It ultimately doesn't matter.
If the virus is manmade, according to whatever definition you prefer to use, then the chinese state is responsible. In this case, china must be destroyed.
If the virus is natural, again choose your preferred definition, then the entire chinese population is responsible due to their disgusting lack of hygiene. In this case, china must be destroyed.
China has no redeeming qualities. Besides their history of spreading plagues around the globe, including the actual plague, the spanish flu and the yearly sniffles, they are communists.
China delenda est.
 |
|
|
|
I made the distinction in the original statement. This is desperate straw grasping. You have fun with the semantic argument over what "natural" is. The fact is this form of selective mutation does not leave the markers of genetic engineering, as cited as supposed proof that this virus was not created in a lab. This is evidence against it being genetically engineered, if the study is accurate. It is not evidence against accelerated selective mutation via natural incubation processes.
You keep screaming about how I am making assumptions, but when you are forced to get to the core of your argument, you show a string of your own assumptions and totally fabricated statistical probabilities. I never excluded the possibility of it being a totally natural occurrence, you on the other hand are pretty desperately straining to claim it could not be a bio-weapon when you have nothing but assumptions to support this premise.
You just said it yourself: there is no evidence that the virus was made in a lab. You're arguing that there are ways in which it could have been made in a lab and we can't tell the difference. I'm not so sure about that, yet you are -- for reasons beyond me. Nobody else seems to be claiming that except for your blog published to Zerohedge, which made several other claims that can easily be debunked. There is more evidence that it came from the wild than from a lab. Introducing unfounded, poorly researched "could have" scenarios does nothing to sway me in the direction of your claim that it is "likely a bio-weapon." Is that what I said? Please quote. Again, I am not excluding a natural process, now you are busting out the NO Us and just repeating what I literally just said to you, back to me in a refractory manner. "There is more evidence I am right, cuz I said so!" I don't give a fuck what you believe Nutilduhhh, it is for everyone else reading, so they can see how completely devoid of logic your argument is. |
|
|
|
That is why I said "only controlled by selection", specifically to make that distinction.
OK, well, its not identical then, is it? Generally speaking, when man is controlling something, its not regarded as a natural process. The fact is this could be done in a way to make it impossible to know for sure if it was done in a lab or done in nature.
I'm not so sure about that. I know enough about the issue to understand that I can't know that for sure, one way or the other. I also see no reason to cling to a 1% possibility that something _could have_ happened instead of the remaining 99% that it didn't. So your argument is naturally occurring viruses can not be sampled, cultured, and then intentionally released? What?
No, I never said that. I just think its highly unlikely, given the complete lack of evidence that it was, and the overwhelming amount of evidence that it wasn't. I made the distinction in the original statement. This is desperate straw grasping. You have fun with the semantic argument over what "natural" is. The fact is this form of selective mutation does not leave the markers of genetic engineering, as cited as supposed proof that this virus was not created in a lab. This is evidence against it being genetically engineered, if the study is accurate. It is not evidence against accelerated selective mutation via natural incubation processes. You keep screaming about how I am making assumptions, but when you are forced to get to the core of your argument, you show a string of your own assumptions and totally fabricated statistical probabilities. I never excluded the possibility of it being a totally natural occurrence, you on the other hand are pretty desperately straining to claim it could not be a bio-weapon when you have nothing but assumptions to support this premise. |
|
|
|
1. Animals are used in pathogen testing
2. Mutation of pathogenic viruses can be accelerated in labs using animals
3. Monitoring these mutations, traits resulting from mutation can be selected for and further mutated
4. This process is identical to the natural process of mutation, only controlled by selection
5. Even if the virus was 100% naturally occurring, there is no reason it couldn't have been collected and purposely distributed
Which one of those are not facts Nutilduuuuh?
4 isn't a fact. Controlling something for selection doesn't make it a "natural process" by virtue of the fact that the selection is being controlled. They are in no way identical processes. 5 isn't a fact either, its conjecture. You're free to continue believing in your conspiracy unfettered. I'd just like to remind everybody here that its backed by zero evidence. That is why I said "only controlled by selection", specifically to make that distinction. The fact is this could be done in a way to make it impossible to know for sure if it was done in a lab or done in nature. So your argument is naturally occurring viruses can not be sampled, cultured, and then intentionally released? What? |
|
|
|
1. Animals are used in pathogen testing
2. Mutation of pathogenic viruses can be accelerated in labs using animals
3. Monitoring these mutations, traits resulting from mutation can be selected for and further mutated
4. This process is identical to the natural process of mutation, only controlled by selection
5. Even if the virus was 100% naturally occurring, there is no reason it couldn't have been collected and purposely distributed
Which of these points is not scientific fact Nutilduhh? If the experts are "inevitably wrong," that means you have no chance of being right. My main point is that you don't have the background to understand any of this stuff, and its ridiculous that you utterly refuse to recognize this. The rest of your reply is just a giant "NO U!!!!!!" and not worth responding to. Which one of those are not facts Nutilduuuuh? |
|
|
|
[appeal to popularity]
[appeal to authority]
The number of people who believe a thing is not related to its validity. No shit sherlock. Its not just a "number of people" -- its people whose job it is to know this issue inside and out. THEIR consensus is this is a naturally-evolved virus. I take their word on this issue over yours, as should any rationally-thinking human being who has the intellectual honesty to accept they are not educated enough on the matter to object to the conclusions of experts. You would rather take the word of some anonymous dipshits whose job is churning out clickbait for conspiratards because you are too feeble and insecure to admit you may be wrong about _anything_. What I said is a fact regardless of all the dumb shit you say. Logic overpowers the words of hundreds of people appealing to popularity and or authority. This isn't my opinion, it is a scientific fact.
There's far too many variables involved for anyone to declare it a fact. Nobody is claiming it is a fact but you. Again, you can't entertain the idea that you may be wrong about something for even one minute. Which is why nobody should ever take you seriously when it comes to matters as complicated or as serious as this. Science is not determined by consensus, or by appeal to authority, both of which you are relying completely on here to try to argue your point. Experts are inevitably wrong, because the understanding of science is constantly changing. Furthermore, they are also influenced by out side forces that control their publication, their funding, their employment, and their general reputation in the community. These offer plenty of motive to manipulate outcomes to desired goals. Your argument that the consensus of these people is the only thing that should be relied upon is asinine, and the words of some one with zero critical thinking abilities who wants to be held in the warm embrace of the establishment and have mommy and daddy tell them everything they want to hear. Sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know more about this issue than the authors of this article, who work for the largest non-profit biomedical research organization in the United States. An "accelerated forced mutation process"? Because you have no idea how little you understand about the issue, you will have no way of understanding why you are so incredibly wrong. "This would essentially be mostly indistinguishable from natural evolution."  First of all, there's an entire section of the article called " Evidence for natural evolution". "These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2" "They conclude that the virus is the product of natural evolution," "Accelerated forced mutation" is NOT the same thing as "natural evolution." They're not saying "similar to natural evolution," they're saying it is natural evolution. But because you are so very very smart you know better than the people whose jobs it is to study the topic day and night, right? They studied the issue. You did not. That is why I support their conclusion: In one scenario, the virus evolved to its current pathogenic state through natural selection in a non-human host and then jumped to humans. This is how previous coronavirus outbreaks have emerged, with humans contracting the virus after direct exposure to civets (SARS) and camels (MERS)...
In the other proposed scenario, a non-pathogenic version of the virus jumped from an animal host into humans and then evolved to its current pathogenic state within the human population. For instance, some coronaviruses from pangolins, armadillo-like mammals found in Asia and Africa, have an RBD structure very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2... over yours: likely a bio-weapon 1,000x, every day of the week. Oh, but let me guess, they are just political pawns used to facilitate a cover-up. And meanwhile you're completely unbiased and just presenting facts as you see them. Right. It sure does seem like you are claiming your premise is factual while my premise has no basis in fact. 1. Animals are used in pathogen testing 2. Mutation of pathogenic viruses can be accelerated in labs using animals 3. Monitoring these mutations, traits resulting from mutation can be selected for and further mutated 4. This process is identical to the natural process of mutation, only controlled by selection 5. Even if the virus was 100% naturally occurring, there is no reason it couldn't have been collected and purposely distributed Which of these points is not scientific fact Nutilduhh? People like you who sit around waiting for permission to have their own thoughts will always be behind the curve and in the dark. That is why I showed up here in 2011, while you showed up in 2014 with the first huge wave of free lunch Doge noobs. That is why I was warning about this virus at the end of January while people like you were still pooh poohing it. You require the cult of establishment to approve your thoughts for you first before you have them. You don't even trust your own abilities for reasoning, and as a result to sooth your fragile ego, you have to argue no one else can either because you are too weak intellectually and emotionally to make that step. In short, you are ignorant and afraid, and anyone else who doesn't join you in that state is wrong, because obviously you are the best, so no one else could possibly do any better. |
|
|
|
[appeal to popularity]
[appeal to authority]
The number of people who believe a thing is not related to its validity. Lots of people can be wrong, and people, especially such as yourself, are very fond of defining truth as what you perceive the popular consensus to be. The popular consensus is specifically maintained in order to keep people with little to no ability to use logic in the dark using the powerful human motivation to conform with the group. That is all you have, not logic, but lots of parrots all repeating each other, no one understanding anything. What I said is a fact regardless of all the dumb shit you say. Logic overpowers the words of hundreds of people appealing to popularity and or authority. This isn't my opinion, it is a scientific fact. The fact is what I said is true, you keep crying about how you are right because you go with the popularity contest though Nutilduuuh. "Established science" is inevitably modified and proven wrong as history shows. That is the nature of genuine scientific progress, not the cult of the establishment that you advocate for. |
|
|
|
I only need to be right one way Nutilduuuh, and what I said is 100% fact, you don't need to be a virologist to understand it: IT IS A FACT viruses can have their mutations accelerated in a lab by infecting lots of animal subjects, and selecting for preferable mutation traits. This is NOT something that would be distinguishable from natural mutation. That's not a "fact." Quite often there are ways to identify whether or not traits were artificially selected for. You simply don't know enough about the subject to understand the many ways in which you are wrong. Biological warfare is a real thing. Deception is a key facet of warfare. The fact is this is but one way this disease could have been manipulated in a lab without leaving markers from genetic engineering.
Biological warfare is a real thing, ergo covid-19 is "likely a bio-weapon," right?  Moron. It's ok Nutilduuuh. I know some times facts can be scary, so you need to fight extra hard and call people names because you can't cope with it, but the facts are still the facts. That original article claiming it was totally proven to not be made in a lab is absolutely not true, as there are many lab procedures which can accomplish the goal while still appearing to be totally natural. You simply don't know enough about the subject to understand. There are many long standing goals of the establishment structure that have been accomplished as a result of this outbreak. This is the same process that happened after 9/11/01, using fear to ratchet up control and strip rights. It doesn't mean the fear isn't real it just means it is being used as a mechanism to give pretext for control. The ability to summon this kind of panic and chaos on demand is a desirable tool to some states, groups, and individuals. This panic has created lots of profit and control for some people. There are the means, motive, and opportunity for this to happen. That is the point Nutilduuuh, but maybe if you call me an incel or conspiritard a few more times suddenly your brilliance will sink in. |
|
|
|
IT IS A FACT viruses can have their mutations accelerated in a lab by infecting lots of animal subjects, and selecting for preferable mutation traits. This is NOT something that would be distinguishable from natural mutation. You suffer from severe cognitive dissonance. Biological warfare is a real thing. Deception is a key facet of warfare. The fact is this is but one way this disease could have been manipulated in a lab without leaving markers from genetic engineering. i feel before people even do research. they form their own theeory/opinion/conspiracy and then go full retard trying to fund single sentance exerts out of whole page documents which seem slightly following their initial idea. and then use it to then pretend the whole report backs up their opinion. thus reenforcing their opinion.. a car can run you over. this does not mean all cars will run everyone over. this does not mean you should just cross the road without looking because you think you can just blame the car. it doesnt mean all accidents are car related. nor does it mean knowing cars are dangerous you can blame them and want them to stop thinking if there were no cars then there would be no accidents. the whole report said that the virus was done by natural processes not lab biohacking DNA alterations. it doesnt even say the cause is actually from lab selective breeding. just because it says a possible thing doesnt mean its proof of that thing being the answer/cause Your car analogy is trash. I never claimed the article proved the other independent statement I made. I didn't say it has to be a bio-weapon, only that it could be. Nutilduuuh is explicitly claiming their own article proves it could not be made in a lab because there are no markers from genetic engineering. This assumption is false. There is no debate over this fact. |
|
|
|
The only fact you've demonstrated is that you like to play armchair virologist. You are ignoring the 67 other ways in which you were proven wrong to concentrate on this one sub-facet of irrelevancy, hoping it absolves you of your other bullshit. What you just said has nothing to do with anything, and is not even correct. Its clear you don't understand jack shit about this issue so why you keep yammering on about it is beyond me. Additionally, you still have yet to demonstrate the virus was created in a lab and keep pointing to pseudoscience in an effort to do so. Its pathetic.
You are ignoring the 15,732 ways you were wrong! Making up numbers is fun! I only need to be right one way Nutilduuuh, and what I said is 100% fact, you don't need to be a virologist to understand it: IT IS A FACT viruses can have their mutations accelerated in a lab by infecting lots of animal subjects, and selecting for preferable mutation traits. This is NOT something that would be distinguishable from natural mutation. You suffer from severe cognitive dissonance. Biological warfare is a real thing. Deception is a key facet of warfare. The fact is this is but one way this disease could have been manipulated in a lab without leaving markers from genetic engineering. |
|
|
|
A bit disappointing that so many Bitcoiners fall for random pseudo-science conspiracy bullshit. Just remember when the next time you tell somebody that they are a sheep for not using Bitcoin or hating banks, look in the mirror first.  Great, we have almost the whole clown car chiming in now. It is a fact, purposely infecting test animals and selecting for the most virulent mutations would be INDISTINGUISHABLE from natural mutation, because it is nothing more than accelerating a natural process and selecting for desirable traits.
From the abstract cited in your article: ...We genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets. "Site-directed mutagenesis" is NOT a natural process. Convenient how they left that tidbit out. SDM is an in vitro procedure that uses custom designed oligonucleotide primers to confer a desired mutation in a double-stranded DNA plasmid. There is no evidence that this has been excluded as a possibility, and any claims otherwise are assumptions, not based on observable empirical data.
You really don't understand concepts of proof and evidence. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the virus was created in a lab. It's not anybody's job to prove that its not. Just flinging improbabilities out there and then saying they are likely is nothing but you propelling baseless conspiracy theories. You like to play this little game a lot, where if I link an article, you expect me to defend every single facet of it as if I said it, and if I don't nothing I say has any logical basis. You keep talking about the article all you like, regardless of whatever is in it or the study it is based on, there is no denying... IT IS A FACT viruses can have their mutations accelerated in a lab by infecting lots of animal subjects, and selecting for preferable mutation traits. This is NOT something that would be distinguishable from natural mutation. You call me incel, conspiritard, etc. all you like, none of this is an argument or changes this fact. |
|
|
|
No presidential election in 2020 (martial law, martians invading, etc) means a draw.
This was supposed to be a joke about an incredibly unlikely scenario.. Right?? Now.. Not so much.. I highly doubt this will happen, but it might be worth while to clarify the terms of a delay. An outright canceling of the election would most certainly result in massive unrest. |
|
|
|
Sounds like you went out of your way to confirm your own bias. Unsurprisingly, you picked a completely bullshit-ridden article to do so. A problem you have is that you always take statements like these at face value, so long as they back whatever conspiracy you are currently frothing over: China bought off the head of Harvard’s chemistry department, you don’t think they could buy off run-of-the-mill research scientists scrambling for tenure and funding and publication? Really? This statement is pure paranoid speculation. Its retard juice. As our report mentions right at the start, scientists passed the H5N1 Bird Flu through a series of ferret hosts until it gained ACE2 affinity and then became incredibly virulent That's not what happened! JFC. From the abstract cited in your article: ...We genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets. "Site-directed mutagenesis" is NOT a natural process. Convenient how they left that tidbit out. Regardless, this has nothing to do with covid-19. It is again pure speculation to be slurped down by conspiratards. Just because something _could_ happen, doesn't mean it _did_ happen. You always focus on "could" and never on "did." This efficient solution is exactly the kind of thing that would be selected for after passage through ferrets in lab, which was already done to the Bird Flu that created a horrifically virulent strain. "Would be" selected for -- not "was." Again, pure, baseless speculation. Here, only one variant was found in all the initial infected humans, instead of the multiple variants that would be expected. But does fit what would happen if a virus that already had high affinity to the ACE2 receptor, which is the same in human and ferrets, leaked out of a lab. This is plain incorrect. Here's a representation of all of the variants of covid-19: [img width=500]https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Takahiko_Koyama/publication/339461351/figure/fig3/AS:865732212572168@1583418052931/A-graphical-representation-of-variants-found-in-COVID-19-genomes-Variants-are-colored.png[/img] There is zero evidence to back any of these statements up, but the author tells you what you want to hear and throws just enough scientific terms around to make it sound like they know what they're talking about, so you just assume they are truthful. Its laughable to think this article takes down shit. I read the whole thing and it is too riddled with ridiculous assumptions, baseless claims and pseudoscientific bullshit to bother dissecting it any more than I already have. Sure, some anonymous dipshits with a blog know more about this issue than scientists with combined hundreds of years of experience working in this exact field, because those dipshits are telling you what you want to hear. Get real. My guess is that in 2 or 3 months this whole affair will be over with, fading into distant memory, but you will have somehow created enough plausible deniability in your own mind that covid-19 was STILL a "bio-weapon," even if a piss poor one at that, never having produced a shred of evidence to back your claim. Par for the course for just about every other ridiculous conspiratard turd you've ever laid in this section of the forum. Here's the one part of your article I actually agree with: "Maybe you shouldn’t blindly believe everything you read?" It is a fact, purposely infecting test animals and selecting for the most virulent mutations would be INDISTINGUISHABLE from natural mutation, because it is nothing more than accelerating a natural process and selecting for desirable traits. There is no evidence that this has been excluded as a possibility, and any claims otherwise are assumptions, not based on observable empirical data. Yeah roger that techy...as if you don't ever have a problem with anyone who has opinions that don't align with your own. Phukking hypocrite.
Here's an idea dude, why not try posting your rebuttal without being an obnoxious richard head? I dont think I've ever seen you do that.
Not sure if you enjoy or just don't care about being an arrogant prick on these boards, but you sure are good at it.
Apologies for replying to off topic with off topic.
The corona virus sucks.
If I disagree with some one's views, I debate the topic with them. I don't follow them around like a human version of Snopes and attack every source they link as invalid while never addressing the contents. I am perfectly capable of posting a logic based rebuttal while also being an obnoxious prick, thank you very much. |
|
|
|
I think it should be noted those posts were posted here, not in this thread. They absolutely should have been deleted. |
|
|
|
Looks like someone doesn't want me talking about dragonvslinux little "bargain" attempts. Maybe the nefarious rabbit hole that is dragonvslinux goes deeper than I thought. I reported those posts. You will notice Vod's reply is also gone. None of that had anything to do with the thread, and neither do most of the recent posts here attacking you. |
|
|
|
|
Socialism ALWAYS looks good, but is bait for a trap that ends up being something horrible. That is the defining trait of socialism throughout history. Socialism is an ideological virus that coats itself with utopian dreams to it can insert itself into a society just long enough to infiltrate it, eat out it's substance, and redirect it toward reproducing its own totalitarian goals. Socialists are a bunch of dogs crowded around a puddle of antifreeze barking how sweet it is, and everyone who doesn't lap it up just doesn't get it.
UBI is a HORRIBLE idea. You can print money infinitely. Resources and labor are still finite. All UBI does is hand out more paper. As a result, the price of those resources nearly instantly go up, and everyone is back at square one. Except now, you are punishing the actual productive class of society, incentivising them not to produce, and have a debased economic system. Supporting UBI is the economic equivalent in believing in there being a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The rainbow never ends, but you will never stop pretending it is attainable and that gold is waiting for you.
|
|
|
|
While I agree it was likely a bio-weapon, and that study seems to make some very strangely worded conclusions for a scientific paper giving me the distinct impression it serves more political purposes than scientific ones. Even if the article is totally accurate, this is only something that excludes genetic engineering, not an accelerated forced mutation process done by raising many generations of the virus in a targeted environment. This would essentially be mostly indistinguishable from natural evolution.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know more about this issue than the authors of this article, who work for the largest non-profit biomedical research organization in the United States. An "accelerated forced mutation process"? Because you have no idea how little you understand about the issue, you will have no way of understanding why you are so incredibly wrong. "This would essentially be mostly indistinguishable from natural evolution." First of all, there's an entire section of the article called " Evidence for natural evolution". "These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2" "They conclude that the virus is the product of natural evolution," "Accelerated forced mutation" is NOT the same thing as "natural evolution." They're not saying "similar to natural evolution," they're saying it is natural evolution. But because you are so very very smart you know better than the people whose jobs it is to study the topic day and night, right? They studied the issue. You did not. That is why I support their conclusion: In one scenario, the virus evolved to its current pathogenic state through natural selection in a non-human host and then jumped to humans. This is how previous coronavirus outbreaks have emerged, with humans contracting the virus after direct exposure to civets (SARS) and camels (MERS)...
In the other proposed scenario, a non-pathogenic version of the virus jumped from an animal host into humans and then evolved to its current pathogenic state within the human population. For instance, some coronaviruses from pangolins, armadillo-like mammals found in Asia and Africa, have an RBD structure very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2... over yours: likely a bio-weapon 1,000x, every day of the week. Oh, but let me guess, they are just political pawns used to facilitate a cover-up. And meanwhile you're completely unbiased and just presenting facts as you see them. Right. Huh. Look what we have here: https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/03/19/china-owns-nature-magazines-ass-debunking-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2-claiming-covid-19-wasnt-from-a-lab/Sounds a lot like what I was saying already. "As our report mentions right at the start, scientists passed the H5N1 Bird Flu through a series of ferret hosts until it gained ACE2 affinity and then became incredibly virulent, which is what’s seen with COVID-19 since its affinity to ACE2 is orders of magnitude higher than SARS. That process would leave a genome that appears “natural” and not purposeful as well since it wouldn’t leave a genomic smoking gun and would simply appear to be the result of “natural” selection. However the addition of artificial generations produced by this process of passing through ferrets in the lab would create a lot of genetic distance from any possible relatives – precisely what is seen in COVID-19: it forms its own clade and appears very distant from all other bat coronaviruses. So this is lazy research, they’re either unaware of the Bird Flu study or are willfully ignoring it." |
|
|
|
TwitchySeal is exactly right. ZeroHedge thrives off churning out factless clickbait for conspiratard incels like yourself, and RT is funded by the Russian government. No argument against the contents? Attack the source. That way you never have to attempt to debate the facts of the matter and can remain totally ignorant while comforted in the belief in your righteousness. |
|
|
|
Nope, respectfully disagree. My reply was directly to OG talking directly to me, making it clear I was responding directly to eddie13. Now I'm responding directly to you. Notice a distinct pattern here? Maybe stop talking to me and I'll stop replying? You know where the report button is.
An off topic reply is still off topic, regardless if it was a reply or not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
