It's crazy bc if Rand Paul and fauci switched chairs y'all would be just as likely to argue the opposite point.
Pawn type shit. Own it
Pawn type shit. Own it
The official COVID-19/Coronavirus Discussion Thread...aka I hope I don't get the Rona
- Thread starter Goldie
- Start date
Lmao is this the paper? If so how do u know?
Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus
Author summary Increasing evidence has been gathered to support the bat origin of SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in the past decade. However, none of the currently known bat SARSr-CoVs is thought to be the direct ancestor of SARS-CoV. Herein, we report the identification of a diverse group of bat...journals.plos.org
Give me a day or two to absorb it
You're not saying something as complicated as you think you are. What you are doing though is being very disingenuous about why people doubt messages coming from certain people. To pretend as if it makes no sense as to why people would doubt anything Trump said regarding the origins of a virus he initially said was a hoax created to make him lose the election among other things and pull the "the messenger doesn't matter" card is wild.
The messenger very much matters which is why people tend to doubt those with a clear history of lying all of a sudden telling the truth just because they say they are.
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
No they didn't. Rand Paul drew that conclusion. Or somebody else did and told him about it so he could use it. That was the whole point of their exchange. Even Rand Paul backtracked during their exchange regarding drawing the conclusion that Fauci and the NIH had something to do with Covid-19.
But if you don't have the knowledge to interpret the data then a person likely won't understand what they're reading and or supposed to be looking for in terms of confirmation or refuting whatever it is they're trying to find out.
Well one would be someone whose dedicated their career to the field while the other would then be a politician who has used a global pandemic as a political tool...so it would make sense to probably take seriously the words of someone who is an expert vs someone who just read a report but actually didn't contribute to.any research on said report
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
If this is it, it was published in 2017? So no way it drew a conclusion that Covid-19 was Fauci's fault. That was complete a conclusion drawn by Rand Paul or by someone that told him that conclusion could be drawn.
No, I'm saying evaluate the message before u disregard it on behalf of the messenger..if we did that the lab leak hypothesis would take this long to be plausible. I'm not trying to be complicated, if that's how y'all take it, reevaluate your critical thinking. Bc Im tryna dumb this shit down as much as possible.
He basically implied Fauci was straw man arguing. Saying what fauci is arguing wasn't his point at all. U got lost in the political theatre. U didn't read the paper so u can't draw any conclusions. Yet u persist anyway. That's disengenuous imo.
Which is why all I did was ask what paper is he citing before I make an informed opinion. And all this butt hurt ensued. I didn't come to a conclusion on who I personally think is right or wrong. Y'all, who don't give a fuck about the paper or data, did. Think about that a minute.
Again with this shit. If Rand Paul is citing people who dedicated their life and career to this shit that contradicts fauci, then what?
On the one hand you're knocking people for looking skeptically upon information being provided by people who have knowingly outright lied...while also saying that people should take information from people who've outright lied with open arms. Credibility matters. That's exactly why you don't just take information from any old source. No matter how you try to spin it somebody being skeptical of information being given or interpreted by someone who has also lied on literally the same topic isn't a bad thing.
I didn't say take any information outright lmao. I said make your own judgment on the source FIRST.
Also fauci is on the record as outright lying lmao.
This shit doesn't stop being fun
Also Rand Paul isn't the source. The paper is the source lmao
C'mon guys stop being stupid
C'mon guys stop being stupid
Rand Paul is citing information from other sources deemed as experts...but has he interpreted the information correctly? Is he not also attempting to push a certain angle as well for his own benefit? Him and others on his side have spent months basically making Fauci out to be the boogeyman and now all of a sudden people are supposed to believe he's giving an honest accurate interpretation of the data he says he's gone over?
And part of the consideration for that judgement is who is currently giving the information. It wasn't the people behind the research Fauci was debating with. That would be a completely different conversation.
But u came to a conclusion before reading the source didn't u
Quick post another biased retweet from mediate!
People are more infatuated with viral moments than the actual substance
Nope I didn't.
If u came to a conclusion without reading the paper then
If u read that link that was posted I'm all ears though. Before I dive in myself before CNN say something y'all dying to hear
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
Ok first let's stop making generalizations about me. I'm not getting lost in political theater.
You're being disingenuous because you've made a few statements that just aren't true, the main one being that the academic paper Rand Paul referenced drew the conclusion that Fauci and the NIH are responsible for Covid-19. That's just not true. He or someone he knows used that paper to draw that conclusion.
And now you want to see that paper and draw your own conclusion. And the only reason you even know about the paper is because of Rand Paul, even though you say it's not about him.
If u came to a conclusion without reading the paper then
If u read that link that was posted I'm all ears though. Before I dive in myself before CNN say something y'all dying to hear
I never said I came to a conclusion. You just assumed that and I literally said no I didn't. You're still assuming that simply because I won't ignore who is disseminating the information means I will ultimately ignore what's being said which I never said. I just said that the who part matters more than you want to give it credit for and you can't fault people for being skeptical of receiving information from people who've been lying literally since day 1 of this entire pandemic