Beer Virus V

[DoggyDaddy]

I heard a theory that said - In Heaven There Is No Beer, but I have never seen any proof one way or the other. Now my opinion on this is just as worthless as anybody else's and I am getting too old to just sit around and wait for proof. I'm thinking of starting some protests, that seems to be the thing to do when one doesn't have a clue.

Be careful or they'll charge you with conspiracy to commit... something. Apparently just thinking or talking about is all that's needed now.

 

[BugI02]

Act? To do what?

Review 4292 and 4296, or don't. I'm not sure what he expected. The way to find the truth about lab leak, or just about anything, is to actually get a majority of people in office who are interested in digging for the truth, not burying it

I get the feeling he thought I should be leading a march on the CDC headquarters or something

 

[nonobaddog]

Review 4292 and 4296, or don't. I'm not sure what he expected. The way to find the truth about lab leak, or just about anything, is to actually get a majority of people in office who are interested in digging for the truth, not burying it

I get the feeling he thought I should be leading a march on the CDC headquarters or something

People in office don't dig for the truth, they only dig for their truth.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

People in office don't dig for the truth, they only dig for their truth.

You just described liberals in general.

 

[BugI02]

I meant about “stop JK’ing threads.” I’m biased against doing something meaningless for the sake of “doing something.” Write a letter, get a canned response, repeat. If you feel better doing that, I’m not trying to stop you. Or maybe I’m simplifying your overall plan. And maybe that’s just a defeatist outlook on my end, but I see the outcome as the same. Either way, I’ll leave it there.

This is a perfect example of the problem. OK, so you don't think working through channels will be effective. And?

Do YOU have an alternate plan? You never put yourself on record and say what you think would work. Does that mean you don't think anything will work? Do you get your jollys sniping at anyone else's suggestions? It seems passive-aggressive

 

[BugI02]

People in office don't dig for the truth, they only dig for their truth.

That is still better than no truth at all

 

[BugI02]

People in office don't dig for the truth, they only dig for their truth.

There is no 'proof' that that is true

 

[jsharmon7]

This is a perfect example of the problem. OK, so you don't think working through channels will be effective. And?

Do YOU have an alternate plan? You never put yourself on record and say what you think would work. Does that mean you don't think anything will work? Do you get your jollys sniping at anyone else's suggestions? It seems passive-aggressive

Me not agreeing that your plan will get us to the truth is passive aggressive sniping? Seems like that brings us back to my original belief that your real issue is just that I don’t agree with your opinions. So if you really only care that I won’t take a side, then I will. I think the virus has a natural origin. You do what you think is best to get to your truth, and I’ll do the same.

 

[nonobaddog]

That is still better than no truth at all

Not necessarily.
"their truth" frequently contains less than the minimum daily requirement of "the truth".

 

[Cozy439]

 

[Cozy439]

 

[jamil]

Sit back and wait for proof positive, I guess. So, essentially, nothing

I think that you're kinda setting up a false dichotomy. It's not the choice between waiting for proof until you do anything vs just picking a side and doing whatever. You you don't have to commit to some believe to act. Belief is a spectrum. How sure are you that your belief is true? That's not a binary. It's not all-sure or no-sure.

Acting is a spectrum too. What you are willing to do depends a lot on how sure you are that your belief is true AND how bad you believe the thing is that you need to act against. I'm not 100% sure that covid came from a lab. I strongly suspect that it did. Maybe as much as 75/25. I'd be surprised at this point if it were natural. So that's kinda sure.

What am I willing to do to act? Given the extent to which I'm sure, like you said in another post, I think supporting people to run for office who I think will fight for answers is a good step at this point. One doesn't have to be sure at all to want that much. He just needs to be sane.

And. If we find out that it was a lab leak and Fauci subverted the ban on GoF research to do it anyway, I think then acting would look more like demanding Fauci be prosecuted for a capital crime.

 

[jamil]

Just to back up a bit, Mike tagged me in a post about the lab leak theory and told me it was “proven.” I disagree that specific theory is proven, and unexplained in detail why.

I think this is correct. The new information supports the lab leak hypothesis but it does not prove it. I'm more confident that it was a lab leak now than I was, but not confident enough that I'd take any drastic steps. What I would like to see is a thorough investigation, which I doubt we'll get especially in this administration.

 

[jamil]

I don't have a problem with disagreement, but I will call it out when everywhere on every subject it seems to be propping up the idea that we should lay back and take it that nothing can be done or there is no proof

Did anyone recommend laying back and doing nothing?

Did you get proof of who killed Kennedy? Do you believe Oswald worked alone and pulled that off, or did you have to come to some other conclusion without 'proof'

What conclusions could I come to? It doesn't sound as feasible that Oswald worked alone. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that makes it unlikely. Okay, so what should I do with that? Concoct a narrative of what I think must have happened based on not a lot more than speculation, and then act on it as if it's proven?

What 'proof' have you seen that 80 year old black women who don't drive exist in such high numbers that we should distort our entire election system to accommodate them

That's knowable. So I think I'd like to know it. Nevertheless, it wouldn't justify unconstitutionally altering our election system. I don't need to know the answer to the premise of people who can't vote to know that.

What 'proof' have you been shown that Higgs bosons interacting with the Higgs field in some indeterminate way endows most bosons and leptons with mass

I don't care.

Some things just need to be based on a preponderance of evidence because no 'proof' may ever be discovered - especially where opposing parties are actively trying to destroy any proof and have been for years

Why do you have a problem with pushback

It's like I said. It seems like what we're talking about is 'belief enough'. Do you believe it enough to act, and what extent of belief would justify a given action to you?

 

[jamil]

You asked me what to do and I told you

I take issue with your posts because it is my opinion that you are biased against doing anything about anything, which is what I think is the end result of waiting for absolute proof - thus I included a minimum effort option

I have the uneasy feeling that as they are loading you into the boxcar you will be proclaiming that there is no proof that they are taking you to a concentration camp

There is a difference between caution and catatonia

There isn't just a difference between caution and catatonia that there's a whole spectrum of difference.

Let's say we have proof that the lab leak hypothesis is true, beyond doubt. What's the action then? Okay, how different would your recommended action be if you're less certain than that? Next, if there are consequences attached to your recommendations for being wrong, and If the recommendations aren't different, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion about justifiable actions.

 

[jamil]

People in office don't dig for the truth, they only dig for their truth.

yeah, the ideologue class. There's another class that doesn't really dig for anything except dirt on their enemies and sycophants to support concocted narratives.

 

[jamil]

This is a perfect example of the problem. OK, so you don't think working through channels will be effective. And?

Do YOU have an alternate plan? You never put yourself on record and say what you think would work. Does that mean you don't think anything will work? Do you get your jollys sniping at anyone else's suggestions? It seems passive-aggressive

Seems to me he doesn't think he can make a difference. Without a big platform he may be right. But I agree with him about doing something just so you feel like you're doing something. I mean I want to believe I'm having some impact or I'm not going to be very interested in whatever action.

Letter writing, I dunno, I think it can be helpful if enough people do it. In 2013, when Obama didn't want to waste a good crisis and tried every trick conceivable to pressure Republican Senators into supporting his anti-gun agenda, I think our letters to our senators did a lot.

Something like this, I don't think we have that group of people motivated as if it's an existential threat like we were when we inundated Senators with mail promising to primary their asses if they capitulated. It felt existential because we all knew, with all the proof in the world, that they would put in place anti-gun legislation. So there we had confidence and were highly motivated to act. Here, less confidence in the thing. Less confidence in the action changing it anyway. It's not defeatist. It's more like a lack at confidence in what reality is. I wouldn't like go to war on just the weak information we have now WRT the origin of the virus.

 

[nonobaddog]

Let's say we have proof that the lab leak hypothesis is true, beyond doubt. What's the action then?

I don't have the right codes and buttons to push, so probably just write to congress-critters.

 

[Cozy439]

 

[Cozy439]