What are your thoughts on the Kung Flu?

[Evol]

PA extended to June 4th by the King.

80% of deaths have been in nursing homes. My wife works in one and her administrator locked down all new patients and no visitors from coming in from before it was ordered. They have 0 cases of COVID.

On a side note, it's VERY scary to me how much power our governor has.

Coronavirus In Pennsylvania: 80 Percent Of The Region's COVID-19 Deaths Are In Long-Term Care Facilities

Pennsylvanian's nursing homes continue to be hit hard by coronavirus, accounting for nearly 70 percent.

pittsburgh.cbslocal.com

 

[SlickStickSlinger]

Anyone seen PLANDEMIC?

If you havent it is pretty short and concise. Try to find it before it gets censored.

On a side note, I like how often times when I or someone else mentions our freedom of speech is being taken away online, people defend the companies rights to censor. Lemme tell you something, they are censoring any of the truth that people are talking about right now. Information is being censored like crazy. It's likethe main stream news saying the virus isnt bad in the beginning and now they are saying its horrendous. MSM just flips any story to make the situation worse. Online we cant post certain things if they seem it to be misinformation. It's a dangerous position to be in. Cant trust the news and online the truth is being censored...not good.

 

[NDGuy]

Cant trust the news and online the truth is being censored...not good.

So instead of trusting 1000s of scientists and doctors around the world, nearly every news agency, and most of the world's governments you think we should all listen to 1 youtube video by an anti-vax butthurt former employee of Dr. Fauci who was fired and was caught stealing research? Who's paper has been discredited by the scientific community?

Freedom of speech has limits, just like you can't yell fire in a theater because you want to.

To be clear, I do not believe one should take news agencies at their word. I am just dumbfounded by the conspiracy theories popping up and how many people still think this is all a hoax and BS.

 

[SgtTanner]

So instead of trusting 1000s of scientists and doctors around the world, nearly every news agency, and most of the world's governments you think we should all listen to 1 youtube video by an anti-vax butthurt former employee of Dr. Fauci who was fired for stealing research? Who's paper has been discredited by the scientific community?

Freedom of speech has limits, just like you can't yell fire in a theater because you want to.

Perhaps you’re correct in your criticisms of that particular video. That’s not at all the same as yelling fire in a theater. The former free speech, while might be stupid, isn’t dangerous like the latter. Unless one believes everything they hear without critical thought. The disgruntled employee video didn’t cause me to believe my life was in danger, or to be trampled trying to get out the door.

At any rate, a disgruntled/discredited former employee is entitled to free speech. Even if it doesn’t fit a narrative.

 

[NDGuy]

At any rate, a disgruntled/discredited former employee is entitled to free speech. Even if it doesn’t fit your (or someone else’s) narrative.

Unless they are wrong and scientifically disproven by their colleagues. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientist-vaccine-jailed/


Unless you are suggesting that dozens of countries, thousands of scientists and doctors are all in some grand conspiracy together concerning the Coronavirus.

 

[SgtTanner]

Unless they are wrong and scientifically disproven by their colleagues. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientist-vaccine-jailed/


Unless you are suggesting that dozens of countries, thousands of scientists and doctors are all in some grand conspiracy together concerning the Coronavirus.

I’m not saying that at all. And I’m not even making any statement about the credibility of the info in the video. I’m only saying that it’s not dangerous like yelling fire in a theater, and so it should not be censored or limited. So your comparison between those two events is disingenuous. In fact, if the scientific community is in agreement that this lady is full of it, and they say so, then what’s the issue? Just because someone says something false, that doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to say it. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply only to information that is true or accurate, or that you agree with.

In fact, I believe coffee is poisonous and should be outlawed.

See what I did there? That’s a demonstrably false statement. Would you censor that if I made a YouTube video about how coffee is the devil and will bring about the destruction of our society? (Just using the coffee example because I’m enjoying a good cup)

edited to add: if Dr. Fauci felt compelled, he may have a case to argue libel or slander (I can never keep those two straight). But libel and slander are avenues of recourse for someone who was wronged by someone else’s free speech about them. Not limits on free speech.

 

[BuzzH]

I’m not saying that at all. And I’m not even making any statement about the credibility of the info in the video. I’m only saying that it’s not dangerous like yelling fire in a theater, and so it should not be censored or limited. So your comparison between those two events is disingenuous. In fact, if the scientific community is in agreement that this lady is full of it, and they say so, then what’s the issue? Just because someone says something false, that doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to say it. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply only to information that is true or accurate, or that you agree with.

In fact, I believe coffee is poisonous and should be outlawed.

See what I did there? That’s a demonstrably false statement. Would you censor that if I made a YouTube video about how coffee is the devil and will bring about the destruction of our society? (Just using the coffee example because I’m enjoying a good cup)

Bolded part...libel and slander, both illegal and punishable by law, just sayin'...

Not that they don't have the freedom to say what they want under the First, just that the First doesn't protect them from saying stupid chit and being held accountable.

Many don't savvy that...

 

[NDGuy]

^^Point proven

 

[SgtTanner]

Bolded part...libel and slander, both illegal and punishable by law, just sayin'...

Not that they don't have the freedom to say what they want under the First, just that the First doesn't protect them from saying stupid chit and being held accountable.

Many don't savvy that...

Yes, this is what I’m saying. The libel and slander are crimes that need to be proven. But they aren’t limits on free speech, and so the wack job video shouldn’t be censored just for being false. Libel and slander are the consequences of free speech that does damage.

 

[durangobrad]

8 things ‘Plandemic’ gets wrong about the coronavirus

If you’ve been on social media in the past two days, there’s a good chance you’ve seen someone share "Plandemic: The Hid

www.politifact.com

Sent from my F1 using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

Yes, this is what I’m saying. The libel and slander are crimes that need to be proven. But they aren’t limits on free speech, and so the wack job video shouldn’t be censored just for being false. Libel and slander are the consequences of free speech that does damage.

Yes, but in your previous post, you made it sound that unless someone says something that puts your life in danger, then they can say anything they want and the First protects them.

That is NOT true...

Its also not true that libel and slander need to be proven...the idiot that says something libelous or slanderous, has to PROVE that what they said isn't slander or libel. They said it, now prove it...if they cant, they're guilty.

 

[Laramie]

So instead of trusting 1000s of scientists and doctors around the world, nearly every news agency, and most of the world's governments you think we should all listen to 1 youtube video by an anti-vax butthurt former employee of Dr. Fauci who was fired and was caught stealing research? Who's paper has been discredited by the scientific community?

Freedom of speech has limits, just like you can't yell fire in a theater because you want to.

To be clear, I do not believe one should take news agencies at their word. I am just dumbfounded by the conspiracy theories popping up and how many people still think this is all a hoax and BS.

I would ask you and everyone one question. Are the doctors, scientists, and news agencies you suggest we trust the ones that are the most right or the ones with the loudest voice due to financial backing?

There are a lot of doctors, scientists, and news agencies that have different opinions.

 

[Jason__G]

Hopefully, people will learn to understand that just because a video is well-done, it doesn’t mean that it is correct. An argument that is compelling and well-presented may not be accurate, or complete. A good speaker may not be delivering good data. We all need to learn to analyze what we are being told and learn how to find more accurate and complete sources of information.

 

[SgtTanner]

Yes, but in your previous post, you made it sound that unless someone says something that puts your life in danger, then they can say anything they want and the First protects them.

That is NOT true...

Its also not true that libel and slander need to be proven...the idiot that says something libelous or slanderous, has to PROVE that what they said isn't slander or libel. They said it, now prove it...if they cant, they're guilty.

Can you cite a source that says that in a libel or slander suit, the burden of proof is on the defendant? That’s not generally the way it works in our judicial system. Can I go claim my neighbor said something false about me, and I win? Because if he didn’t say anything at all, how is he going to prove that?

On one occasion I have discussed this exact issue with an attorney. He advised that I (the plaintiff) would need to prove not only that the defendant made a false statement, but that they did so knowingly. Essentially, that the person would have had to admit lying.

Edited to add: seems that there are generally four elements that the plaintiff must prove.


These common law concepts provided the bases for libel and slander laws in the United States until well into the 20th century. While these laws varied from state to state, they generally provided that a libel or slander plaintiff needed to prove four elements to prevail:

1. That the defendant made a statement of fact to one or more other persons;
2. That the statement was about the plaintiff;
3. That the statement was defamatory; and
4. That the statement injured the plaintiff’s reputation.

From https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/997/libel-and-slander

So yes, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In other words, slander or libel are crimes that must be proven (as are all crimes in the United States).

 

[Laramie]

Hopefully, people will learn to understand that just because a video is well-done, it doesn’t mean that it is correct. An argument that is compelling and well-presented may not be accurate, or complete. A good speaker may not be delivering good data. We all need to learn to analyze what we are being told and learn how to find more accurate and complete sources of information.

Agree Jason. Just the same, just because a news agency has a lot of money it doesn't necessary mean they are correct.

 

[NDGuy]

I would ask you and everyone one question. Are the doctors, scientists, and news agencies you suggest we trust the ones that are the most right or the ones with the loudest voice due to financial backing?

There are a lot of doctors, scientists, and news agencies that have different opinions.

I think about what I read on sites like Johns Hopkins as well as conversing those I know that are personally dealing with the disease. I know not everything being reported is factual but it doesn't take a news agency or politician to tell me it's a serious issue.

I do know I will trust the experts in the medical field over anybody else. Otherwise, what is the point of having experts if you never believe or listen to them? The CDC and WHO weren't great with their initial response but does that mean we should disregard everything they say from here on out?

 

[BuzzH]

Can you cite a source that says that in a libel or slander suit, the burden of proof is on the defendant? That’s not generally the way it works in our judicial system. Can I go claim my neighbor said something false about me, and I win? Because if he didn’t say anything at all, how is he going to prove that?

On one occasion I have discussed this exact issue with an attorney. He advised that I (the plaintiff) would need to prove not only that the defendant made a false statement, but that they did so knowingly. Essentially, that the person would have had to admit lying.

Edited to add: seems that there are generally four elements that the plaintiff must prove.


These common law concepts provided the bases for libel and slander laws in the United States until well into the 20th century. While these laws varied from state to state, they generally provided that a libel or slander plaintiff needed to prove four elements to prevail:

1. That the defendant made a statement of fact to one or more other persons;
2. That the statement was about the plaintiff;
3. That the statement was defamatory; and
4. That the statement injured the plaintiff’s reputation.

From https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/997/libel-and-slander

So yes, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In other words, slander or libel are crimes that must be proven (as do all crimes in the United States).

Depends...if people exercise their first amendment "rights" by putting something that is considered libel or slander in print, are recorded, on record, etc. they're pretty well up chit creek without a paddle. They then have to prove their statements are NOT slander or libel.

If its a "he said, she said"...different story. Then you would have to prove somehow, what was said and it was damaging to you.

But, regardless, you don't need physical harm to be awarded damages by what some nitwit chooses to say under the false flag of being protected under the First from saying, writing, etc. anything they want.

 

[SgtTanner]

Depends...if people exercise their first amendment "rights" by putting something that is considered libel or slander in print, are recorded, on record, etc. they're pretty well up chit creek without a paddle. They then have to prove their statements are NOT slander or libel.

If its a "he said, she said"...different story. Then you would have to prove somehow, what was said and it was damaging to you.

But, regardless, you don't need physical harm to be awarded damages by what some nitwit chooses to say under the false flag of being protected under the First from saying, writing, etc. anything they want.

Agree on all that. If it’s out in the public domain, the crime might prove itself. And that damages don’t need to be physical. Could also be monetary or reputation or mental anguish I’m sure.

I guess whether libel and slander are consequences of free speech or limits on free speech is up for debate. I believe it’s the former, but I could be wrong. Either way, libel and slander are only in play if they can be proven. And they cannot always be proven.

Thanks - appreciate the thoughtful debate.

 

[Laramie]

I think about what I read on sites like Johns Hopkins as well as conversing those I know that are personally dealing with the disease. I know not everything being reported is factual but it doesn't take a news agency or politician to tell me it's a serious issue.

I do know I will trust the experts in the medical field over anybody else. Otherwise, what is the point of having experts if you never believe or listen to them? The CDC and WHO weren't great with their initial response but does that mean we should disregard everything they say from here on out?

I agree that it's a very serious issue. No matter what angle you look at Covid-19, it's serious.

What makes a person an expert in their field and how do you pick which ones to trust? I'm asking seriously because if you are willing to look deep, you will see a lot of experts are in disagreement. The one's currently with the loudest voice are the one's who follow the popular narratives. I'm not saying they are right or wrong but I think we owe it to ourselves, and the rest of society, to at minimum try to look at all sides. In my opinion, there can be no experts for something that has never been so I don't trust any of them. It's human nature to want to trust. We want to believe something but the reality is everyone is learning right now so nobody has all the answers.

 

[NDGuy]

but the reality is everyone is learning right now so nobody has all the answers.

That's a fair take for sure.

But when the overwhelming majority disagree with someone like the 2 DRs that posted that youtube link and were immediately disowned by their own organizations I think you can safely disregard and chastise those who post it and state it's truth.