5 ms·

> "Right now, in the United States, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask." And when he did decide we should be walking around with masks he didn'

> "Right now, in the United States, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask." And when he did decide we should be walking around with masks he didn't cite any evidence. He said it was because surgical and N95s masks were in short supply. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHC5Kxxv_w&t=94s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHC5Kxxv_w&t=94s When I was trying to find this video, I came across another video where he speaks in absolute terms that all we need to do is wears masks, social distance and practice good hygiene we would turn around the pandemic. I understand that things change over time, but whenever he speaks, he speaks as if what he is saying is fact. Now we even have vaccines and we clearly haven't turned it around. This is why people don't trust this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P6QrVRJJzU&t=128s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P6QrVRJJzU&t=128s I honestly don't see how you can watch all these videos and still trust this guy. I get that things change, but that's why you don't speak in absolute terms. Words matter.

dataflow 5y ago
I'm not saying I "trust" him (or don't). I'm saying I've seen no evidence he's been lying, trying to mislead the public, or whatever other maligned accusations people have been hurling at him all over the internet. When something looks like an honest mistake, why cut into others' characters instead of just calling it out as an honest mistake? Especially with half-quoted clips like that? Say he was wrong all you want (though I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director). But don't cut into his character without evidence (or mine, for that matter). Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better than someone who's spent his life dealing with epidemics (and not all unsuccessfully so), but hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive.
- choward 5y ago
  > When it looks like an honest mistake, why call it a lie instead of an honest mistake? I linked you to evidence that shows he lied. In the first video he said masks don't work. It clearly wasn't an "honest mistake". > I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director Nice strawman. I never said I would be, but I know one thing for sure: I wouldn't deliberately lie to the American public about something so important. > But don't cut into his character without evidence There is plenty of evidence that he's a liar. I don't know what else you need. > Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better Yet another strawman. I never said that. Are you replying to the right comment? > hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive The accusation that Fauci deliberately lied? It's pretty founded if you ask me. It's infuriating, insulting, and unproductive to protect someone so obsessively and thinking he can do no wrong.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > I linked you to evidence that shows he lied. No, you most definitely did not. You ignored most of the video and started quoting him mid-sentence. As I already explained to you. You've shown zero evidence that his genuine belief was anything different than he communicated in that interview. At best, all you've showed is that he gave poor advice, and even that itself is highly questionable given how you still can't be bothered to even quote him properly and depict the interview accurately. It's not exactly hard to make someone look like a monster when you cut their quotes in half and ignore all the surrounding context. This conversation clearly isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to continue responding.

dataflow 5y ago

I'm not saying I "trust" him (or don't). I'm saying I've seen no evidence he's been lying, trying to mislead the public, or whatever other maligned accusations people have been hurling at him all over the internet. When something looks like an honest mistake, why cut into others' characters instead of just calling it out as an honest mistake? Especially with half-quoted clips like that? Say he was wrong all you want (though I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director). But don't cut into his character without evidence (or mine, for that matter). Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better than someone who's spent his life dealing with epidemics (and not all unsuccessfully so), but hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive.

choward 5y ago
> When it looks like an honest mistake, why call it a lie instead of an honest mistake? I linked you to evidence that shows he lied. In the first video he said masks don't work. It clearly wasn't an "honest mistake". > I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director Nice strawman. I never said I would be, but I know one thing for sure: I wouldn't deliberately lie to the American public about something so important. > But don't cut into his character without evidence There is plenty of evidence that he's a liar. I don't know what else you need. > Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better Yet another strawman. I never said that. Are you replying to the right comment? > hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive The accusation that Fauci deliberately lied? It's pretty founded if you ask me. It's infuriating, insulting, and unproductive to protect someone so obsessively and thinking he can do no wrong.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > I linked you to evidence that shows he lied. No, you most definitely did not. You ignored most of the video and started quoting him mid-sentence. As I already explained to you. You've shown zero evidence that his genuine belief was anything different than he communicated in that interview. At best, all you've showed is that he gave poor advice, and even that itself is highly questionable given how you still can't be bothered to even quote him properly and depict the interview accurately. It's not exactly hard to make someone look like a monster when you cut their quotes in half and ignore all the surrounding context. This conversation clearly isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to continue responding.