When asked about Sweden, the WHO's Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme, Dr. Mike Ryan, seemingly praised the no-lockdown approach as a "future model".

Sweden’s approach, Dr Ryan said, was a good example of how western societies could reach a “new normal”.

“What it has done differently is it has very much relied on its relationship with its citizenry and the ability and willingness of its citizens to implement self-distancing and self-regulate,” he said. “They have implemented public policy through that partnership . . . Sweden represents a future model if we want to return to a society that we do not have to close.”

Sweden is a model for the new coronavirus normal, says WHO

A supposed leaked "Five Eyes" dossier found its way to the press, and if true the revelations are damning to the CCP. Censorship, the destruction of evidence, the suppression of science and transparency, and the typically communist blame-shifting might place us in a cold war with China if we aren't there already.

Perhaps most damningly, the dossier states that Chinese authorities denied that the virus could be spread between humans until Jan. 20, "despite evidence of human-human transmission from early December."

The file is similarly unsparing about the World Health Organization (WHO), stating that it toed the Chinese line about human-to-human transmission despite the fact that "officials in Taiwan raised concerns as early as December 31, as did experts in Hong Kong on January 4.”

As of Friday night, the WHO's official Twitter account still featured a tweet from Jan. 14 that stated: "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China."

https://www.foxnews.com/world/new-dossier-condemns-china-for-destroying-evidence-of-covid-19-outbreak

By not making a life I am preventing its suffering. It’s like saying if I did not make a sandwich I prevented anyone from eating it.

Someone can come along and say, with equal force, that by preventing life we are preventing joy and love and laughter. But really what we’re talking about is preventing life, period. No suffering, no laughter, no joy, no love, no loss, no death, but life. This is because life is not a one-to-one ratio with suffering, but is much more.

I have a problem with the ethical angle. One cannot claim he is preventing suffering by preventing life because it is impossible to prevent suffering in the not-yet-living, and for the same reason it is impossible to prevent the suffering of the dead—they do not exist. Exactly whose suffering did they prevent? One cannot find them on any plane of existence.

There are many valid reasons why one would not want to have children, but to prevent the suffering of the unborn has to be the worst of them.

I don’t know about that. Have you seen late night television?

'merica is at best mediocre. On a par with Mongolia and South Africa.

It’s true, and by nearly every measure. It makes me wonder why foreigners can’t keep her name out of their mouth.

This is a hard-hitting op-Ed on Michael Flynn’s case by legal expert, professor and attorney Jonathan Turley. These injustices should never have happened to a 3-star general, a war hero. Anyone who hopped on the Russian band-wagon should be ashamed.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/495405-michael-flynn-case-should-be-dismissed-to-preserve-justice

Rumblings in the Trump-sphere. The president and his allies are saying Flynn was set up and railroaded in light of these revelations.

Not good.

New documents turned over by the Justice Department show FBI officials debated whether and when to warn Michael T. Flynn that he could face criminal charges as they prepared for a pivotal January 2017 interview in which the former national security adviser later admitted to lying about his Russia contacts.

The documents show law enforcement seeming to contemplate in advance that Flynn would lie to them — with an unidentified person even musing in handwritten notes whether their purpose was to induce a lie, before ultimately concluding they should “protect our institution by not playing games.”

“What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” an unidentified person wrote in notes apparently taken before Flynn was interviewed on Jan. 24, 2017, four days after Trump took office.

Michael Flynn’s defense claims FBI notes show agents tried to entrap the former national security adviser

Well, if you get to call a mistake in journalism fake news, what do we get to call your favorite orange turnip? Give us please a sense of the proportionality you think might be appropriate.

I’m sure you’ll think of something.

I respectfully reserve my right to call sloppy journalism “fake news”.

I’m actually surprised (and impressed) that the fake news about Trump owing the bank of China didn’t make it to this thread. Kudos to politico for coming clean.

I haven’t read a single good faith thing you’ve written. So much for truth and lies.

Fair enough. For future reference, CNN has a similar score to the Washington Free Beacon, which I guess means it’s an unreliable source.

But Yahoo has picked up the story.

Arizona police are now conducting a homicide investigation into a woman who claimed she gave her husband fish tank cleaner after President Trump claimed the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment for coronavirus.

https://news.yahoo.com/woman-blamed-trump-giving-her-133613382.html

Of course you claim this of me and not people who do the opposite. The only standards you have are double standards.

If only you were. Again with the hypocrisy. Here's your heuristic in a nutshell: negative of Trump - - > unreliable, must go out of my way to discredit. Untrustworthy right wing rag publishes story favourable of Trump - - > must tell the world.

That’s not true. I’ve cited CNN, the New York Times, WaPo, the WSJ, The Guardian, more than I have Fox News or “right wing rags”, because I know this is exactly how you would react. It’s just too predictable.

I believe it’s wise to be careful and diligent with any information, but I don’t think it’s wise to discount a story just because it comes from a left or right-wing source, or has in the past made mistakes. Even the National Enquirer has broken news. So though I appreciate the totally impartial and unbiased gatekeeping, I’m a big boy and can figure it out for myself.

So it’s not the information, it’s who said it. That is fallacious thinking, but if you’re fine with that, I have no problem.

What was wrong with the story?

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking or championing its source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

The woman who ate fish tank cleaner with her husband is now under investigation for murder. Of course she blamed Trump and is a prolific Democrat donor.

https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/police-investigating-death-of-arizona-man-from-chloroquine-phosphate/

Word-police and pedants. I’m sure you all are great public speakers.

Yes, so my question in the context of how ↪TheArchitectOfTheGods was using "government", so answering my question would have required addressing the meaning of the word as relevant to my question and used by Bukanin, and not just the meaning in English in the 19th century but also in Russian.

Yeah I apologize for that I should have read the context. I thought you genuinely wanted to know the answer to the question. But I’ll trust that the translation of the term “government” was accurate, and the term hasn’t changed much since Bakunin’s time.

No one says potahto.

Tomahto?

I've heard that a lot growing up. Usually just after my friends were innocently calling the staff "chinkies".

It’s probably a good idea to differentiate between the government of China and the Chinese people for that very reason, especially since the Chinese people are the greatest victims of the CCP. The rise in hate-crimes against the Chinese in light of the pandemic is stupid.

The question “Which anarchist proposes this formula?“.

For what it’s worth I wasn’t trying to refute any argument you made, I was just trying to answer your question.

But you’re the only one who searches through another’s posts for what you believe are contradictions, even if the words and meanings are different, and then offer them as ad Homs and red herrings. Is that how a stoic grapples with arguments he doesn’t like?

That accomplish the same task. I could, for example, say that you have a weak character or say that you’re immoral. Both could be used as an ad hom attract in an effort to influence the weak minded (such as a trump supporter) to dismiss basically anything you say.

I guess you would know, especially given your spineless efforts to search through my past comments looking for gotchas.

Which anarchist proposes this formula?

Didn't Bakunin propose it?

We, the revolutionary anarchists, are the advocates of education for all the people, of the emancipation and the widest possible expansion of social life. Therefore we are the enemies of the State and all forms of the statist principle. In opposition to the metaphysicians, the positivists, and all the worshippers of science, we declare that natural and social life always comes before theory, which is only one of its manifestations but never its creator. From out of its own inexhaustible depths, society develops through a series of events, but not by thought alone. Theory is always created by life, but never creates it; like mile-posts and road signs, it only indicates the direction and the different stages of life’s independent and unique development.

In accordance with this belief, we neither intend nor desire to thrust upon our own or any other people any scheme of social organization taken from books or concocted by ourselves. We are convinced that the masses of the people carry in themselves, in their instincts (more or less developed by history), in their daily necessities, and. in their conscious or unconscious aspirations, all the elements of the future social organization. We seek this ideal in the people themselves. Every state power, every government, by its very nature places itself outside and over the people and inevitably subordinates them to an organization and to aims which are foreign to and opposed to the real needs and aspirations of the people. We declare ourselves the enemies of every government and every state power, and of governmental organization in general. We think that people can be free and happy only when organized from the bottom up in completely free and independent associations, without governmental paternalism though not without the influence of a variety of free individuals and parties.

Statism and Anarchy

Different phrase and different meaning.

Praxis - "Potato, Potahto". Same word spoken differently but means the same thing.

Sure, Ive also heard people say things like Trump doesnt lie, that he’s a good christian etc, or even just case by case you can tell with some people that the facts are just not as important as the teams or narrative. I was just curious if you also had a name like anti-trump hysteria (or whatever) for pro Trump side. It appears you do not. Pro-Trump hysteria I guess?
Ive been using TDS to describe it on both sides, but apparently thats a trigger word for some. To avoid confusion, im leaning towards “the trump effect. The only drawback is it ruins phrases like “look, TDS in effect”. It would be “look, the Trump effect in...effect”.

I use anti-Trump hysteria to illustrate the reactionary response to Trump, not so much the people that believe it. But Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump suit me just fine.

Maybe someone who joins a philosophy forum to write thousands of posts in support of their political hero within a few months. Some of us have criticized Trump, but none of his critics here come even remotely close to that level of religious fervour.

Could have fooled me.

Not in particular. Shouldnt be necessary unless someone wants to claim such a thing doesn't exist. It would be a spectrum of course, with varying degrees just like with the anti-Trump crowd.

That's certainly true. I suspect there are plenty conspiracy-theory, "Q" types who see Trump as the second coming of Christ.

Now they are studying heartburn remedies in New York.

In reviewing 6212 COVID-19 patient records, the doctors noticed that many survivors had been suffering from chronic heartburn and were on famotidine rather than more-expensive omeprazole (Prilosec), the medicine of choice both in the United States and among wealthier Chinese. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on famotidine appeared to be dying at a rate of about 14% compared with 27% for those not on the drug, although the analysis was crude and the result was not statistically significant.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/new-york-clinical-trial-quietly-tests-heartburn-remedy-against-coronavirus

So if I smoke, stay in the sun, and down my heartburn meds with a shot of bleach I should be fine?

You accuse me of misrepresenting myself at the same time you search through my post history for instances of me using a different phrase entirely.

Do you have any particular group or example?

Should I do a search for “anti-trump hysteria”?

I’m not sure why you would. TDS stands for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I was pointing out how you’re misrepresenting your past behavior

I said I don’t use the term TDS. So now I get to watch lie again.

I wouldn’t expect you to be able tell me why or how I’m wrong, given that you take to backbiting and lying about others.

I don’t use the term TDS because there is no such diagnosis. I prefer anti-Trumpism because it better reflects the ideological aspect of their dogma and fanaticism without making light of mental illness. Though it looks like derangement, I would argue it’s more religious in nature.

That much is true.