Not to my shock, you post here a slew of straw men/ specious claims.
“you compare me *and the IDSA* to Nazis
No I don’t.
I compare you to Goebbels and Alinsky, because your demagoguery on “ad hominem” warrants that.
Yeah, I do suspect *ISDA* of kowtowing to the CCP, at the behest of its allied crowds (esp. WHO) which clearly do kowtow to …
Not to my shock, you post here a slew of straw men/ specious claims.
“you compare me *and the IDSA* to Nazis
No I don’t.
I compare you to Goebbels and Alinsky, because your demagoguery on “ad hominem” warrants that.
Yeah, I do suspect *ISDA* of kowtowing to the CCP, at the behest of its allied crowds (esp. WHO) which clearly do kowtow to the CCP.
“you accuse interlocutors of being shills”.
Yeah, that can be said, but I do so only after this M. Johnson, with your evident backing, *accused* Weinstein (& Bari Weiss?) of
“generating paranoia with conspiracy theories”.
It’s standard fare, for Establishment shills to bellow about their foes being “conspiracy theorists”, until the evidence (e.g. on the Lab leak, and on Deep State deceit/ criminality) gets too strong, for these theorists to continue to be *effectively* smeared in that way.
(For reliable knowledge on such matters, start with Greenwald, whose 15+ year track record of prescient calls dwarfs that of any of the neoCons Mr. Johnson hangs with.
“any deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.”
Of course it is, what else could it be?
At issue is, or should be, the (esp. recent) track-record of the Authority.
“why aren't you suspicious of Bret?”
You don’t know that I’m not.
(You know only that) I’ve said nothing *here* about it, because I reacted here to the gushing (by all, save for Mr. Bartlett)
over this Mr. Johnson’s dissing of Weinstein.
Almost certainly, Johnson is no more “qualified” than I, and quite less than Weinstein, to speak with authority on these matters.
“authority which he does not have.”
I don’t see, how you think that you *know* this.
As for the Quillette article, the bulk of readers’ comments, many clearly quite knowledgeable, quite rip the article as, at best, a rather cheap set of shots at Weinstein.
From the start of this covid mess, Fauci and his MSM etc. allies have been implying/ insisting, that those who question them are “anti-science”.
As long as they continue on that road, I’ll tend to be *at least* as suspicious of them, as of Weinstein etc.
Not to my shock, you post here a slew of straw men/ specious claims.
“you compare me *and the IDSA* to Nazis
No I don’t.
I compare you to Goebbels and Alinsky, because your demagoguery on “ad hominem” warrants that.
Yeah, I do suspect *ISDA* of kowtowing to the CCP, at the behest of its allied crowds (esp. WHO) which clearly do kowtow to the CCP.
“you accuse interlocutors of being shills”.
Yeah, that can be said, but I do so only after this M. Johnson, with your evident backing, *accused* Weinstein (& Bari Weiss?) of
“generating paranoia with conspiracy theories”.
It’s standard fare, for Establishment shills to bellow about their foes being “conspiracy theorists”, until the evidence (e.g. on the Lab leak, and on Deep State deceit/ criminality) gets too strong, for these theorists to continue to be *effectively* smeared in that way.
(For reliable knowledge on such matters, start with Greenwald, whose 15+ year track record of prescient calls dwarfs that of any of the neoCons Mr. Johnson hangs with.
See e.g. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-fbis-strange-anthrax-investigation .)
“any deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.”
Of course it is, what else could it be?
At issue is, or should be, the (esp. recent) track-record of the Authority.
“why aren't you suspicious of Bret?”
You don’t know that I’m not.
(You know only that) I’ve said nothing *here* about it, because I reacted here to the gushing (by all, save for Mr. Bartlett)
over this Mr. Johnson’s dissing of Weinstein.
Almost certainly, Johnson is no more “qualified” than I, and quite less than Weinstein, to speak with authority on these matters.
“authority which he does not have.”
I don’t see, how you think that you *know* this.
As for the Quillette article, the bulk of readers’ comments, many clearly quite knowledgeable, quite rip the article as, at best, a rather cheap set of shots at Weinstein.
From the start of this covid mess, Fauci and his MSM etc. allies have been implying/ insisting, that those who question them are “anti-science”.
As long as they continue on that road, I’ll tend to be *at least* as suspicious of them, as of Weinstein etc.