Moderators: DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX, Morris_Shatford, 7 Footer
mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:If the president of the United States can have dangerous posts deleted from Twitter and Facebook...don't think you are any more special.
And Twitter is not biased? ok.
Once again...your rights mean **** when you are spreading bad information.
13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:
I'm still free to having an opinion that is based on studies, censorship cannot take that from me.
If the president of the United States can have dangerous posts deleted from Twitter and Facebook...don't think you are any more special.
And Twitter and Facebook are not left leaning and biased? ok.
13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:
And Twitter is not biased? ok.
Once again...your rights mean **** when you are spreading bad information.
Misinformation is subjective. Prove to me that any of the studies from that article is not true.
MadDogSHWA wrote:13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:If the president of the United States can have dangerous posts deleted from Twitter and Facebook...don't think you are any more special.
And Twitter and Facebook are not left leaning and biased? ok.
Conservatives threatening us with a good time once again LOL
(that's a FB tag group)
Most decent people wish FB was left-leaning. It's quite literally a platform of white supremacy. I got a three-day ban for a post with nothing but these three words: "Typical white privilege".
People have started spelling white as wyt and wheat so they don't get picked up.
mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:Once again...your rights mean **** when you are spreading bad information.
Misinformation is subjective. Prove to me that any of the studies from that article is not true.
Not my job to prove anything to you. I'm not getting into a passing contest with someone who has already made up his mind.
13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:
And Twitter is not biased? ok.
Once again...your rights mean **** when you are spreading bad information.
Misinformation is subjective. Prove to me that any of the studies from that article is not true.
13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:
Misinformation is subjective. Prove to me that any of the studies from that article is not true.
Not my job to prove anything to you. I'm not getting into a passing contest with someone who has already made up his mind.
You're the one dismissing the article that I posted as bunk not me. Some substance to back up that claim would be nice rather threatening to have it deleted (although I know you didn't make the threat).
Local_NG_Idiot wrote:13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:Once again...your rights mean **** when you are spreading bad information.
Misinformation is subjective. Prove to me that any of the studies from that article is not true.
it's irrelevant if the studies are false when the conclusion is solely based upon protecting the wearer of the mask.
See, you choose to ignore the simple FACTS that wearing a non-95 mask limits the wearer's spread of droplets in the first place. So it's disingenuous to make the argument as framed by the article you provided.
13th Man wrote:MadDogSHWA wrote:13th Man wrote:
And Twitter and Facebook are not left leaning and biased? ok.
Conservatives threatening us with a good time once again LOL
(that's a FB tag group)
Most decent people wish FB was left-leaning. It's quite literally a platform of white supremacy. I got a three-day ban for a post with nothing but these three words: "Typical white privilege".
People have started spelling white as wyt and wheat so they don't get picked up.
Again, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it no matter how wrong it is. FB has blatantly deleted posts from conservatives, even moreso than the other way. They've been exposed on video as doing such.
mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:Not my job to prove anything to you. I'm not getting into a passing contest with someone who has already made up his mind.
You're the one dismissing the article that I posted as bunk not me. Some substance to back up that claim would be nice rather threatening to have it deleted (although I know you didn't make the threat).
Not taking the bait kid.
13th Man wrote:Local_NG_Idiot wrote:13th Man wrote:
Misinformation is subjective. Prove to me that any of the studies from that article is not true.
it's irrelevant if the studies are false when the conclusion is solely based upon protecting the wearer of the mask.
See, you choose to ignore the simple FACTS that wearing a non-95 mask limits the wearer's spread of droplets in the first place. So it's disingenuous to make the argument as framed by the article you provided.
I didn't ignore anything. I see the facts from the studies. N95 masks are the most effective, then there is a huge drop-off going to medical grade masks then to cloth masks.
13th Man wrote:Local_NG_Idiot wrote:13th Man wrote:
Misinformation is subjective. Prove to me that any of the studies from that article is not true.
it's irrelevant if the studies are false when the conclusion is solely based upon protecting the wearer of the mask.
See, you choose to ignore the simple FACTS that wearing a non-95 mask limits the wearer's spread of droplets in the first place. So it's disingenuous to make the argument as framed by the article you provided.
I didn't ignore anything. I see the facts from the studies. N95 masks are the most effective, then there is a huge drop-off going to medical grade masks then to cloth masks. The article also cites a bunch of negatives associated with wearing a mask as well as not using it properly.
I'm not making up anything here so please don't put words into my mouth. If you cannot accept people forming an opinion based on facts presented, that's not my problem.
Local_NG_Idiot wrote:13th Man wrote:Local_NG_Idiot wrote:
it's irrelevant if the studies are false when the conclusion is solely based upon protecting the wearer of the mask.
See, you choose to ignore the simple FACTS that wearing a non-95 mask limits the wearer's spread of droplets in the first place. So it's disingenuous to make the argument as framed by the article you provided.
I didn't ignore anything. I see the facts from the studies. N95 masks are the most effective, then there is a huge drop-off going to medical grade masks then to cloth masks. The article also cites a bunch of negatives associated with wearing a mask as well as not using it properly.
I'm not making up anything here so please don't put words into my mouth. If you cannot accept people forming an opinion based on facts presented, that's not my problem.
and yet, you choose to form your opinion based upon a subset of the full data and facts to support your opinion and attempt to pass off your opinion and it's conclusion as truth. As I already stated, it's not scientific and if you are doing it intentionally, it's disingenuous.
13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:
You're the one dismissing the article that I posted as bunk not me. Some substance to back up that claim would be nice rather threatening to have it deleted (although I know you didn't make the threat).
Not taking the bait kid.
Ok so now resorting to name calling which is against forum rules. Mature.
mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:Not taking the bait kid.
Ok so now resorting to name calling which is against forum rules. Mature.
Who is name calling? LOL
13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:
Ok so now resorting to name calling which is against forum rules. Mature.
Who is name calling? LOL
Why did you call me kid? Do you actually know how old I am? Don't play this childish game with me.
13th Man wrote:Local_NG_Idiot wrote:13th Man wrote:
I didn't ignore anything. I see the facts from the studies. N95 masks are the most effective, then there is a huge drop-off going to medical grade masks then to cloth masks. The article also cites a bunch of negatives associated with wearing a mask as well as not using it properly.
I'm not making up anything here so please don't put words into my mouth. If you cannot accept people forming an opinion based on facts presented, that's not my problem.
and yet, you choose to form your opinion based upon a subset of the full data and facts to support your opinion and attempt to pass off your opinion and it's conclusion as truth. As I already stated, it's not scientific and if you are doing it intentionally, it's disingenuous.
Do you even know what an opinion is? There is clear double standard here. When I express an opinion, you make it out to be a published thesis but you guys can express your opinion without recourse?
Sounds fair.
mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:Who is name calling? LOL
Why did you call me kid? Do you actually know how old I am? Don't play this childish game with me.
In that case...ok Boomer.
13th Man wrote:mtcan wrote:13th Man wrote:
Why did you call me kid? Do you actually know how old I am? Don't play this childish game with me.
In that case...ok Boomer.
Exactly. I'm not the one getting all worked up over a difference of opinion and resorting to name-calling or threatening censorship. I'm open to all forms of discussion, just not with malice.