but if you keep declaring a time clock every decade only to reset it for the past 50 years, does it not weaken the point of it ? we should've had an apocalypse by now, we haven't and unlikely to so for quite some time.
replywhy are we so eager and unquestioning of the published narratives going to the length of censoring counter theories?
Like an alcoholic saying drinking isn’t bad because he’s been drinking since his twenties and still hasn’t got cirrhosis
replyBy the time it’s an issue it’s too late.
thats a silly take, this is totally different from some pending apocalypse that is repeatedly pushed back when it doesn't happen.
replyWe don't know how much he'll drink before he gets cirrhosis. Now he's 60 and should have had it already. We still think he'll have it despite previously not predicting the timeline correctly.
replyYeah the clock turned out to be silly, but if you interpret it as risk level instead of time, it makes sense. Since the 70s we have been at a near-100% chance this would happen.
replyso the probability approaches 0% every 10 years and then goes back up to 99% the following year and repeats 5 times ?
replythat makes little sense to me
What?
reply