He's not shutting down anything, just pointing out the ludicrousness of the comment he was responding to.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvFlBAvWsAA72Tq.jpg

What's the difference?

What YOU did was an attempt to shutdown descent by attacking the poster instead of actually debating the issue

You're confusing me with some one else.

it's palpable to the rest of us to see how quick the discussion jumps to feigned confusion, a lack of charity to understand what others are saying and to immediate dishonesty when trying to shut down conversation

they're 'confusing' you for the parent poster of the comment chain you directly replied to in the discussion that you inserted yourself into, something understandable from anyone who spends time on sites that have parent/child discussion chains.

the confusion is solely yours alone, but for any other new users to the site you're taking up the role of continuing the discussion by commenting on reply chains inside that discussion, so having a reply to your comment that mistakenly mentions "your" previous post can be immediately understood in this context as the parents post and not as a misdirected attack that needs to be personally identified before continuing casual discussion.

do you need any more context to respond with honest intentions?

You're throwing accusations of dishonesty purely because I pointed out that I'm not the original poster?

FCOL, I didn't even make a point/take a side, I genuinely want to know what the difference is between "shutdown a conversation" and "dismiss opposing argument without consideration".

That post was the first post I made on this story, and I'm supposed to accept that prior to posting that I was shutting down discussion?

> it's palpable to the rest of us to see how quick the discussion jumps to feigned confusion, a lack of charity to understand what others are saying and to immediate dishonesty

With all respect to you, that's rich.

My pet peeve is people interpreting "that's a stupid argument, here's why" as a conspiracy theory.

Interesting that you would twist some simple observations into an accusation that I am trying to "shut down any dissent". Maybe not everything follows your world view. I'm happy with anyone who wants read all the comments... So the "we're so persecuted" arguments are wearing transparently thin.

> ... some simple observations ...

It seems like your "simple observation" is referring to the false dichotomy of stating that there are only money from Exxon, Phillip Morris and Pfizer (and the likes?) as an alternative to governmental money?

There is a plethora of way to finance any projects besides either be financed by the government or large corporations – and luckily much research is funded in other ways.

Can you elaborate on these other ways? I genuinely haven’t thought too much about how research has been financed historically.

Independent fonds would be a big one. Otherwise, independent researchers that finance their own research (In the case of the LK-99 research many lists had independent researchers names with Twitter links where they publish their research).

I am sure one can easily think up more ways to figure financing of (scientific) projects.

Where does the money in the funds originate from? Who set the original goal of the fun and the research direction?

when research is independent self funded, the direction is set by yourself.

When financing come from an independent fond, the board of that fond according to the purpose.

But where does the money in both cases come from?

Either you need to need to be indipendently wealthy or follow the desires of who or whatever gave the funds to the foundation.

> There is a plethora of way to finance any projects besides either be financed by the government or large corporations – and luckily much research is funded in other ways.

Do you believe this money doesn't carry any obligations?

The entire premise of the Scientific Method is dissent and skepticism. Fallacious claims that "big science" is effectively an arm of the government because of research grants and other funding is not dissent, it is a feeble red herring.