COVID-19 - appropriate government response?

[brimstoneSalad]

Your area of expertise appears to be astronomy. When you talk about astronomy, you are unlikely to get things very wrong. But when you talk about something unrelated to that, such as virology, I see no reason to trust you that you aren't getting things wrong.

Why would you think I know any less about evolutionary biology or biochemistry than astronomy?
I think it should only be apparent that I have some knowledge of the hard sciences in general, and perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions just because I haven't claimed to be a virologist specifically.

My area of expertise is onomastics, a part of linguistics, and compiler theory, a part of computer science, since I've written research papers about those things. And I am rather unlikely to get things very wrong about those things, or things closely related to that.

It might be a good idea to restrain your claims to those areas where you are less likely to be wrong.

I am not "assuming I am right", I am assuming that whether a virus can indeed infect billions of people is a very complicated problem. And it obviously is: what we are taught at high-school appears to suggest it can't, yet some people suggest it can.

You were making the same mistake about viruses as you made about bombs. You misunderstood thermodynamics and believed bombs couldn't detonate. You misunderstood r-strategy evolutionary mechanics and assumed viruses couldn't replicate.

Regardless of how ancient they are, they don't share a common ancestor, yet alone one that dates back to the RNA world.

There's no reason to believe that, they may or may not all have a common ancestor. It's entirely possible that all life shares a common ancestor. There are plenty of cases of convergent evolution too.

There is probably some truth to the concept of "irreducible complexity" when it comes to viruses affecting modern cells. To exist today they would have needed to piggyback along with complex life on the evolutionary path, so their lineages probably trace back to the most primordial life -- life which no longer exists as far as we know. You almost certainly wouldn't have a capable virus spontaneously arrive from some broken RNA or DNA of a normal cell, such a change would require too many very convenient simultaneous mutations.

If you somehow eradicated all viruses today, they probably could not evolve again unless through bacterium (which is plausible, though unlikely as a origin).

Wikipedia briefly covers the theories here, and the problems with the cellular "escape" origin theory you're advancing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Origins

The fact that we have the genetic code similar to that of some RNA viruses inside our DNA strongly suggests the viruses (at least ones based on messenger RNA) came from us, or some specie that also has that code. I distinctly remember we were taught in school that there is no known mechanism by which code from RNA would be copied onto DNA.

No, no it doesn't suggest that. It only suggests that perhaps THAT segment of RNA came from us.

You would have to compare the plausibility of such a case of transcription to the plausibility of a virus capable of infecting modern cells arising spontaneously, the latter being so absurd that I feel like you've reverted to your Flat-Earth claims here.

This suggests that there IS a mechanism, or it's just a coincidence which would still be more plausible. But as it stands there are in fact obvious mechanisms.
There are plenty of ways that code from human DNA could end up in viral RNA -- of EXTANT viruses. RNA polymerases produce RNA segments corresponding to single strands of DNA during certain processes, and there's no reason that viral RNA (again, of an EXTANT virus) could not accidentally incorporate segments like this in the process of its own infection and replication. That's how viruses exchange genetic information after all, by infecting the same host where the RNA can mix and match in a big soup. The host RNA just happens to be part of that soup too.

There are just too many simultaneous traits a virus would have to develop to arise de novo from random DNA or RNA with no viral ancestor. It's on the order of misunderstanding evolution as the crocoduck.

As I mentioned before it's plausible that bacterium could evolve into viruses by developing some kind of aggressive cellular infection based replication tactic, since they already have mechanisms to exchange DNA, and then losing all vestigial characteristics. It's not plausible that this would occur with a human cell.

Well, this is like saying things got copied from RAM to ROM by mistake: there is no known mechanism by which information can be copied from RAM to ROM, yet alone by mistake.

No, it's not at all like that. That's also a system designed to be READ ONLY. Unknown does not equate to something that is known to be impossible.

Similarly, there is no known mechanism by which information from RNA can be copied into DNA, yet alone by mistake.

I already explained an obvious mechanism by which that RNA could get into viruses without having *created* the virus. You're making all kinds of assumptions here.

Here, read this

I think it would take time I don't have to properly study that and that it's unlikely to be productive. The conclusion we reach might seem perfectly sensible to us, but sound silly to a virologist.

Teo, READ IT. It explains the second law of thermodynamics which you misunderstood leading you to believe bombs are impossible.
Either read it or stop making claims that derive from that point of ignorance.

FYI, that's a conservative right-wing think tank, not a scientific group.

Now, obviously, John Stossel, the author of the article, is not conservative.

You mean the libertarian pundit who works for Fox news?
Libertarians and Republicans lie in a lot of the same beds, particularly when it comes to fiscal conservatism and rejection of progressive reform and welfare.
I was informing you about the source you referenced.

I haven't even heard of Snopes. Why would I know that? I am a Croatian who is reading mostly Croatian media. Do those sites publish something that is remotely relevant to me, like something about Croatian politics?

I think @Jebus covered this one.

I wouldn't expect it to get into international headlines, but I would expect the national media to stop reporting the figure of there being only 8 people with coronavirus in Osijek and claim there are no new cases.

Well that's an extraordinary claim for them to make, they're probably just parroting what they're told to report. You said it's the national media. Look at other Croatian sources, like independent journalists.

Where are you getting the perception that Croatia has less free speech than countries such as US or Germany?

Aside from the fact that it falls below on rankings like the press freedom index, and has a high level of corruption?

Maybe do a Google search and read a few of the top result, if they aren't censored in your country:
https://balkaninsight.com/2019/09/19/go ... ee-speech/

Croatia is not a country known for freedom of speech. Yes, the constitution guarantees it, but that doesn't mean anything: so does China's.
You live in a country with a high corruption index and with an oppressive government.

The U.S. and Germany have their issues too, but it's easy to access news on broadcast very critical of the government and police and it's not illegal to do things like insult the police on twitter.

My perception is that Croatia has more free speech than those countries.

Your impression is biased by nationalistic delusion. Croatia objectively does not have more free speech.

In Croatia, people publicly deny Bleiburg Massacre (most notably the linguist Mate Kapović), Jasenovac Massacre (most notably Igor Vukić) and Varivode Massacre (most notably Franjo Tuđman) all the time and they don't get punished for that.

That is one cherry picked example that sets it apart from Germany, but there are far more ways in which it is worse. Also, that's more an indication that Croatians are ignorant than that they have free speech.

If you publicly deny Holocaust in Germany, you can easily get in jail for that, and you can also get in jail for that in the US.

That's a ridiculous lie. The U.S. is rife with Nazis denying the holocaust in the alt-right. No, it's not illegal there.
Your incompetence and unwillingness to do even the most basic fact checking is outright offensive. How can you be so profoundly stupid and arrogantly assertive of these claims at the same time?

The media in Croatia rarely mention political correctness, and, when they do that, they do that to mock the political movements in other countries. Political correctness is the biggest obstacle to free speech in the western world, and Croatia appears to be mostly free of that.

That's such an idiotic claim I don't even know how to reply to it. Political correctness is not a challenge to free speech, there are no LAWS on political correctness, it's really only a question of whether your advertisers will drop you for being too rude. Meanwhile Croatia will fine and lock up journalists. Go back to believing Flat-Earth Teo, that was more sensible.

You're not going to waste my time with bullshit like this. Just shut up. Shut up about virology, shut up about your ridiculous nationalistic delusion on how free you think your fatherland is, shut up about whatever brainwashed alt-right neocon garbage you're getting into now. I get that you want to be edgy and have opinions other people don't get, but yet again you're wrong about damn near everything you say. It's like an art to be able to be wrong so frequently, you do worse than chance and that's amazing.

[Lay Vegan]

@EquALLity I think this is what Jebus is getting at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

We don't know what Teo's IQ is (Teo himself has claimed to be a literal genius ) but it's precisely his lack of self awareness and metacognition (knowledge about knowledge) that causes him to overestimate his general competency.

Teo has made so many wrong and outrageous claims: the Earth is flat, Vukovar genocide “didn’t occur”, airplanes don’t exist, rape and murder should be legal etc., that basic induction tells us he's likely wrong about this as well. But Teo doesn't know what that is.

[brimstoneSalad]

@EquALLity I think this is what Jebus is getting at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

We don't know what Teo's IQ is (Teo himself has claimed to be a literal genius ) but it's precisely his lack of self awareness and metacognition (knowledge about knowledge) that causes him to overestimate his general competency.

Teo has made so many wrong and outrageous claims: the Earth is flat, Vukovar genocide “didn’t occur”, airplanes don’t exist, rape and murder should be legal etc., that basic induction tells us he's likely wrong about this as well. But Teo doesn't know what that is.

Don't forget "bombs are impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics", which is I guess how he decided that the genocide was fake news.

That Teo can't understand that is part of what's so frustrating. Inability to understand something and learn from repeated experience CAN be a sign of low IQ... how can you be so wrong over and over again, and yet still insist that you're right as soon as the subject matter changes? Seems like a failure of pattern recognition, and that's a big part of IQ.

So I explain that the Earth isn't flat, and now Teo can see my understanding of astronomy is good and I can be trusted on that, I explain thermodynamics and now I'm a good source on physics, but somehow we're on equal footing by default when it comes to virology and I couldn't maybe understand biology in general better than him too. Particularly if I'm actually commenting on it, which I probably wouldn't do otherwise.

[EquALLity]

@EquALLity I think this is what Jebus is getting at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

We don't know what Teo's IQ is (Teo himself has claimed to be a literal genius ) but it's precisely his lack of self awareness and metacognition (knowledge about knowledge) that causes him to overestimate his general competency.

Teo has made so many wrong and outrageous claims: the Earth is flat, Vukovar genocide “didn’t occur”, airplanes don’t exist, rape and murder should be legal etc., that basic induction tells us he's likely wrong about this as well. But Teo doesn't know what that is.

Do you think that competent people can be susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect? What about factors like education, environment, and psychology?

Don't forget "bombs are impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics", which is I guess how he decided that the genocide was fake news.

That Teo can't understand that is part of what's so frustrating. Inability to understand something and learn from repeated experience CAN be a sign of low IQ... how can you be so wrong over and over again, and yet still insist that you're right as soon as the subject matter changes? Seems like a failure of pattern recognition, and that's a big part of IQ.

So I explain that the Earth isn't flat, and now Teo can see my understanding of astronomy is good and I can be trusted on that, I explain thermodynamics and now I'm a good source on physics, but somehow we're on equal footing by default when it comes to virology and I couldn't maybe understand biology in general better than him too. Particularly if I'm actually commenting on it, which I probably wouldn't do otherwise.

Pattern recognition is apart of IQ, but there are reasons besides intellectual capability why someone might not recognize a pattern. If the pattern implies someone shouldn't value their opinions, they're probably not going to believe it.

[brimstoneSalad]

Pattern recognition is apart of IQ, but there are reasons besides intellectual capability why someone might not recognize a pattern. If the pattern implies someone shouldn't value their opinions, they're probably not going to believe it.

If there is some kind of narcissistic delusion at play, I agree, that can be a confounding variable.

[Lay Vegan]

Do you think that competent people can be susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Anyone can fall victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect, but it's less likely for more competent individuals. A good example of this is when an expert in one field erroneously believes his expertise carries into another field he’s less familiar with (Jordan Peterson, anyone?) Regardless, competent people are less susceptible because they (usually) already have the capacity to objectively self-assess their knowledge and abilities on a subject. That is, person A is aware that he’s pretty shit at performing a task relative to others, so his humility or self-awareness of his ineptitude permits him to recognize his deficits and improve his abilities. A person is more likely to recognize he’s a bad writer and work to improve if he understands how his writing violates basic grammar and spelling.

What about factors like education, environment, and psychology?

What about them? I don't know what the specific source of teo's incompetency is (could be a result of his IQ and educational upbringing). What I do know is that it's evident that he's not only a moron, but utterly incapable of recognizing that he's a moron. @Jebus and @brimstoneSalad know more than I do about the root cause of that.

[teo123]

I estimate 30-60 IQ points separate you and Brimstonesalad.

Well, my IQ is 125, I've got tested recently by a psychologist. Brimstonesalad having an IQ of 155 is unlikely but plausible, somebody on this forum having an IQ of 185 is very unlikely.

Intelligent people know what they don't know and rarely comment about things they do not understand.

Do you have some source for that? To me it seems exactly the opposite is the case, that more intelligent people are more prone to irrational beliefs. Hitler was undoubtedly a very intelligent person, and so were the other Nazis. The top members of the Chinese Communist Party are also known to be very intelligent.
Besides, Brimstonesalad appears to have rather strong opinions about wide area of things which aren't even remotely related: politics, history, astronomy and other parts of physics (though he gets that right), virology, nutrition... Who has the time to properly study all of that?

Snopes is attractive to people who want to get to the truth. You don't come across as such a person.

What do you mean I don't value truth? Most of the people don't care if the Earth is round or flat, I do care about that. But it becomes increasingly obvious to me that attempts to get closer to the truth than the rest of the human kind are likely to get you further away from the truth. Debating on the Flat Earth Society forums is not a way to get closer to the truth, it's not based on good principles (debate among the not-well-informed isn't a good principle). Wikipedia is also based on questionable principles: it's not at all obvious that what's written on Wikipedia about controversial issues reflects the opinion of the experts. Still, it appears to be better than Internet forums, or books written by people who have no knowledge of the field. What principles is Snopes based on? Why do you think they are good?
Besides, what is "truth" anyway? Probably the least philosophically problematic definition of truth is the utilitarian theory of the truth. That is, the claim "The Earth is round." is true because it usefully predicts the distance to the horizon at certain height, the angle at which we would see the horizon from an airplane at certain height, it's the core of how GPS works... The claim "Vukovar massacre happened." is not true in that sense of the word, it doesn't appear to be useful (at least in most cases), it just makes people feel bad. According to the coherence theory of the truth, I guess both of those claims are true, though. The correspondence theory of the truth... I don't know, I mean, the correspondence theory of the truth appears so naive and philosophically problematic that it's not even worth discussing.

Which nationality do you think would be more likely to appreciate truth seeking websites like Snopes?

One in which it's obvious to most people that the media aren't telling the truth, such as the US. Now, whether that gets people closer to the truth is not obvious.

Why would you think I know any less about evolutionary biology or biochemistry than astronomy?

Because you don't have all the time in the world to study all of that.

It might be a good idea to restrain your claims to those areas where you are less likely to be wrong.

It might be, but it doesn't seem to me you are doing that, so why should I do that?

Wikipedia briefly covers the theories here, and the problems with the cellular "escape" origin theory you're advancing

If it was so problematic, why would my biology textbook claim it was the most likely hypothesis? And that the hypothesis that viruses evolved from bacteria that are cellular parasites is very unlikely because they use mechanisms that are completely different from those that viruses use? When you say that escape-hypothesis is the "crocoduck-level of misunderstaning evolution", you aren't just accusing me of completely misunderstaning evolution, you are also accusing the authors of the textbooks of that.

It only suggests that perhaps THAT segment of RNA came from us.

And now you are contradicting yourself. Previously, you said that the reason we appear to have viral code in our DNAs is that viruses have somehow inserted that code into our DNA.

there's no reason that viral RNA (again, of an EXTANT virus) could not accidentally incorporate segments like this in the process of its own infection and replication.

And, previously, you said that viruses contain no junk RNA. Sorry, you are obviously not trustworthy on the topic.

You said it's the national media. Look at other Croatian sources, like independent journalists.

Well, the general perception here in Croatia is that "independent" media are actually less trustworthy than national media. And once you look at what "independent" media is doing to the American public (creationism, global warming denial, support for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez...), that perception seems very justified.

if they aren't censored in your country

Well, the web-page you linked to isn't censored. But how do I know it's telling the truth? How do I know it's not just western propaganda? Government media is probably more trustworthy than media I haven't heard of, don't you think?
But let's then try to apply some objective criteria. Are the claims they make verifiable? They don't appear to be. What can I do to verify that there is a person named Gordan Duhacek (a not-so-plausible Croatian surname, by the way) who ended up in jail because of posting anti-police messages on Twitter? There doesn't really appear much I can do to verify that. The same is true for the vast majority of the news, though.
Media obviously criticized the police a lot when they were beating up immigrants near Sisak.

You live in a country with a high corruption index and with an oppressive government.

So, you know what's currently going on in Croatia better than people living in Croatia do. Don't you think it's very arrogant to claim that? Maybe, if you were talking about North Korea, that would be less silly. But it would still be silly.

it's not illegal to do things like insult the police on twitter.

Out of curiosity, I ask, do you think I am likely to get in jail for posting a video in which I say police is useless?

The U.S. is rife with Nazis denying the holocaust in the alt-right.

Which is why people so often get in jail for "hate speech". And it's not just expressing Nazi beliefs, it's also for using wrong pronons.

What I do know is that it's evident that he's not only a moron, but utterly incapable of recognizing that he's a moron.

I am a "moron" now? And how do you know that you aren't a moron? Can you make a web-page about your alternative interpretation of the meanings of names of places in your country, contact one of the most prominent linuists in your country and make them take you seriously? I can, see here (the e-mails I received from Dubravka Ivšić are available on the web-page, click "show/hide details"). Can you learn Latin to a point when you can publish YouTube videos in Latin? I've published three of them, and you can see on the Reddit thread I've made that they are good. Can you make a compiler for a simplified low-level programming language, implement some algorithms in it and write a research paper about it? I can. The core of that compiler can be run in a web-browser, and the research paper, which will get published in Osječki Matematički List in more-or-less the same form, is available here. If you have never done stuff like that, then you shouldn't call me a "moron".

[brimstoneSalad]

Why would you think I know any less about evolutionary biology or biochemistry than astronomy?

Because you don't have all the time in the world to study all of that.

You, being a fraction of my age, presume to know some of these things. How would somebody with a good memory and many times older than you are not have had adequate time to study more of these things?
I also learn faster than you do and less often misunderstand things; it takes me minutes or sometimes a couple hours to read over a few papers and meta-analyses to catch up on things. Some of this may be a language advantage. We've discussed before how the information in your language is poor.

You haven't even been to university yet Teo.

It might be a good idea to restrain your claims to those areas where you are less likely to be wrong.

It might be, but it doesn't seem to me you are doing that, so why should I do that?

I do that, there are many topics I don't comment on because I don't have much to say. In most cases I also just look up and echo consensus.

Wikipedia briefly covers the theories here, and the problems with the cellular "escape" origin theory you're advancing

If it was so problematic, why would my biology textbook claim it was the most likely hypothesis?

We've discussed before how bad your textbooks are.
Escape is actually a plausible theory when it comes to ANCIENT cellular life and the correspondingly ancient viruses. Just not modern cells and viruses as they are today. I explained this already.

Escape some billions of years ago, followed by co-evolution, is a very likely theory. Essentially a combination of "viruses first" recognizing how uniquely suited to their role they are and how ancient, but where the original material *probably* came from early life (if not quite cells yet).

It's your notion of a modern escape that's not plausible.

And that the hypothesis that viruses evolved from bacteria that are cellular parasites is very unlikely because they use mechanisms that are completely different from those that viruses use?

Current cellular parasites do, but this is maybe one of the more plausible explanations for some kinds of viruses; it just does not do a good job of explaining all of them.

When you say that escape-hypothesis is the "crocoduck-level of misunderstaning evolution", you aren't just accusing me of completely misunderstaning evolution, you are also accusing the authors of the textbooks of that.

I have no doubt the authors of all of your textbooks are incompetent. You've shown that much before. That's aside from the point, though.

YOUR version of a modern escape is a terrible understanding of evolution. It doesn't explain the other qualities viruses have. It's an unrealistic evolutionary jump in a single set of mutations. Viruses are far too specialized to have popped into existence a few weeks ago, and then burn out after a finite number of transmissions as you believed. The source of Coronavirus isn't a spontaneous cellular escape a few viral generations ago, and the virus isn't going to burn itself out in a few more generations from RNA damage.

Like with misunderstanding thermodynamics and bombs, this was the nature of your claim.

It only suggests that perhaps THAT segment of RNA came from us.

And now you are contradicting yourself. Previously, you said that the reason we appear to have viral code in our DNAs is that viruses have somehow inserted that code into our DNA.

We have a LOT of viral code in our DNA from retroviruses. Literal code that viruses have and are useful for viruses, in OUR DNA.
That's yet another plausible source for that code in non-retroviruses, they could have acquired it from retroviruses.

Your teacher is talking out of his ass if he's claiming we can't conceive of how it would end up there.

There's also potentially HUMAN genetic information in viruses, due to different pathways.

there's no reason that viral RNA (again, of an EXTANT virus) could not accidentally incorporate segments like this in the process of its own infection and replication.

And, previously, you said that viruses contain no junk RNA. Sorry, you are obviously not trustworthy on the topic.

Again you make absurd assumptions.
Viruses DO tend to lose junk genes quickly, so why might it be there? Perhaps because it's encoding for human proteins that help hide the virus. Perhaps because it's useful for another reason. The RNA in viruses is almost all useful, because they mutate so quickly and can reproduce faster without junk, they lose it fast if it doesn't provide from selective advantage.

Any junk genetic material in a virus would probably have to have been acquired pretty recently.

There are some viruses, larger ones, and probably DNA viruses, that lean less heavily on r-strategy and may contain more junk DNA because it makes up a very small part of the total virus and wouldn't be a significant detriment. I couldn't point to which ones easily without more research than I want to do today.

Like I said, there are other explanations too. You'd need to look at the function of this code and see if it's serving a purpose in humans, in viruses, or both to see where it may have originated.

If you want to link to an actual study on the particular genetic material you're talking about I can look into that specifically.

Well, the general perception here in Croatia is that "independent" media are actually less trustworthy than national media.

Nationalistic delusion.

And once you look at what "independent" media is doing to the American public (creationism, global warming denial, support for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez...), that perception seems very justified.

Fox news is an outlier. Most other large media sources are pretty credible, aside from science reporting because the journalists don't understand what they're reporting on.
There's not general support for AOC in the mainstream media. Mostly they stay neutral, but there are plenty of opinion pieces against her on sites like CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/opinions ... index.html

Your perception is a nationalistic delusion. Your Gish gallops are wasting everybody's time. Stop making these obviously false claims without evidence.
If you keep doing this we're going to have to have a discussion about moderator action.

How do I know it's not just western propaganda? Government media is probably more trustworthy than media I haven't heard of, don't you think?

I doubt anybody is wasting time inventing propaganda against Croatia. I don't think anybody but Croatians care about Croatia, most people couldn't point to it on a map or tell you if it's a country or a kind of ravioli. What kind of persecution complex do you have?
No, your government media is not more trustworthy than a random source, *particularly* on politics.

But let's then try to apply some objective criteria. Are the claims they make verifiable? They don't appear to be.

You have public access to view the legislation. Do so and shut up.

Media obviously criticized the police a lot when they were beating up immigrants near Sisak.

Many laws like this are enforced arbitrarily. If *everybody* were criticizing the government about something it would be harder to shut them all down/lock them all up.

So, you know what's currently going on in Croatia better than people living in Croatia do.

The experts who assess these things do, yes. And I can read the reports, so yes. Without a nationalistic delusion creating a strong cognitive bias in favor of Croatia I can be better informed on these subjects than you are, because your brain is loaded with misinformation that precludes you learning correct information.

Don't you think it's very arrogant to claim that?

No, because you're delusional. Your nationalistic pride blinds you to the problems in your country. You've also never lived anywhere else, and you believe absurd things like that the U.S. locks people up for denying the holocaust.

it's not illegal to do things like insult the police on twitter.

Out of curiosity, I ask, do you think I am likely to get in jail for posting a video in which I say police is useless?

Keep doing that. Ramp up your criticism. Gain more of a following. Let's see. PLEASE do that. Maybe once you get out of jail you'll shut up about how amazing and free your country is.

The U.S. is rife with Nazis denying the holocaust in the alt-right.

Which is why people so often get in jail for "hate speech". And it's not just expressing Nazi beliefs, it's also for using wrong pronons.

More lies. Teo, you're about to get banned for not doing your research and just making all of these claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

Do that ONE MORE TIME.

I am a "moron" now?

Yes, and based on the above evidence a moron with such profound laziness and arrogance that you make flagrantly false claims one after another despite correction and evidence of your mistake, and you have no concern for the veracity of your statements whatsoever.

[Insert a bunch of bragging about irrelevant stuff]

None of that stops you from being a moron, and it's only becoming clear that you refuse to learn from your mistakes because you're also a flaming narcissist. You'd give Donald Trump a run for his money.

[Red]

C'mon Teo, you did so well with quantum mechanics, but now you're once again showing your arrogance and incompetence in this thread, as well as the ether one where you continue to spout your 'murder should be legal' crap (I gave up on you in that thread, since I know you're net gonna change your mind).

I gave you the benefit of the doubt Teo; Your childhood sounds like it was pretty awful. But the fact that you refuse to learn after being told for YEARS why you're wrong, and to be more humble, lowers my sympathy. We are willing to help you learn Teo, but first you need to realize that you need to learn.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

[Avskum]

After all is said and done, do you guys think this crisis will bring momentum to the vegan cause and put an end to factory farming sooner? Or will it just be chalked up to gross Chinese eathing habits?

So far I've only seen vegans talk about the animal farming aspect, and I've seen several pundits blame Chinese wet markets specifically.