3 ms·
The problem is that there's no hard evidence to support what he's saying. It's just a bunch of circumstance that sounds damning at first, "oh a novel virus eme
by mywittyname 3y ago
The problem is that there's no hard evidence to support what he's saying. It's just a bunch of circumstance that sounds damning at first, "oh a novel virus emerges near a lab that studies novel virus", but then you consider, maybe the lab studying these novel viruses was put in a location where novel viruses commonly occur.
There's no Center for Oceanic Studies in Nebraska, but there is a Center for Great Plains Studies.
I see this as peddling misinformation. He may be correct, but he doesn't have conclusive evidence and he's using humor to side-step the fact that he's presenting an opinion.
- southernplaces7 3y agoSo, he then shouldn't even bring up the idea in a show dedicated to speculative talk about interesting or comedy-worthy subjects? No TALK show host should mention anything that isn't 100% backed by evidence because he can't triple-reference an opinion he puts forth with correct academic citations? The humor mixed with opinion is exactly the point of shows like this, and it should be an obvious thing to anyone who hasn't let themselves become utterly humorous by having their specific prejudice poked. What absurd nonsense. Misinformation is a word with a very slippery definition, but worst of all is seeing claims of it used as a bludgeon against anything that doesn't concretely toe some specific ideological inclination.