Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? Isn't that what "argument" means?
Explain how you aren't just asking for license to be wrong without challenge here? I mean, when people (the WSJ, notably not the conspiracists) came out with real evidence, we listened!
I'll fully admit, my priors were wrong. This isn't a total dingbat idea, it might have happened. But I think that now, based on better data. I didn't think that then, and nor should you have.
I do not personally have any thought or idea about which covid origin theory is true. For me this isn't about the lab, but instead the thought police.
So we should also have shut down people saying it was not a lab leak ?
What we did know from the beginning was that there is a lab in Wuhan playing Umbrella Corp with the coronavirus.
This is, well, bullshit. No, what happened is that one side of the divide decided to demand that something be discussed without evidence, and the other side... waited for evidence before discussing it. And now we can have the discussion, because we have some evidence to discuss.
That's the system working, right? How would you prefer this have gone? People decide to discuss groundless conspiracies before anyone comes up with evidence to support them, just... out of politeness?