That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.
That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.
It sounds like you’re suggesting “lab leak implies China is to blame” should be seen as evidence against it being a lab leak? Or that any theory which implies blame must be suspect. This just sounds like an excuse to disregard any evidence that it’s a lab leak, since surely anyone who is arguing that it’s a lab-leak must be motivated to do so.
The converse is also true though – surely you must see that there is similarly motivation to argue in reverse. Why don’t we just set aside assuming that we’re all arguing in bad faith.
It’s possible there was a lab leak, and relevant labs should be investigated for the same reason we investigate all plane crashes, it either leads to finding gaps in processes or confirms whether or not a systemic issue was a factor. The probability has decreased as COVID has been further researched and shows more markers of a ‘natural’ development, but it’s generally beneficial to have a comprehensive audit when processes are in question.
That’s not what these people are arguing. They’re arguing that it’s China’s fault and not Trump’s. That’s it. For that to be the case it ‘must’ be a lab leak, and so they’re retroactively finding justification for how that is possible. That they’re running parallel to a reasonable line of logic for a portion of their argument does not validate their argument.