• Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:16 PM
    Maybe. But if he did leave at this point, it wouldn't be the first time a politician with years in a party left it after a big fight (e.g. Arlen Specter , Zell Miller, Charlie Crist), or for political expediency (e.g. Donald Trump, Rick Perry, Joe Lieberman), or both.
    12 replies | 219 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:52 PM
    He wants to expand the size, power, and cost of government at a slightly slower pace than the Democrat Party as a whole does. This means he's perfect for the GOP. I don't know why he's not a Republican already.
    12 replies | 219 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-19-2021, 11:56 AM
    This is pretty much what the Don't Tread on Me flag has become. It now means, "I should be the one treading on you, instead of you treading on me." It's far more popular now than it was in 2008. And the reason is because the number of statists who have made it their symbol far outnumbers the libertarians.
    40 replies | 768 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-19-2021, 07:22 AM
    Intel for one. They're the biggest one I know of. There are many others. There's a lot of pressure pushing on both sides of the scale. Even if it seems to be tilting one way. I wouldn't underestimate the force of the economic pressures companies face not to mandate vaccines. And with every month that passes, the arguments in favor of them will have less and less weight (assuming that the feds never do end up issuing the threatened private employer mandate). At this point, I think one of the strongest psychological reasons for pro-vaccine mandate people to be so stubborn about it is the fallacy of sunk costs. They can't bear the thought of how disastrous their policies were if they admit that they didn't have the benefits promised. At some point, this fact will be generally accepted. Perhaps, as with the case of WMD's in Iraq, the guilty will just try to quietly move on and dodge questions about what they will by that time be able to characterize as old news.
    26 replies | 501 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-19-2021, 07:14 AM
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."
    26 replies | 501 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-18-2021, 04:28 AM
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."
    100 replies | 2278 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-15-2021, 02:15 PM
    The more I think about it, this is the angle with the best payoff here. And not just to make this point ourselves, but to point out the obvious fact that Buttigieg himself apparently agrees that the job of the Transportation Secretary is not really all that important. Even as much of an unabashed champion of central planning in transportation as Buttigieg, and even at such a historically crucial juncture for that issue in federal politics, he considers his job as unnecessary.
    20 replies | 717 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-15-2021, 01:40 PM
    On the other hand, his being gay and publicly celebrating that aspect of his personal life, is a major reason he was so prominent in the 2020 primaries, and then elevated to such a high position at such a young age and with so little on his resume compared to what is typical for a head of a federal department. He made it an issue. And now look at the results. Imagine if a straight man in his position just decided to take a months long paid leave at taxpayer expense, neglecting work that according to his own worldview is vital to the nation at a time when according to his own worldview it's even more vitally important than normal, because his wife had a baby.
    20 replies | 717 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-15-2021, 07:31 AM
    That's the thing. It's a premise. A mere assumption. Not a conclusion that can be drawn as either definite or probable from the evidence given. You don't talk as if you're hypothesizing and may or may not ultimately be proven right. You make absolute statements as matters of fact that you can demonstrate to be true. But again and again, your demonstration is sorely lacking. You have some good points. But they'd be stronger, not weaker, if you could bring yourself to be objective about them. The fact that you feel the need not to be betrays that you don't think you could prove the conclusions you want to prove with the level of certainty that you want to pretend to have if you confined yourself to rules like that.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-15-2021, 06:49 AM
    You just answered your own question. Dr. Quay, when you actually hear him speaking his own words, is far more objective in that radio interview than the article that selectively quotes him in the OP is, with omission of qualifying points (which I have already pointed out multiple times in the thread). The OP is the opposite of objective. If you can't see that, it's because it's doing the same thing you constantly do here, apparently believing yourself to be objective too. Notice that Bongino himself is much more cautious in this interview, making a point to bring up some of the same counterpoints that I did, and Quay even more so.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 05:39 PM
    I'm not dismissing everything you said. But if it's as bad as Dan Bongino, or that writer on his site wants to make it out to be (and by extension you, for sharing the article and bolding the worst parts), then why can't they they make the case in an objective way, instead of selectively omitting crucial points that would make it sound not as bad as they're saying? If this really is a virus that can kill off a major part of the earth's population, or even just more people than COVID 19, they shouldn't have a problem doing that. But that crowd loves fear just as much as the Left does. And at the end of the day, they'll end up using that fear for statist ends too.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 05:34 PM
    Oh boy. Here it comes.
    13 replies | 310 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 05:30 PM
    This is not the Goodwill charity that most of us would think of. It's another group that uses that name. I know nothing about whether this description of them is accurate, but it does shed light on their inclusion in the list. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/terrorist-illicit-finance/Pages/protecting-charities_execorder_13224-e.aspx
    7 replies | 172 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 04:18 PM
    Yes. And then when it actually happened, and the media and politicians reported all those things with great exaggerations and selective omissions of important facts, it was still fear mongering. And part of why they were so successful at taking away our freedom was because they were successful at the fear mongering.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 03:55 PM
    enhanced_deficit what are your thoughts on this story?
    9 replies | 225 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 02:46 PM
    Yes, I'm sure it does. Notice that the OP is content to mention just the virulence without respect to that other crucial factor. TheTexan was right to criticize the OP by saying, "Any discussion on the 'virulence' of the viruses undergoing GoF research is missing the point entirely." And Brian4Liberty was astute in replying to that line by suggesting that such a focus on virulence worked well as a diversion.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 02:31 PM
    It's possible that you were just mistaken and I was actually right. I'm trying to find a source to support your claim that the word "transmissibility" means specifically from animals to humans, and not humans to humans, in the context of GoF, and I can't find one.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 02:18 PM
    That's one kind of transmissibility. But unless you specify "animal to human" the word "transmissibility" by itself doesn't mean that either in the context of GoF or elsewhere. The definition given for "transmissibility" in your own wikipedia source, where it distinguished between transmissibility and infectivity didn't even match your definition here. Agreed. I'm not sure what your point was in disputing over the meaning of the word "transmissibility" to begin with. Your example about horses only highlights the point I was making. A virus that has high transmissibility from horse to human, but low transmissibility from human to human, and that kills 80% of the humans it infects may not pose a very serious pandemic threat because of that low transmissibility between humans. Making it more transmissible between humans could just as much be a part of GoF research as making it more transmissible from horses to humans would be. And that transmissibility between humans would be the far more important factor. And more generally, that factor of transmissibility is not something that can be left out of the discussion when trying to compare it to COVID 19 the way the OP did.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 01:32 PM
    Do you agree or disagree with the way it is put here? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00535-6
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 01:31 PM
    I have never said or implied otherwise.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 12:31 PM
    Transmissibility is a function of infectivity. The two words are interchangeable for what I was talking about. The part that I was calling fear mongering was this section, "Now, Nipah virus is 80 percent lethal. So this is not, you know, if you didn’t like the pandemic, that was just one percent lethal. This thing they were working on in December 2019 has an 80 percent lethality. It needs to be stopped.” which implies that this virus is much scarier than COVID 19, as if being 80% lethal by itself was reason enough to think that, regardless of transmissibility. It isn't. That's why Ebola was, overall, much less of a serious problem than COVID 19. It wasn't less serious for each individual who got it--for them it was more serious--but globally it was much less serious. I also object to all of the fear mongering we've been subjected to regarding COVID 19 for the past year and a half. And the fact that it came from a lab doing GoF research doesn't make all that fear mongering any more justified. Humanity suffered far more harm from the reaction to the virus than from the virus itself.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 11:56 AM
    That's true, it's not impossible that a virus could both be very virulent and very transmissible, and kill more people than COVID 19. But the OP focuses just on the virulence, as if that alone is the crucial factor irrespective of transmissibility. That's a pretty vital detail to leave out. It just strikes me as fear mongering.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 10:42 AM
    It would necessitate that if that tinkering was for gain of function, defined the way you defined it. I agree that it doesn't make sense, but rather would have been a contradiction, as I pointed out.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 10:26 AM
    Improve transmissibility in humans = make it spread farther.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 10:22 AM
    You just contradicted yourself. If gain of function is what you just defined it as, then they any tinkering with the virulence that they did was precisely with that intention. It's very possible that by making a virus less virulent the result could be that it would kill a greater number of people by way of making up the loss in virulence with greater transmissibility (with that greater transmissibility being possible precisely because of the lower virulence).
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 09:19 AM
    Fine. That doesn't change what I said. If it was engineered to spread around the world, then part of the way that was done was by keeping its virulence low enough to permit that. A virus that is engineered to kill 80% of the people it infects is one that was engineered *not* to spread around the world, and thus *not* to be able to kill anywhere near as many people as COVID 19.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    10-12-2021, 09:12 AM
    Something to keep in mind is that when the OP says "deadlier" it's referring to the likelihood that a given infection will lead to death (a function of the virus's virulence). This is very different from deadlier in reference to the number of people who would die from an outbreak (a function of both the virus's virulence and its transmissibility). Most likely, a virus that virulent would be much less transmissible than the SARS-COV2 virus, and its much higher virulence is the main reason for that. As a general rule, there's an inverse relationship between a virus's virulence and its transmissibility. A virus that causes severe symptoms and death in a large percentage of its infections results fewer of those people having the opportunity to infect many others. There are lots of viruses that are kill much higher percentages of the people they infect than COVID 19 does. But they generally don't have the ability to spread as much, and overall don't kill nearly as many people. One reason COVID 19 succeeded to spread around the world and kill as many people as it did (whatever that number is, which I grant is up to debate) is because it's not very deadly, relatively speaking.
    61 replies | 1367 view(s)
More Activity
About Invisible Man

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
11
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)
Political Campaign Skills
Computer and Technical:
Scientists and Engineer

Signature


There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Ron Paul
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,790
Posts Per Day
2.63
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 05:54 PM
Join Date
12-09-2019
Referrals
0

1 Friend

  1. tfurrh tfurrh is offline

    Member

    tfurrh
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

09-29-2021


09-27-2021


09-15-2021


09-14-2021


08-19-2021


05-18-2021


05-14-2021


04-29-2021


02-28-2021


02-20-2021


02-10-2021


01-11-2021


12-27-2020


No results to display...
Page 1 of 70 1231151 ... LastLast

10-20-2021


10-19-2021


10-16-2021


10-15-2021


10-14-2021

  • 08:09 AM - Hidden

10-12-2021



Page 1 of 70 1231151 ... LastLast