High-ranking Chinese defector provides proof COVID was orchestrated by China

[artichoke]

Gormless plagiarist.

[martin]

There was Dong Jingwei and Li-Meng Yan. 1+1 = 2.



This is meaningless smoke and mirrors. Hence the DIA and USAMRIID confirming the claims.



Um...yes, it absolutely is. If you say the capitol of California is Sacramento and show me a Wikipedia article confirming it, me responding by changing the subject to smearing your source in no way invalidates your claim.

That's what a fallacy IS, dumb-ass. Invalid logic for getting to the truth.

Try again.




And your reason is that this source doesn't parrot Democrat lies like your sources, which is a bullshit reason for your invalid, off-topic logic, otherwise known as a fallacy.





And I quote: "Your gullibility in accepting as dependable anything from Red State doesn't do you credit."

That is changing the subject to smearing the source. Anything else you'd like to embarrass yourself trying to lie about or are you good for now?

As I pointed out, meathead, I did not attack the source (which isn't Red State, by the way - try to get a handle on this) since I don't know anything about him. I "attacked" your foolish acceptance of the source's assertions as "proof". Even Red State doesn't go that far.

I suppose when Michael Cohen says Trump has engaged in unlawful conduct it would be a fallacy, in your opinion, to question his statements based on a presumed animosity.

[Nordberg]

The reds have been users of "somebody, somewhere" tactics. Epidemiologists know that the origin has not been determined and there is no guarantee that they ever will define it. But I got somebody here who say it was China labs. Since I want to believe it, I will.

[artichoke]

As I pointed out, meathead, I did not attack the source (which isn't Red State, by the way - try to get a handle on this) since I don't know anything about him. I "attacked" your foolish acceptance of the source's assertions as "proof". Even Red State doesn't go that far.

Um...okay, well these words, when thrown together in a sentence in this particular order, in the English language, means you're criticizing the source:

"Your gullibility in accepting as dependable anything from Red State doesn't do you credit."

Back-pedal and lie now that your fallacy has been called out all you want, but everyone can plainly see that you attacked the source.

I suppose when Michael Cohen says Trump has engaged in unlawful conduct it would be a fallacy, in your opinion, to question his statements based on a presumed animosity.

To question them, no. To dismiss them (what you tried to do), yes.

[artichoke]

The reds have been users of "somebody, somewhere" tactics. Epidemiologists know that the origin has not been determined and there is no guarantee that they ever will define it. But I got somebody here who say it was China labs. Since I want to believe it, I will.

1) This is an awfully brazen ad hominem diversion for the people who utterly discredited and humiliated themselves pushing:

-the "Trump cleared out a protest to give a speech" hoax
-the Russia collusion hoax
-the "Trump told people to drink Lysol" hoax
-the Covington Catholic hoax
-the Charlottesville "very fine people" hoax
-the Roy Moore pedophile hoax
-the Kavanaugh rape gang hoax
-the "repealing Net Neutrality will destroy the Internet" hoax
-the Hydroxchloroquine hoax
-the Jussie Smollett hoax
-the "Investigating Biden's corruption is worse than Biden BEING corrupt" hoax
-the Ukraine transcript hoax
-the Duke Lacrosse team hoax
-the Trayvon Martin hoax
-the "uninsured crisis" hoax
-the multitude of college hate crime hoaxes
-the "deceptively edited video" Planned Parenthood hoax
-the "children in cages" hoax
-the Michael Cohen perjury/contacting the Russians hoaxes
-the SPLC "hate group" hoax
-the "Trump mocking people with disabilities" hoax
-the "you can keep your doctor" hoax
-the "immigrants are rapists, criminals, animals" hoax
-the Kavanaugh "white power symbol" hoax
-the "Trump asked Putin to hack the DNC" hoax
-the polar bear dying from climate change hoax
-the "Trump made it easier for the mentally ill to purchase guns" hoax
-the Scaramucci Russian bankers hoax
-the "Muslim ban" hoax
-the global warming "consensus" hoax
-the "Obama's scandal-free presidency" hoax
-the Trump Jr. WikiLeaks hoax
-the Iran nuclear appeasement hoax
-the "polls show Trump will lose" hoax
-the "Obamacare will never fund abortions or illegal immigrants" hoax
-the "Hillary exonerated" hoax
-the "white privilege" hoax
-the voter suppression hoax
-the "hands up don't shoot" hoax
-the "Trump called soldiers losers" hoax
-the "peaceful protesters" hoax
-the "Trump used a Nazi eagle" hoax
-the "Trump ignored Russia putting bounties on U.S. soldiers" hoax
-the coronavirus hoax
-the "Trump used a Nazi red triangle" hoax
-the "Trump admitted to sexual assault" hoax
-the "penises cause climate change" hoax
-the "Trump denying passports to Latinos" hoax
-the "Mission Accomplished" hoax

2) Unlike Democrats mindlessly parroting anything that seems to reinforce "orange man bad" with zero fact-checking...the independently verifiable evidence presented by multiple high-level Chinese defectors now has been validated by USAMRIID and DIA. No one is ASKING you to take anyone's word for anything, or blindly rubber stamping anything for agendas like Democrats do.

[martin]

Um...okay, well these words, when thrown together in a sentence in this particular order, in the English language, means you're criticizing the source:

"Your gullibility in accepting as dependable anything from Red State doesn't do you credit."

Back-pedal and lie now that your fallacy has been called out all you want, but everyone can plainly see that you attacked the source.



To question them, no. To dismiss them (what you tried to do), yes.

For the third time, Red State is not the source of its own report. I’ve identified the source for you twice. Red State is questioned not as the source for this particular story but for its usual heavily partisan slant. But to the extent you see RS as the source have you confirmed the story to your satisfaction, and according to your announced standard, with a second “source”?

[martin]

[SIZE=3]


The standard for reporting something as a "fact" is two sources'

This is another superficiality. Two lies don't make a fact. The standard for reporting anything as factual is confidence in its accuracy by an intelligent and diligent journalist. When that confidence is mixed with doubt, as knowing the news often is, the report can still be made as long as that doubt is fairly conveyed unless the doubt is strong in which case it is wrong to publish the report at all. Most often of course it isn't the journalist "reporting something as a fact", but the journalist quoting someone claiming something as fact. Same standard. You don't quote someone for its purported news value who you reasonably believe is not telling the truth unless you're a deeply partisan outlet that doesn't care as much about truth as it does about its politics, and if you are that kind of outlet it is fair game to be called on it.

[Legion]

[Truth Detector]

Learn what words mean. He provided at most a claim of "information", not "proof". And your gullibility in accepting as dependable anything from Red State doesn't do you credit either.

It's a SHE dumbass. Try reading things before you emotionally flail like a dumbass.

[AProudLefty]

It's a SHE dumbass. Try reading things before you emotionally flail like a dumbass.

[martin]

It's a SHE dumbass. Try reading things before you emotionally flail like a dumbass.

Yes, that was careless. Thanks for the polite correction. Maybe you should try correcting the OP as well. He thinks the source is neither a he or a she but an "it".

[artichoke]

For the third time, Red State is not the source of its own report.

Say it a fourth time if you like. It will still be addressing a point no one has made.

Try to follow along...attempting to change the subject to disqualify a source you don't like rather than refuting its claim...is erroneous, flawed logic (aka, a fallacy). That's what you tried to do, that's what you got called out for, that's what you now lie about having done, which was just proven false with the direct quote of you attacking the source.

No part of this treats Red State as its own source.

I’ve identified the source for you twice.

And no one needed you to do that even once. It was always clear that the source was Li-Meng Yan. And as has also already been stated, the Chinese defector PRIOR to Yan who wasn't quite as high level but produced similar, also verified evidence of this claim, was Dong Jingwei. You are the only one struggling to follow this incredibly straightforward concept. It has been established by multiple sources, and you changing the subject to attacking Red State for pointing it out...is invalid, and a diversion.

Also, your sources have been proven wrong at every turn, while Red State has been vindicated, on:

-the "Trump cleared out a protest to give a speech" hoax
-the Russia collusion hoax
-the "Trump told people to drink Lysol" hoax
-the Covington Catholic hoax
-the Charlottesville "very fine people" hoax
-the Roy Moore pedophile hoax
-the Kavanaugh rape gang hoax
-the "repealing Net Neutrality will destroy the Internet" hoax
-the Hydroxchloroquine hoax
-the Jussie Smollett hoax
-the "Investigating Biden's corruption is worse than Biden BEING corrupt" hoax
-the Ukraine transcript hoax
-the Duke Lacrosse team hoax
-the Trayvon Martin hoax
-the "uninsured crisis" hoax
-the multitude of college hate crime hoaxes
-the "deceptively edited video" Planned Parenthood hoax
-the "children in cages" hoax
-the Michael Cohen perjury/contacting the Russians hoaxes
-the SPLC "hate group" hoax
-the "Trump mocking people with disabilities" hoax
-the "you can keep your doctor" hoax
-the "immigrants are rapists, criminals, animals" hoax
-the Kavanaugh "white power symbol" hoax
-the "Trump asked Putin to hack the DNC" hoax
-the polar bear dying from climate change hoax
-the "Trump made it easier for the mentally ill to purchase guns" hoax
-the Scaramucci Russian bankers hoax
-the "Muslim ban" hoax
-the global warming "consensus" hoax
-the "Obama's scandal-free presidency" hoax
-the Trump Jr. WikiLeaks hoax
-the Iran nuclear appeasement hoax
-the "polls show Trump will lose" hoax
-the "Obamacare will never fund abortions or illegal immigrants" hoax
-the "Hillary exonerated" hoax
-the "white privilege" hoax
-the voter suppression hoax
-the "hands up don't shoot" hoax
-the "Trump called soldiers losers" hoax
-the "peaceful protesters" hoax
-the "Trump used a Nazi eagle" hoax
-the "Trump ignored Russia putting bounties on U.S. soldiers" hoax
-the coronavirus hoax
-the "Trump used a Nazi red triangle" hoax
-the "Trump admitted to sexual assault" hoax
-the "penises cause climate change" hoax
-the "Trump denying passports to Latinos" hoax
-the "Mission Accomplished" hoax

If anyone should have their claim derailed to discuss the credibility of their sources, it should be Democrats, whose sources have been caught brazenly, intentionally lying at every turn.

[artichoke]

This is another superficiality. Two lies don't make a fact.

Tell that to the news media. That's their standard. And I readily acknowledge that they blatantly lie through their teeth all the time while still supposedly meeting that standard. It's easy to find people to spoon-feed you your own bullshit partisan talking points and claim to have two sources, as Democrats just spent the last four years proving repeatedly. But by the media's standards, this is a verified fact at this point. Two sources both independently corroborated by DIA and USAMRIID.

[Truth Detector]

1) This is an awfully brazen ad hominem diversion for the people who utterly discredited and humiliated themselves pushing:

-the "Trump cleared out a protest to give a speech" hoax
-the Russia collusion hoax
-the "Trump told people to drink Lysol" hoax
-the Covington Catholic hoax
-the Charlottesville "very fine people" hoax
-the Roy Moore pedophile hoax
-the Kavanaugh rape gang hoax
-the "repealing Net Neutrality will destroy the Internet" hoax
-the Hydroxchloroquine hoax
-the Jussie Smollett hoax
-the "Investigating Biden's corruption is worse than Biden BEING corrupt" hoax
-the Ukraine transcript hoax
-the Duke Lacrosse team hoax
-the Trayvon Martin hoax
-the "uninsured crisis" hoax
-the multitude of college hate crime hoaxes
-the "deceptively edited video" Planned Parenthood hoax
-the "children in cages" hoax
-the Michael Cohen perjury/contacting the Russians hoaxes
-the SPLC "hate group" hoax
-the "Trump mocking people with disabilities" hoax
-the "you can keep your doctor" hoax
-the "immigrants are rapists, criminals, animals" hoax
-the Kavanaugh "white power symbol" hoax
-the "Trump asked Putin to hack the DNC" hoax
-the polar bear dying from climate change hoax
-the "Trump made it easier for the mentally ill to purchase guns" hoax
-the Scaramucci Russian bankers hoax
-the "Muslim ban" hoax
-the global warming "consensus" hoax
-the "Obama's scandal-free presidency" hoax
-the Trump Jr. WikiLeaks hoax
-the Iran nuclear appeasement hoax
-the "polls show Trump will lose" hoax
-the "Obamacare will never fund abortions or illegal immigrants" hoax
-the "Hillary exonerated" hoax
-the "white privilege" hoax
-the voter suppression hoax
-the "hands up don't shoot" hoax
-the "Trump called soldiers losers" hoax
-the "peaceful protesters" hoax
-the "Trump used a Nazi eagle" hoax
-the "Trump ignored Russia putting bounties on U.S. soldiers" hoax
-the coronavirus hoax
-the "Trump used a Nazi red triangle" hoax
-the "Trump admitted to sexual assault" hoax
-the "penises cause climate change" hoax
-the "Trump denying passports to Latinos" hoax
-the "Mission Accomplished" hoax

2) Unlike Democrats mindlessly parroting anything that seems to reinforce "orange man bad" with zero fact-checking...the independently verifiable evidence presented by multiple high-level Chinese defectors now has been validated by USAMRIID and DIA. No one is ASKING you to take anyone's word for anything, or blindly rubber stamping anything for agendas like Democrats do.

Nailed it!

[Truth Detector]

Yes, that was careless. Thanks for the polite correction. Maybe you should try correcting the OP as well. He thinks the source is neither a he or a she but an "it".

What is wrong with the source and the story? You don't believe the Chinese defector who actually worked at the lab? Not sure what point you are trying to make here.