacking their intelligence and claiming things are irrelevant or "dumb bullshit" lol
And yes, maybe I'm not dealing with the conversation in an honest way. Because --NEWSFLASH-- I already know the mask stuff is irrelevant. I already know the coat/mask comparison is stupid. That's the whole friggin point! lol he's posting a meme from reddit that's making fun of people who have the same stupid views about masks. But there you are taking the entire thing literally, claiming he's making the mistake of saying coats only have one purpose, while you simultaneously make the SAME mistake claiming masks only have one purpose. My point is that they're both irrelevant. It's just a joke.
And somehow you're claiming I'm not interested in the objective truth? Yet you're there SUBJECTIVELY suggesting to people that "94% of deaths probably weren't even COVID", then parading around as if you're the "stats guru" with a bachelor's degree in statistics lol All because the stats show only 6% of people died with COVID marked as their only reason. Yet, your superb logic tells you... who cares if it's scientifically proven that COVID causes people to die from other reasons? Who cares if stats show an extra 200,000+ in deaths compared to the previous years. I'll just say "those people would have died anyway". It's just a coincidence that those EXTRA 200,000 people died while having covid, right?
Do you REALLY think you're being objective here? Where is this "objective truth" that I'm supposedly not interested in? And how does this work? Like do you believe in the stats, but just not the science behind it? Or do you only believe in the stats when they fit your agenda -- so you can cherrypick through them and twist their perception? lol
And in regards to deflecting, is that not a fair thing to do when both you and Hubba are providing inaccurate information? Jeez, Hubba's data was from a discredited fired university professor who can't even get his work into a medical journal. But I still kept an open mind and gave the dude the benefit of the doubt (considering all the conspiracy theories). But it's clear after reading through some of the papers he's citing that Hubba never bothered to read them, and the dude who wrote it falsified the entire "blog post" or whatever you want to call it.
So sure, I'll deflect. But somebody has to try and keep you guys in line
The internet has somehow made you feel like you (as someone with with a skillset that probably consists of a) spamming, b) packing fruit into boxes) has some kind of understanding of what you're talking about when you blatantly don't.
Because you're somehow any better? lol I suppose we should start comparing our bank accounts, life accomplishments, and wiener size? hahahaha
We aren't both experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect (you can't "have" a phenomenon btw, it's not a disease), even though funnily enough as long as you thought someone else was as well you would consider that to be a win. You're honestly probably in the lowest 1% of people that have the capacity to pass valid arguments about anything discussed in this thread, as has been repetitively proven.. by you. Does that clear things up a bit?
Maybe being here for 7 years and getting 88 thumbs up (miraculously) for more than 1100 different comments is a stat simple enough for your brain to be able to process and understand the implications of?
I'm going back to ignoring you now.
lol so now we're going to make this about who has the most likes? Do I have to start whoring myself for likes on here too, and that will make me smarter? hahahaa Can I carry likes over from other platforms to make my numbers better?
Sure ignore me, but no, it doesn't clear it up for me. If anything just reassures me more that you're full of crap lol
"Overconfident people are often quite insecure, and they cover up their insecurities through dominating and controlling others. They find it hard to admit being wrong, and they will often cling to a belief even in the face of evidence that it's outdated or wrong."
