- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WEF: “we can induce meat allergy by using ticks to stop the consumption of meat”
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
lol yes.
This is actually a solid question, and it’s the right level of analysis.
One thing that helps is separating platform access, financial incentives, and institutional endorsement. At places like Davos, a lot of people are effectively buying prestige and audience. That tells you they think the venue is useful, not that the venue has signed off on their worldview.
His question of "what does repeated invitation actually signal?" is good. Sometimes it’s ideological alignment. Sometimes it’s just that provocative ideas draw attention and paying participants like that.
That’s why I'm pushing on mechanisms instead of conclusions. Once you track incentives and veto points, some scary-looking narratives get less mysterious, even if you still dislike the ideas.
This is actually a solid question, and it’s the right level of analysis.
One thing that helps is separating platform access, financial incentives, and institutional endorsement. At places like Davos, a lot of people are effectively buying prestige and audience. That tells you they think the venue is useful, not that the venue has signed off on their worldview.
His question of "what does repeated invitation actually signal?" is good. Sometimes it’s ideological alignment. Sometimes it’s just that provocative ideas draw attention and paying participants like that.
That’s why I'm pushing on mechanisms instead of conclusions. Once you track incentives and veto points, some scary-looking narratives get less mysterious, even if you still dislike the ideas.
0
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:18 pm to DawgCountry
quote:
neither agrees or disagrees with.
Bull sgit. That fat frick loser is eating meat every chance he gets. See, clowns like him absolutely have a stance, they are just too pussified to admit it, if it goes against the overall liberal agenda.
And while all this is going on, they're too weak to realize they aren't being honest with themselves.....yet too weak to say 2 word against their liberal leaders.
They are followers...or better known as "bottoms"
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:19 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
When I used “fringe”, I wasn’t talking about whistleblowers or early critics of policy. I was talking about ideas that sit far outside existing legal, medical, and ethical practice. Those aren’t the same thing, and collapsing them together is part of why these conversations slide sideways so fast.
My apologies for misconstruing this portion of your assessment. I appreciate your clarification.
That said... Liao's "ideas" are not "far far outside existing legal, medical, and ethical practice". The actual sabotage of the meat supply and food supply ARE "mainstream" ideas within the elites' warped think-tank organizations and the WEF. One has to understand their collective disdain of humanity at large.
Some of the WEF's other "solutions" to Climate" Change" and "Sustained Development Goals" are being force-fed into the "mainstream" consciousness bit by bit -- like suggesting that we eat bugs, blocking the sunlight, marketing Gates' fake-meat, and making additional "vaxxines" mandatory, etc.
quote:
You’re right that emergency powers exist, and that COVID showed how elastic they can become under stress. That’s exactly why I return to mechanisms instead of motives. Emergency authority alone didn’t erase consent requirements, medical ethics boards, courts, or public backlash - even during a once-in-a-century crisis.
Wish that was THE case. But it wasn't for all who still remember 5-6 years ago. Most of us witnessed firsthand how "Consent" was ignored and discarded as a civil right and human right -- whether at hospitals, doctors' facilities, entertainment and travel venues, schools, etc.
Motives for implementing "Emergency Powers" MUST be a consideration. Why consent to unreasonable and illegal or unlawful or unethical medical or police-state enforced tyranny over our person?
quote:
My claim isn’t “nothing bad could ever happen” from an idea like this. Science has been turned to numerous different evil ends. It’s that different kinds of ideas face very different barriers on the way from discussion to enforcement, and pretending those barriers don’t matter makes it harder to judge real risk versus narrative acceleration.
But who gets to define what's "acceptable" or legitimate with respect to certain "ideas" and "barriers" that may violate "civil" or "constitutional" rights in the past?
With respect to a fear of " real risk versus narrative acceleration " , it seems the "villain" here seems always to be those who challenge the same over-officious, hyper-authoritarian institutions who've been caught lying repeatedly -- insisting that they be "trusted" 100%.
quote:
If someone wants to argue that those barriers themselves are eroding, that’s a concrete claim worth examining (are you? I would like to discuss that if you're up for it). But that’s a different argument than treating every unsettling idea aired at a conference as already halfway to mandate.
Let's first clearly define the context of "barriers".
s an observer of the WEF agenda , goals and MO, they aren't shy about showing their hand.
Who they choose to address at their corporate overlord assembly of speakers / mouthpieces who advance their future world (like Dr. Meat-Tick Liao for example), they are sending a clear message on imminent intent.
The WEF's choice to parade this guy to share his "contaminate and adulterate the beef supply" wasn't an "idea-audition" -- they knew what it was about. This was a show of force and intent meant for the rest of us to see and hear.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In a democracy, it does.
Tell that to all the people that government tried to force the COVID vaccine on.
And we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic which makes it even more reprehensible that they often times do things against the will of their constituents.
But you are straying from the main point that the OP was simply shining light on the craziness that some want the governments of the world to implement. People not paying attention to what the crazies say is what makes it easier for them to implement.
This post was edited on 2/8/26 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:31 pm to EphesianArmor
I appreciate your good-faith engagement, and it’s not common in threads like this.
We’re still clearly very far apart on how you interpret the WEF, elite intent, and what happened during COVID, but notice where the disagreement is - not about whether concern itself is legitimate. We’re arguing about how to tell when concern should escalate, what counts as erosion of barriers, and who gets authority to decide. IMO, that’s exactly the level where these conversations become worth having.
On substance, I don’t agree that repeated appearance at a conference is best read as a “show of force” or imminent intent. I still see prestige markets, provocation, and misaligned incentives doing a lot of the work. But the right way to test that disagreement isn’t motive-reading, it’s specifying which barriers you think have already fallen, and which ones you think are next. That's the most important part to unpack IMO.
We’re still clearly very far apart on how you interpret the WEF, elite intent, and what happened during COVID, but notice where the disagreement is - not about whether concern itself is legitimate. We’re arguing about how to tell when concern should escalate, what counts as erosion of barriers, and who gets authority to decide. IMO, that’s exactly the level where these conversations become worth having.
On substance, I don’t agree that repeated appearance at a conference is best read as a “show of force” or imminent intent. I still see prestige markets, provocation, and misaligned incentives doing a lot of the work. But the right way to test that disagreement isn’t motive-reading, it’s specifying which barriers you think have already fallen, and which ones you think are next. That's the most important part to unpack IMO.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
Is there an evil you won’t defend?
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What is the full context?
Watch the video, fascist shthead
quote:
Is there an evil you won’t defend?
He's a homosexual. And a 'political faaggot', as well. The worst kind.
His demon controls him.
This post was edited on 2/8/26 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:40 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
"Concerns surrounding "tainted" or, more formally, non-ionizing electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) relate to potential long-term, low-level exposure impacts on human health that fall outside current, primarily thermal-based safety standards."
Glad you're on it. Smart people are just now beginning to educate themselves on EMF levels, dangers and impact. And taking precautions.
Of course the overlords count on the continued ignorance and willful negligence. Research already shows even those earpods and pocket cell phones are causing DNA, brain and tissue damage. But...What you can't seen can't hurt you, right?"
That sky-full of bands of "waves" formation of the clouds are also probably nothing to see there either ;-)
Posted on 2/8/26 at 12:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What is the full context?
Ok counselor, tell us any context that would make this a non-insane idea?
Posted on 2/8/26 at 1:17 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
I appreciate your good-faith engagement, and it’s not common in threads like this.
Backatcha
quote:
We’re still clearly very far apart on how you interpret the WEF, elite intent, and what happened during COVID, but notice where the disagreement is - not about whether concern itself is legitimate.
Hear ya.
I assume most people -- especially hard working people and professionals with families -- just don't have enough time (or inquisitive inclination) in day to day lives to ferret out details and minutiae of what the world's controllers, scientists, and politicians are up to beyond the headlines. Dabbling a bit in the above, but mostly breads and circuses are the metal release they need to decompress daily.
Most people are content to trust our leaders will be (mostly) benevolent, ethical and moral. NOT a Plot-Twist: I'm NOT one of them
quote:
We’re arguing about how to tell when concern should escalate, what counts as erosion of barriers, and who gets authority to decide. IMO, that’s exactly the level where these conversations become worth having.
I agree on your basis for debate -- yet still believe we can't afford to allow mad science and political tyranny to gain an solid foothold unfettered by challenge, so that the latter CAN still be debated and argued -- without censorship or changing potential outcomes.
quote:
On substance, I don’t agree that repeated appearance at a conference is best read as a “show of force” or imminent intent. I still see prestige markets, provocation, and misaligned incentives doing a lot of the work.
The WEF is truly and solely about profits and shareholder dividends -- it is a Corporate Monolith. IF the Global food markets conglomerates are told by the Controllers what they can or cannot sell -- and a questionable product is introduced (as with the CV 19 vax), what will they do collectively? Who will they listen to?
"Provocation" might well be construed as "intent" -- imminent and otherwise. Especially considering the power these elite wield to hammer an agenda. We hope more sane heads and benevolence prevails. Maybe public push-back early and often helps.
quote:
the right way to test that disagreement isn’t motive-reading, it’s specifying which barriers you think have already fallen, and which ones you think are next. That's the most important part to unpack IMO.
The problem is seemingly a standard of ethical and moral barriers that are already being eliminated piece by piece by the ruling governors of this world. Across the board. It's not just food. It's been accomplished incrementally as to lessen the blows.
Openly discussing "Tick-Tainted Meat" at a WEF forum as a deterrent to eating meat is already well past jumping the shark. It's criminal. It's like openly discussing assaulting and maiming people.
As mentioned before I believe discerning motives are important, maybe crucial to preemptively interrupting the momentum of any unethical / immoral implementation of engineering tainted food supply. Tainted water supply. Air. Drugs. etc.
Unfortunely, we are imo at the precipice of terribly great change as most people are revealing they are willing to compromise and surrender fully.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 1:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What is the full context?
They’re not going to let you give them a ZJ.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 1:56 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:
The WEF is truly and solely about profits and shareholder dividends -- it is a Corporate Monolith.
No man
It’s just a think tank
Posted on 2/8/26 at 1:57 pm to Kingshakabooboo
quote:
And we are not a democracy
So you've never voted?
Heard of people voting?
Followed an election?
This post was edited on 2/8/26 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 2/8/26 at 1:58 pm to Strannix
quote:
Ok counselor, tell us any context that would make this a non-insane idea?
quote:
Strannix
Checks out
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
While contrarian, you sir are not an idiot and you damn well what I’m talking about. We are not a direct democracy. We are representative republic democracy.
But again, shifting away from original point of the OP post and this conversation.
But again, shifting away from original point of the OP post and this conversation.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:49 pm to Kingshakabooboo
He’s not an idiot, but stupid enough to think he’s really smart.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 5:06 pm to Kingshakabooboo
quote:
We are not a direct democracy.
It's a good thing I never said nor implied that, then.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 5:06 pm to thermal9221
quote:
but stupid enough to think he’s really smart.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 5:20 pm to Fun Bunch
Rather than attend the WEF meetings, Trump should drone them.
Don't send B-2's to Iran, send them to Davos.
There couldn't be a clearer demonstration of the intent to do evil than the WEF and Davos.
Don't send B-2's to Iran, send them to Davos.
There couldn't be a clearer demonstration of the intent to do evil than the WEF and Davos.
Posted on 2/9/26 at 7:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's a good thing I never said nor implied that, then.
Again, irrelevant to the discussion. As usual, when you are shown to be incorrect you deflect. Point has been made that crazy people say crazy shite at these WEF forums and there are people in power all over the world that listen and put stock into what some of these people say. The OP was correct in shining light on some of the insanity out there and it is foolish of us to just brush it off as you always try to do.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News