Lurker > OrangeWizard

Xavier_On_High posted...

Because, like all Neo-Nazis, he's a disgusting coward.

Or... Maybe he's not a neo-nazi?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

"The holocaust isn't real and Jews control everything. Immigrants are replacing white people, and minorities are innately inferior." - Stonetoss Comics

"Why isn't he communicating that he's a nazi?" - You

lmfao

That's my point. If the author is actually making comics with these views, why does he deny it on his /about page?

COVxy posted...

Lol, you have no idea who idea how science works.

I'm just going by what they said in their letter. They would know how science works better than anyone on GameFAQS, having many published papers under their collective belt.

Stewman_Magoo posted...

Oh ok let's take them at their word then.

Feel free to cite dissenting opinions on the issue of Frontier's retraction process from other scientists.

MutantJohn posted...

Even when there's other studies that prove it incorrect, you don't leave misinformation published in a journal.

But that's not what happened in this case. It's not merely the retraction that caused them to leave, it was how it was retracted, and it was retracted in a very unscientific manner, they claim.

COVxy posted...

When a paper gets retracted like that, it's because other scientists write responses and letters to the editor requesting retraction.

That's not how science works, though. It's not a shouting match. If scientists think that the conclusion is wrong, then they should conduct their own studies and prove it with science, not rhetoric.

You are exactly stating the reasons why Malone and others had a problem with this: this isn't science.
That's why they resigned.

COVxy posted...

Yes, as it turns out.

So then, just because the paper was retracted, it doesn't necessarily mean that there was anything wrong with the paper. It just means that the editor removed it for arbitrary reasons, because the editor has that power.

Hey that's exactly the problem that Malone and 3 others had with the retraction. It all comes full circle.

COVxy posted...

Which is a wordy statement to say "we disagree with [this particular] editorial retraction". Editorial retractions happen all the time.

Not in scientific journals. The "editor" shouldn't just have unilateral power to remove any paper for arbitrary reasons. Think of the implications of that:

"This journal says that vapes is bad for you, but the vape industry is implying that they'll grease my palms if I retract it. Yoink!"
And then the new story comes out "JUNK SCIENCE article that says that VAPES are BAD is RETRACTED!" with the misleading implication that vapes aren't bad for you.

That would be such a gross perversion of science and any journal that has such "standards" wouldn't be worth the digital paper it's printed on.

On the other hand, if what you're saying is true, that "the editor" can just retract anything because they feel like it, then that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that a retracted paper has anything wrong with it. Any such paper could be perfectly good science, and it only means that "the editor" removed it on a whim.

COVxy posted...

Yes, that's my bad. He's pushed ivermectin and stepped down from an editor position because it was outrageous that a fradulant paper on ivermectin was retracted.

They said why they resigned in the paper:

The scientific process requires fair, open, and transparent peer review to proceed effectively and efficiently particularly at this time and for this topic. The actions of Frontiers in this matter clearly violate well established norms and processes for peer review and publication of scientific works and intellectual contributions, and instead have substituted a unilateral, arbitrary, and capricious process. On behalf of our peers, our institutions, and our scientific and medical colleagues we cannot allow this precedent to remain unchallenged. In our opinion, these unfortunate events constitute gross editorial misconduct by Frontiers.

COVxy posted...

Because this is the same dude that's on fraudulant Ivermectin papers?

Which papers?

AFAIK he and four others, resigned from a board because an Ivermectin paper was removed. They didn't write the papers

https://www.hartgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ResignationsFrontiers.pdf

IMNOTRAGED posted...

there's been 30+ years of research and development of the technology without his involvement. There's no reason to listen to anything this guy has to say about anything

Are you assuming he just rested on his laurels and coasted for those 30+ years? Listen to the podcast to hear his account of how active his career has been, or read his resume on the site.

AngelicRadiance posted...

Notice how he isn't alone in any of those patents?

He worked on it, he didn't "invent" it, it's not the fucking lightbulb

I don't think one needs to create something alone in order to claim to be the inventor of a thing.

AngelicRadiance posted...

"You're just not smart enough to understand"

You're going all in huh?

No, I believe you're fully smart and capable enough to know what "critical thinking" is, but I just think you haven't learned it yet. Perhaps you weren't taught it in school? I don't know.

TMOG posted...

So exactly what I said

If that's your understanding of it, so be it, but I disagree.

AngelicRadiance posted...

No he didn't lol

Here's a list of his papers and patents
https://www.rwmalonemd.com/general-4

Glob posted...

Plus, you know, Socrates was put to death for that shit.

Does that prove him wrong?

TMOG posted...

What the actual fuck makes you think this counters anything we just said

I'm sorry, I can't break it down for you any further. You simply do not know what critical thinking is, and I am not a good enough teacher to explain it to you.

spanky1 posted...

Pretty ironic of you to say that, since the JWs literally forbid you from looking at apostate material (anything critical of JWs) on threat of disfellowship.

It's true!

TMOG posted...

Okay, I'll play along, what exactly did you mean

That being banned from Twitter, for example, could have a "severe impact on [one's] ability to communicate directly to the populace", and on the basis of that impact, that's a good argument for why freedom of speech should be protected online.

TMOG posted...

Telling their members to reject what the lying mainstream is telling you and think for yourself is LITERALLY how cults recruit gullible people into their ranks.

AngelicRadiance posted...

Nah because you ended up in the cult because you were just "doing your own research" AKA ignoring all the evidence and choosing your own conclusion.

Oh wow, so you guys really don't know what critical thinking is.

"Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking."

"Socrates established the fact that one cannot depend upon those in "authority" to have sound knowledge and insight. He demonstrated that persons may have power and high position and yet be deeply confused and irrational. Socrates maintained that for an individual to have a good life or to have one that is worth living, he must be a critical questioner and possess an interrogative soul."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

smh my head

TMOG posted...

You know exactly what you were saying there.

Ah, the old "I can't prove that you were doing what I'm accusing you of doing, but you know what you did"

Put that tired old argument back where you found it and stop gaslighting.

DeadBankerDream posted...

Found the conspiracy nutter butter.

AngelicRadiance posted...

Because he can't admit being wrong.

Do you think cults encourage you to "do your own research"?
Or do you think they forbid you from looking stuff up on your own?

What do you think critical thinking is?

TMOG posted...

The First Amendment doesn't apply to Twitter

I didn't say it did. Please read more carefully in the future

I would sooner trust someone who is encouraging me to do my own research and come to my own conclusion, than someone who wants to forbid me from doing that.

The former shows that he is secure in his conclusion and the evidence for it, and knows that, no matter how hard you try, you cannot prove him wrong.

The latter shows that he is being scared of being proven wrong, and does not want you to learn from any source but him.

masterpug53 posted...

Do you think Trump's twitter ban didn't have a severe impact on his ability to communicate directly to the populace?

That sounds like a pretty good argument for why one's freedom of speech needs to be protected even on the internet.

Uh oh, since we're judging art by the artist, I guess we can't like The Owl House anymore.

Nu_Jersey_Devil posted...

Here's a suggestion....don't listen to his information.

BignutzisBack posted...

You could always just not listen to him you know?

They aren't. They're making up their minds after listening to 2nd and 3rd hand stories about how "evil" he is. They heard it in the news or read an article about it and now they're convinced.

How many people actually listened to the whole Dr Malone podcast, here?
I did, AMA.

indica posted...

Ok. You equated "Black Lives Matter" with "personal stuff" and "going wild." Feel better? Everyone still knows what you're saying... >_>

Yes, we do, and it's not what you're implying

BlackMcCoy posted...

TIL what service a company provides and the workplace policy for its employees are the same thing

I'm glad to have helped you learn that.

What, you thought that you were allowed to wear whatever you want and say whatever you want while at work, while representing the company?

"They're a private business they can do what they want"
"Your free speech rights aren't being taken away"
...and other excuses people trot out to defend big tech companies whenever they censor someone for speech they don't like.

goldenBoi45 posted...

I don't get why people suddenly trust Big Pharma when it fits their "side's" narrative.

You just answered your own question.

Have you tried white pepper, though? It's different, but great in its own right.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/9/6/AAJBROAACFUw.jpg

*shudders*

DarkBuster22904 posted...

And yet in practice, the governing body has been going to battle in courts worldwide for years to defend their confirmed digital record of confessed child predators who are protected within the church under "two witness" doctrines.

Let any who have done something illegal be punished for it.

Kakapo posted...

@DeadlyNinjaBees this is definitely a topic

He posts on the religion board, too. He's calmed down a lot since I first met him.

hockeybub89 posted...

It's like saying you "respect her choices"

I do respect her choices.

AceMos posted...

yes yes you did say it

you say i cant have any relationships so yes you are saying i will be damned to nothingness

The only accurate part of your post is that I did say that one who is homosexual and still wants to live by bible standards would have to remain single.

I didn't say that anyone would be damned for this or any other sin. I'm not the one who decides that.
What I did say on that subject was this:

Acts 24:15 "And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous"

God will judge fairly. Those who are destroyed will deserve it. Those who aren't, won't.

I have not said that. If anything, I said the opposite.

Zeeak4444 posted...

@OrangeWizard

what do you guys do about mosquitos and shit?

like, is it that youre not willingly putting other blood in your body or something else?

Correct, it's that we're not willingly putting other blood in our bodies.
Even if we kill and animal and bleed it, some blood still remains in the body. It's impossible to get it all out. This is apparently good enough for God, because that's all that God commanded us to do when it comes to animals. He didn't tell us to go to extreme lengths to squeeze out every last drop of blood before we could eat meat.

AceMos posted...

why does you religion and god cover up sexual abuse of minors

You've never actually asked this as a question before, just stated it as if it were a fact. But since you're asking now, I'd be happy to answer.

We don't, or at least, we're not supposed to. If we do, then that's wrong, and we would disavow those who did it.

Here's how we handle child sexual abuse:

https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

sutree posted...

Do JWs have any particular beliefs about vaccines?

Our only belief is that it's a personal decision that each one should make for themselves.
We have tangentially related beliefs, like being good citizens who obey authority, and who respect the gift of life, not only for ourselves, but for our neighbors as well.

Duncanwii posted...

Why do you support a monster who intentionally creates people different so that they are doomed to go to hell? Doesnt that at all bother you?

Good question! This is actually based on the assumption that God creates each individual person. We don't believe that he does. We believe that he only created two people, Adam and Eve. They made the decision to sin, got kicked out of Eden, and then passed down sin and imperfection to their children.

We don't believe in hell, as I said before, nor do we believe that anyone is doomed because of how they were born. Like Mewtwo said, the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It's what you do with the gift of life that defines you.

If anyone has any more questions, I'm here, and I'd be happy to answer them here or on the religion board.

Duncanwii posted...

Homosexuality is not a choice. You can stop being gay as much as you can make yourself be gay. It isnt possible. By punishing those who are gay for being that way you are punishing an innocent for something completely outside their abilities to control. Its wrong.

AceMos posted...

orange your religion says im damned to nothingness because im attracted to other woman

sexuality is not a choice

Like I said earlier in post #42:

The bible I read actually says that the act of intercourse between a man and another man is the thing that is the sin, not simply "being gay".

If someone who is gay also wanted to live by bible's standards, they would need to abstain from sex or relationships.

Duncanwii posted...

Does your religion have an afterlife or not? Because you cannot justify what you're saying with "death is death" if you're excluding people for things they have no control over. Its cruel.

What do you mean by "things they have no control over"? Are you assuming that "everyone that isn't a Jehovah's Witness will be destroyed forever"? We don't believe that will be the case.

Acts 24:15 "And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous"

God will judge fairly. Those who are destroyed will deserve it. Those who aren't, won't.

Duncanwii posted...

Ok. I can see how the idea that you're going to disappear and become nothing for something completely outside their control might piss some people off.

But that's just what death is, isn't it?

Duncanwii posted...

I dont know I can see how the idea that you're going to be tortured forever for something completely outside your control might piss some people off.

We don't actually believe that anybody will be tortured forever. We don't believe that hell exists.
The wicked will simply die and stop existing, that's all.

AceMos posted...

the god you worship says its a sin for me to be gay

The bible I read actually says that the act of intercourse between a man and another man is the thing that is the sin, not simply "being gay".

If someone who is gay also wanted to live by bible's standards, they would need to abstain from sex or relationships.

Talas posted...

You guys are really being pointlessly hostile to this dude. He's answering questions and not pushing his faith on you. I've had nothing but annoying experiences with JW people but this guy is doing you a kindness by explain his religion to you by answering questions YOU asked him and you're kinda being shitty to him.

It's cool, I've been posting on this site's religion board (https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/263-religion) for over a decade. Nothing phases me anymore.

hockeybub89 posted...

Food production is pretty cool, but before we go and distribute it to the starving people let's have a fun little thought experiment about what would happen if the food was made of people or an evil government entity was using food and starvation to control us. Wouldn't that be pretty bad? Not saying it's true, but please let's just talk it out first. It's not hurting anyone to just ask questions.

Yeah, let's.

First of all, I would want to have a separate body in charge of checking that food is safe and not made of people. As for "food and starvation" being used to control us, I would want it to be legal for people to be able to grow their own food so that they aren't reliant on "government-produced food" to be able to live.

Interestingly enough, America does not have a "right to food", unlike other countries.

hockeybub89 posted...

Absolutely disgusting to call it a sin for someone to be saved by modern medicine.

We are not opposed to modern medicine, just blood transfusions. Thankfully in many cases, there are alternatives to receiving transfusions, which we would happily use.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

I've never needed a mask to cover my desire to stuff reactionary influencers and anti-vaxxers into prisons.

Okay.
Well that's pretty totalitarian.

GeraldDarko posted...

So where's all the outrage? It seems like this is all political theater.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you restate that?

hockeybub89 posted...

How can you justify people being denied heaven for receiving life-saving blood transfusions?

The bible says that blood is sacred and belongs to God ( Genesis 9:3,4; Leviticus 17:11), and therefore, it should be be discarded, not used by humans. It would be a sin to eat, use, or otherwise put someone else's blood into our bodies.

So we don't eat blood pudding, and we reject blood transfusions for this reason. We would consider it a sin.

Whether or not one is "denied heaven" for this is not up to us, and thus, not a question we can answer.

AceMos posted...

and again what does that mean

im autistic are you saying i need to be "fixed" cus i sure as fuck dont want that

but ppl like you see that as a flaw and a defect

If you would be worried that God would somehow make you less happy by making you "perfect" according to his definition, I don't think you have to worry about that. God is knows everything and has the power to do everything, which includes making you as happy as possible.

CyricZ posted...

Your very first post in this topic is doing precisely that.

I think you must have misread it, then, because that was not what I was doing.

AceMos posted...

so orange wizard you failed to define perfect

I attempted to answer your question in post #16. "we will be living in a such a manner that we will not suffer or die. There will be no more wars or disease or hunger and we will all live in peace"

If you would like me to do so in fewer words, I'll say "Perfection: without flaw or defect"

CyricZ posted...

All I suggest is that this fantasy thought experiment of yours is pointless and disrespectful to those who have died as a result of this very real issue of casting those trying to prevent the spread of a deadly virus as being authoritarian.

I'm not casting anyone as anything. You're jumping to conclusions.

Dreepapult posted...

They also believe in the false prophet Ellen White

I have never heard of her. Looking up her page on Wikipedia, I think you're confusing us with Seventh-day Adventists.