Avery

Here is the letter that prefaced Fauci's recommendations.

https://www.science.org/content/article/infectious-disease-experts-call-nationwide-closure-us-schools-and-business-slow?cookieSet=1

• This is a letter addressed to Fauci on Mar 16th with many scientists calling for a nationwide shutdown. Clearly, if Fauci wanted all schools shut down, public support like this would have given Fauci polticial cover.   Instead,  I have already documented Fauci's response 4 days later when he quite clearly states that decision must be made locally, not nationally.  Again, I will point out that Fauci is ahead of Trump, who only supported Governors making the call 7 days after this letter.
  

https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/audio-player/18297084

• This interview is March 6th, ten days before the above pressure, 2 weeks before the press conference where Fauci became a public enemy of the right for contradicting Trump with the truth.  
  
• Even this early, Fauci is quite consistent:
  
• "What I'm seeing and what I think we'll see, Howard, is not an official country-wide mitigation.  I think the public will essentially make their own decision.  People will be doing things like decreasing travel by doing the kinds of things that you mentioned- cancelling conferences, encouraging people to not work in the workplace if they could do it at home.  They're going to be doing that anyway, so I don't think it's going to be like a public health mandate, but people are going to start hunkering down a bit.  Because you see them doing it spontaneously anyway."
  

It looks like around March Fauci was advising for the closing of schools.

https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/audio-player/18297084

Around May 2020 there are a ton of articles describing fights with Trump on whether school restrictions should be lifted.

Correct me if my timeline is wrong.

• By May, the question of spring semester is essentially over and the debate was about how to re-open schools in the fall.  I have already including quotes above showing Fauci strongly supporting re-opening schools in the fall with vigorous measure like distancing and masking.  When Paul accusses Fauci on May 12th of supporting school closure and doesn't give Fauci any time to respond, Sen. Alexander makes a point of returning to the question and asks Fauci point blank whether he's recommmending schools remain closed in the fall and Fauci unequivocally says no.
  

(2) None of the animals in the Huanan wetmarket initially tested had traces of coronavirus (around 2000 samples), and zero animals from 209 other wetmarkets around China (around 80,000 samples) has traces of coronavirus 

• False.  
  
• The initial research revealed a close evolutionary relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-related bat viruses (Wu et al. 2020). Especially, the identification of the virus RaTG13 in Rhinolophus affinis bats sampled from Yunnan province of China, which is 96.1 per cent identical to SARS-CoV-2 at the whole-genome sequence level, indicated a probable bat origin of SARS-CoV-2 (Zhou et al. 2020b). Subsequently, other close relatives of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in bats sampled from Yunnan province of China (Zhou et al. 2020a), Japan (Murakami et al. 2020), and Thailand (Wacharapluesadee et al. 2021). Importantly, a virus named BANAL-52 discovered in Rhinolophus malayanus bats from Laos is closer to SARS-CoV-2 than any known viruses and has a potential for infecting humans (Temmam et al. 2022). All these data indicate that bats are a natural reservoir host of SARS-CoV-2.
  
• we immediately performed a surveillance investigation in mammals in and around Wuhan after we identified an unknown coronavirus as the etiologic agent of COVID-19. As a result, canine alphacoronavirus were identified in raccoon dogs, while SARS-CoV-related coronaviruses and recombinant viruses of SARS-related and SARS-CoV-2-related coronaviruses were found in bats. However, no SARS-CoV-2 or the close relatives of SARS-CoV-2 were found in these mammals.
  
• coronaviruses were screened in the lung, liver, and intestinal tissue samples from fifteen raccoon dogs, seven Siberian weasels, three hog badgers, and three Reeves’s muntjacs collected in Wuhan and 334 bats collected around Wuhan. Consequently, eight alphacoronaviruses were identified in raccoon dogs, while nine betacoronaviruses were found in bats. Notably, the newly discovered alphacoronaviruses shared a high whole-genome sequence similarity (97.9 per cent) with the canine coronavirus (CCoV) strain 2020/7 sampled from domestic dog in the UK. Some betacoronaviruses identified here were closely related to previously known bat SARS-CoV-related viruses sampled from Hubei province and its neighbors, while the remaining betacoronaviruses exhibited a close evolutionary relationship with SARS-CoV-related bat viruses in the RdRp gene tree and clustered together with SARS-CoV-2-related bat coronaviruses in the M, N and S gene trees, but with relatively low similarity. Additionally, these newly discovered betacoronaviruses seem unlikely to bind angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 because of the deletions in the two key regions of their receptor-binding motifs. Finally, we did not find SARS-CoV-2 or its progenitor virus in these animal samples.
  
• https://academic.oup.com/ve/article/8/1/veac046/6601809
  
• (that is- they looked at 362 animals in Wuhan, mostly bats and discovered 17 new coronaviruses similar to SARS2.  (oh fuck) The viruses most similar to SARS2 are found in bat caves 800 miles from Wuhan).
  

A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived | Zenodo 

(3) Bayesian analysis by Steven C. Quay shows that a wetmarket origin has a chance of 0.2%, whilst a lab leak has a chance of 99.8% (same source, but here's a video that quickly goes through his findings: SARS-CoV-2 Bayesian Analysis by Steven Carl Quay MD Phd – The Published Reporter® ) 

• Many red flags here:  not published in any science journal, no peer review, paid advertising, Quay is a legitimate M.D. but this paper is really nothing more than a .pdf file posted online.
  

• "Examining the structure and format of the document it becomes immediately clear that this is not a real scientific study but a report that contains scattered data and images. Nowhere in the paper is there an explanation of the protocol used to select the items included in the author's analysis, nor of the process followed to arrive at the final conclusions or to eliminate possible data selection bias as it occurs typically in meta-analyses of scientific research....
  

• While Bayes' theorem is an extremely useful scientific tool when used correctly, it is also known for its ability to superficially justify pseudoscientific hypotheses when used incorrectly. The theorem does not derive objective probabilities, but relies entirely on the probabilities given to it and the way in which those probabilities are introduced.
  

• ...The third argument that the paper takes into account is three of the key studies that support the unanimity of the natural origin of the virus. The paper briefly describes all 3 studies as so problematic that it doesn't even consider them to renew the possibility of a natural origin of the virus....Essentially, at this point the paper rejects all the evidence that leads the scientific community to the consensus of natural origin, having questionably examined only a small part of the studies in question. 
  

• At the same time, this rejection takes place in the place of an act, while the document then proceeds to a series of acts, each of which individually increases the probability of laboratory origin alone.
  

• Finally, the probabilities used in each act are subjective, and are based on the initially incomplete examination of the scientific evidence. Thus, with correspondingly biased practices, each editor is able to "prove as highly probable" almost any view he has decided to support in advance.
  

• That is, your paper takes 193 pages to unscientifically declare that if we disregard all other explanations as invalid without any explanation, then the possibility of the subjectively preferred explanation is made to seem likely artifiicially.
  

• Let's acknowledge that any medical professional with any honest insight into the origin of COVID-19 would be sure to publish in a  prestigious venue with peer review and enjoy the reputational benefits for the rest of her career.  The fact that Dr. Quay avoids scientists and goes straight to the tv cameras suggests his awareness that his conclusions are crap.
  

Be extremely specific: what fact do you claim NIH "backtracked" on?  What "initial narrative" has changed?

The NIH and I agree that the NIH's letter in Oct 2012 is 100% consistent with all prior NIH statements and all of Dr. Fauci's testimony regarding EcoHealth and Wuhan.  You can't say "backtrack" without first explaining what you are talking about.  In prior posts, you pointed to false headlines but I have demonstrated in detail how those headlines were malicious lies (and you have not refuted).

Here's me being extremely specific: the original story about the coronavirus originating in bats is wrong.

• But since the NIH has never claimed that COVID-19 definitely orginates from bats that is not the NIH backtracking or changing narrative.
  

The original story about the coronavirus originating in a wetmarket is wrong.

• But since the NIH has never claimed that COVID-19 definitely came from the Wuhan live animal market that is not the NIH backtracking or changing narrative.
  

Sorry, I should have cleaned that up better.

-->@oromagi

Half your response is rubbish that can be lumped into two categories, so I'll address that first:

(1) I'm not Rand Paul and I'm not here to defend everything he said, so you should stop making those assumptions. I'm sure it would be far easier to attack my arguments if they were the same as Rand Paul's, but you're actually going to have to read what I write, rather than respond to stuff you already know. The video I originally linked was show the context in which Fauci said something, not to argue Rand Paul's argument Dr ANTHONY FAUCI's COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS to the 2022 GRADUATING CLASS of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY (debateart.com) . 

(2) Ad Hominem is a waste of everyone's time. I don't care what you think of the Nypost, Rand Paul or whoever. I care about the validity of arguments.

• Let's recall your original thesis
  
• "You can list all the awards you want, but that doesn't excuse the disastrous consequences of this man's actions.  Anthony is partly responsible for Covid. He helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan. He is also on record lying about this ("does not fund gain-of-function research and if it is" -- massive contradiction): Exchange between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube  Keep all this in mind as Anthony talks about the "profound ways" Covid impacted these students."
  
• That is- you called Fauci disasterous, responsible for COVID, and a liar and the only thing even close to evidence you present is Rand Paul's testimony.
  

• Please reconcile these two statements.  If ad homs and Paul make my arguments "rubbish"  you must explain why your ad hom and Paul are not rubbish.  What consistent standard is being applied here?
  

Okay, I understand your argument better now.

So, **if** coronavirus research were funded by the NIH, and that research involved making a coronavirus more effective against humans, that would qualify for 'gain-of-function' research via the new 2011/2012 definition.

• False.  For coronavirus research to be "gain-of-function" according to NIH standards, it must have a demonstrated potential for human pandemic.  That is "SARS, MERS, and avian flu strains in humans" as Dr. Baric succinctly explained in POST #9
  

(a) I still contend that the NIH funded the Wuhan Virology lab through Ecohealth Alliance NIH-Document-Production-Cover-Letter-2021.10.20_McMorris-Rodgers.pdf (house.gov)  

• Which letter I went through in POST #27 in some detail and bolded and underlined  for you the parts where the NIH very specifically explains how this is not "gain-of-function" and is not SARS2 and could not be SARS2
  
• It is not good faith argument to just keep repeating your contention while ignoring the fact I have blown your contention to pieces.
  
• Your argument is "Fauci funded COVID-19"  and "Fauci lied about it"  This letter very specifically proves that both of your arguments are 100% false.  You have to address my arguments.  You can't repeat the fake news a third time and link to the same letter that proves your news as fake three times.
  
• What is the physical link between the NIH funded research on mice in North Carolina and Wuhan? 
  
• What proof do you have that WIV1 can become SARS- the geneolocial  equivalent of claiming that a chimpanzee gave birth to a live human?
  

EcoHealthAlliance was testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model In this limited experiment, laboratory mice infected with the SHC014 WIV1 bat coronavirus became sicker than those infected with the WIV1 bat coronavirus.   As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do. Regardless, the viruses being studied under this grant were genetically very distant from SARS-CoV-2 ...

[So, neither SHC014 or WIV1 can be gain-of-function because neither virus exists in humans, also gain-of-function research must be intentional, unexpected results never qualify as gain-of-function].

(b) The definition is a bit of a bait-and-switch because it's possible for Fauci to say that gain-of-function research is not being conducted (in accordance with the new 2011/2012 definition), whilst gain-of-function research is being conducted via the old definition (that everyone besides the NIH is using).

• False.  Fauci never ever baits-and-switches.  He is NIH.  He was a part of coming up with the definiton of "gain-of-function."  When Fauci says "gain-of-function" he only means the NIH version.  That's why Fauci says "...and even if it was" in his May 11th testimony- he never considers such research gain-of-function although others might, right?
  

Again, this is the issue with the NIH controlling the language as to what they are doing: the murderers are defining murder.

• False and again you are just repeating your argument without bothering to address my counterargument that already disproved this argument.  The NIH had to go through peer review, Congressional approval, inspector general oversight, hundreds of commitees and meeting.  This is reasonably  like the Dept of Justice updating their definition of murder it is nothing at all like a murderer updating his definiton of murder.  Please address my arguments rather than just repeating shit over and over.
  

But we're not talking about "thousands of different coronavirus strains".

• Well then you need to stop saying coronavirus and start saying SARS2 because when you say "Wuhan working on coronaviruses" that includes thousands of possiblities that have nothing to do with humans.
  

His issue is him binding his own damn business about what other people do and are. He has no right (in society) to be commenting on someone else when there are certainly things in his life he could criticized for equally compared to those peoples. Why does he care that there are ugly people? How does it affect him in his daily life? Does he immediately get disgusted by their appearance by a look?

If that's the case, it's a him problem because 98% of the population DO NOT care about a bystanders looks enough to comment, therefore it is a him issue that needs evaluated by a professional psychologist

And I differentiate between base instinct and acquired behaviour.

And sexual attraction at base level is a separate issue to physical attraction at a socio-conceptual level

And indiscriminate sex is more relative to the human condition than it is to most other species.

Indiscriminate sex is the outcome of overthink rather than the outcome of base physiology.

That is to say that humans have developed the practice of copulating when it not necessary to do so.

Recreational sex as it were.

I find the video he linked rather convincing at showing some of Fauci's hypocrisy.

• Well that's too bad since there's a bunch of pretty obvious clues that this video is manipulating you
  
• Notice that the video doesn't give you any context or timestamp for Fauci's comments, in fact the editor has zoomed in on Fauci in order to keep identifying information off the screen.
  
• Notice the way the video cuts to popular movie clips to demonstrate to you how you are supposed to react, how this video wants you to feel about the information you are receiving.
  
• Notice the way the editor manipulates the original vid with frame zooms to give you that "eye-popping" effect
  
• Notice the editing as Fauci's comments are repeated, the video changes to black and white and the audio is slowed down to make Fauci's voice sound demonic- a classic technique in political smear advertising.
  
• Greyparrot's video is not providing you data for analysis, he is telling you what emotion you are supposed to be feeling
  

• So, let's look at the facts.
  
• The clip from which Fauci is quoted as saying "the schools should be closed" is from  a PBS News Hour interview with Judy Woodruff  done on Mar 20th, 2020- so that's right at the beginning when experts were still hoping to contain a general pandemic.  Here is the exact quote in context:
  

• Judy Woodruff:
  Speaking of spring break, there has been conflicting advice to Americans this week in different states about whether schools should be closed or open, day care centers.
  What is your best advice on that right now?
• Anthony Fauci:
  You know, it really varies from location to location.  And you want to listen to the local — state and local health authorities. But you also would hope that they are looking at the guidelines that are coming from the federal level, because they are only guidelines. They say you should. They don't say you must.
  But they should at least be looked at. So, clearly, in certain circumstanc, particularly in areas where there's community spread, the schools should be closed.

• By this date, 46 States had already shut down their public schools so when Fauci says he had nothing to with those closures he is 100% accurate. The admnistration had only declared a public emergency a week before and made no recommendations about school closure.   Fauci's first statement on school closures came on Mar 12th (when Trump was still promising that COVID would go away with warmer weather and there would be no pandemic) when he said:
  
• YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT BY A STATE-BY-STATE BASIS. THE ONE THING I DO ADVISE AND I SAID THIS IN MULTIPLE HEARINGS AND MULTIPLE BRIEFINGS, THAT RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE TO START IMPLEMENTING BOTH CONTAINMENT AND MITIGATION. AND WHAT WAS DONE WHEN YOU DO CLOSING THE SCHOOLS IS MITIGATION. WE HAVE TO TRY AS BEST AS WE CAN TO DISTANCE OURSELVES FROM EACH OTHER,
  

[Stuff about Trump and Rand]

• Ultimately, Fauci's opinion on school closures remains roughly the same through the pandemic- schools closures are a real harm that should be avoided but weighed against the harms of local outbreaks and in all cases the decision has to be made locally. 
  
• June 4th, 2020  In his interview, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said: “Children can get infected, so, yes, so you’ve got to be careful. You got to be careful for them, and you got to be careful that they may not spread it. Now, to make an extrapolation that you shouldn’t open schools, I think, is a bit of a reach.”  He also said opening schools “depends on the level of viral activity” in a particular area and it is time to be “creative” in reconfiguring classrooms to ensure students are not seated too close together.  “In some situations, there will be no problem for children to go back to school,” he said. “In others, you may need to do some modifications. You know, modifications could be breaking up the class so you don’t have a crowded classroom, maybe half in the morning, half in the afternoon, having children doing alternate schedules. There’s a whole bunch of things that one can do.”
  
•  August 3, 2020  K-12 schools and colleges can reopen, but safety should come first, Fauci says
  
• Nov 29th (the beginning of peak COVID) "We get asked it all the time. You know, we say it -- not being facetiously, as a sound bite or anything -- but, you know, close the bars and keep the schools open is what we really say," he said. "Obviously, you don't have one size fits all. But as I said in the past … the default position should be to try as best as possible within reason to keep the children in school or to get them back to school."
  
• Dec 31st, 2020 (Middle of peak COVID)  Schools can safely reopen, even when there’s substantial community transmission  Fauci said the coronavirus acts very differently from the flu when it comes to children.  With the coronavirus, children seem to have lower levels of infection than the broader community. “That was almost counterintuitive, but it’s turning out to be that way,” Fauci said.  “What we should do is to do everything to support the maintenance of the children in school. ... If you really want to get society back to some form of normality, one of the first things we have to do is to get the children back in school.”
  
• By the way, Trump wasn't saying anything about getting kids back in school at this point, really hadn't said much about the pandemic for months.  The entire  political apparatus was either coasting or planning to overthrow the government at this point.  Fuck the kids.
  
• Jan 20, 2021, Fauci finally has influence again as Biden's Chief Medical advisor just as we hit record COVID death, hospitals crashing, medical supply shortages, etc.
  
• Feb 12, 2021   “You should try to get as many teachers as you possibly can vaccinated as quickly as you possibly can,” Fauci said. “But to make it a sine qua non that you don’t open a school until every teacher is vaccinated, I think is not workable, and probably most of the teachers would agree with that ... You don’t want to essentially have nobody in school until all the teachers get vaccinated.”
  
• May 13th, 2021  Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, said Thursday that schools in the fall should be open “full blast” five days a week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 resume life without masks or other restrictions.
  
• Sept 9th 2021    Surging Covid-19 cases – and the increasing proportion reported in children – are causing many health experts to worry about the outlook as the school year gets underway across the entire country.  But Dr. Anthony Fauci said there shouldn’t be a big uptick “if we do it right.”  “We’ve gotta get the school system masked in addition to surrounding the children with vaccinated people,” said the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “That’s the solution.”
  

We're all interested to see your response.

• I am doubtful
  

Okay then. You, the NIH and me agree that if a research team were looking into making a coronavirus more effective against humans, then that would be considered (via the new 2011/2012 NIH definition) as gain-of-function research. 

• False.  It still could not be NIH "gain-of-function" since that American designation only applies to research funded by the NIH and no research team in Wuhan has ever been funded by the NIH, any more than the US would permit the Chinese government to direct American research.
  

• There are thousands of different coronavirus strains, 7 of which have evolved to infect humans, 3 of which have demonstrated pandemic potential in humans.
  
• Is it possible that Wuhan was trying to make some coronavirus more effective against humans?  Yes.
  
• Is it likely?  No
  
• Is there any evidence suggesting such activity?  No
  

• Is it possible that Wuhan was trying to make some coronavirus more effective against humans?  Yes.
  
• Is it likely?  Yes
  
• Is there any evidence suggesting such activity?  No
  

whereas the NIH's backtracking and other official statements rejecting the initial narrative came around in October 2021 

• Be extremely specific: what fact do you claim NIH "backtracked" on?  What "initial narrative" has changed?
  
• The NIH and I agree that the NIH's letter in Oct 2012 is 100% consistent with all prior NIH statements and all of Dr. Fauci's testimony regarding EcoHealth and Wuhan.  You can't say "backtrack" without first explaining what you are talking about.  In prior posts, you pointed to false headlines but I have demonstrated in detail how those headlines were malicious lies (and you have not refuted).
  

they specifically deny that the virus variants listed cannot have produced the deadly Covid-19 variant. I can accept that part of the argument, however that doesn't mean the other variants they were testing (via gain-of-function research) did not produce the deadly Covid-19 variant. 

• Notice how you are now playing the same shell game as Paul. 
  
• Your first "they" is a pronoun indicating the NIH
  
• Your second "they" is a pronoun indicating the scientists in Wuhan
  
• You changed the subject of your sentence and concealed that change by using the same pronoun for both- not good.
  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrQbZHQL_0w

I really enjoy these short, succinct videos that expose the hypocrisy.

Great find.

I wonder if Oromagi will respond to this.

Officially, Greyparrot has requested a safe space immunity from me for the last two years.  Since I refuse to stoop to responding in kind, Greyparrot gets to make comments on my shit all day every day but officially I'm not supposed to ever reply.  I try hard to never read his posts or look at his many, many youtube clips since it just frustrates me that I'm not allowed to debate him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrQbZHQL_0w

I'm struggling to find a random definition which does not describe what the Wuhan lab was doing.

Your struggle is personal.  Nothing in your definitions is inconsistent with what I've said, you just don't understand what you are cut and pasting.

Recall these explanations-

[talk about gain-of-function over the last 2000 years and how my definitions a,b and d match that]

[You saying that the NIH's defintion matches my definition c]

[More of Paul's arguments that I am not making]

Repeating your lies doesn't make them more true.   Just like the NYPost article, the letter is linked to in the article and the letter very specifically refutes Yahoo's claim that "NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan"

[You referring to that official statement again]

[You referring to that old Baric interview]

Finally, there is clearly conflict of interest if we're accusing the NIH of doing (through the Wuhan lab) gain-of-function research, whilst they are the ones in charge of the definition. Would you trust a murderer to fairly redefine the term "murder", if she was on trial for it?

To extend your metaphor, a US Senator falsely accuses a US Attorney General of financing a murder in China because the FBI once purchased a bunch of criminal records from China.  The Attorney General's honest and correct response is that he has little information about said murder and no jurisdiction to make that determination but the forensic information he does have suggests natural causes, not murder.  Furthermore, the legal definition of murder may be different in China.  In any case, the AG can state unequivocally that the FBI did not fund any Chinese murderers.

Again, You have claimed that Fauci is partly responsible for Covid, but have failed to provide any evidence to support your outlandish conspiracy theory.

I'm sure it is not necessary to point out that the NY Post is not a reliable source for factual information.  Even aside from its dogshit reputation

This is Ad Hominem, so we should just ignore it.

Wikipedia states:

Are you arguing against Paul or me?

WTF?  Your whole original thesis in POST#4 was "Rand Paul claims..."  If you are done promoting Paul's lies then this conversation is over.

Yes.

Please point out the irony, as it might help to clarify things.

My contention as ever, is that humans are prone to take base instinct and apply conceptuality and therefore apply socio-psychological modifications to decisions.

So, in simple terms base instinct was/is see it fuck it.

All those awards from pharmaceutical companies is evidence of corruption, not actual accolades.

Honestly, Oro is the biggest apologizer for corporate elites, you have to wonder what awards they gave him as well.....

If you maneuver your eyes to the left-hand side of your screen (don't go too far), there are picture boxes and a word above. That word above is my name.

That's obviously not the point. The fact that you would glean "anarchist dreams" from my statement alone, especially considering that "Avery" and I have never had discourse up until this point and that your profile suggests you've been here a bit more than a month--not to mention your familiarity with DDO--leads me to suspect that you are aware of my politics--politics which I do not advertise on my profile. In essence, I'm accusing "Avery" of being an alt. account. So, who are you?

You might like living in a stateless society.

I most certainly would.

Oh you're right.

When people are on edge, that gives them the right to grab people's weapons.

My bad.

When being threatened on their own property, they most certainly have the prerogative to effectively end said threat.

I'm curious: do you think it would be okay to assault or even kill a police officer for attempting to arrest you?

The attempt to arrest or detain is a violation of one's person and sovereignty. So yes, one has the prerogative to seek the end of all acts of aggression to which one is subject.

What about asking for I.D?

You don't ask police officers for their badge numbers and confirm that they are who they say they are?

What about existing?

Police officers are enforcers for the State. The State is an institution defined by its capacity to coerce. So yes, their existing constitutes a threat.

Where do you draw the line?

STATE = IMMORALITY.

You claimed:

• [Fauci] helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan.
  
• [Fauci] has denied being involved in gain-of-function research
  
• while also denying that Dr Baric's lab was at all involved in gain-of-function research
  
• Fauci contradicts himself by saying "if it is" doing the gain-of-function research, it's according to guidelines etc."
  

If you have read my posts with anything like comprehension, then you now understand that all of these claims are disproved by a single, easily verified fact:  

• Since 2012 in the US, the NIH  alone defines what research is gain-of-function and what research is not. When the NIH advises Congress that Dr. Baric' s research is not gain-of-function, they do so as the final authority on the matter. The determination of gain of function has a set of specific criteria which Dr. Baric's research and EcoHealth Alliance research does not match and so officially, as a matter of governmental and scientific record neither project is gain-of-function no matter how many time others repeat that lie.
  
• Although we know that US standards for for restricting research based on transmissibility are much higher than Chinese or even WHO standards, US access to Chinese research is quite limited.  The NIH does not evaluate gain-of-function in Chinese virology.
  
• This simple fact makes everything Fauci said on May 11th true and much of what Paul claimed an outright lie.
  

You have claimed that Fauci is partly responsible for Covid, but have failed to provide any evidence to support your outlandish conspiracy theory.

You have claimed that  the Wuhan lab was conducting research into making a coronavirus more effective against humans but this claim is more than any US or international intelligence is willing to support.  What evidence supports this claim?

I'm sure it is not necessary to point out that the NY Post is not a reliable source for factual information.  Even aside from its dogshit reputation

For example, the NY Post  claims "Letter confirms Wuhan lab’s COVID-19 leak was funded by US taxpayers." Confident that 99% of its gullible readership will buy the headline and never read the letter which states unequivocally:

• "While it might appear that the similarity of RaTG13 and BANAL-52 bat coronaviruses to SARS CoV-2 is close because it overlaps by 96-97%, experts agree that even these viruses are far too divergent to have been the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. For comparison, today's human genome is 96% similar to our closest ancestor, the chimpanzee. Humans and chimpanzees are thought to have diverged approximately6 million years ago. The analysis attached confirms that the bat coronaviruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could not have been the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID- 19 pandemic ."
  

Paul's argument amounts to 'money is fungible.' 

the correct question is this: what are the civilians doing to get shot?

No, that doesn't explore why they're doing it. Simple minds rarely get to root causes though, they tend to just lash out and blame (on both sides of politics). Greater minds seek to empathise and find long-term rehabilitations and solutions to big issues and only one side of politics does that, whether the right wing admits it or not.

First, who are you? Because it's protocol that I share my "anarchist dreams" with those who've been here at least two months. 

Second, where I live does not at all qualify any objection I sustain against an organization of aggressors. 

Third, what the hell is CHAZ? 

Fourth, Somalia has a federal government.

It's super easy to mouth-off about police whilst behind a computer screen in the comfort of a lawful society.

I would also presume that it's super easy to mouth-off about the police whilst not being behind a computer screen in the alleged discomfort of an unlawful society. What is your point? Presuming that I would change my tune living under different circumstances displays that you have absolutely no idea what serves as the basis of my contention.

In what circumstance would it be okay to touch an officer's weapon?

Under what circumstances does one not expect the other party to be on edge when flaunting their weapon in a dispute?

Who instigated this violent interaction?

The officer.

Why are we pretending to ignore that what this woman did was illegal, dangerous and threatened the life of the officer?

Why are we pretending that every officer is not an extension of state aggression, and the ends that they seek in any dispute is compliance and submission, not resolution?

You now seem to be focusing on sexual attraction, rather than physical attraction. Ultimately one and the same perhaps.

Though to suggest that social manipulation of the latter does not affect the former is a ridiculous position.

And with regard to our interaction, it was you who initially addressed my argument, and if I do not necessarily agree with your arguments you have every opportunity to try again. Such is the mental stimulation I get from responding to your commentary, so that is why I bother.

Men tend to be more attracted to more neonotenous traits in women, such as larger eyes and just in general, youthful features. I can't remember where I read it, and I can't seem to find it now.

Although most men do see strong bone structures as masculine. A woman can have high cheekbones and still look feminine. She can even have a jawline and look feminine. It's just harder to pull it off on average, it seems.

A weak chin does not necessarily make a girl look more attractive than a well-developed one, but it certainly does not make her look more masculine to have a weak chin. A weak chin on a man makes him look more feminine on average. Which just means a woman can get away with having a weak chin or a negative canthal tilt easier than a man can, as it doesn't change their sexual dimorphism profile.

And what are police officers and society doing to help cops be seen as friendly protectors that have a code in the eyes of the predominantly black communities in US?

That, TWS, is the real root cause and real solution.

What an ass-backwards and wrong way of framing the situation lol.

The correct question is this: what are the civilians doing to get shot? In this case, it appears to be grabbing the gun/taser of an officer. It shouldn't be up to the officers and "society" (whatever that means) to make that situation PR friendly to the black community. It should be up to the people not to commit the serious crime in the first place. 

The crime is the real root cause, and the real solution is prosecuting criminals. 

Which is exactly what the officer did not do when he shot Pamela. She was not a criminal, she had some mental issues.

LOL what, is the officer going to try and arrest her, in order for her to stand before a judge, whilst he's being tased and shot at? xD

Sometimes, prosecution happens in real time, if you're attempting to harm a police officer.

I'm glad they found the cure for this dangerous, wild criminal's mental illness: a 9mm to the dome.

When officers suffer from mental illness they are suspended with pay and required to seek treatment/counseling. The same consideration should be given to the public.

I personally can quite like a girl with short hair, as long as it looks healthy and she doesn't look sick.

Most female models also do not look anything special to me. They tend to have very masculine bone structures when a more moon face shaped has been shown to be generally preferred by men in the modern day. 

Although i would agree with you that it is probably very silly to believe all our beauty standards are cultural. It seems much more likely to me that it would take vast amounts of socialisation to get us to stop liking some physical features. 

And what are police officers and society doing to help cops be seen as friendly protectors that have a code in the eyes of the predominantly black communities in US?

That, TWS, is the real root cause and real solution.

What an ass-backwards and wrong way of framing the situation lol.

The correct question is this: what are the civilians doing to get shot? In this case, it appears to be grabbing the gun/taser of an officer. It shouldn't be up to the officers and "society" (whatever that means) to make that situation PR friendly to the black community. It should be up to the people not to commit the serious crime in the first place. 

The crime is the real root cause, and the real solution is prosecuting criminals. 

Which is exactly what the officer did not do when he shot Pamela. She was not a criminal, she had some mental issues.

When one party has an unencumbered privilege to exercise the use of deadly force using their discretion alone on someone else's property, then their actions will receive my condemnation.

She probably shouldn't have reached for his weapon, but police officers are sanctioned aggressors who flaunt their capacity to kill; hence, their not concealing their weapons knowing they can and often instigate escalation in particular circumstances.

I always liked the definition of racism to mean unjustifiable prejudice. Hate makes sense too but might not be broad enough

Your definition of attractive is very narrow.

Nonetheless, carbon copy models, is a perfect example of contrived social expectation.

Anthony is partly responsible for Covid.

• false
  

He helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan.  He is also on record lying about this ("does not fund gain-of-function research and if it is" -- massive contradiction

• Wikipedia summarizes Rand Paul's deception here fairly succinctly:
  
• In a congressional hearing on May 11, 2021, about Anthony Fauci's role as the Chief Medical Advisor to the United States Office of the President, senator Rand Paul stated that "the U.S. has been collaborating with Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing discoveries about how to create super viruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH." Fauci responded "with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect...the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research [conducted at] the Wuhan Institute of Virology."  The Washington Post fact-checking team later rated Paul's statements as containing "significant omissions and/or exaggerations".   NIH funding to the EcoHealth Alliance and later sub-contracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was not to support gain-of-function experiments, but instead to enable the collection of bat samples in the wild.   EcoHealth Alliance spokesperson Robert Kessler has also categorically denied the accusation.
  
• EcoHealth Alliance was paying technicians from the  Wuhan lab $133,000/year  to go out and collect bat samples for their research in South Carolina. Nobody could call that  "gain of function" research and so Fauci was 100% truthful here and Rand Paul (as usual) a god-damned liar.
  
• "Gain of function, in many ways, is basic biological research. It’s done all the time with flies, worms, mice and cells in petri dishes. Scientists create novel genotypes (such as arrangements of nucleic acids) and screen or select to find those with a given phenotype (such as trait or ability) to find new sequences with a particular function."  -Washington Post
  
• All virology labs do work that Paul might term "gain of function, including research done by EcoHealth Alliance.
  
• The inference deceptively drawn by Paul that there is some sort of connection to be drawn between the NIH grant to EcoHealth and COVID-19 is 100% bullshit and no responsible person would repeat that lie.
  
• Scientific consensus then and now is that SARS2 most likely emerged from the same place as SARS1- the live animal market in Wuhan.  The conspiracy theory suggesting COVID-19 came out of the lab in Wuhan has no supporting evidence in virology but given the lab's proximity to the point of origin and the secrecy enforced by the Chinese govt, there will probably always remain a gap in certainty about COVID-19's origin that politicians like Paul will exploit.
  

Sexual attraction has come a long way since the see, fuck and procreate era.

Nowadays all sorts of concepts and social pressures overbear instinctive sensory attraction.

How do rich past-it old men attract 30-something bimbos. It's certainly not their physical and sexual prowess.

And what are police officers and society doing to help cops be seen as friendly protectors that have a code in the eyes of the predominantly black communities in US?

That, TWS, is the real root cause and real solution.

Attractive is an assumption relative to a socially contrived expectation.

It's been awhile since I've seen someone so concisely wrong.

Physical attractiveness, the type referenced in the OP, is instinctively determined by humans. It's not contrived socially, it's known upon sighting. Facial symmetry, number of blemishes, recessed/protruding chin, adiposity -- all things the human mind calculates to determine attractiveness. 

Now, there are exceptions to this rule. People, especially women, will change their standards relative to what is available. If there are hundreds of available options on Tinder, the standards will rise. If there are few options out in a rural setting, standards will lower. But the attraction calculation is performed subconsciously, nonetheless.

So just for example, let's look at the current social pressure we are put under to accept that overweight women are attractive.

Or the current trend in body disfigurement with ink.

Both socially contrived expectations required, of both the observer and the observed.

And make up. If attractiveness is subliminal then why the need for a multi-billion-dollar facial cover up business.

And then there's cometic dentistry, another socially contrived expectation, where anything less than perfect white teeth is not good enough.

Cosmetic surgery. 

The list of expectations goes on.

Where do you think that "social pressure" comes from? Do you think people have random feelings?

You subconsciously judge these people *and then* your conscious mind takes over to process those feelings. You subconsciously recognize that overweight people are not genetically great to breed with. You subconsciously understand that having layers of fat, a stressed heart, a super spiked glucose level, diabetes etc. aren't healthy. 

The push for perfect white teeth and blemish free skin are a result of a subconscious drive for people to be more attractive. Make-up companies, diet programs and teeth whitening services aren't determining what people should find attractive, they are catering to it.

Fat thin or ugly, see fuck reproduce is the basis of human procreation.

Everything has evolved from that point onwards relative to intellectual development/overthink.

Overthink creates expectation and so on.

Attractive is an assumption relative to a socially contrived expectation.

It's been awhile since I've seen someone so concisely wrong.

Physical attractiveness, the type referenced in the OP, is instinctively determined by humans. It's not contrived socially, it's known upon sighting. Facial symmetry, number of blemishes, recessed/protruding chin, adiposity -- all things the human mind calculates to determine attractiveness. 

Now, there are exceptions to this rule. People, especially women, will change their standards relative to what is available. If there are hundreds of available options on Tinder, the standards will rise. If there are few options out in a rural setting, standards will lower. But the attraction calculation is performed subconsciously, nonetheless.

So just for example, let's look at the current social pressure we are put under to accept that overweight women are attractive.

Or the current trend in body disfigurement with ink.

Both socially contrived expectations required, of both the observer and the observed.

And make up. If attractiveness is subliminal then why the need for a multi-billion-dollar facial cover up business.

And then there's cometic dentistry, another socially contrived expectation, where anything less than perfect white teeth is not good enough.

Cosmetic surgery. 

The list of expectations goes on.

 I remember calling you the f word and attempting to provoke you on many occasions. 

It takes two to tango, and I was an active participant.  Hopefully all water under the bridge now.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

You should genuinely consider what you are typing btw, this sounds like a prelude to a very bad irl event.

Sounds like a "you" issue

Attractive is an assumption relative to a socially contrived expectation.

Antinatalism is a seriously cerebral, emotionally detached belief. Antinatalists are some of the last people you'd expect to succumb to emotional whims, because you don't become an antinatalist on emotional whims. You become an antinatlist by realizing how horrible overall life is objectively for **all** creatures -- that's completely removed from their subjective, emotional experience.

Besides, if you truly believed that existence was harmful and that childbirth was a harmful imposition on those birthed, you would want those closest to you to be removed first if anything, if you were to be swayed by "human nature".

I would question that antinatalism is an emotionally detached belief, as it is driven by a concern for human suffering. If you are emotional detached then human suffering wouldn’t be of any concern.

I hope things worked out for you and that things are going well now.  I wasn't exactly a nice person on DDO, including to you, which was wrong.  

So far, I wasnt messed with in this thread other than some nonsense from badger.

Badger was messed with by coal and vice versa and Avery messed with all.

So, all I see is avery's theory is only self fulfilling because she decided that I am fun to mess with.

Thanks for the advice, life coach. I am pretty sure I am okay.

Who knows why this little weirdo is piling on now.

I never asked a user on this site for nudes.

And as if Cassie wouldn't have told all if I did, attention seeker that she was.

Catfish since, as I hear it. Nice btw there. 

Assuming you are Cassie

But I also don't think you ever sent him nudes.  

Regardless of whether it caused any long term harm, he was egregiously out of line. 

I wasn't commenting on how badger treated Royal.  She was >18 at the time she was on the site.  

You really need to:

(1) Learn to let things go

(2) Not be so sensitive

Your entire existence on DDO and Dart has been riddled with doing the opposite of those two things. So many of your issues with imabench and the general DDO and Dart community wouldn't exist if you hardened up mentally. You're going to keep getting trolled and harassed until you heed those basic life lessons.

Number 1 is relevant, number 2 is questionable.

If I'm sensitive, I introspect and let go of the toxic emotions later but some anger is useful; the world will push you around like a ragdoll if you're only passive, especially as a man or boy.

If I'm failing to let something go it's often because i've resisted being sensitive and to solve it I need to decompress pent up rage into sadness, pain and even jealousy and come to terms with what I really feel to then deal with those emotions.

So, in other words the solution to letting go is to become sensitive first and the solution to reducing net sensitivity is to let things go.

I don't resent my sensitivity, it lets me feel alive. I do wonder sometimes what emotionless people even feel like on a daily basis, it must be hell to live through.

You're going to keep getting trolled and harassed until you heed those basic life lessons.

That's alright, I prefer me than someone it can truly break. I know how to handle it and get the wrongdoers punished if it's needed. Sometimes, like when a certain someone harassed me on the PMs, blocking the idiot and letting them be is more worthwhile than driving the toxic mess to create a new account.

People assume I do it as a 'don't fuck with me' thing but it's also out of principle. Either everyone is equally allowed to harass everyone or nobody should be, it's pretty simple.