‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 > 
 
   
 

Thanks, Dr. Fauci. . .

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
18 October 2021 18:19
 

So, you’re convinced of something for which you have no substantial evidence.  I find this argument unconvincing.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
20 October 2021 18:50
 
weird buffalo - 18 October 2021 06:19 PM

So, you’re convinced of something for which you have no substantial evidence.  I find this argument unconvincing.

Such evidence is unavailable for us to examine. Open societies allow for examination of evidence, but we’re dealing with an enemy of open society. Karl Popper goes into the subject at length in his 2-volume masterwork.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7435
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
21 October 2021 13:18
 

The latest news from the right has a top NIH official admitting that it did indeed fund gain-of-function research, contradicting Fauci’s testimony to congress.
NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan — despite Fauci’s denials

It’s another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab — despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance — the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab — for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

No smoking gun yet since it looks to me like Fauci can claim it wasn’t a lie because he believed it. If EcoHealth Alliance wasn’t being transparent, it’s possible he really didn’t know. But it’s looking more and more likely that the same Wuhan lab responsible for causing the pandemic was being funded by American taxpayer dollars.

Then again, consider the source here: the NY Post, the same outlet that broke the Hunter Biden laptop story just before the election, which turned out to be Russian misinformation.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  4114
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
22 October 2021 06:46
 

I wonder how many of you gentlemen sided with the protesters against Doctor Fauci during the AIDS epidemic three decades ago.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
22 October 2021 10:39
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 21 October 2021 01:18 PM

The latest news from the right has a top NIH official admitting that it did indeed fund gain-of-function research, contradicting Fauci’s testimony to congress.
NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan — despite Fauci’s denials

It’s another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab — despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance — the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab — for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

No smoking gun yet since it looks to me like Fauci can claim it wasn’t a lie because he believed it. If EcoHealth Alliance wasn’t being transparent, it’s possible he really didn’t know. But it’s looking more and more likely that the same Wuhan lab responsible for causing the pandemic was being funded by American taxpayer dollars.

Then again, consider the source here: the NY Post, the same outlet that broke the Hunter Biden laptop story just before the election, which turned out to be Russian misinformation.

Apparently, an unusually competent liar is able to continue as an expert commentator on network and cable TV while managing to hold on to a Federal-government sinecure where he gets to be the highest paid U.S. staff person in the nation.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 October 2021 14:50
 
nonverbal - 20 October 2021 06:50 PM
weird buffalo - 18 October 2021 06:19 PM

So, you’re convinced of something for which you have no substantial evidence.  I find this argument unconvincing.

Such evidence is unavailable for us to examine. Open societies allow for examination of evidence, but we’re dealing with an enemy of open society. Karl Popper goes into the subject at length in his 2-volume masterwork.

The central theme of Karl Popper’s work is the rejection of claims with no verifiable falsification.  You seem to be suggesting that Karl Popper would now support the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Without evidence, I do not believe that Karl Popper supports your argument.

[ Edited: 23 October 2021 15:17 by weird buffalo]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 October 2021 15:17
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 21 October 2021 01:18 PM

The latest news from the right has a top NIH official admitting that it did indeed fund gain-of-function research, contradicting Fauci’s testimony to congress.
NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan — despite Fauci’s denials

It’s another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab — despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance — the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab — for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

No smoking gun yet since it looks to me like Fauci can claim it wasn’t a lie because he believed it. If EcoHealth Alliance wasn’t being transparent, it’s possible he really didn’t know. But it’s looking more and more likely that the same Wuhan lab responsible for causing the pandemic was being funded by American taxpayer dollars.

Then again, consider the source here: the NY Post, the same outlet that broke the Hunter Biden laptop story just before the election, which turned out to be Russian misinformation.

Except there is no actual evidence the lab was responsible for the pandemic.  Only conjecture.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 October 2021 15:21
 

The physical evidence we have directly indicates that the virus is of a zoological origin.  There is no evidence from the virus, where early cases were located, or anything else (other than comments that [blank] looks suspicious) to indicate the virus came from a lab.

The best you guys have is “I don’t trust that guy”.

I don’t give a fuck who you trust or don’t trust.  Show me the evidence.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
23 October 2021 21:45
 
weird buffalo - 23 October 2021 02:50 PM
nonverbal - 20 October 2021 06:50 PM
weird buffalo - 18 October 2021 06:19 PM

So, you’re convinced of something for which you have no substantial evidence.  I find this argument unconvincing.

Such evidence is unavailable for us to examine. Open societies allow for examination of evidence, but we’re dealing with an enemy of open society. Karl Popper goes into the subject at length in his 2-volume masterwork.

The central theme of Karl Popper’s work is the rejection of claims with no verifiable falsification.  You seem to be suggesting that Karl Popper would now support the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Without evidence, I do not believe that Karl Popper supports your argument.

Popper is famous not only for his contributions to philosophies of science, though. His masterworks are perhaps numerous, and I appreciate your pointing that out.

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  735
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
24 October 2021 11:48
 

Apparently whether or not there were actually gain-of-function experiments with NIH funding in Wuhan depends on your perspective: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/

Various experts say anything from there definitely were gain-of-function experiments, there were experiments that were unintentionally gain-of-function, that there weren’t gain-of-function experiments with the NIH funding.  I think the rest of us can argue about it for the rest of eternity, but there is no definitive answer.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
24 October 2021 15:02
 
nonverbal - 23 October 2021 09:45 PM
weird buffalo - 23 October 2021 02:50 PM
nonverbal - 20 October 2021 06:50 PM
weird buffalo - 18 October 2021 06:19 PM

So, you’re convinced of something for which you have no substantial evidence.  I find this argument unconvincing.

Such evidence is unavailable for us to examine. Open societies allow for examination of evidence, but we’re dealing with an enemy of open society. Karl Popper goes into the subject at length in his 2-volume masterwork.

The central theme of Karl Popper’s work is the rejection of claims with no verifiable falsification.  You seem to be suggesting that Karl Popper would now support the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Without evidence, I do not believe that Karl Popper supports your argument.

Popper is famous not only for his contributions to philosophies of science, though. His masterworks are perhaps numerous, and I appreciate your pointing that out.

When did Popper assert we should come to a conclusion based on poor, subjective evidence?

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
24 October 2021 15:12
 
weird buffalo - 24 October 2021 03:02 PM
nonverbal - 23 October 2021 09:45 PM
weird buffalo - 23 October 2021 02:50 PM
nonverbal - 20 October 2021 06:50 PM
weird buffalo - 18 October 2021 06:19 PM

So, you’re convinced of something for which you have no substantial evidence.  I find this argument unconvincing.

Such evidence is unavailable for us to examine. Open societies allow for examination of evidence, but we’re dealing with an enemy of open society. Karl Popper goes into the subject at length in his 2-volume masterwork.

The central theme of Karl Popper’s work is the rejection of claims with no verifiable falsification.  You seem to be suggesting that Karl Popper would now support the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Without evidence, I do not believe that Karl Popper supports your argument.

Popper is famous not only for his contributions to philosophies of science, though. His masterworks are perhaps numerous, and I appreciate your pointing that out.

When did Popper assert we should come to a conclusion based on poor, subjective evidence?

Easy now—no one is trying to force you to read Popper.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
25 October 2021 00:08
 
nonverbal - 24 October 2021 03:12 PM
weird buffalo - 24 October 2021 03:02 PM
nonverbal - 23 October 2021 09:45 PM
weird buffalo - 23 October 2021 02:50 PM
nonverbal - 20 October 2021 06:50 PM
weird buffalo - 18 October 2021 06:19 PM

So, you’re convinced of something for which you have no substantial evidence.  I find this argument unconvincing.

Such evidence is unavailable for us to examine. Open societies allow for examination of evidence, but we’re dealing with an enemy of open society. Karl Popper goes into the subject at length in his 2-volume masterwork.

The central theme of Karl Popper’s work is the rejection of claims with no verifiable falsification.  You seem to be suggesting that Karl Popper would now support the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Without evidence, I do not believe that Karl Popper supports your argument.

Popper is famous not only for his contributions to philosophies of science, though. His masterworks are perhaps numerous, and I appreciate your pointing that out.

When did Popper assert we should come to a conclusion based on poor, subjective evidence?

Easy now—no one is trying to force you to read Popper.

I’d love to read some Popper.  Which book and page number will I find the backup to your claim?  Or was it a paper/article?  Whatever it is, reply with the citation and I’ll get on it.  I have access to a good library, they’ve got most of his stuff on the shelf, and I’m sure I can go grab the book tomorrow.

[ Edited: 25 October 2021 00:12 by weird buffalo]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
25 October 2021 10:18
 

I love your idealism, weird. Unfortunately the only volume I can find right now is the one that goes after Hegel and, less virulently, Marx. I highly recommend the whole thing, though. It wouldn’t cost much.

Meanwhile, if you’re a dog lover, I would suggest doing your best to ignore today’s breaking Fauci news. By no means explore what specifically—or, as I could say, literally—took place with the dogs he purchased. If you do search things out, don’t worry. Two or three good nights of dreaming will put you right back on track psychologically.

Of particular concern is the fact that the invoice to NIAID included a line item for “cordectomy.” As you are likely aware, a cordectomy, also known as “devocalization,” involves slitting a dog’s vocal cords in order to prevent them from barking, howling, or crying. This cruel procedure—which is opposed with rare exceptions by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, and others—seems to have been performed so that experimenters would not have to listen to the pained cries of the beagle puppies. This is a reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.

https://mace.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-mace-leads-letter-dr-anthony-fauci-cruel-taxpayer-funded-experiments

Also, I thought we were going to stop talking to each other in these halls of ancient wisdom. Will we ever shut the hell up?

 

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
25 October 2021 13:21
 

You made specific claims about something Popper said.  I would like to go and read it.  What is the thing he wrote that backs up what you said he wrote?  I am excited to go read it myself.

I don’t think I ever agreed to stop talking to you.  You seem to have a dislike when I call you on your bullshit.  Unfortunately, the best way to get me to leave your bullshit alone is to stop putting it out there for everyone to see.

 
‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 >