His question requires no paraphrasing.
I don’t think that Glenn is expressing any view on the cause of the Covid pandemic. I’m not sure he has a view.
He is merely addressing the cognitive dissonance that attributes racism to the one claim and being unable to see the (at least in his eyes) greater racism in the other claim.
If Apoorva Mandavilli (the author of the tweet Glenn was responding to) had wanted to talk about scientific evidence, she certainly could have. As I understand it, Covid was on her beat. She choose the topic of racism and Glenn challenged her on it.
Well, if that is the case, it would help explain why he asks a question that would be readily answered if he had bothered to investigated and come up with the view supported by the scientific evidence.
It seems she does, quite often.
No need - I didn’t mean he’d deleted anything from his posts, but that he’d deleted (omitted) text when quoting others.
He’s been quoting half-sentences, in cases where the half he didn’t quote affects the meaning of the half he did.
His first post was a classic quote-mine: claiming that the second half of a sentence didn’t make sense when the reason it didn’t make sense was because he had omitted the first half.
His excuse about leaving the arrows in is just an excuse, because he’s left nothing to indicate that following the arrow makes any difference.
1 Like
As much as you’d like to change the topic, I’ll try my best to resist your obfuscation.
But I guess if you are really a psychiatrist I may have my work cut out for me. Unfortunately for you, it shows you in a rather damning light.
As a psychiatrist I’d assume you to be able to get at the deeper and hidden meanings, but does that require you to ignore the obvious?
How many times does it need to be pointed out that the origin of Covid is not the issue, so your,
is beside the point.
The issue, whether deep and hidden or obvious - is her resort to labeling any of this as ‘racist’ and expecting it to strengthen her case.
Not having a lot of regard for psychiatry, I’m sorry not to have a psychiatrist to help you with your cognitive dissonance. Can you not self-treat?
Anyway, no need to point me to other of Apoorva Mandavilli’s work or to paraphrase Glenn’s comment.
This is not about the origin of Covid. It is about Glenn’s comment. Try and answer his questions. Don’t try your sketchy paraphrasing. It is quite clear on the face of it.
I’ve answered the question. I’m not going to repeat myself.
BTW, Greenwald didn’t say it wasn’t racist, did he?
3 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic
I’m quite sure that you don’t even believe that.
There were two questions,
- “Can someone explain to me why it’s racist to wonder if a virus escaped from a Chinese lab, but it’s not racist to insist that it infected humans because of Chinese wet markets? and
- If anything, isn’t the latter more racist?”
To which of those questions is your,
an answer?
Neither. You haven’t come close to even attempting to answer the question but obfuscate by trying to deflect to the question of “Where did the virus originate”. Of course, that has nothing to do with Glenn’s question.
Glenn responds to his own question 2 below,
“It wasn’t just the NYT’s COVID reporter who said the ‘lab leak’ theory is racist,” Greenwald tweeted.
“Much of the liberal-left said it, too. All that matters is the truth, but the far more racist theory was theirs: that COVID occurred due to primitive, unsanitary Chinese bat-eating wet markets.”
Did he need to? Isn’t a Psychiatrist supposed to be able to ascertain a bit of meaning without it being explicitly stated?
But to answer your question, NO, or at least in nothing that I quoted.
I’d guess that the accusation (that it could have escaped from the lab) could have been made by either a racist or a non-racist. But I have no data on the level of racism of people making the claim. I doubt that FBI chief Christopher Wray is racist.
Tell me you are purposely feeding me these softballs.
Ah, so “I think I have to back up @Sam on this” was not an endorsement of the comment we both quoted. It would seem that my understanding of English, a language that I have spoken for more than fifty years, is considerably less reliable than I had previously been led to believe.
Likewise this apparently-febrile understanding does not allow me comprehend what that comment means if it is not an endorsement, whether uttered in a “role as moderator”, or otherwise.
Not wanting to overstep my previously-noted apparently-febrile understanding, but it does occur to me that comments that I have made on previous occasions, about how counterproductive “cryptic comments” can be, just might be applicable.
I’d suggest what he “finds useful” is (i) a megaphone for his superficial sneerings at science and (ii) in DI’s followers, a ready source of admiration for his superficial sneering. For somebody with an ego as large as Berlinski’s appears to be, and given his paucity of actual achievements, this would appear invaluable.
2 Likes
Both. I’m sure Greenwald would understand that, if he ever had the chance to read my reply.
Which, as it happens, is exactly where the virus originated. Oops, awkward.
Of course, the selective use of adjectives hardly a rational argument makes. One could just as easily, but far more accurately, have written “Early in the pandemic, suspicion focused on the nearby livestock market. This was hardly surprising, given the large number of viral pathogens (SARS, Nipah, MERS, H7N7, Ebola, H1N1) that have arisen in recent years thru zoonotic spread to humans. What was surprising, and unfortunate, was the number of people who continued to insist, even as the evidence in favour of an origin in the livestock market mounted, that the blame for the pandemic lay, instead, with corrupt, deceitful and cunning Chinese scientists. It is difficult not to speculate on why this was, and continues to be, the case even after a zoonotic origin became all but certain.”
OK, maybe that wouldn’t fit in a Tweet…
1 Like
I think Faizal pointed this out above, but it has to do with the amount of evidence for each hypothesis.
There is generally understood to be significant evidence in support of the wet market hypothesis. Thus, there is no reason to think that those espousing it are doing so for some other reason, such as racism.
There is generally understood to be little to no evidence supporting the lab escape hypothesis. There must be some other reason, in addition to the small amount of evidence, supporting the conclusion of those wondering about the lab escape hypothesis. What might it be? It might be racism. It might be that they are mistaken about the distribution of the evidence. It might be that they have been misinformed.
If someone is just asking questions about an inflammatory topic, they should ask those questions of people who might have some insight into the answer rather than tossing them out on the internet with vague insinuations about conspiracies to suppress the truth.
3 Likes
Does that make any sense? Do I leave arrows in? Aren’t they a part of the “quoting” function?
My comment about the arrow was at least in part to address the piffle about the original comment being hidden somewhere in the deep recesses of the previous 200+ posts as if to the one that wanted to see the context being prohibited by the need to troll through reams of text. As I suggest, piffle sums up that suggestion.
That is hogwash. Here is the entire sentence. And if that is not enough of the context add whatever you want. As I recall Sam Harris stating at one time, a quote is by nature out of context. That is what a quote is. Or maybe he was referring to a clip from a video, and the clip being taken out of context… Either way, to choose a part of text (quote) as my challenge is by its very nature going to be “out of context”
But here is the full sentence.
I wasn’t attempting to hide anything. My comment makes as much sense showing as much context as you’d wish.
It does nothing to lessen my point that there is nothing that prevents any other person, qualifications notwithstanding, from understanding the other person’s work more fully that the originator.
I have little reason to doubt that the 18-year-old Einstein who worked at the patent office would have been able to read scientific papers and understand the author’s “own work” far beyond that of the author. How can such a possibility be ruled out. As I think I said, it is nonsense.
While Michael Worobey’s work is highly supportive of the wet market origin, it is not conclusive. As lab leak and zoonotic origin are hardly mutually exclusive, and circulation could have happened for some undetermined prior duration, it is probably impossible to reconstruct the exact path. Nor does “lab leak” necessarily involve gain of function experiments or anything more than sequencing. Surveillance was among the principle tasks of the research institute. It may have begun with crawling over bat guano or cave aerosol during field work. This whole thing has become so politicized that you can hardly hazard a hypothesis without opposing sides reacting with racist, stooge, globalist, or Manchurian candidate.
In any case, zoonotic jumps happen and will continue to happen, and that is not about race. It is not racist to recognize that the People’s Republic of China does not represent a race but a system, and that system responded abysmally during the initial outbreak.
4 Likes
I haven’t the least understanding of why it should have been inflammatory, apart from the reason that I’m sure you can guess. I think I’ve been chastened on this topic before so I daren’t mention the only thing it could possible be. There is no conceivable reason apart from politics that could render this inflammatory.
Maybe a comedian is needed to show how sensible and legitimate such a question was,
“‘Oh my God, there’s been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania. What do you think happened?'” Stewart added. “Like, ‘Oh, I don’t know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean?’ Or it’s the f—ing chocolate factory.”
Apparently, he thinks proximity might have a bearing.
“‘Oh my God, there’s been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania. What do you think happened?'” Stewart added. “Like, ‘Oh, I don’t know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean?’ Or it’s the f—ing chocolate factory.” alone raise suspicion.
What do you think? Any possibility that FBI chief Christopher Wray might have done what you’ve just suggested? He may have erred however in not consulting with the scientists at “Peaceful Science” who as I mentioned earlier “we’re scientists we really want to engage”
I think the racist trope is one sided.
But can anyone dispute your,
And why is that? How could the question, I wonder where this thing originated, ever become politicized? And if it has, why can’t it be unpoliticized?
Why can’t we drop that aspect and leave both options as open? It is unfortunate that the CCP have not been much more open with the data only they have.
Anyway, this whole question of Covid - didn’t we do that before?
It is certainly not the reason for the resurrection of this thread began. I only brought it up in a very specific way to address the issue of Consensus.
I thought I was using an example that no one would defend. Even the author, of the tweet, Apoorva Mandavilli, deleted it in short order. Alas, my thought that no one would defend such a nonsense tweet wrong.
And now we are seemingly back on the topic of the origins of Covid.
I’m sure the moderators are losing patience. I won’t address it further.
I initially responded to the comment,
I think my opposition to that conclusion is pretty much unassailable.
For anyone who thinks the quote needs more context, may I suggest clicking on the arrow pointing straight up, that should appear to the left of the quote and read the context in full.
Why, of course! “Teach the controversy”. That it? Pretend there are two equally plausible answers the question? Well, at least you ID’ers are consistent.
Neutral, international investigators have been allowed full access to the laboratory and have found no evidence of any virus being investigated or stored theer that could have led to the pandemic. So exactly what “data” do you think has been withheld that could help settle the question of the virus’s origin? Please be specific.
Please wait while I finish laughing at the towering inanity of comparing such mediocre nonentities as Behe and Meyer (who have no stature to speak of, outside the aforementioned fetid cesspits of the ID Echo Chamber) to Albert Einstein (a comparison whose ludicrousness would not be apparent if you hadn’t included my full sentence, I would note).
…
…
Thank you for your patience. Now if the comparison itself weren’t sufficiently ludicrous, we should consider Einstein’s biography. Whilst he excelled in Physics and Maths, his grades were sufficiently spotty in other fields that he failed the entrance exam for the Swiss Federal polytechnic school in Zürich. This should engender caution in suggesting that that we have any reason to assume “insights”, and that ID apologists have a greater understanding than the experts they cite, in fields outside those they have any formal training, or research experience, in.
4 Likes
For the record, Einstein started at the patent office at age 22.
It should be noted that while Einstein solved the theory behind experimental observations such as Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect, and gave physical meaning to the Lorenz transforms, in none of these cases was he contradicting any explanations taken by the investigators. That is a critical distinction from the members of the DI, who have contributed no significant insights and broadly conflict with the established work and conclusions of mainstream researchers.
8 Likes
And a source of income. Don’t forget that.
3 Likes