Re:WHO inquiry chief 'had concerns' about lab close to first...
by echelon on Friday August 13, 2021 @03:47PM
(#28173668)
"research accident" is a better term than "lab leak".
[dead]
Re:WHO inquiry chief 'had concerns' about lab close to first...
by fouric on Friday August 13, 2021 @03:20PM
(#28173284)
> To be fair, a lot of you nuts
Please don't resort to personal insults on HN. It's a violation of the guidelines[1] and makes for poor and uninteresting discussion.
Instead...
> It's extremely hard to figure out who we're talking to.
...don't resort to personal attacks, and assess the argument that the individual is making, without setting up a straw-man argument. If you're unclear what their assumptions are, then ask.
Re:WHO inquiry chief 'had concerns' about lab close to first...
by nickff on Friday August 13, 2021 @03:01PM
(#28173002)
>"To be fair, a lot of you nuts are absolutely alleging "premeditated conspiracy", or even loopier notions like bioweapon engineering. "
Why are you insulting me? I honestly don't know where this virus came from, and am more interested in what the polarized discourse says about our current state of affairs.
I hadn't considered this before, but you're right that most of the people dismissing the 'lab leak' theory seem to believe that their intellectual opponents are proposing that a 'premeditated conspiracy' took place.
In any case, if I were a PRoC official, I would try to reduce the chance of any (direct or circumstantial) evidence of a lab leak came to light. That said, even suppression of circumstantial evidence is not necessarily evidence of either a lab leak or pre-meditated conspiracy.