3 ms·

Who claimed that? Even the most prominent proponent of the lab leak theory, Donald Trump, said several times early on that he wasn't sure if it was intentional

Who claimed that? Even the most prominent proponent of the lab leak theory, Donald Trump, said several times early on that he wasn't sure if it was intentional or an accident. In fact, he was pretty clear he thought it was accidental, and only mentioned it being intentional as a possibility, but that was an afterthought. Source, since everyone likes to put words in his mouth: https://apnews.com/article/understanding-the-outbreak-intelligence-agencies-asia-pacific-technology-wuhan-c9499f7b8ab2ae7097c8588f1ccdddea https://apnews.com/article/understanding-the-outbreak-intell... (dated April 30, 2020). So who exactly said that it was engineered for certain? EDIT: the downvotes indicate that the belief that some believe the virus to be engineered is dogmatic in nature, rather than based on facts. If this were such a common belief, surely someone can identify its main proponent.

s5300 5y ago
> In fact, he was pretty clear he thought I suspect you're being downvoted because of your insistence on Donald Trump being "pretty clear", among other things, when Donald Trump has a decades long history of being anything but "very clear" While this is after when your comment refers to, here is an example. > "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? "So it'd be interesting to check that." Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what." This was stated by a US President to the general public of his nation, and the world at large. The next day, about this quote - he simpled stated that he was "being sarcastic" If you have some notion on how this method of communication and reason equates with being "pretty clear", please do tell. However, this reply of yours >the downvotes indicate Would seem to "indicate" that you're not exactly the most reasonable person to have any discussion in good faith to begin with.
- iammisc 5y ago
  No one is going to argue that Trump is a great orator or that he doesn't gaffe or that every single thing that comes out of his mouth ought to be taken at face value (Are you kidding me... do you believe this is true of any politician? Look at what happened with Cuomo after months of media adulation and an emmy....) In the case of the lab leak theory, Trump was always extremely clear that he thought it a possibility and that he did not necessarily think it was a bioweapon. I can see that you are uninterested in engaging in good faith, because instead of keeping the debate to what it was about (the lab leak theory) you're changing the goalposts (demanding that everything he say be absolutely clear and never wrong or stupid, apparently in contrast to every other president before him [1]). Lots of presidents speak poorly on certain issues, make stupid statements that they later have to cover up and retract, or cause confusion. That doesn't make them wrong on the issues they do speak clearly on. > Would seem to "indicate" that you're not exactly the most reasonable person to have any discussion in good faith to begin with. Oh please... downvoting someone who is giving you evidence of exactly what was said without a response indicates that those downvoting are only interested in ignoring reality. [1] If I recall correctly, one of the most popular presidents of all time got up on stage and actually told the American public that accusations against him literally depend on 'what the meaning of the word is is'... come on, this is the most demanding and insane standard to expect of any American leader.
  - s5300 5y ago
    > I can see that you are uninterested in engaging in good faith, because instead of keeping the debate to what it was about (the lab leak theory) you're changing the goalposts (demanding that everything he say be absolutely clear and never wrong or stupid, apparently in contrast to every other president before him [1]). No, a third grader can easily explain to you why when somebody has a long and detailed history of being completely and utterly full of shit, whatever they say going forward will barely be considered to be not full of shit, for whatever roundabout reasons and circumstances. >are only interested in ignoring reality. You're trolling on HN. Stop trolling on HN.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      I have no interest in provoking a reaction from you (trolling), I'm just pointing out that all administrations say stupid things, and that's not a good reason to dismiss the correct things they say or to deny it without consideration. I honestly don't understand why this is controversial. Instead of an explanation as to why any administration's claims ought to be dismissed out of hand, I am being accused of breaking site rules. It seems to me, that by downvoting and then accusing me of breaking site rules, you're trying to make me react. Isn't that also trolling? At no point did I ask for your comments or try to 'bait' you into making them. Have a great day!

s5300 5y ago

> In fact, he was pretty clear he thought I suspect you're being downvoted because of your insistence on Donald Trump being "pretty clear", among other things, when Donald Trump has a decades long history of being anything but "very clear" While this is after when your comment refers to, here is an example. > "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? "So it'd be interesting to check that." Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what." This was stated by a US President to the general public of his nation, and the world at large. The next day, about this quote - he simpled stated that he was "being sarcastic" If you have some notion on how this method of communication and reason equates with being "pretty clear", please do tell. However, this reply of yours >the downvotes indicate Would seem to "indicate" that you're not exactly the most reasonable person to have any discussion in good faith to begin with.

iammisc 5y ago
No one is going to argue that Trump is a great orator or that he doesn't gaffe or that every single thing that comes out of his mouth ought to be taken at face value (Are you kidding me... do you believe this is true of any politician? Look at what happened with Cuomo after months of media adulation and an emmy....) In the case of the lab leak theory, Trump was always extremely clear that he thought it a possibility and that he did not necessarily think it was a bioweapon. I can see that you are uninterested in engaging in good faith, because instead of keeping the debate to what it was about (the lab leak theory) you're changing the goalposts (demanding that everything he say be absolutely clear and never wrong or stupid, apparently in contrast to every other president before him [1]). Lots of presidents speak poorly on certain issues, make stupid statements that they later have to cover up and retract, or cause confusion. That doesn't make them wrong on the issues they do speak clearly on. > Would seem to "indicate" that you're not exactly the most reasonable person to have any discussion in good faith to begin with. Oh please... downvoting someone who is giving you evidence of exactly what was said without a response indicates that those downvoting are only interested in ignoring reality. [1] If I recall correctly, one of the most popular presidents of all time got up on stage and actually told the American public that accusations against him literally depend on 'what the meaning of the word is is'... come on, this is the most demanding and insane standard to expect of any American leader.
- s5300 5y ago
  > I can see that you are uninterested in engaging in good faith, because instead of keeping the debate to what it was about (the lab leak theory) you're changing the goalposts (demanding that everything he say be absolutely clear and never wrong or stupid, apparently in contrast to every other president before him [1]). No, a third grader can easily explain to you why when somebody has a long and detailed history of being completely and utterly full of shit, whatever they say going forward will barely be considered to be not full of shit, for whatever roundabout reasons and circumstances. >are only interested in ignoring reality. You're trolling on HN. Stop trolling on HN.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    I have no interest in provoking a reaction from you (trolling), I'm just pointing out that all administrations say stupid things, and that's not a good reason to dismiss the correct things they say or to deny it without consideration. I honestly don't understand why this is controversial. Instead of an explanation as to why any administration's claims ought to be dismissed out of hand, I am being accused of breaking site rules. It seems to me, that by downvoting and then accusing me of breaking site rules, you're trying to make me react. Isn't that also trolling? At no point did I ask for your comments or try to 'bait' you into making them. Have a great day!