Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[Captainant 27972]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Shut up, Fuckant.

that crosses the line bro. I'm done with you 🤣🤣

[elfenix 34385]

i was lead to believe that the fine denizens of DT don't go on neg rep runs or rep circle jerk.  was that wrong?

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by elfenix

[wildcat09 29453]

I would say he seems like a pussy, but that'd be disrespectful to pussies. 

[Biff Tannen 45764]

It's so interesting to see what happens when DT people come to the CR.  Feels like old times.

[workswithseed 2139]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

i was lead to believe that the fine denizens of DT don't go on neg rep runs or rep circle jerk.  was that wrong?

 

I used to say to never neg, but fuck that. It's a tool, why not use it?

[MNLonghornFUKM 8916]

Shut up, Fuckant.

He’ll always be bed wetter to me

[JimmyJames 12271]

This thread reminds me of the halcyon days of shaggybevo/shaggyTexas.com back when the surly liberal cabal had not yet banned swam and completely taken over the cloak room relegating the trump supporting assholes to DT. 

Edited May 26, 2021 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I used to say to never neg, but fuck that. It's a tool, why not use it?

I don’t want to use sex as a tool Brad.

A tool? A tool for what?!

[InkaUtexas 26354]

19 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This thread reminds me of the halcyon days of shaggybevo/shaggyTexas.com back when the surly liberal cabal had not yet banned swam and completely taken over the cloak room relegating the trump supporting assholes to DT. 

I did not think he was banned, but went on a 3 hour tour. 

[Js1 85748]

19 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I did not think he was banned, but went on a 3 hour tour. 

Boat WiFi still out. Must be on a sub in the marianas if it’s that bad 

[Willfully Horn 8091]

@TexasPride10 I am comfortable saying you have a misguided understanding of the political left.

For example, one thing Trump did properly was to open the door for the various and necessary vaccine tests to run concurrently. It was the right thing to do and I have yet to hear a complaint about that course of action. And, while Biden is credited for getting the vaccine rollout ramped up, there are no voices from the left claiming Biden created the vaccine itself. 

[InkaUtexas 26354]

44 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Boat WiFi still out. Must be on a sub in the marianas if it’s that bad 

Or hit by some falling Malaysian aircraft. Too soon? 

[Continental Op 3934]

Where did the rightwing doofuses pick up the phrase "gain of function"?  They're spouting it like a six year old who learned a new curse word lately.  

[washparkhorn 9939]

5 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

Where did the rightwing doofuses pick up the phrase "gain of function"?  They're spouting it like a six year old who learned a new curse word lately.  

I think @Anastasis taught them (and he should be applauded for his work with this subset of the population):

It is an interesting intersection and ethical issues abound:

Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures.

Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety:

• In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a "pause" on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular.
• With announcement of this pause, the US Government launched a "deliberative process" regarding risks and benefits of GOFR to inform future funding decisions-and the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was tasked with making recommendations to the US Government on this matter.
  • As part of this deliberative process the National Institutes of Health commissioned this Ethical Analysis White Paper, requesting that it provide:
    • (1) review and summary of ethical literature on GOFR,
    • (2) identification and analysis of existing ethical and decision-making frameworks relevant to
      • (i) the evaluation of risks and benefits of GOFR,
      • (ii) decision-making about the conduct of GOF studies, and
      • (iii) the development of US policy regarding GOFR (especially with respect to funding of GOFR), and
    • (3) development of an ethical and decision-making framework that may be considered by NSABB when analyzing information provided by GOFR risk-benefit assessment, and when crafting its final recommendations (especially regarding policy decisions about funding of GOFR in particular).
• The ethical and decision-making framework ultimately developed is based on the idea that there are numerous ethically relevant dimensions upon which any given case of GOFR can fare better or worse (as opposed to there being necessary conditions that are either satisfied or not satisfied, where all must be satisfied in order for a given case of GOFR to be considered ethically acceptable): research imperative, proportionality, minimization of risks, manageability of risks, justice, good governance (i.e., democracy), evidence, and international outlook and engagement.
• Rather than drawing a sharp bright line between GOFR studies that are ethically acceptable and those that are ethically unacceptable, this framework is designed to indicate where any given study would fall on an ethical spectrum-where imaginable cases of GOFR might range from those that are most ethically acceptable (perhaps even ethically praiseworthy or ethically obligatory), at one end of the spectrum, to those that are most ethically problematic or unacceptable (and thus should not be funded, or conducted), at the other.
• The aim should be that any GOFR pursued (and/or funded) should be as far as possible towards the former end of the spectrum.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27502512/

 

[GRHorn 105]

6 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

@Cheeseweasel is really upset that I negged his new attempt to create a blatantly political safe space for covid discussion in DT. He really missed their old bullshit post misleading memes and links and then complain about liberals thread.  

 

 

5 hours ago, elfenix said:

i was lead to believe that the fine denizens of DT don't go on neg rep runs or rep circle jerk.  was that wrong?

 

That’s unfortunate. I will say he at least stuck to negging posts on this thread. I have pathetic posters that follow me around and neg every post on every forum. @UpperWestside is a very sad individual. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

That’s unfortunate. I will say he at least stuck to negging posts on this thread. I have pathetic posters that follow me around and neg every post on every forum. @UpperWestside is a very sad individual. 

I personally thought it was a hot dog. Lately some people are saying it’s a big ass carrot. Which was/is it?

[hayden_horn 11365]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Boat WiFi still out. Must be on a sub in the marianas if it’s that bad 

nah, i think he done r u n n o f t. as recently as 6 months ago he was posting on jeff ward's facebook page.

don't ask me how i know that.

[fattyflattie 4639]

7 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

But it is important to know so that we, the whole world, can hopefully avoid future incidents. 

It’s important to know because they’ve killed millions and god know how much economic damage they’ve caused.  And they need to be held accountable.  Oopsie daisy isn’t going to cut it. 

[Anastasis 23504]

 

[washparkhorn 9939]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Covid would be illuminating. We could run it out of the Hague. 

[elfenix 34385]

 

Since you're just dropping other people's content I don't know whether you're making a particularly insightful point or not

[Dahobbs 17809]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

It’s important to know because they’ve killed millions and god know how much economic damage they’ve caused.  And they need to be held accountable.  Oopsie daisy isn’t going to cut it. 

Did I say it would? And it's one thing if it was intentionally released, and another if it was accidentally released. I know of no evidence of the former. Hold the people responsible who should be responsible. But that doesn't mean vilifying an entire people or country. I certainly wouldn't want to be held responsible for Exxon's or GM's screw ups. So let's not get over vindicative here. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Did I say it would? And it's one thing if it was intentionally released, and another if it was accidentally released. I know of no evidence of the former. Hold the people responsible who should be responsible. But that doesn't mean vilifying an entire people or country. I certainly wouldn't want to be held responsible for Exxon's or GM's screw ups. So let's not get over vindicative here. 

Yes, let me know next time GM kills millions across the world.  Then lies about their stats during a critical time of containment. Absolutely the same thing. 

[Anastasis 23504]

9 minutes ago, elfenix said:

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Since you're just dropping other people's content I don't know whether you're making a particularly insightful point or not

Seems like common sense imo. 

[Dahobbs 17809]

31 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes, let me know next time GM kills millions across the world.  Then lies about their stats during a critical time of containment. Absolutely the same thing. 

What exactly are you proposing? Do we have to nuke china now? All I'm saying is let's figure it out and hold the people that should be responsible, responsible. But let's not villify a bunch of innocent people because it makes you feel better to say it's really all someone else's fault. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What exactly are you proposing? Do we have to nuke china now? All I'm saying is let's figure it out and hold the people that should be responsible, responsible. But let's not villify a bunch of innocent people because it makes you feel better to say it's really all someone else's fault. 

I’m not interested in vilifying their people, but their govt.  And no, of course we don’t nuke them.  But they might need their aspiring first world status membership card revoked. 

[workswithseed 2139]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What exactly are you proposing? Do we have to nuke china now? All I'm saying is let's figure it out and hold the people that should be responsible, responsible. But let's not villify a bunch of innocent people because it makes you feel better to say it's really all someone else's fault. 

Okay, how would diplomatically proceed with going after Winnie after he lied about it being a problem in the first place that got millions killed. 

[Dahobbs 17809]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Okay, how would diplomatically proceed with going after Winnie after he lied about it being a problem in the first place that got millions killed. 

I don't know. How would you diplomatically go after Trump after he lied about it not being a problem in the first place and that got hundreds of thousands of Americans killed? 

If the Chinese government is responsible for the release, it should be held accountable. That could mean economic sanctions. It could mean more. It really just depends. Intentional conduct is going to deserve a much stronger response than an accidental release. 

[Anastasis 23504]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Intentional conduct is going to deserve a much stronger response than an accidental release. 

Failure to implement the appropriate safety quality controls in high level lab settings is intentional conduct. 

[Dahobbs 17809]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Failure to implement the appropriate safety quality controls in high level lab settings is intentional conduct. 

No, that would generally fall under negligent conduct. But it could be elevated to reckless depending on the facts. Intentional conduct would  involve intentionally releasing the virus. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Willfully Horn 8091]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Failure to implement the appropriate safety quality controls in high level lab settings is intentional conduct. 

(There are no gun accidents) times (the Earth’s population).

Edited May 27, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Accuracy

[Anastasis 23504]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

No, that would generally fall under negligent conduct. But it could be elevated as to wreckless. Intentionally conduct involves intentionally releasing the virus. 

Cutting corners is never committed intentionally?

[Dahobbs 17809]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Cutting corners is never committed intentionally?

You can cut the corners intentionally. That doesn't make the release of the virus intentional. This is an important and obvious distinction. I'm not sure why you're fighting me on something that I know you understand. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

53 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes, let me know next time GM kills millions across the world.

Just a technical point, GM was heavily involved in the production of the B-29. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Failure to implement the appropriate safety quality controls in high level lab settings is intentional conduct. 

Of course it is. What’s your point?

[Anastasis 23504]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You can cut the corners intentionally. That doesn't make the release of the virus intentional. This is an important and obvious distinction. I'm not sure why you're fighting me on something that I know you understand. 

I am not really fighting you on anything. In settings where high risk research is being conducted there is a great level of responsibility required. When those systems break down people need to be held accountable. 

[Dahobbs 17809]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am not really fighting you on anything. In settings where high risk research is being conducted there is a great level of responsibility required. When those systems break down people need to be held accountable. 

Yes, I agree. I haven't said otherwise. But if China intentionally released the virus, it becomes an entirely different matter. At minimum that is a crime against humanity, and it could very well be an act of war. Now, I don't think that is what happened. I think what happened is likely extreme recklesslessness. That would deserve a stern response, but one significantly less severe than the former scenario. 

[workswithseed 2139]

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know. How would you diplomatically go after Trump after he lied about it not being a problem in the first place and that got hundreds of thousands of Americans killed? 

If the Chinese government is responsible for the release, it should be held accountable. That could mean economic sanctions. It could mean more. It really just depends. Intentional conduct is going to deserve a much stronger response than an accidental release. 

The same way you would go after the governors who put people in old folks homes and then lied at the deaths. You prosecute them. How do you prosecute a different countries leader?

[Dahobbs 17809]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

The same way you would go after the governors who put people in old folks homes and then lied at the deaths. You prosecute them. How do you prosecute a different countries leader?

Mostly, you can't. See Putin. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

HHS fined A&M $1 million in 2008 for their offense; what would be appropriate for a country were that proved to be true (accidental release)?
 

Quote

 

Inspectors from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are expected to visit the university next month to determine whether its biodefense program will be allowed to resume operations.  It is uncertain how long it would take them to reach a decision on the 2007 suspension, said university spokesman Jason Cook.

Federal scrutiny of the university program began after a laboratory worker suffered a Brucella infection in 2006 and another three were exposed to Q fever, AP reported.

Federal investigators found that the biodefense program had misplaced vials of Brucella, failed to adequately restrict access to biological agents and did not properly store disease samples and infected animals, among other security violations.  They also noted signs of insect infestation and failures by workers to remove laboratory coats or wash their hands right after working with disease agents.

 

Doesn't it make sense to work with communities on public health and food safety as much as anything? If the wet markets are an issue, then perhaps China can get on board with structuring their food supply chain so that the opportunity for cross species virus transmission is reduced.

[Anastasis 23504]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, I agree. I haven't said otherwise. But if China intentionally released the virus, it becomes an entirely different matter. At minimum that is a crime against humanity, and it could very well be an act of war. Now, I don't think that is what happened. I think what happened is likely extreme recklesslessness. That would deserve a stern response, but one significantly less severe than the former scenario. 

I agree. I don’t think that this was an intentional release. That’s crazy talk. But I think that there is certainly a high likelihood of intentionality related to cutting corners wrt lab safety protocols that set the table here. 

[Anastasis 23504]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

HHS fined A&M $1 million in 2008 for their offense; what would be appropriate for a country were that proved to be true (accidental release)?
 

Doesn't it make sense to work with communities on public health and food safety as much as anything? If the wet markets are an issue, then perhaps China can get on board with structuring their food supply chain so that the opportunity for cross species virus transmission is reduced.

They should be treated similarly to a rogue state harboring creation of WMDs. 

[Willfully Horn 8091]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

. I don’t think that this was an intentional release.

I agree. If the Chinese don’t like fat people, why do they serve guests of state three pints of beer along with breakfast, and with lunch; and with dinner?

Edited May 27, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Clarity

[Dahobbs 17809]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I agree. I don’t think that this was an intentional release. That’s crazy talk. But I think that there is certainly a high likelihood of intentionality related to cutting corners wrt lab safety protocols that set the table here. 

Sure, and legally, intentionally ignoring safety standards and causing injury would generally support a finding of gross negligence or recklessness. Which is what I've been saying. 

[Celery Man 21026]

The liberal version of republicans almost universally being dumb fucking idiots would have been hand wringing over the electoral consequences of Trump somehow not completely fucking this up. Part of the disease that is infecting the American right is that both sides-ism has them convinced that other people are as childish and stupid as they are. If Hillary had been president and had led somewhat effectively and Trump, Cruz, Paul, whoever had led the shithead brigade making mask wearing part of the culture war, that would still be the fault of the shitheads. 

[Anastasis 23504]

22 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Sure, and legally, intentionally ignoring safety standards and causing injury would generally support a finding of gross negligence or recklessness. Which is what I've been saying. 

Which of the following is more likely in the near term, say 5-10 years, in your opinion?

North Korea detonates worldwide nukes?

Iran figures outs how to rub two atoms together and irradiates some people?

We have the third cov related pandemic to emerge from China?

 

We treat these geopolitical situations very differently, dismissing objective reality. 

[Dahobbs 17809]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Which of the following is more likely in the near term, say 5-10 years, in your opinion?

North Korea detonates worldwide nukes?

Iran figures outs how to rub two atoms together and irradiates some people?

We have the third cov related pandemic to emerge from China?

 

We treat these geopolitical situations very differently, dismissing objective reality. 

Ummm... what? So you do think we should nuke China? I honestly have no idea what point you're attempting to make. Frankly, I assume you must be thinking I'm saying something I'm not. Or you've just hit peak both sideism. 

[Anastasis 23504]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Ummm... what? So you do think we should nuke China? I honestly have no idea what point you're attempting to make. Frankly, I assume you must be thinking I'm saying something I'm not. Or you've just hit peak both sideism. 

No.  I don't think that we should be nuking anyone.

But I think that we should recognize threats in context and treat rogue states with a measure of equivalent balance. 

And China is a rogue state.

[staboner 5015]

[Sawbonz 27779]

55 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

three pints of beer along with breakfast, and with lunch; and with dinner?

Communism does not seem so bad