6 responses to “Three Blocked Comments- Does the SEP Deserve to be on the Ballot While it Blocks Participation for Democratic Power?”

1. 

   TJM

   December 10, 2020 at 8:48 pm

   How did you settle on the conspiracy theory that Covid-19 has artificial origins? The vast majority of world scientists have pointed out that human to animal transmission in a natural environment is the clear cause (which occurs every year since time immemorial creating new strains of the flu and the common cold). Why would every nation in the world collaborate in such a conspiracy? Why would the leading scientific bodies and the vast majority of mainstream scientists collaborate on such a conspiracy? Even if your conspiracy was correct, how would this alter the approach of the WSWS toward the pandemic? Should other scientific prescriptions like masks and lockdowns and vaccinations be ignored? The task of the WSWS would not change if the coronavirus had artificial origins, but embracing such conspiracy theorizing (and discounting science) would have stark implications. Like your stances on #metoo, identity politics, generational struggle (?), there seems to be a general disrespect for the Marxist materialist approach.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   1. 

      randomposter33

      December 12, 2020 at 4:58 am

      If you look at their statements on the subject, they never say they actually disproved the existence of laboratory origins. They don’t even argue that it is unlikely, only that it is possible, but that supposedly no proof exists or that they haven’t seen any.
      You seem to have read back and agreed completely with the arguments used to justify the war in Iraq but this time in support of a war on science. Why would so many countries join the “Coalition of the Willing” if they had no proof that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction? Now the same argument gets recycled, and they need no proof to back their assertions that all laboratory science is a conspiracy. This looks like a Luddite argument or something violent and cruel out of the dark ages. Please provide some reference or scientific proof for your theory about the virus’s evident laboratory origins.
      The WSWS approach to the pandemic promises an end to the violence of the pandemic through an acceptance of the WHO’s authority. The WHO is an agency of the UN, the same UN that approved the science behind the Iraq War claims about WMDs. Why do you suddenly trust their science above the science of Hong Kong University Virologist Li-Meng Yan? The acceptance of the laboratory origins of the virus would protect the working class from future attacks perpetrated by the reaction, since it would advocate for a complete unraveling of terrorist networks to end the capitalist class’s rule by terror.
      The masks and lockdowns and vaccines have actually faced opposition such as yours the entire way. The resistance to vaccines will lead to more deaths, just as the resistance to lockdowns and masks and to research into the real origins of the virus. All resistance to scientific positions on principle, as if science were the real enemy, must accept an absolute rejection from Marxism, but you would rather defend this “resistance” than confront it as part of a revolutionary movement. Your acceptance of the anti-mask, anti-lockdown, and anti-origin-research “resistance” should lead you towards a thorough introspection. You can gain a light for that introspection from my website’s articles on the Yan Report.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      1. 

         TJM

         December 12, 2020 at 5:32 pm

         For the record I an FOR masks, vaccinations and lockdowns without equivocation… I think you misread that part

         LikeLike

         Reply
         1. 

            TJM

            December 12, 2020 at 5:33 pm

            *am

            LikeLike

            Reply
         2. 

            randomposter33

            December 12, 2020 at 6:14 pm

            Then you should also support research into the origins of the virus and allow for a scientific discussion if this seems contraversial. Genetic engineering has made many advances, allowing laboratories to manipulate the genetic structure of viruses in order to produce certain effects within the hosts or to take a virus that does not infect through a human-to-human mechanism and manipulate it into a contagious disease. Since this technology exists and the reports on successful manipulation and production of viruses exists, then you cannot rule out the possibility of a laboratory origin for the virus. This means you must hear the evidence without slandering it as a conspiracy theory. To call this position “unscientific” appears no different from a Stalinist tyrannical argument to suppress information and discussion. That’s why I included a description of the conflict over science between early Soviet scientist and geneticist Vavilov and his Stalinist rival Lysenko in this review of the pseudo-science that’s used to combat the Yan Report:

            https://randomposter33.wordpress.com/2020/09/29/a-hoax-of-a-peer-review-of-li-meng-yans-scientific-report-by-johns-hopkins-university-staff/

            LikeLike

            Reply
         3. 

            randomposter33

            December 12, 2020 at 6:49 pm

            Also, if you are for masks, vaccinations, and lockdowns, you should also ask, “why are these safety measures facing opposition?” The idea that the far right and the oligarchy want to defend democratic rights has no validity or rationality. The only explanation is that the counter-revolution’s virus weapon needs public gatherings without safety measures in order to make its way into enough hosts. The vaccinations will prevent a large part of the infection, but as long as certain parts of the population can still contract the virus, they can act as vectors to hit vulnerable sections of the population or threaten mass gatherings.

            LikeLike

            Reply