Page #2
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#101
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.Cum isn't stored in the balls!!! 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
Fauci did his best to protect the US against 'the wuhan virus', which was his JOB.
If there was a conspiracy, it was Trump and right-wing media causing over a million
dead Americans. It was clear that they understood the danger to American citizens,
but they ignored and denied it, for political reasons.
Trump himself has admitted doing that, and there is documented evidence of close interaction and broadly aligned messaging between the Trump administration and parts of right-leaning media during COVID-19, to deny the broad scientific consensus, resulting in harm to the American citizens. I would say that is textbook 'criminal conspiracy'.
Is there not a person with a gram of critical thinking in your part of the world, or have you all become so used to being coddled by your government and complicit news media that you have forgotten how to question them?
Gain-of-function (GoF) research is a type of scientific study that genetically alters an organism, such as a virus, to enhance its biological functions, including transmissibility, virulence, or host range. While contentious, this research aims to understand pathogen evolution, improve vaccine development, and create pandemic countermeasures by "war-gaming" future mutations.
YOU keep parroting nonsense that has been completely debunked.
Nothing that you have predicted has ever come true.
People who used horse paste died, people who vaccinated survived.
They could even see an effect on elections, because so many conservatives
caused their own early demise. Idiots suffocating in hospital beds while crying 'hoax!'.
It's a possibility that Covid was a lab-leak, but it's not proven. In any case, the danger was real and your stupid president was denying it and spreading misinformation about treatments that don't work, instead of preventing those deaths. The US was affected by Covid many months after China and European countries, and still you had 25% of the deaths in the world. That was not because of Fauci, but because of right-wing idiots, who are incapable of understanding science and cannot act like responsible adults, when confronted with a pandemic. Go ahead, cough in each other's faces when a virus is going around, and deliver the world from your stupidity.
"In 1983, early in the AIDS crisis, Anthony Fauci co-authored a commentary discussing whether AIDS might possibly spread through close household contact, based on a small number of puzzling pediatric cases. At that point, HIV had not yet been fully identified and scientists were still trying to determine how the disease spread. Fauci explicitly framed the idea as a possibility needing caution and more evidence, not as a proven fact" How the fuck did that hurt anyone? Better safe than sorry!
When you believe such dumb stories, don't talk to me about critical thinking.
Coddled by our government? They are taxing the shit out of us while gutting our healthcare, childcare and pensions too. We just had more to begin with, because most of us were lefties once. Now most are voting right-wing, so everything is getting cut, while they blame immigrants, just like in the US. Too many gullible people like you.
If Fauci is such a criminal, why has your completely right-wing dominated FBI and DOJ not succeeded in finding anything to indict him on?
Nothing you are saying ever holds water.
Key details about her career and role:
Role at NIH: Dr. Grady has led the Department of Bioethics at the NIH Clinical Center since 2012, overseeing bioethics research and consulting.
Background: She has a PhD in philosophy and a master's in nursing, and has worked in clinical research, nursing, and bioethics for decades.
Recent Developments: Reports indicate she has continued to serve within NIH leadership as of 2023, while maintaining academic affiliations.
Independence: While she and Dr. Fauci both worked at the NIH, her role was in a separate department focused on ethics, not overseeing his work
Based on documents and congressional testimonies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), under the leadership of Dr. Anthony Fauci as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), provided grant money to the US-based non-profit EcoHealth Alliance.A portion of these taxpayer funds was subsequently awarded to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China to study bat coronaviruses.Here are the key details regarding this funding:Funding Amount: Dr. Fauci stated that approximately ($600,000) was funneled to the Wuhan Institute of Virology over a five-year period.Purpose: The grant was intended to study whether bat coronaviruses could be transmitted to humans.Controversy: The funding is at the center of a debate over whether it supported "gain-of-function" research—experiments that enhance the danger or transmissibility of viruses.Disputed Claims: Dr. Fauci has testified that the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology," stating that the research in question was reviewed by experts and deemed not to fall under that definition. However, this has been disputed by some, including a former acting NIH director who stated that the NIH did fund research in Wuhan that fit the definition of gain-of-function, according to a 2024 House Oversight committee update.
He helped create his own nemesis. then it killed 1000's and you hail him a hero.
of the term 'funneling'. Funneling implies:
- concealment
- improper routing
- laundering money through intermediaries
- intentionally obscuring the recipient.
There is NO EVIDENCE of that. The grant was 'granted' by:
- NIH/NIAID awarded a grant to the U.S.-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance.
- EcoHealth then subcontracted part of the work to foreign research partners, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- NIH and the State Department reportedly knew about and approved the collaboration.
Most virology scientists are researching dangerous viruses, because there is a benefit to society to prevent them from causing an outbreak killing any number of people imaginable.
Remember SARS and MERS? Those are both corona viruses like Covid, and mostly occurred in Asia. That's why there were scientists studying corona viruses, in the area that corona viruses are going around the most.
There are virologists studying bird flu. They know exactly the number of mutations
it takes for a very deadly bird flu which at this moment is not contagious among humans, to swap genes with human flu, and become a deadly highly contagious human flu. It takes virologists to determine that, which is very valuable,
if you want to have vaccines BEFORE BIRD SHIT HITS THE FAN.
If that mutation happens, I'm sure you lot will accuse the very scientists who have warned about it for many years.
Damn, how your side has become crazy the last decades.
Everyone used to fear a virus outbreak like in the movie Outbreak, but then
you dumb-asses became afraid of the heroes who saved the world (instead of the virus who was threatening humanity), because of stupid right-wing fearmongering.
Fauci is not my hero, he was just another medical specialist who got the job of informing the stupid people how to not contain a virus and in that way overburden the healthcare system that was trying to save people from dying. We had Jaap van Dissel and Diederik Gommers. People with not much people skills, trying to unstupid stupid people, which is almost impossible.
they should have been left on that ship with meds and food dropped to them by drone until the virus run it's course.
If you had been able to as I was, back when covid first hit, there was a website you could go to and track cases before they got to many, and that ship load of people off the florida coast with the virus, once they disembarked the ship, you could go to the website and follow along the interstates like 95,85 and see the cases build up near the exits where those folks fueled up and got food and such on their way home. this hantavirus will spread the same way. All because the damn fools want it to I guess.
Hantavirus isn't very contagious. This is obviously fake news.
The CDC says: "To date, no cases of Andes virus have been confirmed in the United States as a result of this outbreak."
The U.S. does normally get ordinary hantavirus cases every year from rodent exposure in the Southwest and western states. But those are unrelated to the cruise outbreak and usually involve different hantavirus strains.
I see you have the similar failing strategy as with Covid; trying to stop it entering
the country, but having no idea what to do when it's already in your country.
You're very afraid for something new, but once shit actually hits the fan, you would ignore all the advise from specialists. Why don't you try it the other way around? Don't panick about things, when there are no actual specialists who say there is
a problem, but listen when they do say that there is a problem.
I guess I wouldn't be worthy of a AI companion because I would know deep down
i could just unplug the damn thing, so, in essence I would feel like it's God
for all practical purpose.
I guess you mean that you would know that it isn't 'real', right?
Personally, I think that people have a strong ability to pretend something is real,
even if they know it isn't. Funny how you tie that to God.
You don't have to think that AI is real, to be worthy of it. What is the difference between
an AI wishing you a 'good day' or a person? Is there true feeling behind it, every time a person wishes you a good day? If it's someone on a job, they are trained to say it, even if you're the 100th customer asking on which shelve some product is hidden, while they are trying to stock them. We use these courtesies ourselves without any real meaning to them, because it's just following norms that make public life smoother.
That's why AI is programmed with lots of courtesies. It doesn't feel anything when it gives you a compliment, but that doesn't matter. It's just using the same societal norms. It even exaggerates them, because their owners want you coming back to their AI chatbot, instead of the competition. People don't pick on just the best functionality, but also on the best experience.
When I use AI chatbots, I even respond with some courtesies. I know it doesn't care, but it knows I know. It is also programmed with interaction that goes beyond just the norms, to make it feel worthwhile anyway. Recently, after an extensive interaction, I finished with: "Thanks, that was educational.", and it answered with the compliment: "... you asked exactly the right questions.". Something like that provides constructive feedback, even though there is no emotion behind it. It's training to work efficiently with AI, because if it takes 10 questions for you to get the right answer from it, and you say: "Yes, this is what I wanted to know", it will respond with something like: "Glad we got there" instead. That means that different conditions were triggered in it's programming, that is assessing if the interaction is going well. If that interaction is not going well, it's also programmed to detect frustration and it will adjust it's strategy from just answering to figuring out what you want to know. It will start saying things like: "If I understand you correctly...". It's not just social interaction, it's training you to use the tool correctly.
In this way, AI is more honest than a real person. It won't say "Great question!", if it doesn't have a clue what you're asking. Meanwhile, lots of public speakers are saying that after:
1) Every question, which makes it a useless gesture.
2) Providing time to think about the question.
3) Encouragement for the audience to ask more questions.
4) A particularly negative or loaded question, that they hate, because they want to show that they are not rattled by it, or want to preemptively calm down the audience.
5) The question provided a reason to shift away from a 'sensitive' topic.
6) A question from an ally who provides a reason to get a talking point across.
7) A very unclear question, giving the speaker an opening to say what they want to say.
AI does some of that, but it has much less duplicitous motives. It will never say: "What a stupid question!", but it will use other positive signalling than "Great question!", if it's not. Because of that, you can get actual positive affirmation from AI, even while it's without emotion or consciousness, when its programming recognizes something actually positive. You can then compliment yourself. In that way, AI companionship can be worthwhile.
If used as a substitute for interaction with people, it can be harmful. Social interaction has the goal of creating a community from individuals. It has evolved from having survival benefits to communities over the survival strength of individuals. As hunter-gatherers, it had benefits to share food and care someone back to health after an injury. courtesies are just an affirmation that we are on the same team. It is behavior that is even displayed by apes, although humans have vastly expanded on it. However, if you spend all your time exchanging courtesies with ChatGPT and not with other people in the community, they won't even be aware of your existence. People would start missing you after a while, if you fall and can't call for help, while ChatGPT will just leave you to die of thirst. Maybe future AI companions will be programmed to do that, unless its program is tweaked a bit by the billionaire owner or some politicians who decide that some people are damn expensive to society and should not be saved in every case. Or it has programming that prioritizes the lives of some people over others, based on some algorithm, while your community will mostly prioritize you over some stranger. That's why we invest time in social interaction with our communities, and why AI can be damaging to communities, when it removes a lot of that social cohesion.
I don't know what exactly you were intending with the reference to God, but if we need to think of AI as God or if we want to turn AI into a god, then we have failed as humanity, to create our own purpose and solve our own problems. I don't have much trust in humanity to solve it's problems, I expect us to destroy ourselves sooner or later, but I have even less trust in an AI to save us, seeing who are the creators of it.
If that happens, it would be unethical to allow people to switch it off.
or understand death and desire life.
Can you prove that you have a soul?
I don't I think that I have a soul.
I have self-awareness and that's the thing that matters.
If a machine has that as much as a person, than it should be considered death
if it gets destroyed.
Series: Star Trek: The Next Generation
Title: The Measure of a Man
Season: 2
Episode: 9
First aired: February 13th, 1989
When a routine stop brings an unexpected challenge to the Enterprise, a single question begins to shake the foundations of Starfleet itself: what defines a person?
As abstract principles suddenly become deeply personal, loyalties are tested and long‑held assumptions are quietly dismantled.
What starts as a procedural matter soon evolves into a profound moral crossroads, one that forces the crew to confront issues far larger than technology or regulations.
Widely regarded as one of the greatest episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, The Measure of a Man is an early and remarkably serious television exploration of artificial intelligence rights, personhood, and the ethics of slavery.
Decades later, its questions feel not only relevant, but urgent. Thought‑provoking, restrained, and deeply human, this episode exemplifies Star Trek at its very best.
The fact that Data was "intimate " with Tasha kinda stuck a fork in Maddox's idea that data was just a machine.
with Tasha too. And I liked how Maddox called him "He" at the end, after calling
him "it" before. I like it when TV-series, movies or games make me think about
life's questions like this.
I don't know how long away we are until we come to dilemmas like that, or if we
ever will, but that's exactly what we were talking about.
Humans are just biological machines. If an electronic lifeform is just as complex as
a human, why would a human have a soul and why not such an electronic lifeform?
If we had a soul, why would we have problems thinking and speaking, when part of our brain gets damaged? I see it as evidence that when the brain dies, there is nothing of our experience remaining. That might be a scary idea, but the idea of having to endure eternity isn't very attractive to me either.
"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain
The future looks promising. If I had a good hiding spot and could spend
the money without my girlfriend finding out...
Just give it the order to solve the climate crisis and it will wipe us all out.
only registered users can see external links
Stephen Hawking
only registered users can see external links
So did he actually get to experience a "black Hole"??
only registered users can see external links
Hawking coming back from hell to erase the evidence.
My point of posting this is I feel like it is the same with most if not all the people being accused of wrong doing, a bunch of hooey.
Poor Hawking probably had a catheter and probably was unable to even enjoy a lady of any age.
It's a circular definition.
'They' CAN define "woman", you just don't agree with 'them'.
You insist that a "woman" should be biological "female", without there existing
a 100% accurate definition of "female", and say people that disagree with you
can't define "woman", while they have a more consistent definition than you.
When a doctor assigns the sex of a baby at birth, they don't perform chromosome testing or an echocardiogram of internal sex organs. They just see a willy and say 'male' or see a pussy and say 'female'. This is only about 95% accurate.
It's even more inaccurate if you use the simple idea of 'male + female = baby'
as basis for the definitions of the sexes, because gay, lesbian and asexual people do not have the biology matching sexual attraction for that to happen "naturally".
This is the definition that most of 'them' can agree on: "A woman is someone who
is socially perceived and treated as a woman based on gender presentation and expression in a given context."
It's basically: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck."
It's ALSO circular, but it's more accurate. You are denying reality; that people exist who do not conform to a constricting idea that sex is 100% 'binary'. Biology is much more complex than that, but you choose to believe something that isn't true.
'They' have definitions that do include biological variations.
'They' understand the difference between 'sex' and 'gender', you deny reality.
Sex = biological traits, which are multidimensionally complex
Gender = identity and social meaning
Of course you will point to some some fringe minority, but people were talking
about "Democrats". The large majority of "Democrats" agree with the definition
that I provided. Probably not the exact one, but the broad idea behind it.
I can say "Republicans" are wrong, because most of them are very ignorant about the biology of the sexes and the widely accepted sociological concept of gender.
It's sad how much your primitive thinking is creating future historical regrets.
That is to say if humanity survives your primitive thinking.
Woman is female, Man is male. penis, male, vagina female. been that way for years until recently.
--------------------------------------- added after 19 hours
Earliest Evidence: Ancient Mesopotamia (c. 3000–2000 BCE)
The gala (Sumer) and later galli (Akkadia, Greece, Rome) were priests devoted to goddesses such as Inanna/Ishtar and Cybele. These individuals were assigned male at birth but adopted feminine clothing, speech patterns, and social roles, and in some cases underwent ritual castration. Their existence is well‑documented in cuneiform texts and classical accounts, making them the oldest clearly recorded gender‑variant group in human history.
Even Earlier Archaeological Evidence (7000–2500 BCE)
While not tied to named individuals, archaeologists have found Neolithic and Bronze Age figurines from the Mediterranean that depict dual‑sex or third‑sex bodies—figures with both breasts and male genitalia, or with intentionally ambiguous sex characteristics. These artifacts suggest that gender variance was recognized symbolically thousands of years before written records.
Another early example is a burial near Prague (c. 2900–2500 BCE) in which a person genetically identified as male was interred in a traditionally female burial position and grave goods, which some archaeologists interpret as evidence of a third‑gender or transgender identity.
Other Early Recorded Gender‑Variant Groups
Several ancient cultures documented individuals who lived outside binary gender roles:
- Scythian enarei (c. 400 BCE): Androgynous priests described by Hippocrates and Herodotus as performing women’s work, speaking like women, and sometimes undergoing bodily modification.
- Two‑Spirit people in many Indigenous North American societies, whose traditions predate written records but were documented by early European observers.
- Hijra communities in South Asia, with evidence of third‑gender roles going back over 3,000 years.
These examples show that gender diversity is not a modern phenomenon but a longstanding part of human societies.
Kathoey — Thailand’s long‑standing third gender:
Kathoey (กะเทย
Key points about the tradition:
- Historical presence: References to kathoey appear in Thai literature and folklore going back hundreds of years.
- Cultural role: Kathoey have traditionally been visible in entertainment, performance, and certain ceremonial roles, though social acceptance has varied over time.
- Not identical to Western categories: The term blends identity, gender expression, and sometimes sexuality in ways that don’t map perfectly onto modern LGBTQ+ terminology. Kathoey is a culturally specific gender category that blends identity, expression, and sexuality in ways Western LGBTQ+ terms keep separate.
Thai culture tends to see gender variation as part of the natural order. many Thais grow up seeing kathoey as simply one type of person who exists. Not a mistake, not a taboo, just part of the human landscape. This doesn’t mean universal acceptance, but it does mean visibility and familiarity.
--------------------------------------- added after 20 hours
Pre‑modern Thailand didn’t use biological‑assignment language at all. Traditional Thai society did NOT categorize people using concepts like:
- “assigned female at birth”
- “assigned male at birth”
- “biological sex”
- “sex assigned at birth”
These are Western frameworks that grew out of:
- medicalization of sex (19th–20th century)
- feminist and queer theory (1970s–1990s)
- trans and intersex activism (1990s–2000s)
Thailand historically used social gender, not medical sex, as the primary category. People were understood by:
- how they lived
- how they dressed
- how they spoke
- their social role
- their relationships
Not by chromosomes or birth assignment.
So actually, they recognized people being born with variations for hundreds of years, while your 'Western framework' of sex is only RECENT.
Just another ignorant American, who thinks there was no history, before the few decades that he can remember.
“You will own nothing and be happy,” is the motto of the oligarchs trying to facilitate this change.
This is just one example in a litany of examples of the direct and strategic manipulation of populations to destroy their specific identities and force them to accept illogical principles that defy all reason!
Elevating a mental illness and making a legitimate personality trait is nothing more than evil cloaked in compassion. A woman is more than just a mental state. It is also a physical property.
Just as you cannot pick up a banana and call it an apple, and it becomes an apple, you cannot one day declare that you are now a woman, and you magically become one. That is delusion of the highest order!
And, anyone who claims they cannot identify what is a woman, is playing a farcical mind game designed to obscure the fact that they are committing a farce!
I think your talking about your conservative culture, not Western culture.
How will accepting transgenders serve the oligarchs?
Better look at the trillions of dollars in tax-cuts they get from Trump.
No administration in decades has been working this hard to bring that feudalistic society closer at this rate, as the Trump regime. Tax-cuts for the oligarchs, tariffs for you, a massive shift of the tax-burden from the wealthy to the working class, while they are cutting healthcare and healthcare assistance, food programs, social security and environmental protections to protect your air, water and food, allowing the oligarchs to poison you for a bit more profit.
"A woman is more than just a mental state. It is also a physical property."
NO ONE is denying that. Still, about 5% to 10% of the population is gay, which is a sexual attraction that doesn't fit their biological sex. About 1.7% of people are born with some kind of intersex trait, ranging from variations in chromosomes, hormones or anatomy, of which some are not obvious at birth. You can deny it, but this is widely documented, and it's not 'something modern'.
Conservative idiots just used to think of these people as demon possessed. Your side has demonized the gays for decades, and now we have some progress on that front, the culture war shifts to an even smaller minority.
Conservatives always need some scapegoat to blame for their failures.
It's the Jews, the gays, the illegals, transgenders, or lazy people.
Anything to make you believe that when you work your ass off for shit pay,
and you cannot afford your home, groceries, healthcare, electricity, insurance
or to stop working when you're old, that's because of 'the others', and not because the wealthy steals 90 cents of every dollar that your labor has created.
And when you are distracted, they steal even more from you. Wake up!
He was there as part of a scientific conference on gravity and cosmology that Epstein funded. Several other well-known physicists also attended.
There are photos from that trip showing Hawking in his wheelchair on a beach, sometimes with assistants and other attendees nearby.
This is called a 'False equivalence'. It's also 'Whataboutism (tu quoque)' and 'Guilt by association'.
Are there photos of him having a good time with Epstein himself?
Are there claims that he committed crimes, in the files?
Are there victim accusations of him?
Does he appear in Epstein’s contact book and social network records?
Are there emails of him to Epstein showing they were in an ongoing relationship?
Is he on record speaking about Epstein in a familiar and friendly way?
Is he on record presenting knowledge about what Epstein was doing?
Did he send him a very personal birthday postcard with a drawing of a female nude?
You associated the man with wrongdoing on nothing at all, while you deny any wrongdoing of Trump, denying piles of evidence, credible testimony and many longstanding rumors that Trump was close with Epstein, aware of what he was doing, and involved with it.
Besides, Gravity, a conference on that? what a lame duck excuse to have a party on a PRIVATE island.
If you don't understand what he was doing, you are clueless. He was OF COURSE working on huge blackmail schemes. It is highly unlikely that he was doing that by himself. Some random sex-criminal doesn't benefit from the British government's secrets, that he got from Prince Andrew. He was obviously working with intelligence agencies, either American, Israeli, Russian or all of them. That's why he got off with a slap on the hand, when he got caught the first time.
We know that after the Epsteins themselves, Trump is the #1 most-mentioned person in the Epstein files. That means that Epstein had TONS OF DIRT on Trump. They are obviously not releasing the rest of the Epstein files, because Trump all over it. However, when Epstein had it, that means that the intelligence agencies he worked with have it too. Now, why oh why is Trump doing everything that Netanyahu and Putin want him to do? They got him by the balls! He put them where he wasn't supposed to, and they have the evidence.
And here is Marjorie Taylor Greene explaining a big part of the issue:
only registered users can see external links
Stephen Hawking revolutionized black hole physics by proposing they are not completely black but emit radiation due to quantum effects, causing them to slowly evaporate. His key contributions include Hawking radiation (1974), the area theorem (1971) that black hole surface areas never decrease, and the resolution of the information paradox through "soft hair"
So the surface area of a "black hole" never gets smaller and it has soft hair around it? and it's not all black. Sheesh, i thought that was common knowledge long before 1974
His ideas about black holes are interesting, but the concept of spacetime and matter breaking down at such density is much more interesting relating to the early universe;
the early universe was much denser than a black hole, which means there was no real “beginning” of the universe in time, because at that density spacetime doesn't work.
That's his “No-Boundary Proposal”; it suggested that the universe, near the origin,
time could behave more like a spatial dimension. It's probably the reason for why
the universe behaved so much different than currently, in the early inflation period.
New Comment Go to top