politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
We have a lab studying bat corona viruses and their effects and transmissibility in humans. This line of viruses was brought from roughly 1,000 miles away. That same virus line infects a human, right there in that same location.
On the one hand we have the obvious answer, that it's the same virus we knew about already being right there in that place at that time.
On the other hand we have a theory where somewhere over the 1,000 miles between Wuhan and the virus known origin an infected bat bit some other sort of animal, and that animal just happened to be taken to a meat market right beside the lab studying the same virus line from so far away, and then a person ate that animal and that's how humans started to become infected. In all the years from then until now despite many millions of deaths world wide we've never been able to say where the diseased bat came into contact with the other animal or even what species the other animal belonged to. There has also never been another incident. All animals studied from the market have been free of that disease and all similar to it.
Occam's Razor.
That means the opposite of the way you're using it here. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't pass the real world sniff test. It's a narrative and I don't buy it.
You think the single sentence option of "We already know it was in the lab, it got out" is a convoluted conspiracy theory, and the paragraph of "we don't know" is reasonable? o_O
It's the whole "it got out" part you're glossing over there, chief. That's the complicated part for which no evidence has been provided other than the circumstantial.
I'm not sure what the mass of downvotes and weirdness about this is. You're acting like like I'm talking crazy and unrealistic. Lab leaks happen. Part of the reason similar research wasn't done in the US for years was because we had several of them here.
It's a thing with two theories on how it happened. One is relatively simple and direct, the other has a lot of question marks over a large amount of distance. Neither of them are things with any sort of publicly released conclusive evidence.
I have no idea why so many of you seem so emotionally attached to the certainty that a bat somewhere very far from that lab bit something? and pure chance happened to bring that something right to the lab's doorstep and also by chance several researchers in that lab were some of the early people to fall ill. It seems like virtue signaling. Did I miss a memo that the actually more convoluted thing was somehow the thing that the just and virtuous must believe and all who understand how common lab leaks are must be seen as crazy and evil?
Jfc this is a twisted worldview. I can't imagine how you got there, but it's pretty clear you're not taking anything I say seriously at all because you keep repeating the same shit and now this nonsense. Have a nice day - on someone else's time.
Take some time reading research papers on the possible suspected origins of Covid-19. You very clearly haven't. The mass of downvotes I'm getting for simply saying the simplest theory is most likely the correct one without a single person being able to actually provide any logical reason for those downvotes screams of groupthink. People downvoting a thing because they believe it's a sign of a scary Republican or someone not believing the accepted thing.
There is absolutely nothing about the natural origin theory that has been proven. The only thing twisted here is the mass insanity of people who can't point to any actual good reason they're so adamantly defending it and seeing anyone who doesn't as being twisted and stupid. You even accused me of misusing Occam's Razor when it very definitely points straight at a simple, common lab leak.
If you can't respond with actual evidence to back up the way you've been acting, then there is no reason to respond. If you can't show that lab leaks aren't common and many things show one wouldn't have been possible here, you're screaming at a stranger on the internet and treating them like shit for no actual reason. It's been baffling and unhinged from the start, because that's what you've been doing.