By all means scrutinize claims but claims are not invalidated by attacking the source rather than the claim.
October 13, 2025 at 1:02 PM
By all means scrutinize claims but claims are not invalidated by attacking the source rather than the claim.
Condescension and sarcasm is ad hominem: "try making an argument"
October 13, 2025 at 1:01 PM
Condescension and sarcasm is ad hominem: "try making an argument"
oh my god. 1. it is a fallacy and 2. it absolutely undermines your counter argument. I have provided links for you to understand the fallacy. It is not my fault if you won't read them. Don't be irrational.
October 13, 2025 at 1:01 PM
oh my god. 1. it is a fallacy and 2. it absolutely undermines your counter argument. I have provided links for you to understand the fallacy. It is not my fault if you won't read them. Don't be irrational.
also given that you don't even accept you are continually the fallacies as corner stones of your argument - you are in no position to lecture me on whether or not I should point them out. It's not a magic spell to identify them in another's argument: it's basic analysis.
October 13, 2025 at 12:47 PM
also given that you don't even accept you are continually the fallacies as corner stones of your argument - you are in no position to lecture me on whether or not I should point them out. It's not a magic spell to identify them in another's argument: it's basic analysis.
Why are you so aggressive and condescending? Try not resorting to ad hominem. I have made continual arguments.
October 13, 2025 at 12:31 PM
Why are you so aggressive and condescending? Try not resorting to ad hominem. I have made continual arguments.
perhaps another podcast would help your understanding of this point. youarenotsosmart.com/2016/05/19/y...
YANSS 076 – The Genetic Fallacy
We often overestimate and overstate just how much we can learn about a claim based on where that claim originated, and that’s the crux of the genetic fallacy, according to the experts in this…
youarenotsosmart.com
October 3, 2025 at 9:36 AM
perhaps another podcast would help your understanding of this point. youarenotsosmart.com/2016/05/19/y...
"The features of the virus are nonsensical series of choices" - the virus literally featured the exact furin cleavage site within the DARPA funding request proposal by the wuhan lab. So no.
October 3, 2025 at 9:36 AM
"The features of the virus are nonsensical series of choices" - the virus literally featured the exact furin cleavage site within the DARPA funding request proposal by the wuhan lab. So no.
no it isn't: it's the genetic fallacy.
October 3, 2025 at 9:34 AM
no it isn't: it's the genetic fallacy.
only 1 sample was A and that was 6 months after outbreak.
October 3, 2025 at 9:34 AM
only 1 sample was A and that was 6 months after outbreak.
Validate User
academic.oup.com
October 2, 2025 at 4:17 PM
some people are still experiencing an auto-immune reaction to the vaccine now. The only thinking preventing it from killing them is blood thinner drugs taken continuously in perpetuity.
October 2, 2025 at 2:10 PM
some people are still experiencing an auto-immune reaction to the vaccine now. The only thinking preventing it from killing them is blood thinner drugs taken continuously in perpetuity.
yeah I guess subconsciously I've taken an interest in covid origins because of the second/third order effects on me (covid led to pandemic which led to vaccine development which led to vaccine side effects - which led to near death experience)
October 2, 2025 at 2:09 PM
yeah I guess subconsciously I've taken an interest in covid origins because of the second/third order effects on me (covid led to pandemic which led to vaccine development which led to vaccine side effects - which led to near death experience)
great time to sell Open AI stock if you are an insider. The benefit of the doubt is being given freely with execution (eventual profitability) an unfalsifiable future side issue.
October 2, 2025 at 2:07 PM
great time to sell Open AI stock if you are an insider. The benefit of the doubt is being given freely with execution (eventual profitability) an unfalsifiable future side issue.
so far so good - there's a similar problem on the vaccine side. I got VITT which made anti-vaxxers think I was one of them. I went on to have 3 pfizer vaccines after the 1 astrazeneca vaccine that nearly killed me.
October 2, 2025 at 2:06 PM
so far so good - there's a similar problem on the vaccine side. I got VITT which made anti-vaxxers think I was one of them. I went on to have 3 pfizer vaccines after the 1 astrazeneca vaccine that nearly killed me.
Well I am very interested indeed - especially given the impact of covid on my own life, the impact on the globe.
October 2, 2025 at 12:42 PM
Well I am very interested indeed - especially given the impact of covid on my own life, the impact on the globe.
Reposted by dasv
It's not a one-off. There are at least *seven* Barrowman companies with identically named tax haven "shadow companies"
The question is: why?
The question is: why?
October 2, 2025 at 8:00 AM
It's not a one-off. There are at least *seven* Barrowman companies with identically named tax haven "shadow companies"
The question is: why?
The question is: why?
you are not sure why it matters what the origin of covid was?
October 2, 2025 at 11:02 AM
you are not sure why it matters what the origin of covid was?
OK but I'm just saying the reasons for having a default are based on circumstantial evidence which has been used in this debate as a justification for why the lab leak theory is wrong (the evidence is circumstantial)
October 2, 2025 at 10:47 AM
OK but I'm just saying the reasons for having a default are based on circumstantial evidence which has been used in this debate as a justification for why the lab leak theory is wrong (the evidence is circumstantial)
Also the lab was only operating at a very low biosafety level - BSL-2 - which is essentially: you wear a hood and there's airflow in the hood. Nowhere near the level needed for such dangerous viruses. And when samples were taken from the wild, they didn't suit up either.
October 2, 2025 at 10:46 AM
Also the lab was only operating at a very low biosafety level - BSL-2 - which is essentially: you wear a hood and there's airflow in the hood. Nowhere near the level needed for such dangerous viruses. And when samples were taken from the wild, they didn't suit up either.
Around that time a military general was sent by the Chinese government to take charge of the lab - which to me sounds suspicious though I agree it's not proof of anything.
October 2, 2025 at 10:45 AM
Around that time a military general was sent by the Chinese government to take charge of the lab - which to me sounds suspicious though I agree it's not proof of anything.
One of the problems in proving the lab leak theory is that the database of genetic samples was deleted (I think Q4 2019). So even if there was a sample more closely related than the Laos sample (96% related) it can't be demonstrated: because the data has been deleted/classified.
October 2, 2025 at 10:44 AM
One of the problems in proving the lab leak theory is that the database of genetic samples was deleted (I think Q4 2019). So even if there was a sample more closely related than the Laos sample (96% related) it can't be demonstrated: because the data has been deleted/classified.
those are both circumstantial pieces of evidence too. But the lab leak theory has even more circumstantial evidence than the zoonitic origin theory.
October 2, 2025 at 10:42 AM
those are both circumstantial pieces of evidence too. But the lab leak theory has even more circumstantial evidence than the zoonitic origin theory.