I recall Fauci's interpretation of gain-of-function research was extremely narrow, Ron Paul had a spat with him about it. We had that Boston lab doing something very similar to gain-of-function research that meets my common-sense definition (since they were splicing two COVID viruses together) but probably not the official definition.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
RandomRanger 2yr ago
I don't think it really matters how GoF researchers and health officials choose to define it.
What matters is how a court defines it when the GoF researchers and funders get arrested (plus whether there is the will to actually prosecute).
Get someone who wants to stop this and can control the FBI into POTUS, tighten up the laws if necessary (which it's probably not), and it stops, because after you throw the first few people in jail the rest will decide 5 minutes of fame's probably not worth it.
It's pretty clear we didn't want this research to take place, but Fauci & Co. wanted it very much. So yeah, legalistic arguing over what the definition of "is" is is just the ticket.
It's also pretty clear that the unelected government does not view our laws as legitimate and will nullify them whenever it sees fit. Did anyone from the intelligence community go to prison for domestic spying after we passed a law against it? No. Just ask Martha Stewart, who went to prison for lying to FBI agents. The punishment for lying to us was to get hired by the mainstream media to amplify their voices.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I recall Fauci's interpretation of gain-of-function research was extremely narrow, Ron Paul had a spat with him about it. We had that Boston lab doing something very similar to gain-of-function research that meets my common-sense definition (since they were splicing two COVID viruses together) but probably not the official definition.
I don't think it really matters how GoF researchers and health officials choose to define it.
What matters is how a court defines it when the GoF researchers and funders get arrested (plus whether there is the will to actually prosecute).
Get someone who wants to stop this and can control the FBI into POTUS, tighten up the laws if necessary (which it's probably not), and it stops, because after you throw the first few people in jail the rest will decide 5 minutes of fame's probably not worth it.
More options
Context Copy link
It's pretty clear we didn't want this research to take place, but Fauci & Co. wanted it very much. So yeah, legalistic arguing over what the definition of "is" is is just the ticket.
It's also pretty clear that the unelected government does not view our laws as legitimate and will nullify them whenever it sees fit. Did anyone from the intelligence community go to prison for domestic spying after we passed a law against it? No. Just ask Martha Stewart, who went to prison for lying to FBI agents. The punishment for lying to us was to get hired by the mainstream media to amplify their voices.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link