I’ve been pretty busy with contract negotiations the last little bit, so haven’t had time or mental energy to participate on the boards, but today I chose to take a bit of time and try beating my head against a wall recreationally rather than professionally a little bit.
I’ve only really read the last week or so of this thread, so maybe I missed a bit of context, but when you say:
You mean that is should be obvious that you meant the exact opposite of what you actually said?
I think @thorny_locust’s point was pretty clear.
If it did originate with tourists, then maybe caving should be restricted. But that wouldn’t mean that labs should see that this originated with tourists and so lower their own safety standards.
Whether or not it came from a lab, they should always be reviewing their safety procedures and making sure that they are following best practices.
Sure, it’s his fault for using a term he probably didn’t mean - but you can still apply common sense.
So say we all.
No one could conceivably think someone else was suggesting this, so why bring it up?
Yes, but whether or not a virus recently escaped from the lab is important information when doing this.
I can’t believe anyone is actually arguing this point.
I already explained what I meant:
Or if you want me to put it more precisely: when discussing politics and many other topics, it seems to be impossible to disagree significantly with the board consensus without having some posters vehemently oppose and even hate you.
See, I don’t see this as a misrepresentation as to what you said. I take this as giving you the benefit of the doubt. @steronz made the assumption that you were upset about things that actually happened, but it turns out, that you were upset about the delusional fantasies that exist only in your imagination.
Setting aside the debate about the current crop of individual conservative posters, I would just like to note for the record that this sequence is a good example of the kind of bubble that’s being complained about.
Two speculative responses “thoroughly debunked” a point that wasn’t even categorically incorrect, and it was time to move on. You would kinda have to be a little bit sick in the head to want to play the other side of that game. Knowing that if you say ‘well, you know, that’s kind of a hot button issue in the Brexit age, and while not all political beliefs are protected, certainly some are, so it’s really a question of at what point a political opinion rises to the level of deeply-heldness that it should be afforded that status, as Kimstu’s subsequent cite demonstrated, even though they seemed not to realize that, and there’s a good argument that one’s “conservativeness” is more akin to one’s “democratic socialistness” than to any mere political opinion,’ and so on, that it’s a coin flip whether you’ll get any substantive response, but a guarantee that you’ll get the snarky ones from people who don’t actually know… what’s the good faith incentive to take the time to argue that position, much less support it?
Even if, hypothetically, you’re the kind of poster who is a total dipshit who never contributes anything, and really only seems to be here to antagonize people and then complain, you’re not wrong if you complain there’s a hive mind sort of mentality in these kinds of threads.
I see you are just here to troll, so I will not be replying further.
Simply as an example of why your quest for truth is useless. What do you think needs to happen?
Why do you believe this to be so? Do you always believe in fighting the last battle?
Ah, is that an example of that vehement opposition and hatred you were talking about?
Ah, so you are not able to disagree without being hateful.
Now I see why you think this is the case for other posters, you can only see how you act yourself.
Because we still don’t know the outbreak origin of the virus and therefore may not be prepared to avoid future outbreaks of novel variants.
What?? We aren’t even done fighting this battle. The enemy is changing faster than we can predict and is becoming more powerful.
If the pandemic didn’t start with a tourist, but such tours are a potential source of infection, shouldn’t they be regulated to a higher safety standard anyways, regardless of whether or not this particular pandemic started with a tourist?
If the pandemic didn’t start with a meat market, but such meat markets are a potential source of infection, shouldn’t they be regulated to a higher safety standard anyways, regardless of whether or not this particular pandemic started with a meat market?
If the pandemic didn’t start with a lab, but such labs are a potential source of infection, shouldn’t they be regulated to a higher safety standard anyways, regardless of whether or not this particular pandemic started with a lab?
That’s Dr. Fauci’s point when he says “who cares?”. Regardless of how the pandemic started, what DRIVES IT is community spread. Community spread can be countered (NOT ELIMINATED but slowed down) by taking certain precautions like masking or social distancing, or by vaccinations.
For people to act like figuring out the exact source of the pandemic is of critical importance while downplaying the actual steps we can take to counter the pandemic is transparently disingenuous. It isn’t something you do to fix the pandemic, it’s what you do to use the pandemic for political gain.
Wrong!
I wouldn’t have linked to eternalism and it’s block universe concept if I did not know what determinism means. Are you familiar with the concept and acceptance of the block universe and what it means for perception of time?
But let’s grant your point of view that contradicts relativity and say that the universe is intrinsically random. Intrinsically random still does not provide a mechanism to consciously override physical law.
Bottom line is your brain is a physical organ. No amounts of wishing otherwise will change that fact.
Oh well. Next time I will stay out of it. But if you really must have this tiresome unproductive argument, could you please take to a new thread?
They were also inspired by the progressive’s advocation of eugenics as means to nip social problems in the bud so to speak.
Nope. Plus it’s better than silly recipes.
Actually, community transmission can be eliminated by adequately rigorous observance of public-health protocols, as New Zealand achieved between March and June 2020.
This month, New Zealand had another case of community transmission, so they’re on short-term lockdown again in order to eliminate it again.
I daresay you’ve seen this one before:
Sure, eventually you can eliminate it, but with the number of people infected that’s definitely not an immediate goal. In the short term, the purpose of masking, social distancing, etc is not to eliminate the virus (and it’s important to make that very clear because otherwise idiots point to every case and shout “see, your fascist lockdowns aren’t working!” before spreading COVID around) but to reduce its R value to below 1.
If you keep a virus at an R value below 1 long enough, then yes it will eventually be eradicated. But with something like COVID you have to either eliminate it world-wide or prevent travel, so realistically these measures alone won’t eliminate COVID any time soon. But they COULD get COVID down to a level where a concentrated effort can eliminate it.