A new kind of Ebola?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 02:42
VIEWED: 11272
PAGE 5 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 10, 2014 4:19 AM

But then you get all wigged out by a source that I linked because of OTHER articles in it, because of the adverts next to it, because of the name of the site itself, when everything in that article could actually be traced back to other (what YOU would consider to be) "more credible" sources.

The reality is that you reject certain pieces of information, not because it doesn't make sense or provide any insight or can't be verified but JUST because of where it came from. And you accept information the same way.

When I posted the pictures of the victims in the Odessa Trades Union building, pictures which were too detailed to fake and which had a wealth of probative information, backed up by videos taken from multiple sources outside of the building, I got a ration of shit for posting PICTURES! Pictures with lines and circles drawn on them!

REALLY???

Also, you will notice that I almost never link to RT, so why the fuck do you keep bringing it up? What is wrong with you? You keep flogging a horse that's not dead, it doesn't even exist. You have this idee fixe - I can't tell if you really believe it yourself, or if you're trying out your skills of innuendo and strawmanning.

Finally, I've actually been pretty successful at predicting what's going to happen next.... certainly, much more than you, with all of your so-called caution about sources.

Afghanistan? Check
The collapse of Iraq? Check
The 2008 financial collapse? Check!

I think you wouldn't accept that gravity existed if a street-corner bum told you about it. You'd sniff his clothes and shut your ears, despite the fact that items reliably fall downwards.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:34 AM

Quote:
In crisis situations, rumour mills – long a prominent feature of daily life in Nigeria – take on a frenetic urgency. Add the push and reach of social media and the impact grows exponentially. The least any responsible government can do is make available accurate and credible information.

Yet when I attended a briefing by senior officials of the Lagos state government on the rising threat of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa’s most populated city yesterday, I found journalists struggling to confirm exactly how many lives had been affected by the outbreak so far.

The Lagos commissioner put the total number of confirmed cases (including fatalities) at eight, but the number released earlier in the day by the federal authorities in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, seven hundred kilometres away, was seven.

Given that the number victims of the worst Ebola outbreak in history had risen to at least 932 across four countries, according to the World Health Organisation, some might say a difference of one is a modest discrepancy.

But I imagine that not a few minds in the press briefing audience silently toyed with this thought: if there are two different figures, it must mean that at least one is wrong. And if one is wrong, then both could easily be wrong. If both are wrong, what else might be wrong?

A similar, albeit much worse scenario comes to mind. In the nine weeks it took Nigeria’s federal government to officially determine and announce the exact number of schoolgirls kidnapped by terrorists in northern Nigeria in April, several conflicting figures emerged. The profusion of different numbers permitted one false view to gain currency – the suggestion that perhaps it was all fiction, there were no girls missing, and the alleged abduction was a ruse meant to embarrass Nigeria’s president in front of the world.

Ten years ago, a number of Muslim-dominated states in northern Nigeria suspended polio vaccination programmes, alleging that the vaccines were a western strategy to render Muslim girls infertile. It took great effort by the federal government and the international community to mount an information campaign that would convince state governments and residents of those states that the rumours were false. By then of course the damage had been done – a sharp rise in polio infection rates followed.

Today, religion still holds great power in shaping crisis narratives. In response to the news that a Liberian man had brought the Ebola virus to Nigeria, a Pentecostal preacher took to Facebook to post a message claiming that “at the Name of Jesus, Ebola will bow out!”

The post drew loud condemnation, causing the preacher to add a clarification, insisting that he was “not in anyway an attempting to deny the existence of the virus in Nigeria, or to encourage anyone to seek interaction with the virus.”

But there was also strong support as well, for his views. One commenter posted: “God is not man, believe Him, He will defend His words.” Since then I’ve sighted at least one similar message circulating on mobile phones, saying that “Jesus brings life, Ebola brings death. Choose life!!!

In Liberia, where more than 300 people have been infected in the Ebola outbreak, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf this week called for a three-day stint of fasting and prayer to ask for divine intervention against the disease.

The implications are obvious. If Ebola victims choose to believe that the solution to Ebola actually lies in churches, mosques or with traditional healers (which, in the absence of a medical cure, is not such a farfetched scenario), they will flock to these places in search of healing, dramatically raising the chances of an outbreak of a real epidemic.

In the earlier stages of the outbreak, confusion about the origins of the disease combined with distrust of Western medical intervention to trigger anger and mass protests in Sierra Leone. Some relatives of victims kidnapped their loved ones from hospital, apparently in an attempt to offer them better treatment at home from traditional healers.

Go

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:27 AM

G's focus on 'sources' rather than facts strikes me as quintessential RWA.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
G's focus on 'sources' rather than facts strikes me as quintessential RWA.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

Actually G has shown his search for the truth no's no Ideologies. As for me I see every debate you engage in has you accusing the other "so you don't believe in facts then". For a while now the debate about who posts bull here has been solved 1kiki and it's you.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 10, 2014 12:22 PM

Quote:
You linked to a "End of America" web site as providing definitive information - "REALLY???" You really trust those obvious nut job sites?

No, I don't trust those websites and I don't expect you to, either. I DO expect you to validate the information using background knowledge, search routines, and your powers of observation and reason.

Quote:
You really trust that just because they cite Reuters that they haven't manipulated the info?

Actually, I DID check Reuters, and I expected you to do the same.

Quote:
I don't trust any media outlet, but

Well, you can stop right there. Do you know what "No... but" means? It means Yes". So, what you're saying is... I don't trust any media outlet but - yes, I do trust some.

I know what you're going to say: There are different levels of trust. That some sites are just more "reliable" than others. That you're not really "trusting", it's just based on your "experience", some sites are just more consistent.

Save your breath. According to you, there's no way to tell what's really going on, no way to predict the future, and therefore no way to judge whether a news source is reflecting reality or not. So all you have to go on is whether news sources agree with other mainstream sites, as far as I can tell.

Quote:
It wasnt necessarily for you, not everything is for you.
It builds a picture of the Russian press and what their civilians are being told. I would think you might be interested in that.

RT in English is definitely NOT for Russian audiences. Because Russian audiences don't read English, correct? So ... what's your point?

Quote:
Christ, you keep coming back to "I predicted..." get over yourself. These are real events affecting real people and you keep wanting brownie points for guessing. You are so far removed and safe you act like they only exist to help you prove what a brilliant person you are. It's not about you - do you get that?

No, of course it's NOT about me, altho you somehow keep making it that way!

Do you know anything about the scientific method? Prediction is at the heart of demonstrating whether a hypothesis is false, Here are predictions, based on hypotheses:

If you drop an apple, it will fall down.
NASA calculates where a planet will be next year.
A designed molecule should have a desired effect on a bacterium.
This economy will collapse in one year.
A quantum particle should exist with these specific properties.
The next species examined should show similar progression in evolutionary development.
Earthquakes occur where crustal plates collide.
Tomorrow will be warm and sunny.
The earth's temperature will rise 2 deg C in 20 years.

To the extent that a predictive model reflects reality, its predictions will be accurate. The use of predictions is to test the strength of the model. When I point out that my predictions HAVE come true (despite your insistence that nothing of the sort can be done) I'm simply trying to tell you that the models that I use are consistent enough with reality to be somewhat reliable. Where they fail is where they need to be corrected.

If you're at all interested in the assumptions and processes used for predictions (although I doubt it) I'd be happy to discuss them.

--------------
THUGR is a tyrant-loving pro-jihadist.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 10, 2014 12:24 PM

Quote:
So don't you think the 'my sources and more trustworthy than your sources' argument has been kind of thrashed to death now?

TOTALLY!

--------------
THUGR is a tyrant-loving pro-jihadist.

THGRRI

Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:00 PM

To read how some here claim they are not using unreliable sources is laughable. I will predict here and now it will take no time at all, for them to post opinions gathered from these propaganda sites they deny quoting. It is remarkable to me how in the last two months or so they have spewed the lies and misinformation coming from these sources to us who have been debating them, only to watch them be allowed to make an argument they do not. Bullshit….G, we have been seeing them follow the story lines coming from these news sources and pointing it out as we go. What’s to argue about? There is no discussion to be had. It is what they do and for them to say otherwise fits their profile and style of posting.

I will give you a hint. Whatever geopolitical policies the west and our allies pursue they will be countering with policies coming from the East. In order for them to learn what those policies are they will resource these corrupted news sources. Let’s not forget they post links to sites that if you follow them and read the story, you will see it does not say what they claim at all. Does that ring a bell with anyone here? They don’t even represent what we say to them accurately. Does that ring a bell with anyone here? Ever have to say I did not say that read it again? I don’t care what Sig or 1kiki posts about being fair. They are not even fair and honest in what they say about what we posted. Give me a break…..

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:10 PM

THUGR, you still don't get it, do you?

Huh. How can I make this pellucidly clear? This has been the pattern of our so-called discussions since they started:

"America has created great smoking clusterfucks in the mideast"- SIGNY
"You just hate America"- THUGR

"You can't develop a nation with bombs"- SIGNY
"You're a Russian-lover"- THUGR

"America shipped arms to jihdists"- SIGNY
"You're unpatriotic"- THUGR

"Here is a list of nations where we overthrew democracies and installed tyrannies"- SIGNY
"You just hate America" -THUGER

You never actually address the points that are being made. Instead, you derail the discussion using personal attacks. I think MAGONS said it best

Quote:
BTW Ad hominem means to attack the man (or woman) rather than address the argument. It doesn't mean you are right or wrong, but you've chosen to get personal rather than discuss the subject.

You use ad hominens and they're a well-recognized rhetorical trick around these parts. So welcome to the land of ad-hominems! I'll be bringing out several of them so you can try them on for size. After all, if you're not playing fair, why should I?

--------------
THUGR is a jarhead.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:12 PM

G

Quote:
I read your entire post thinking it was pretty well reasoned

So, I take it you agree with me?

Quote:
and then I get to the end and you add: "THUGR is a tyrant-loving pro-jihadist." That just takes the cake.

Or is this your attempt to run away, by objecting to something you never objected to from THUGR? (See above) Because (pssst!) your bias is showing.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE