Dr. Fauci Caught In Another Lie--US Funded Research On COVID At Wuhan Lab

[SGO]

It can apply to any topic or thread.

But yes, with political threads I do believe it is intentional (although perhaps remaining intentionally ignorant).

I'll use a recent example (it's all that comes to mind). A Christian posted that the Covid shot enhances Delta infectivity. The evidence was an article citing a CDC report stating that vaccinated people are at an increased risk of becoming seriously ill with covid. BUT if you actually read the the source cited it is the CDC stating that early vaccinated people have an increased risk of serious vovid illness compared to more recent vaccinations and therefore booster vaccinations may be needed.

You and I may disagree on the vaccination but I doubt either of us would condone the misinformation in that thread.

BUT even after the source was revealed we had a Christian step in and commend the integrity of the OP for posting such a great article.

We typically do not see such stark dishonesty in other threads.

I do not believe the political forum has had any positive effect for the participants. I do think it could, in some cases, have a positive effect for visitors reading the threads insofar as both sides are argued and in the case of lies the misinformation exposed.

But I believe it has a negative effect as others can view Christians behaving in an unChristlike manner.

You don't like my opinions or the opinions of others who, one of which you gave an example of (all the posts, 100%?) you consider untrue.

Why not ask your mod and admin colleagues to get rid of the political forums?

To differ with you, I have learned quite a bit and posts have helped me wake up to what is going on in our country.

We are in a spiritual war that has results which extend into the physical.

Like those posters that say, "I know what all the correct facts are, and your (any one's selected) ideas are false and show gullibility as well."

I am trying to do what my first full time job boss told me to do, "Read between the lines."

 

[JonC]

You don't like my opinions or the opinions of others who, one of which you gave an example of (all the posts, 100%?) you consider untrue.

Why not ask your mod and admin colleagues to get rid of the political forums?

To differ with you, I have learned quite a bit and posts have helped me wake up to what is going on in our country.

We are in a spiritual war that has results which extend into the physical.

Like those posters that say, "I know what all the correct facts are, and your (any one's selected) ideas are false and show gullibility as well."

I am trying to do what my first full time job boss told me to do, "Read between the lines."

I'm not talking about opinions. People have different opinions and come to various conclusions.

I am talking about outright dishonesty.

The article in question misrepresented the source it used as evidence. The article was an outright lie (the CDC said the early vaccinated had an increase in severe illness compared to the later unvacvinated therefore boosters should be considered. The article said the CDC reports that there is an increase in severe illness for the vaccinated. And a Christian posted the article while another praised it as a great source!

That is not opinion. That is lying. We cannot....well, some do so I should say we should not.... condone what God condemns.


I look at it like this, @SGO - you and I would both (I'm sure) be opposed to alternate lifestyles. But we (I hope) would not post that SSM couples kill and eat babies. And I believe we would speak out against such false statements because we value honesty....even though we do not support that lifestyle.

It goes to standing for truth.

But all of that seems to go out the window when politics is involved.

 

[SGO]

I'm not talking about opinions. People have different opinions and come to various conclusions.

I am talking about outright dishonesty.

The article in question misrepresented the source it used as evidence. The article was an outright lie (the CDC said the early vaccinated had an increase in severe illness compared to the later unvacvinated therefore boosters should be considered. The article said the CDC reports that there is an increase in severe illness for the vaccinated. And a Christian posted the article while another praised it as a great source!

That is not opinion. That is lying. We cannot....well, some do so I should say we should not.... condone what God condemns.


I look at it like this, @SGO - you and I would both (I'm sure) be opposed to alternate lifestyles. But we (I hope) would not post that SSM couples kill and eat babies. And I believe we would speak out against such false statements because we value honesty....even though we do not support that lifestyle.

It goes to standing for truth.

But all of that seems to go out the window when politics is involved.

Take the bad, throw it out, and keep the good, on a personal basis.

There may be some lying here but most of what I don't like at least appears to be coming from what the poster believes.

I see dishonesty from time to time in the other forums too, I'm surprised you don't.

How about the idea that God's word is not perfect in any translation, or that no translation is perfect as far as God is concerned?

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

Oh, that's right, THAT'S not a lie. THAT does not apply to translations.

People that make those kind of statements are gullible fools and the worst kind of Christians.

Those kind of posts are rife on the BaptistBoard, even right now.


How about veiled negative sarcastic posts in the form of humor?

I can claim that but no... I'm the only gnatty one.

Come on Jon, you say politics corrupts Christianity.

All Christians have corruption.

Thank God for 1 John 1:9:

If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and just
to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

How many of us pray that before, during, and after our posts?

Did the US partially fund Koyveed research at the Wuhan lab?

 

[JonC]

Take the bad, throw it out, and keep the good, on a personal basis.

There may be some lying here but most of what I don't like at least appears to be coming from what the poster believes.

I see dishonesty from time to time in the other forums too, I'm surprised you don't.

How about the idea that God's word is not perfect in any translation, or that no translation is perfect as far as God is concerned?

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

Oh, that's right, THAT'S not a lie. THAT does not apply to translations.

People that make those kind of statements are gullible fools and the worst kind of Christians.

Those kind of posts are rife on the BaptistBoard, even right now.


How about veiled negative sarcastic posts in the form of humor?

I can claim that but no... I'm the only gnatty one.

Come on Jon, you say politics corrupts Christianity.

All Christians have corruption.

Thank God for 1 John 1:9:

If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and just
to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

How many of us pray that before, during, and after our posts?

Did the US partially fund Koyveed research at the Wuhan lab?

I agree the person may believe the conclusions, but I cannot accept they actually believe the outright lie (it is very plain the thread I offered is lying - maybe not in the opinion but in the "evidence").

We all have opinions, and we should all feel free to voice our opinions. But we should never forfeit our integrity in supporting our opinions.

I have disagreed with one of those involved in advocating the lie in that one example. Until recently I respected him and believed he was a man if integrity- even though we had very opposing opinions on several issues. But now I know he cannot be trusted. Every person who has read that thread knows he cannot be trusted.

You and I have disagreements as well. But I would be very surprised if you were to fall as this man has. Even though we disagree you (IMHO) are a person of integrity.

If you posted an article saying the CDC says kool-aid cures covid and then read the source and the CDC said pizza cures covid.....I know you would acknowledge the first post as false even if you disagreed with the CDC. That is integrity. That is what a small few here are lacking.

We can all make mistakes. I'm talking about intentionally lying, if not initially by letting it stand.

 

[SGO]

If the CDC thought it could put the VAX on pizza don't you think they would try it?

They have the White House, foreign governments, and the MSM behind them.

No more need for lotteries, free drawings, paying people to get the jab, or putting more pressure on those who choose not to get it.


Many, many people like pizza.

It would be worth it to get the jab even though there are no ten year feasibility studies available to the public.

Oh, do I need to prove it about the ten year study?

Am I lying?

It's all in the mind of the reader.

If you can prove malicious lying, doesn't the forum have rules about that?

 

[JonC]

If the CDC thought it could put the VAX on pizza don't you think they would try it?

They have the White House, foreign governments, and the MSM behind them.

No more need for lotteries, free drawings, paying people to get the jab, or putting more pressure on those who choose not to get it.


Many, many people like pizza.

It would be worth it to get the jab even though there are no ten year feasibility studies available to the public.

Oh, do I need to prove it about the ten year study?

Am I lying?

It's all in the mind of the reader.

If you can prove malicious lying, doesn't the forum have rules about that?

I think it is always better for people to be who they are. If we silence fools nobody would know they are foolish kind of thing.

Lets look at the example and you tell me:

1. Bob believes the vacvine is dangerous and posts that the CDC says the vaccinated have an increase in severe covid symptoms - offering an article as his source.

2. You read the article and look up the source referenced by the article. The source actually reports that the CDC says the early vaccinated have an increase in severe covid symptoms indicating that the effectiveness is waning and boosters may be needed.

3. You reply, quoting the original source and providing a link. You let Bob know his article misquoted its source.

4. Bob does not care and now Jim jumps in to praise the article as a great source and Bob for his integrity to post it.

Now, you know that both the original source and the misquote from the article is there, in plain view.


Where does Bob and Jim's responsibility end? Is it OK to post misinformation if you did not author the misinformation?

Are we responsible for what we post?

Would you trust Bob and Jim just because you agreed with their opinion on the subject?


What is the honest thing for Bob and Jim to do?

 

[Andre]

You are in the club too by claiming the sites I used are dubious without proof.

An outrageous falsehood.

I have never lied here.

It may be the case that I have sometimes criticized sources without providing evidence.

That is not the same as lying.

 

[Andre]

If you can prove malicious lying, doesn't the forum have rules about that?

If there are such rules, they are not being enforced. But I am not complaining about the lack of such enforcement.

However, it is obvious that there is systematic lying in this forum.

 

[SGO]

Oh, and there is no censorship in the media either.

Censorship is a true mark of a free society, wouldn't you say?

But where is the forum on the investigation as to whether or not the US funded Koivey research in Wuhan?

• No it did not happen.
• 
  
• Your sources are suspect.
• 
  
• You are systematic liars and all these Koiveed threads prove it.
• 
  
• I am an honest man questioning these posters, why the ridicule?
• 
  
• I'm am a really good man and my posts are always full of the truth.

However, yours are not.
Cuz I say so that's why.
Prove I'm wrong.
Your proof does not meet my standards.

 

[Andre]

Censorship is a true mark of a free society, wouldn't you say?

No one is being truly censored - you are perfectly free to stand on the street corner and say whatever you like. And you are free to create a website and say what you like as well. In short, you are not censored "in the public square".

Where there is censorship is on platforms like Youtube and Facebook. Or even here. And a case can be made that organizations like Facebook have a right to police their sites as they see fit. You might respond that sites like these now comprise the "public square" and to be censored on these sites effectively works out to censoring your right to speak in the public square.

Well, we can have that discussion - I can see both sides of it.

But to be clear: there are many "places" where you are entirely free to say whatever you like.

 

[Andre]

But where is the forum on the investigation as to whether or not the US funded Koivey research in Wuhan?.

You are perfectly free to make such a case if you like. And we are free to point out when what you present as an actual case is really not a case at all but really just a reformulation of the claim itself. Or that your sources are suspect.

Not sure I understand the rest of your post but I will reiterate what all serious debaters knows: when a person X makes a claim Y, it is the responsibility of person X to defend the claim - it is not the responsibility of a person Z, who does not believe Y, to make the case that Y is false.

 

[SGO]

Thanks for the lesson.

Any topics you would like to create a thread for or do you consider yourself a reactor for the truth?

 

[Andre]

Thanks for the lesson.

Any topics you would like to create a thread for or do you consider yourself a reactor for the truth?

Do you not think that if I am mistaken about something, actually addressing what I have written is not the more appropriate strategy?

What have I said in my last post that was not correct and why?

 

[SGO]

Hey JonC, if you think there is systematic lying on the forum's threads why don't you call the liars out?

Hit them over the head so to speak with your Mod hammer.

 

[SGO]

Do you not think that if I am mistaken about something, actually addressing what I have written is not the more appropriate strategy?

What have I said in my last post that was not correct and why?

I do not need to prove my opinions.

Here is another opinion: nothing in nine years of absence has stirred your juices like the Koivei issue.

Not abortion, not Trump, not censorship in the media, not war, not any doctrinal issue.

Just keep on with your attacks and saying my or any other poster's proofs, whenever made, are dubious.

Prove it.

 

[Andre]

Here is another opinion: nothing in nine years of absence has stirred your juices like the Koivei issue.

What are you talking about? I do not even know what Koivei is - is it something about how the US reputedly bears some responsibility for Covid?
....

Prove it.

Prove what? If you, or anyone else, has posted an actual case for some position you hold, please point me to the posts - it is possible I missed something. However, all the material I have seen seems to involve misleading links titles that take you to a site where no actual case is made - instead all we get are more claims with no supporting evidence.

Again: If you are going to claim that the US did something nefarious, or that Dr. Fauci lied, it is incumbent on you to make the case.

It is most certainly not my job to disprove your claim. To wit:

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim

Got it?

 

[SGO]

Why don't you create a thread entitled something like Andre's Rules of Koivey Debate?

 

[percho]

You don't like my opinions or the opinions of others who, one of which you gave an example of (all the posts, 100%?) you consider untrue.

Why not ask your mod and admin colleagues to get rid of the political forums?

To differ with you, I have learned quite a bit and posts have helped me wake up to what is going on in our country.

We are in a spiritual war that has results which extend into the physical.

Like those posters that say, "I know what all the correct facts are, and your (any one's selected) ideas are false and show gullibility as well."

I am trying to do what my first full time job boss told me to do, "Read between the lines."

I agree the book of Job is totally about the physical and mental suffering Job when through not relative to the righteousness and or unrighteousness of Job but because there was spiritual warfare between God and Satan.

Job and his friends were not aware of that war.

Where were you? Be still, I am taking care of My business.

 

[SGO]

I agree the book of Job is totally about the physical and mental suffering Job when through not relative to the righteousness and or unrighteousness of Job but because there was spiritual warfare between God and Satan.

Job and his friends were not aware of that war.

Where were you? Be still, I am taking care of My business.

Sorry percho I do not understand what you are asking me.

I have been here for a short time.

 

[Andre]

Why don't you create a thread entitled something like Andre's Rules of Koivey Debate?

Distortion - these are not my rules, they are the standard rules for debate.

It is universally known among serious debaters that the one who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. There is no debate about this. Now, here, in this forum, some of you seem to think you get to play by a different set of rules - you get to put forward an unsupported claim, no matter how implausible or bizarre, and expect those who question your claim to do your homework for you by disproving your unsupported claim.

That is not how it works.

Your claim, your responsibility to support it.