5 ms·

Speculate all you want, just don't make definitive claims using non-definitive evidence.

by Klinky 3y ago

BasedAnon 3y ago
Even if you had literal witnesses it wouldn't be 'definitive' evidence, I'm not sure why you're using this argument as if you can't make claims about things you didn't directly observe.
- Klinky 3y ago
  Well I don't even think there's enough evidence here to win a civil trial where the bar is lower than criminal. Don't act like you have the answer while citing sources that literally say your claim might not be what happened. Y'all just want to jump to a conclusion.
  - BasedAnon 3y ago
    You realise you don't have to agree with everything in a source you cite, right?
    - Klinky 3y ago
      Why would I ignore the parts of a cited source they don't agree with or that's counter to the claim being made? You don't think that's important?
kcplate 3y ago
Ok…but why is that so important to you? I guess I am trying to understand the motivation behind people who are insisting on splitting hairs to downplay or denigrate the circumstantial evidence that points toward a lab leak. I mean I can understand if there was an accidental lab leak of an engineered virus that killed millions was created in a Chinese lab with American tax dollars why those involved might want that information suppressed and to go away but why is it important to Klinky to take up that cause?
- defrost 3y ago
  Regardless of the domain, questions of strength of evidence and strength of conclusions that can be drawn are of general interest to many.
  - kcplate 3y ago
    That’s the thing, I am certainly interested if governments are engineering a possible plague and accidentally this plague leaked out and killed many. That has a widespread obvious general interest to the public. What I don’t understand is why laypeople with no connection to the possible groups and government supposedly involved would be motivated to take up the cause against the speculation. What motivates them? I don’t see the general interest value to cause them to choose that side of the debate.
    - Klinky 3y ago
      I literally said speculate all you want. Just don't expect your speculation to be magically accepted as truth when that's not what the evidence supports. Have you spoken about your concerns with your congresspersons & asked them to support bans on risky gain-of-function research? That'd be something tangible you could do than just speculating on top of speculation.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        Why deflect here? What is your motivation to discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion possibility when neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence that you seek? Does it somehow bother your politics in some way? Are you just being a contrarian for contrary sake? Your desire for evidential purity in a situation where you are most likely not involved is really strange. I am just interested in why that is. What is motivating you here? Please articulate it.
        Klinky 3y ago
        > discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence Didn't discount or argue against using circumstantial evidence, nor did I argue against speculating. I am stating the evidence only supports the possibility, it does not prove it happened. Please stop making up false arguments. >neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence Agreed.

Speculate all you want, just don't make definitive claims using non-definitive evidence.

by Klinky 3y ago

Speculate all you want, just don't make definitive claims using non-definitive evidence.

Even if you had literal witnesses it wouldn't be 'definitive' evidence, I'm not sure why you're using this argument as if you can't make claims about things you didn't directly observe.

Klinky 3y ago
Well I don't even think there's enough evidence here to win a civil trial where the bar is lower than criminal. Don't act like you have the answer while citing sources that literally say your claim might not be what happened. Y'all just want to jump to a conclusion.
- BasedAnon 3y ago
  You realise you don't have to agree with everything in a source you cite, right?
  - Klinky 3y ago
    Why would I ignore the parts of a cited source they don't agree with or that's counter to the claim being made? You don't think that's important?

kcplate 3y ago

Ok…but why is that so important to you? I guess I am trying to understand the motivation behind people who are insisting on splitting hairs to downplay or denigrate the circumstantial evidence that points toward a lab leak. I mean I can understand if there was an accidental lab leak of an engineered virus that killed millions was created in a Chinese lab with American tax dollars why those involved might want that information suppressed and to go away but why is it important to Klinky to take up that cause?

defrost 3y ago
Regardless of the domain, questions of strength of evidence and strength of conclusions that can be drawn are of general interest to many.
- kcplate 3y ago
  That’s the thing, I am certainly interested if governments are engineering a possible plague and accidentally this plague leaked out and killed many. That has a widespread obvious general interest to the public. What I don’t understand is why laypeople with no connection to the possible groups and government supposedly involved would be motivated to take up the cause against the speculation. What motivates them? I don’t see the general interest value to cause them to choose that side of the debate.
  - Klinky 3y ago
    I literally said speculate all you want. Just don't expect your speculation to be magically accepted as truth when that's not what the evidence supports. Have you spoken about your concerns with your congresspersons & asked them to support bans on risky gain-of-function research? That'd be something tangible you could do than just speculating on top of speculation.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      Why deflect here? What is your motivation to discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion possibility when neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence that you seek? Does it somehow bother your politics in some way? Are you just being a contrarian for contrary sake? Your desire for evidential purity in a situation where you are most likely not involved is really strange. I am just interested in why that is. What is motivating you here? Please articulate it.
      - Klinky 3y ago
        > discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence Didn't discount or argue against using circumstantial evidence, nor did I argue against speculating. I am stating the evidence only supports the possibility, it does not prove it happened. Please stop making up false arguments. >neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence Agreed.