26 Responses to “Free Speech”

1. Paul McMahon, on November 28th, 2020 at 1:55 PM Said:

   They did not, however, challenge the accuracy of the data or its conclusions. In other words, the article was deleted because it didn’t fit the proper narrative

   No, there are no ‘in other words’

   The blog is stating that because they didn’t do A then B must be the reason:

   https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Ignorance

2. Patrick Van Roy, on November 28th, 2020 at 3:46 PM Said:

   the post is not about what the report did or didn’t say……

   it is about censorship

3. Seamus, on November 28th, 2020 at 3:46 PM Said:

   “it is about censorship”

   Who censored it? Maybe the author realised it was bollocks and took it down.

4. Seamus, on November 28th, 2020 at 3:53 PM Said:

   I just checked. It hasn’t been deleted. The Johns Hopkins Newsletter removed it in raw form from their website, explained their decision and allowed a link to the article to be carried on their website. Hardly censorship.

5. Patrick Van Roy, on November 28th, 2020 at 3:53 PM Said:

   It helps if you read things……

   On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”

6. Patrick Van Roy, on November 28th, 2020 at 3:54 PM Said:

   The Author stands by her work.

7. Seamus, on November 28th, 2020 at 3:55 PM Said:

   “The Author stands by her work.”

   Bully for her. The Johns Hopkins Newsletter doesn’t. As is their right.

   “It helps if you read things……”

   It would help if you didn’t just publish far-right conspiracy theory sites like Pajamas Media.

8. Patrick Van Roy, on November 28th, 2020 at 4:00 PM Said:

   yes yes I should from far-left conspiracy theory sites like NYTs, WAPO, and the BBC.

9. Paul McMahon, on November 28th, 2020 at 4:08 PM Said:

   The post is not about what the report did or didn’t say……

   Then why include the report that I literally quoted from?

   I just checked. It hasn’t been deleted. The Johns Hopkins Newsletter removed it in raw form from their website, explained their decision and allowed a link to the article to be carried on their website. Hardly censorship.

   So, a lot of far right exaggerated balls, then?

10. Seamus, on November 28th, 2020 at 4:12 PM Said:

    “yes yes I should from far-left conspiracy theory sites like NYTs, WAPO, and the BBC.”

    None of those newspapers or broadcasters are either far-left or conspiracy theory sites. This is normally where I would ask for one lie etc… from those publications and you would then offer some bullshit excuse as to why you can’t provide one single lie. But we all know (including you Patrick) that you are talking bollocks here. At least be decent enough to admit it.

    “So, a lot of far right exaggerated balls, then?”

    Indeed. Did you really expect it to be anything else?

11. Paul McMahon, on November 28th, 2020 at 4:23 PM Said:

    Did you really expect it to be anything else?

    Nope but I like to think that Pat posts this transparently shallow rubbish as a means to provoke debate rather than blindly believing such stupidity.

12. Colm, on November 28th, 2020 at 4:28 PM Said:

    Surely if the article can still be accessed it hasn’t been censored ?

13. Phantom, on November 28th, 2020 at 6:53 PM Said:

    Yet another misunderstanding of what censorship means

    The editor in Chief of that newsletter decides what is printed in it, no one else.

    If they choose not to print a piece , the author hasn’t been censored by anyone

14. Patrick Van Roy, on November 28th, 2020 at 8:43 PM Said:

    If you’re to stupid to understand or even see that information is being suppressed.

    You don’t deserve ANY information…… you’re a drone already.

15. Seamus, on November 28th, 2020 at 8:54 PM Said:

    “If you’re to stupid to understand or even see that information is being suppressed.”

    Or we can look past the far-right bullshit peddlers that you get your views from and actually see what is happening. The story is still on their website, it can still be accessed and viewed. How is that suppression?

16. Patrick Van Roy, on November 28th, 2020 at 9:02 PM Said:

    as I said……

17. Seamus, on November 28th, 2020 at 9:16 PM Said:

    Considering your comments on the other thread you really can’t lecture anyone on free speech or censorship.

18. Patrick Van Roy, on November 28th, 2020 at 9:48 PM Said:

    Considering your comments on both threads it is obvious that even as brilliant as you are you have huge areas where the simplest things are beyond your grasp.

    Here you refuse to see the basic truth that systematic censorship of non-pc speech is taking place across the entire American Society. It is a danger to the Republic. The free expression of opposing views is crucial to our society and it is being removed. Sometimes the removal is successful sometimes it is not. The fact that it is attempted is the threat.

    On the other thread you refuse or just simply fail to grasp that I will not be called a Liar. You can call me an asshole and you can say I’m wrong. I won’t be called a liar and as the caretaker of this site I have PERMISSION to both set rules and enforce them.

    I do this very rarely Seamus. I have been able to do this for years and never have. I don’t care about what any of you say or feel about me, but I will not be called a Liar.

    You are a smart and a decent man. I find it hard to believe that you neither understand or respect that.

19. Seamus, on November 28th, 2020 at 9:51 PM Said:

    “You are a smart and a decent man. I find it hard to believe that you neither understand or respect that.”

    Because neither of them are the case. Dave didn’t call you a liar. That is clear as day to anyone who reads the thread. And yet you are threatening to censor him for doing something that he didn’t do. Like Seimi before him all he did was disagree with you. This is sadly a regularly repeating pattern. You disagree with someone and can’t formulate a reasonable argument to actually disagree with them. So instead you pick a fight, make up some bullshit excuse for banning them and then ban them. And everyone can see through it.

    On the “systematic censorship” nonsense – the article is available the the website it was “censored” from. The only way one can argue for “systematic censorship” is to change the meaning of it.

20. Patrick Van Roy, on November 28th, 2020 at 10:15 PM Said:

    This is sadly a regularly repeating pattern. You disagree with someone and can’t formulate a reasonable argument to actually disagree with them. So instead you pick a fight, make up some bullshit excuse for banning them and then ban them.

    That is pure bullshit.

    I’ll argue, curse and fight with everyone of you. I always have were doing it right now you ass.

    I’ll take shit from anyone Seamus, to me it’s part of the fun. I don’t lie. I believe everything I say. Now that may make me the biggest idiot, and the biggest asshole in the world, but to accuse me of looking for reasons to ban people is pure bullshit.

    I’ve only ever drawn one line on this site in all the years I’ve been here.

    You don’t like it and that’s fine, but please don’t accuse me of looking for excuses to ban anyone. I don’t and I never will.

    You can deny it all you want. I could have banned/suspended anyone for years. Over those years I have had many many heated arguments with all of you yet you can’t name one person I have banned and until recently even revealed that I could do it. Without objection by the owner.

    So don’t say this…..This is sadly a regularly repeating pattern. You disagree with someone and can’t formulate a reasonable argument to actually disagree with them. So instead you pick a fight, make up some bullshit excuse for banning them and then ban them. because it’s pure bull and you know it is.

21. Seamus, on November 28th, 2020 at 10:17 PM Said:

    “You don’t like it and that’s fine, but please don’t accuse me of looking for excuses to ban anyone. I don’t and I never will.”

    Except that is clearly what is happening. Seimi didn’t call you a liar. He argued with you and you banned him. Dave didn’t call you a liar. He argued with you and you threatened to ban him. So the idea that you are banning people who break the rules is clearly not true. You are banning people, or threatening to ban people, and then trying to come up with an excuse for why you did it.

    “So don’t say this”

    Until you can give a reasonable explination for your actions (and you have failed to do so to date) then that is the most likely situation. So the ball is in your court. Why are you banning people and then accusing of them of behaviour they didn’t engage in?

22. Patrick Van Roy, on November 28th, 2020 at 10:24 PM Said:

    I’ve given reasonable explanations. I can’t help it if you don’t agree with them. That is your right to disagree.

23. Seamus, on November 28th, 2020 at 10:27 PM Said:

    “I’ve given reasonable explanations.”

    You haven’t. You, by way of explanations, have made false allegations. Now maybe you believe those false allegations to be true, or maybe you know those false allegations are false but believe making false allegations is reasonable, but very few other people do. And if you continue to make false allegations as pretext to unjustly ban people for having the gall to disagree with you then people are going to point that out.

24. Dogisgreat, on November 28th, 2020 at 10:50 PM Said:

    Should we be worried about a virus with such a terrifyingly low death rate. 0.2% I believe. Shouldn’t we just open up the country for business but shield the vulnerable only?

25. Dave Alton, on November 28th, 2020 at 10:53 PM Said:

    You have to laugh at the irony of Patrick posting the words ‘free speech’.

26. Allan@Aberdeen, on November 29th, 2020 at 7:23 PM Said:

    What does the John Hopkins article say?

    https://web.archive.org/web/20201126163323/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

    – Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

    – These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.

    It looks as though Covid is a hoax – nobody could have foreseen that