4 ms·

So long as that threshold is based on science and not, “they eat weird stuff,” I’m okay with that. If the threshold is: has caused pandemic, then swine is off

So long as that threshold is based on science and not, “they eat weird stuff,” I’m okay with that. If the threshold is: has caused pandemic, then swine is off the table, pun intended.

modeless 6y ago
"has caused a global pandemic" would be a terrible threshold. The set of global pandemics is far too small to draw meaningful conclusions about risk. We have other data about viruses in animals that should be used.
- factotvm 6y ago
  You’re missing my point. If the argument is: "We're in the middle of a global pandemic quite possibly caused by Chinese people consuming animals that shouldn't be consumed,” then I would like to be clear that swine should also not be consumed, as they too have caused a global pandemic.
  - modeless 6y ago
    You're missing my point. That statement is not my argument about which specific animals should be consumed. It's my argument about the parent comment's statement, which I am simply responding to and did not even claim myself, that Chinese people eat a wider variety of animals than we do in the US, and the behavior of eating a wider variety of animals should be considered "open minded," implying (and again this is the parent comment's argument, not mine) that the practice of eating a narrower variety of animals should be considered "closed minded". My argument was that the timing of said statement from the parent comment is extremely unfortunate given the fact that the current global pandemic likely originated in animals consumed in China and generally not in the US, and the general idea of restricting animal consumption for health reasons should not be considered "closed minded". That's it. Now, that statement assumes that some animals have higher risk of transmitting novel viruses to humans than others, and if you disagree with that then you'll disagree with the statement, but the statement itself was not an argument about that point. Subsequently we have further argued about that specific point. I don't believe that decisions about which animals to consume should be based on cultural factors as you assume, but rather I believe that it should be based on relevant science (not simply "has this specific animal caused a global pandemic in recent history"). I believe that science does not support the idea that all animals or animal procurement practices have identical risk of transmitting novel viruses to humans. Therefore I support the idea of restricting consumption of some animals, especially wild ones (including some currently consumed in the US), and reject the idea that this is simply "closed minded". Unfortunately the inclusion of the single word "Chinese" in my original comment has blinded everyone to the argument I was making, despite the fact that it was simply a response to the parent comment. It would have been a better comment, and made the same point, without the word "Chinese" in it. Please strike that word from my original comment and read it again.

So long as that threshold is based on science and not, “they eat weird stuff,” I’m okay with that. If the threshold is: has caused pandemic, then swine is off the table, pun intended.

modeless 6y ago

"has caused a global pandemic" would be a terrible threshold. The set of global pandemics is far too small to draw meaningful conclusions about risk. We have other data about viruses in animals that should be used.

factotvm 6y ago
You’re missing my point. If the argument is: "We're in the middle of a global pandemic quite possibly caused by Chinese people consuming animals that shouldn't be consumed,” then I would like to be clear that swine should also not be consumed, as they too have caused a global pandemic.
- modeless 6y ago
  You're missing my point. That statement is not my argument about which specific animals should be consumed. It's my argument about the parent comment's statement, which I am simply responding to and did not even claim myself, that Chinese people eat a wider variety of animals than we do in the US, and the behavior of eating a wider variety of animals should be considered "open minded," implying (and again this is the parent comment's argument, not mine) that the practice of eating a narrower variety of animals should be considered "closed minded". My argument was that the timing of said statement from the parent comment is extremely unfortunate given the fact that the current global pandemic likely originated in animals consumed in China and generally not in the US, and the general idea of restricting animal consumption for health reasons should not be considered "closed minded". That's it. Now, that statement assumes that some animals have higher risk of transmitting novel viruses to humans than others, and if you disagree with that then you'll disagree with the statement, but the statement itself was not an argument about that point. Subsequently we have further argued about that specific point. I don't believe that decisions about which animals to consume should be based on cultural factors as you assume, but rather I believe that it should be based on relevant science (not simply "has this specific animal caused a global pandemic in recent history"). I believe that science does not support the idea that all animals or animal procurement practices have identical risk of transmitting novel viruses to humans. Therefore I support the idea of restricting consumption of some animals, especially wild ones (including some currently consumed in the US), and reject the idea that this is simply "closed minded". Unfortunately the inclusion of the single word "Chinese" in my original comment has blinded everyone to the argument I was making, despite the fact that it was simply a response to the parent comment. It would have been a better comment, and made the same point, without the word "Chinese" in it. Please strike that word from my original comment and read it again.