4 ms·
> No, what happened is one side tried to have a discussion about an idea without evidence and the other shut it down Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments
by newacct583 5y ago
> No, what happened is one side tried to have a discussion about an idea without evidence and the other shut it down
Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? Isn't that what "argument" means?
Explain how you aren't just asking for license to be wrong without challenge here? I mean, when people (the WSJ, notably not the conspiracists) came out with real evidence, we listened!
I'll fully admit, my priors were wrong. This isn't a total dingbat idea, it might have happened. But I think that now, based on better data. I didn't think that then, and nor should you have.
- hulahoof 5y agoI think the suggestion is, when there is not great evidence either way we should not support or shutdown ideas within the realm of probability - let's be honest and simply say "we don't know".
- batch12 5y agoTo be challenged, you have to have discussion. What happened was the silencing of an unapproved idea. There was no intellectual process. What I see are two masses screaming regurgitated talking points at each other and refusing to actually engage in any kind of meaningful way. It is distopian and disturbing. I do not personally have any thought or idea about which covid origin theory is true. For me this isn't about the lab, but instead the thought police.
- kodah 5y agoJust an outside observers here, both zoonotic and lab leak lack proper evidence under your standard. Yet, zoonotic is what's been "okay" to discuss.
- throw20210211 5y ago> Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? So we should also have shut down people saying it was not a lab leak ?