Some perspective.According to the Office of National Statistics, there has been 1 death in Totnes and Dartington attributed to COVID19. [As of this writing, the total is 3]That's 0.01% of us. If you include the wider local area that is completely free of COVID attributed deaths, which stretches between and includes Broadhempston, Marldon, Ashprington, Harberton, Avonwick, South Brent and Buckfastleigh, this local percentage shrinks considerably. Torbay has a higher death rate at approx 0.06%I don't know who this unfortunate Totnesian was and I wish them all the best in the next life and commiserations to the bereaved. What we do know is that the average age of deaths attributed to COVID is 82.4, which is older than the average age of death from all causes (81.5), and that more than 95% of deaths attributed to COVID involve pre-existing or multiple pre-existing conditions.
All figures based on NHS or ONS data.
There are legitimate scientific questions and vast quantities of data opposing almost every article of faith in the COVID dogma. Here are some useful resources:
A brief introduction to some of the most common logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies are the common parlance of the enemies of reason and are seen every day in places such as Totnesians so are worth learning how to spot. The function of logical fallacies in a debate is to avoid addressing the actual point your opponent is making and to score points by appearing to 'win' on grounds other than reasoned argument. They are a completely dishonest and unscrupulous means of fooling people who are not aware of these tricks into thinking that you have won an argument while avoiding any engagement with the actual issues in question.
Straw Man Argument: Misrepresent your opponents' argument in order to win an argument they are not making - and ideally mock them at the same time.
Examples: "You think COVID doesn't exist". "You think Bill Gates wants to inject microchips"
Argument By Association: Assert that a hated or mistrusted figure, movement or institution shares your opponent's viewpoint, thereby smearing them by association.
Examples: "You sound like David Icke/ Donald Trump/ Alex Jones/ Andrew Wakefield". "That website/ demonstration/ podcast/ writer/ virologist is far-right/ a flat earther/ a quack"
Appeal To Authority: Defer to a supposed higher source of knowledge or analysis on the basis that their status alone will win the argument rather than having to make the case yourself through reason and evidence.
Examples: "All credible scientists agree." "Every government on earth can't be wrong."
Ad Hominem: The idiotic grandaddy of logical fallacies. Attack your opponent directly on the basis of motive or intelligence in order to bypass the need to address their argument. Often delivered with unabashed vehemence and arrogance, as if the culprit is hungry for an opportunity to showcase their extraordinary wit and wisdom.
Examples: "You Trump-supporting/ anti-vaxxer/ conspiracy theorist/ far-right/ hate-filled/ denier/ contrarian/ attention seeker/ tinfoil hat wearer". There are many ways that ad hominem attacks can be 'smuggled' into the discourse. For example: "I suppose you think the queen is a lizard as well", or simply peppering the debate with random mentions of 5G, Elvis, moon landings, Bill Gates, gammon, chemtrails or whatever you fancy. Anything to discredit and/ or humiliate your opponent whilst neatly sidestepping any requirement to argue your case.
If you'd like to respectfully debate any of the issues raised here - without resorting to cheap tricks such as those described above - please feel free to comment below.
Update: This article was posted on Totnesians today 17/05/21. within a few hours my 2 week ban was escalated and I can no longer view the page at all. Of course admins don't inform members on such decisions other than with snarky comments such as one suggesting this article was either satirical or a fan-post. This is the kind of expected mockery I describe above. I suppose mockery comes below even the ad hominem attack in the pecking order of fallacious argumentation, suggesting as it does that the argument is unworthy of serious attention. It really is a foul tactic.
Before I was blocked from viewing the page, I was able to read a few comments. One smearing this article on the basis that one of the links was 'dubious'. No explanation of this was forthcoming, so it amounts to a fallacious argument by association (described above). This comment ended with the invitation to 'enjoy your rabbit hole' - a classic ad hominem attack (described above).
Another comment read simply 'Spreadneck blathering'. Probably like you, I had no idea what this horrible term meant and had to look it up. Suffice to say, it was another ad hominem attack, intended to discredit this piece without engaging with any of the substance of it, using a baseless accusation that the author has no concern for the safety of others.
It's been ironic to see the zombie-like clown world described above playing out in the comments of a post consisting of this article. It would be foolish of me to imagine that the inhabitants of such a world will actually take the time to read, comprehend and engage respectfully with what I've written here.