1. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '20 05:489 edits

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    10 Apr '20 06:053 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Regardless of whether the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market will be later confirmed by good evidence, why would the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market be "prejudice"?
    It is currently one of the reasonable unproven hypotheses to be tested by science.
    And if that hypothesis IS then later confirmed by good evidence, would you STILL be calling it "prejudice"?
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '20 06:092 edits

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    10 Apr '20 06:133 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    That's not how the real science works.
    Most scientists that came up with the hypothesis would naturally consider other hypotheses.
    Why would this particular hypothesis be more "prejudice" than any of the other alternative hypotheses they consider?
    I ask you again; if that hypothesis IS then later confirmed by good evidence, would you STILL be calling it "prejudice"?
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '20 06:312 edits

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    10 Apr '20 07:115 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    and then you wrote;

    "From the Guardian
    "How did coronavirus start and where did it come from?
    Was it really Wuhan's animal market?"
    ..."

    Thus implying the theory that it started in the Wuhan's animal market is "prejudice".
    Do you deny implying this?
    If so, explain why you wrote that straight after writing "POPULAR prejudice is not scientific proof."
    If not, then my question of;

    "why would the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market be "prejudice"? "

    would seem to be a reasonable one. Scientists consider several different hypotheses including that one. I for one, and most scientists, didn't assume that particular hypothesis must necessarily be the correct one. We keep an open mind. So no "prejudice" there from considering that particular one.

    And you still haven't answered my other question of;

    " And if that hypothesis IS then later confirmed by good evidence, would you STILL be calling it "prejudice"? "
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '20 09:131 edit

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    10 Apr '20 09:181 edit
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    which exact words would that be then?
    State them.
  9. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    15242
    10 Apr '20 11:25
    @Duchess64

    When you type the letter r, does your device immediately predict the word "racist"?
  10. Standard memberpawnpaw
    Please Pay Attention
    Lethabong
    Joined
    02 Apr '10
    Moves
    96349
    10 Apr '20 11:57
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Deny, deny, deny.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '20 12:00

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    10 Apr '20 13:42
    @Duchess64
    So tell us who is 'obstinately' sticking to one hypothesis?

    Myself, I would welcome a hypothesis that didn't include humans eating bats. I don't think anything we say would swing you away from your perception of prejudice.
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    10 Apr '20 15:21
    It was most likely a virus research facility in Wuhan.
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    10 Apr '20 15:4211 edits
    @eladar said
    It was most likely a virus research facility in Wuhan.
    Judging from the several videos I have seen with real experts talking about this subject, there are good reasons to think that is extremely unlikely albeit still possible. Much more likely C19 had a more 'natural' origin. There are still several theories how it started and few have been ruled out and its difficult to say which is most likely but at the moment, regardless of how it started, it looks more likely it started in China than in any other country simply because China was the first country where it was first noticed (and we should simply ignore all of the several politically motivated currently-baseless stupid wild layperson conspiracy theories to the contrary that seem to be circulating around over the net but, obviously, not ignore any of the scientific ones from the real experts). But we cannot even be sure of that and thus for all we know that might well change if we get more evidence and clues to its origins. In the mean time, it would be rational and reasonable to assume it probably started in China because it was first noticed there, just as it would be rational and reasonable to assume it probably started in the US if it had hypothetically been first noticed there instead.
  15. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    10 Apr '20 17:16
    @humy said
    Regardless of whether the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market will be later confirmed by good evidence, why would the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market be "prejudice"?
    It is currently one of the reasonable unproven hypotheses to be tested by science.
    And if that hypothesis IS then later confirmed by good evidence, would you STILL be calling it "prejudice"?
    One thing to note is that the first detected human case in Wuhan had no links with the market. What is clear is that the virus is zoonotic, and it's main host was bats, it is believed to have infected an intermediate species, possibly pangolins, first. I think it is really unlikely that the cause of the disease in humans is from snacking on bats. For one thing cooking the bat will tend to kill the disease. Encroaching on their habitat is more likely to be the cause, which is also likely to be why we see more Ebola outbreaks.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree