It's not easy to see context through the flames-- how far back should I be looking? 90%+ of your last three pages or so of post history have been abbreviated replies or demands for an evidentiary standard you'd need to violate your security clearance to provide, RE: the Russian bioweapons claim.
I don't see any of your replies to demanding you support Russia because Azov battalion. I admit that your vociferous opposition to 'stormcuckery' probably provoked such rhetoric at some point. Something along the lines of challenging your moral fiber because now that there's actual neo-nazis, you support their side in the form of Azov Battalion/Ukraine?
Context on jester? Don’t bother. He’s larping as a member of mossad’s online troll division for people who are too stupid and ugly to meaningfully serve the cause.
Still a lot of flames there, but you've selected some contexts that I can parse-- so thanks. I was having no luck sorting through your history.
Evidence that russia is telling the truth. all the evidence they provided was nmothing.
You seem to be fuming about this an awful lot. Understandably, as it's the latest talking point. W/E, I guess I'll bite-- what would constitute evidence that Russia-- a country you believe (per the above links) 1) is evil and 2) often lies-- is telling the truth in the particular case of Ukrainian bio labs? What are the claims you believe Russia has made about these labs? What would you accept as evidence of Russia being truthful about these claims, given their unreliability as a source?
I ask because I get the feeling you're setting people up by asking them to produce a motherfucking unicorn, and telling them 'told you so' when they don't deliver. I don't understand your motives, let alone the point-- what are you after, exactly?
Genetic evidence of bioweapon research(DNA breakup or anything similar to what we had for the Wuhan virus)
material samples of those pathogens
probably some actual scientist involved on it(even then I would take with a grain of salt, as they can be coerced to say anything)
Evidence of the pigeons, insects and other avenues to spread the bioweapon they claimed.
I would want proper paperwork with direct citation of bioweapon research, and probably direct orders and control of CDC into it. But this could also be faked, but it would still drive the point across and I would begin to question the CDC side more.
KIA went from "trust, but verify" to "trust, verify never". I held the people here with a higher standard than I held someone from twitter guzzling CNN propaganda. I have to admit, I was very disappointed, because it made me wrong when I defended KiA users in general that they were more immune to fake news.
Pardon the necroposting, but I had to give this list some thought.
1,2, and 4: how do you verify evidence like this from a country you expect to lie and fabricate? There's no way to certify a chain of custody for this stuff from the Russian capture in a Ukrainian lab. There will always be room for reasonable doubts, since the sites are in Russian control, and the evidence could have been planted.
3: Would probably be a Ukrainian scientist who is a POW. So this would violate the Geneva conventions, and (as you point out) be a coerced confession.
5: This is the only reasonable expectation for evidence. A document trail of western funding from western sources. The fact that you aren't focused on this, when there's paperwork for NIH funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan institute of virology is frustratingly naïve. Analogous documents will exist if the Russian allegation is true. I predict we won't have access to them until well after the Ukraine incident is in the memory hole. I would bet that this information is also classified.
6: A good thesis about higher standards that shouldn't be part of the list, even though I agree with it as a general statement.
1-5, That's the evidence you'd accept. Where is the evidence a KIA poster could reasonably offer to verify 1-5?
Classified or in Russian hands.
You're asking for a level of evidential certainty that can't be reached and getting upset when people don't reach it.
I'm looking through your post history.
It's not easy to see context through the flames-- how far back should I be looking? 90%+ of your last three pages or so of post history have been abbreviated replies or demands for an evidentiary standard you'd need to violate your security clearance to provide, RE: the Russian bioweapons claim.
I don't see any of your replies to demanding you support Russia because Azov battalion. I admit that your vociferous opposition to 'stormcuckery' probably provoked such rhetoric at some point. Something along the lines of challenging your moral fiber because now that there's actual neo-nazis, you support their side in the form of Azov Battalion/Ukraine?
How far back should I slog for context?
Context on jester? Don’t bother. He’s larping as a member of mossad’s online troll division for people who are too stupid and ugly to meaningfully serve the cause.
Maybe they purposefully trained him wrong as a joke.
Its true, I get a gold plated mercedes every time I show on Current_horror thoughts.
Evidence that russia is telling the truth. all the evidence they provided was nmothing.
But here are some. Just wet your whistle.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142B5bkqpA/x/c/4OUhw34xArp?d=50
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142B5bkZhz/x/c/4OUhvtnIf4v?d=50
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142B5bkZhz/x/c/4OUhvyOICv2?d=50
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142B5gIz4O/x/c/4OUhw33oERr?d=50
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142Arb8eht/x/c/4OUhcuzoUhL?d=50
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142Arb8eht/x/c/4OUhcuznwT0?d=50
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142AwNUQKt/x/c/4OUhcqR60oS?d=50
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142AwFXeh1/x/c/4OUhJUGn010?d=50
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142Ara0Fv6/novaya-gazeta--military-censorsh/c/
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142Arb8eht/x/c/4OUhJBUztxr
and the newest one
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/142BF2Ssc7/x/c/4OVx3aDslhm?d=50
Prove it.
Still a lot of flames there, but you've selected some contexts that I can parse-- so thanks. I was having no luck sorting through your history.
You seem to be fuming about this an awful lot. Understandably, as it's the latest talking point. W/E, I guess I'll bite-- what would constitute evidence that Russia-- a country you believe (per the above links) 1) is evil and 2) often lies-- is telling the truth in the particular case of Ukrainian bio labs? What are the claims you believe Russia has made about these labs? What would you accept as evidence of Russia being truthful about these claims, given their unreliability as a source?
I ask because I get the feeling you're setting people up by asking them to produce a motherfucking unicorn, and telling them 'told you so' when they don't deliver. I don't understand your motives, let alone the point-- what are you after, exactly?
Genetic evidence of bioweapon research(DNA breakup or anything similar to what we had for the Wuhan virus)
material samples of those pathogens
probably some actual scientist involved on it(even then I would take with a grain of salt, as they can be coerced to say anything)
Evidence of the pigeons, insects and other avenues to spread the bioweapon they claimed.
I would want proper paperwork with direct citation of bioweapon research, and probably direct orders and control of CDC into it. But this could also be faked, but it would still drive the point across and I would begin to question the CDC side more.
KIA went from "trust, but verify" to "trust, verify never". I held the people here with a higher standard than I held someone from twitter guzzling CNN propaganda. I have to admit, I was very disappointed, because it made me wrong when I defended KiA users in general that they were more immune to fake news.
Pardon the necroposting, but I had to give this list some thought.
1,2, and 4: how do you verify evidence like this from a country you expect to lie and fabricate? There's no way to certify a chain of custody for this stuff from the Russian capture in a Ukrainian lab. There will always be room for reasonable doubts, since the sites are in Russian control, and the evidence could have been planted.
3: Would probably be a Ukrainian scientist who is a POW. So this would violate the Geneva conventions, and (as you point out) be a coerced confession.
5: This is the only reasonable expectation for evidence. A document trail of western funding from western sources. The fact that you aren't focused on this, when there's paperwork for NIH funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan institute of virology is frustratingly naïve. Analogous documents will exist if the Russian allegation is true. I predict we won't have access to them until well after the Ukraine incident is in the memory hole. I would bet that this information is also classified.
6: A good thesis about higher standards that shouldn't be part of the list, even though I agree with it as a general statement.
1-5, That's the evidence you'd accept. Where is the evidence a KIA poster could reasonably offer to verify 1-5?
Classified or in Russian hands.
You're asking for a level of evidential certainty that can't be reached and getting upset when people don't reach it.
This strikes me as a bad faith.