3 ms·

To you and sibling comment I would argue the comment I responded to conflated dangerous with immoral. Danger is part of the domain of threat modelling. And whe

To you and sibling comment I would argue the comment I responded to conflated dangerous with immoral. Danger is part of the domain of threat modelling. And when doing threat modelling, the morality of the opponent is a distraction. However in the domain of propaganda, threats, immorality and assigning the latter to the former go hand in hand.

brigandish 4y ago
I didn't realise my career as a propagandist was going so well. Regardless, have the people involved in gain of function research of coronaviruses been shown to be trustworthy? I would argue not, given the evidence[1]. [1] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-fu...
- alexvoda 4y ago
  Define trustworthy. What kind of trust did you place in them that was now broken? I at the very least believe they would not desire to expose themselves and their loved ones to pathogens. If the origin was a leak, then, sure, we should see if any biosecurity protocol was broken and why, and design better protocols. But posturing that the researchers were not "trustworthy" is not helpful. You call them untrustworthy and dangerous people and by that you are implying malice. Why? And what makes you believe outside of that small circle there aren't people far more malicious? If creating diseases becomes so easy anyone can do it, we will see the age of biological ransomware. I am certain there are people far more malicious and far more immoral than any of the researchers who worked on this.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > Define trustworthy. Come on, I'm not a student debating in the common room, this is just silly.
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      It is the key word on which your argument rests and you used it in every comment in this thread. Since you decline, I believe it is useless to continue the discussion.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement.

brigandish 4y ago

I didn't realise my career as a propagandist was going so well. Regardless, have the people involved in gain of function research of coronaviruses been shown to be trustworthy? I would argue not, given the evidence[1]. [1] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-fu...

alexvoda 4y ago
Define trustworthy. What kind of trust did you place in them that was now broken? I at the very least believe they would not desire to expose themselves and their loved ones to pathogens. If the origin was a leak, then, sure, we should see if any biosecurity protocol was broken and why, and design better protocols. But posturing that the researchers were not "trustworthy" is not helpful. You call them untrustworthy and dangerous people and by that you are implying malice. Why? And what makes you believe outside of that small circle there aren't people far more malicious? If creating diseases becomes so easy anyone can do it, we will see the age of biological ransomware. I am certain there are people far more malicious and far more immoral than any of the researchers who worked on this.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > Define trustworthy. Come on, I'm not a student debating in the common room, this is just silly.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    It is the key word on which your argument rests and you used it in every comment in this thread. Since you decline, I believe it is useless to continue the discussion.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement.