Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: COVID, finally an article that explains in simple English why it is as it is

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,366
    Thanked: 786
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Wally View Post
    Yes that is expected from any vaccine, the article points out that people are more likely to catch Covid,that's the problem.
    It must be convenient to be confident in your beliefs, without needing proof or hard facts to back them up. No need to waste time questioning the validity of articles such as the one you sent.

    Sounds almost like a religious belief. Just have faith, Uncle Wally!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    6,839
    Thanked: 832
    Quote Originally Posted by xt-tsi View Post
    It must be convenient to be confident in your beliefs, without needing proof or hard facts to back them up. No need to waste time questioning the validity of articles such as the one you sent.

    Sounds almost like a religious belief. Just have faith, Uncle Wally!
    While I don't agree with UW on everything, and he does sometimes speak from assumptions that he doesn't try to prove (don’t we all?) , it seems extremely unfair to assume that there is no evidence that he sees that does, from his perspective, back up his claim. I myself see plenty of evidence. And I’ll iterate that I think the origin of the virus, and motivation behind the man-arranged spread of it, to be the most important issue, as not stopping the source means enabling infinite repeat of the release of such viruses.

    And massive evidence does exist that the NIAID under Fauci did indeed fund deliberate research in Wuhan to produce that specific virus, revealed by Project Veritas and now becoming the subject of Congressional hearings. Man-made origins demands an examination of motive, and it’s not very far to connect the dots between Event 201 where the virus was wargamed in Oct 2019, and the release of the virus hardly a month later in Wuhan. To call it a coincidence is like calling the bullet that killed Lincoln an accidental coincidence, ignoring the man standing with a smoking revolver a few feet away.

    It seems incredibly clear that the virus was engineered to produce mild symptoms for most, but regularly in an evolving form, while in the early stages killing large numbers of elderly people prone to respiratory disease in the first place. You can say there’s no proof of that, but now that PV has released what it got from DARPA, you can’t credibly deny proof of planned manufacturing of this thing.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_zgoENmeddA

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,366
    Thanked: 786
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    While I don't agree with UW on everything, and he does sometimes speak from assumptions that he doesn't try to prove (donít we all?) , it seems extremely unfair to assume that there is no evidence that he sees that does, from his perspective, back up his claim. I myself see plenty of evidence. And Iíll iterate that I think the origin of the virus, and motivation behind the man-arranged spread of it, to be the most important issue, as not stopping the source means enabling infinite repeat of the release of such viruses.

    And massive evidence does exist that the NIAID under Fauci did indeed fund deliberate research in Wuhan to produce that specific virus, revealed by Project Veritas and now becoming the subject of Congressional hearings. Man-made origins demands an examination of motive, and itís not very far to connect the dots between Event 201 where the virus was wargamed in Oct 2019, and the release of the virus hardly a month later in Wuhan. To call it a coincidence is like calling the bullet that killed Lincoln an accidental coincidence, ignoring the man standing with a smoking revolver a few feet away.

    It seems incredibly clear that the virus was engineered to produce mild symptoms for most, but regularly in an evolving form, while in the early stages killing large numbers of elderly people prone to respiratory disease in the first place. You can say thereís no proof of that, but now that PV has released what it got from DARPA, you canít credibly deny proof of planned manufacturing of this thing.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_zgoENmeddA
    There is no conclusive evidence that the virus was "engineered". Payments by NIAID to Wuhan are suspicious but don't prove that WUHAN made the virus. However as I've said many times, the possibility that it was man-made cannot be (and hasn't been) ruled out. That is the purpose of the investigation. Nor should it be ruled out that the virus came from natural sources, as happened in Africa and this is being investigated, too.

    The fact remains that we don't know.

    Measures should be taken to make sure the virus cannot come from either man made or natural sources. Instead, everyone is pointing fingers.

    I'm surprised you have not verified what Project Veritas has to say. A highly biased group, that one.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    6,839
    Thanked: 832
    Quote Originally Posted by xt-tsi View Post
    There is no conclusive evidence that the virus was "engineered". Payments by NIAID to Wuhan are suspicious but don't prove that WUHAN made the virus. However as I've said many times, the possibility that it was man-made cannot be (and hasn't been) ruled out. That is the purpose of the investigation. Nor should it be ruled out that the virus came from natural sources, as happened in Africa and this is being investigated, too.

    The fact remains that we don't know.

    Measures should be taken to make sure the virus cannot come from either man made or natural sources. Instead, everyone is pointing fingers.

    I'm surprised you have not verified what Project Veritas has to say. A highly biased group, that one.
    I truly give up with you.
    There is far more than proof of payment to the Wuhan lab there. The push for "gain-of-function" of the covid-19 virus, using bats, none the less, is also proven beyond doubt. The only way you can say you don't know is to screw your eyes shut and refuse to know, which is what it looks like you are doing.

    As GK said, they ask for black swans, you show them black swans, then they rule out all your swans because they are black. It's the syndrome of the dwarves in the stable in Narnia's ""The Last Battle". It wouldn't matter what you put in front of them; they had determined not to see anything in its true light, and so made it impossible for themselves to see any truth. They blinded themselves rather than admit obvious truths.

    There is no such thing as a complete lack of bias, nor is it desirable. We should desire a bias towards what is true, right, and good. A pretense of complete impartiality is another word for indifference, which is another word for ignorance.

    You can't employ rational argument in such cases. There is nothing to say, and no point in quarreling. May you have a wonderful week!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,366
    Thanked: 786
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    I truly give up with you.
    There is far more than proof of payment to the Wuhan lab there. The push for "gain-of-function" of the covid-19 virus, using bats, none the less, is also proven beyond doubt. The only way you can say you don't know is to screw your eyes shut and refuse to know, which is what it looks like you are doing.

    As GK said, they ask for black swans, you show them black swans, then they rule out all your swans because they are black. It's the syndrome of the dwarves in the stable in Narnia's ""The Last Battle". It wouldn't matter what you put in front of them; they had determined not to see anything in its true light, and so made it impossible for themselves to see any truth. They blinded themselves rather than admit obvious truths.

    There is no such thing as a complete lack of bias, nor is it desirable. We should desire a bias towards what is true, right, and good. A pretense of complete impartiality is another word for indifference, which is another word for ignorance.

    You can't employ rational argument in such cases. There is nothing to say, and no point in quarreling. May you have a wonderful week!

    Gain of function at one level is basic biological research. When used to create viruses, it takes on another dimension. Again, I've not ruled out the possibility that Wuhan created COVID, using bats and possibly this second form of GOF. However, I'm not seeing conclusive proof in the sources I'm reading. And I believe this debate about Wuhan overshadows the possibility of another possible source, being from nature. Let's remember, previous diseases have originated in Africa, from wet markets. My position is - investigate and block both possible sources of future outbreaks.

    I'd be happy to send info but I think you've made up your mind (in which case your black swan applies to you). Debate is healthy! And you lose traction when you get personal about it.

    good day to you as well
    Last edited by xt-tsi; 18-01-2022 at 12:05.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    6,839
    Thanked: 832
    Quote Originally Posted by xt-tsi View Post
    Gain of function at one level is basic biological research. When used to create viruses, it takes on another dimension. Again, I've not ruled out the possibility that Wuhan created COVID, using bats and possibly this second form of GOF. However, I'm not seeing conclusive proof in the sources I'm reading. And I believe this debate about Wuhan overshadows the possibility of another possible source, being from nature. Let's remember, previous diseases have originated in Africa, from wet markets. My position is - investigate and block both possible sources of future outbreaks.

    I'd be happy to send info but I think you've made up your mind (in which case your black swan applies to you). Debate is healthy! And you lose traction when you get personal about it.

    good day to you as well
    I actually agree with you on getting personal. . I think you are wrong, as you think I am wrong. And I am OK with people disagreeing and thinking themselves right. But I do think a dead end can be and has been reached where there is nothing more to say, that one view could only be imposed on and over the other by physical force and violence, and we obviously are not going to do that here.

    Let me try another tack altogether, on the idea of bias. You might at least agree that I have a point, that what people commonly mean by the use of the term is not generally well-thought out. Here is an engaging essay, by a wonderful writer; I donít think you will find a better essayist in the English language.

    http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/All_...F_IMPARTIALITY

    PS: I got curious about what the Thaw trial was, and it was fun finding out.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,366
    Thanked: 786
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    I actually agree with you on getting personal. . I think you are wrong, as you think I am wrong. And I am OK with people disagreeing and thinking themselves right. But I do think a dead end can be and has been reached where there is nothing more to say, that one view could only be imposed on and over the other by physical force and violence, and we obviously are not going to do that here.

    Let me try another tack altogether, on the idea of bias. You might at least agree that I have a point, that what people commonly mean by the use of the term is not generally well-thought out. Here is an engaging essay, by a wonderful writer; I don’t think you will find a better essayist in the English language.

    http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/All_...F_IMPARTIALITY

    PS: I got curious about what the Thaw trial was, and it was fun finding out.
    Yes, the origins of COVID is an issue discussed here in many comments, no one changed their mind.

    Interesting essay on impartiality, the writer's word for bias. Enjoyed it, and some of the other stuff.

    The writer is challenging the idea that a jury should be impartial, when in fact, when talking about a juror "the mere fact that he did form some temporary impression from the first facts as far as he knew them—this does not prove that he is not an impartial arbiter—it only proves that he is not a cold-blooded fool."

    At the same time, what is the alternative in real life? Finding jurors who are completely impartial is, in the real world, impossible to achieve. It's an imperfect system, like capitalism, with its faults but better than the alternative, being no jurors at all, or ones who have clearly reached an opinion about a given court case before the legal proceedings begin.

    But what about skeptical jurors? I'm finding myself being increasingly skeptical and often find myself saying "I don't know". Chesterton put it well when he said that "It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of scepticism." Clever!

    Some of the article questions logic. This is something I often see in on-line debates. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, the comments turn into a discussion of whether an argument from either side is logically sound. Accusations of logical fallacies fly. It is said people are using circular reasoning, ad hominem fallacies, false dichotomies and on and on. Straw man arguments - a common accusation. What happened to the original topic? Buried by discussions of logic.

    Chesterton did it, when challenging an agnostic and then used the black swan analogy you referred to in an earlier comment. I can see how this could be used in a number of settings when one side doesn't accept the sources of information used by the other side. You asked for a black swan (article or source of information), then I give it to you (my viewpoint lined out entirely) but you say it isn't black. Slam dunk! Or so it would seem but not so fast. Look at Chesterton's argument. He is talking about famous scientists who the agnostic said did not "accept the miraculous". Chesterton did produce such scientists who unquestionably rejected the miraculous. There is a slam dunk for you whereas with sources of information, in the media, such clarity is difficult to achieve, to say the least.
    Last edited by xt-tsi; 19-01-2022 at 11:01.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,366
    Thanked: 786
    Quick edit: Interesting essay on impartiality, the writer's word for lack of bias.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    6,839
    Thanked: 832
    Quote Originally Posted by xt-tsi View Post
    Yes, the origins of COVID is an issue discussed here in many comments, no one changed their mind.

    Interesting essay on impartiality, the writer's word for bias. Enjoyed it, and some of the other stuff.

    The writer is challenging the idea that a jury should be impartial, when in fact, when talking about a juror "the mere fact that he did form some temporary impression from the first facts as far as he knew them—this does not prove that he is not an impartial arbiter—it only proves that he is not a cold-blooded fool."

    At the same time, what is the alternative in real life? Finding jurors who are completely impartial is, in the real world, impossible to achieve. It's an imperfect system, like capitalism, with its faults but better than the alternative, being no jurors at all, or ones who have clearly reached an opinion about a given court case before the legal proceedings begin.

    But what about skeptical jurors? I'm finding myself being increasingly skeptical and often find myself saying "I don't know". Chesterton put it well when he said that "It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of scepticism." Clever!

    Some of the article questions logic. This is something I often see in on-line debates. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, the comments turn into a discussion of whether an argument from either side is logically sound. Accusations of logical fallacies fly. It is said people are using circular reasoning, ad hominem fallacies, false dichotomies and on and on. Straw man arguments - a common accusation. What happened to the original topic? Buried by discussions of logic.

    Chesterton did it, when challenging an agnostic and then used the black swan analogy you referred to in an earlier comment. I can see how this could be used in a number of settings when one side doesn't accept the sources of information used by the other side. You asked for a black swan (article or source of information), then I give it to you (my viewpoint lined out entirely) but you say it isn't black. Slam dunk! Or so it would seem but not so fast. Look at Chesterton's argument. He is talking about famous scientists who the agnostic said did not "accept the miraculous". Chesterton did produce such scientists who unquestionably rejected the miraculous. There is a slam dunk for you whereas with sources of information, in the media, such clarity is difficult to achieve, to say the least.
    Can't thank posts anymore. *Sigh*
    I think you misspoke, though in saying Chesterton produced scientists who rejected the miraculous. Obviously, it was the other way around. But Chesterton really is amazing and surprisingly, a lot of fun. CS Lewis read him when he was still an atheist and said at the time that he (GK) was "the most sensible man alive, apart from his Christianity". And GK knows he is speaking to non-Christians, and doesn't expect them to automatically accept those assumptions, so he makes a good read for everybody, not just believers.

    But I do think the shoe is on the other foot regarding swans. YOU asked for evidence; I offered it, and you said it isn't valid evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof, the one being an objective thing that can indicate one or another possible or probable conclusion, and proof is what we think a reasonable person sees as sufficient certainty of a conclusion. What PV uncovered is very strong evidence. You don't accept it as proof. I do, because it fits in with a hundred other ascertained facts in my mind to produce a holistic view of what is happening, and a chief difference is that to the side you have chosen, NOT knowing the origin of the virus is essential to maintaining the general view of accidental/natural origin, whereas the evidence we see generally points to man-made origin. Here is a significant piece of the puzzle that point to that origin. What PV reports is objective and verifiable. Therefore, to maintain the view of accidental origin, it is essential to smear and dismiss PV regardless of what the truth is in order to cast doubt on the evidence. I don't say that you are consciously doing that, but that the sources you rely on would naturally do exactly that.

    In any event, you will see an entire collection of fun essays on that page I linked to, not just the one essay. If there's one thing Chesterton was master of, it was befriending his enemies and turning them into friends, even while disagreeing with them, and surely we need more of that in our time.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,366
    Thanked: 786
    Right! Chesterston found Scientists who believed in the miraculous. Thanks...he has some other interesting things to say as well.

    I fundamentally disagree with the content of the PV video, that the origin of the COVID is known and proven. If by having this opinion you are convinced I am calling a black swan white, have at it. I don't see the need for the analogy, let alone accept its veracity. Of significance to me is the subject matter.

    Or course we could go back to debating COVID. I could go through the video, send you other sources. But I thought we agreed to disagree and let the matter rest.

    Of course PV is biased. What media sources aren't? Since we decided to agree to disagree, it's up to you to decide whether to verify PV or not.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •