LosLobo

You keep saying this but provide no evidence. Surely if it was zoonotic and originated from a single wet market animals or animal meat in said market would show the presence of this virus complete with the novel spike proteins so well suited to attach to human cells. Animals were tested and no evidence of this virus was found. There is no such evidence. Why is that? Before we get into the facts, let's address the primary issue here which I suggest is with your logical reasoning, which centers around 'Argument from Ignorance': Argument from Ignorance: Your claim that "no animals were found with the virus" as evidence against zoonosis assumes that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This overlooks the complexities of incomplete testing and delayed investigations. Given the vast range of testing gaps and the market's early sanitation, it’s unreasonable to dismiss zoonosis based solely on the failure to find infected animals in one location. Now let’s examine the other logical flaws in your argument: 1. Strawman Fallacy: You misrepresent the zoonotic spillover theory by suggesting it only relies on finding infected animals in the market. Zoonosis is supported by broader evidence, like the virus’s genetic relationship to bat coronaviruses and environmental traces in the market, not just direct animal tests. 2. False Dichotomy: You suggest that the lack of infected animals in the market rules out zoonosis, but this ignores other plausible scenarios, like infected animals being removed before testing or spillover occurring upstream in the wildlife trade. 3. Cherry-Picking: You focus on the absence of positive animal tests while ignoring other supporting evidence, such as the virus’s genetic ties to bats and its receptor-binding adaptations that make it suited for human cells. 4. Overgeneralization: You dismiss zoonosis based on a lack of direct evidence from one market, but spillover events are inherently complex. For example, it took years to identify intermediaries for SARS-CoV-1. 5. Begging the Question: Your rhetorical question, “Why is that?” assumes the conclusion that zoonosis is unsupported without addressing potential gaps like incomplete sampling or market conditions. Let’s address these logical flaws first, then we can delve into the facts later.

The DEFUSE proposal was rejected by DARPA and never funded, so it had no actual impact on SARS-CoV-2. While the research aimed to explore spike proteins and their potential to bind to human cells, this was part of a proposed study that didn’t go forward. The persistent use of this rejected proposal as evidence is disingenuous. As for Peter Daszak's association with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, while it’s true EcoHealth Alliance collaborated on bat coronavirus research, there’s no direct evidence linking these efforts to the creation or release of COVID-19. The most plausible theory remains zoonotic spillover, as outlined by various scientific bodies, including the WHO. By focusing on an unimplemented proposal, you’re sidestepping the lack of evidence supporting the lab-leak theory and ignoring the stronger scientific consensus on zoonotic origins.

you've now pushed the same mistaken argument about the DEFUSE proposal seemingly ad nauseam, and it's time to set the record straight. The DEFUSE Proposal Was Never Funded or Implemented: First and foremost, the DEFUSE proposal, which you continue to cite, was rejected by DARPA. It was never funded or implemented, meaning it didn’t contribute to any research that could have led to the creation or release of SARS-CoV-2. You keep presenting this as evidence of possible virus manipulation, but the reality is that no such manipulation occurred under this proposal. Defuse Project Rejection by Darpa

Shouldn't Topic name be Luuk-Jek instead of Farang?

O and 'i' are next to each other on the keyboard obviously a typo and strokes can cause vertigo. QED

Are you denying that you told me you have a degree in political science, which supposedly gives you great insight into critical thinking?

You still haven’t proven he was vindicated. "Vindication" doesn’t equal innocence, and it certainly doesn’t mean someone deserves your trust. Would you really give the benefit of the doubt and feel comfortable with your daughter being alone with someone you consider a "vindicated rapist"? Maybe you’ll just see first.

As was Jack the Ripper!

No links? Did the worm from eating roadkill tell you he was 'vindicated,' or did you come up with that on your own?

LInk?

Trump's Pentagon pick was investigated for alleged sexual assault. Who would've thought? Seems sexual assault is a badge of honor and a right of entry into MagaWorld. Just one case here, Gaetz the same, with the rapist-in-chief Trump some 26 cases. Trump Pentagon pick Pete Hegseth was investigated for alleged sexual assault

Is it the autism from the vaccines or the worm, that’s telling you to make this stuff up?

What crimes pray tell?

This post does nothing to support your earlier claims on the topic. It’s a transparent and feeble straw man attempt to distract from the glaring inconsistencies in your prior arguments. A desperate pivot doesn’t erase the B.S. you’ve already laid out—nice try, though.

Well, I can't exactly 'cut and paste' when it comes to discussing scientific and policy issues; the information I shared is sourced directly from credible discussions and hearings, bypassing biased news outlets like the New York Propaganda Post. Here are the sources: Congressional Research Service on gain-of-function research Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Dr. Paul's statement on gain-of-function oversight

That was Rand Paul, the failed ophthalmologist, who only obtained professional accreditation by forming his own unrecognized ophthalmologist association.

And roadkill on every table.

Ah, you’ve brought quite the gish gallop here—throwing in Fauci, gain-of-function, congressional testimony, and the New York Post for good measure. Let’s unpack your chaos. “Fauci changed the definition of gain-of-function” The definition debate exists because “gain-of-function” covers a broad spectrum of research. What Fauci and others pointed out is that NIH-funded research didn’t meet their established criteria for GOF involving dangerous pathogens. That’s not “changing” the definition—it’s clarifying boundaries. As for the NIH website update? It’s standard practice to update language for clarity—not a smoking gun. EcoHealth and spike proteins The congressional testimony confirms experiments involving bat coronaviruses, but no evidence shows these were precursors to SARS-CoV-2. Saying spike proteins “shouldn’t be there” ignores years of evolutionary virology that explains such features appearing naturally. Transparency wasn’t lacking here; some people just ignore the scientific consensus because it doesn’t fit their narrative. NIH “admitting” gain-of-function funding Tabak acknowledged a grant violation related to reporting—not evidence of a global conspiracy or pandemic origins. And Daszak’s and Baric’s statements to Congress reflect ongoing debates over how GOF is defined, not proof of wrongdoing or lab-origin. NYPost as gospel The New York Post isn’t a neutral observer; it leans heavily toward sensationalism. Just because it reports on testimony doesn’t mean it’s unbiased or that the testimony proves your argument. Finally, accusing others of being unwilling to change their minds while clutching at cherry-picked “evidence” isn’t exactly the self-awareness flex you think it is. Science evolves with evidence, but baseless insinuations and misinterpretations? Those don’t hold up. Try grazing on better sources next time.

Here's an unbiased comparison summary of the three main contenders from AI ChatGPT. Verdict MG VS Hybrid: Ideal for those seeking a budget-friendly, well-equipped hybrid with solid comfort. However, expect compromises in resale value and hybrid refinement. Yaris Cross HEV: Best for urban drivers who want Toyota’s top-tier fuel efficiency, nimble handling, and strong resale potential in a crossover package. Veloz Hybrid: Excellent if you need a spacious seven-seater with hybrid efficiency, though its MPV design may not appeal if you prefer a sporty crossover experience. Overall Recommendation: For versatility, fuel efficiency, and resale, the Toyota Yaris Cross HEV stands out as the most balanced choice. If extra space is a priority, the Veloz Hybrid offers great capacity and Toyota’s hybrid benefits. The MG VS Hybrid is a solid option if budget is a higher priority, though with trade-offs in resale and hybrid refinement.

More sheep in US! https://x.com/DVNJr/status/1850528968144814369

Is that why @thaibeachlovers is always trying to pull a 'snow job' on us, though, I understand NZ is a country full of sheep.

Thanks, Frank, for your informative post! Cheers! (Спасибо! / 干杯！)

Seems my previous lessons in logic and reasoning didn’t quite stick—let's try this again, with your latest mixed salad: Straw Man Fallacy: You’ve oversimplified leftism, reducing it to just “power” and “brainwashing,” instead of addressing the actual policy positions or ideas. That’s a classic misrepresentation, making your argument easier to defeat without engaging with the full complexity of the topic. False Dilemma: You’ve set up a false choice: either embrace the left’s “manipulation” or support Trump’s “hard truths.” This leaves out the fact that there are plenty of positions in between, and politics isn’t as binary as you’re presenting it. Ad Hominem: Rather than directly engaging with the facts or policies, you attack the left as being about “brainwashing” and “fake news.” This doesn’t address the actual arguments but shifts the focus to attacking your opponent's personally. Appeal to Emotion: You throw in emotionally charged terms like “assassination attempts” and “lawfare” without evidence, hoping to stir up fear and outrage rather than provide logical support for your claims. Circular Reasoning: You claim that Trump’s policies were obviously better, but that’s based on assuming your conclusion is true without offering any substantial evidence to back it up. It’s a closed loop of reasoning that doesn’t actually prove anything. Hasty Generalization: You’ve generalized leftism as a whole based on selective instances or extreme examples, failing to account for the diversity of thought within the left and reducing complex issues to a single, biased narrative. Red Herring: Bringing up celebrities like Beyoncé, Oprah, and Bruce Springsteen distracts from the actual argument. It’s an irrelevant point that serves to divert attention away from the core issues at hand. Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon): You claim that the fact leftist politicians are getting voted out proves your side is right. This assumes that popularity equals correctness, which is a logical misstep. A majority vote doesn’t necessarily mean the argument is sound or based on fact. Tu Quoque Fallacy (Appeal to Hypocrisy): When you say “as in your own case,” you’re attempting to deflect by accusing me of the same thing. It’s a typical tactic to avoid dealing with the substance of the discussion and instead focus on criticizing the person making the argument. In short, your argument, a la Trump, leans heavily on emotional manipulation, misrepresentation, and logical fallacies to push a narrative that doesn’t engage with the real complexities of the issues.

The job of the DoD isn’t about glorifying combat or just to "break things and kill people"—it’s about ensuring the safety of the country through a balanced approach that includes defense, diplomacy, and national interest, not just being a 'warrior.

I agree it says a lot. Maybe that's a testimony to the gullibility of Trump supporters! Or maybe it’s a sign of a serious lack of critical thinking. It’s easy to buy into a narrative that aligns with your views, especially when it's fed to you with emotion and simplicity. Trump’s rhetoric isn’t about facts; it’s about selling convenient stories that fit people’s desires, not their reality. If half of America is buying into that without questioning, it’s not just belief—it’s a failure to critically analyze what’s being said. Embracing easy answers over hard truths doesn’t say much about intelligence, but it sure says a lot about the power of manipulation.