So, I guess "not telling the truth" is not the moral equivalent of "telling a lie" as per @roscoe
Still, if the truth not told causes harm, that would at the very least be a violation of Fauci's Hippocratic Oath, no?
No one has accused Fauci of being responsible for the outbreak. That's an extrapolation you're making, I think. He is responsible for either covering up facts or for intentionally omitting facts or for giving incorrect "facts", all of which may have been material to the Executive branch administering a better response to the outbreak, and having done so either to his personal benefit and/or to the benefit of the government agencies he's a part of and/or to the benefit of big pharma and other big money interests. He is responsible for not acting for the benefit of the nation, its population and humanity as a whole, and particulary where he was a principal adviser to the President, and a physician to boot. One of the facts he tried to cover up, and what has Paul so hot, was the NIH's role in funding Chinese virology research and especially where gain of function is the object. That funding didn't cause the outbreak, and its association may only be incidental. The outbreak may have happened anyway, funding or no. Yet, attempting to cover it up is disingeous at the very best, and may be a case where an intentional omission is the equivalent of a falsehood, but certainly makes it look like Fauci thinks there's some linkage there he doesn't want to be associated with. As the administrator of the agency that provided the funding, he is responsible for the funding, per the "buck stops here" principle.
... There is no evidence that the NIH grant was given for 'gain of function' research. And there is no evidence that the subcontractor provided the money for such research. ...
Oh, come on, that's a silly accounting semantics dodge. If they knew China was conducting such research, they should never have appropriated the money, period, regardless of what it was specified to be used for, and regardless of any promises of what it was not to be used for. Money appropriated goes into a big pot and that money given just freed up other money to be used for the off-limits purposes. So I think it's a crucial question that needs to be honestly answered. If the answer is yes, then it was a serious error of good judgment. If the answer is yes but was subsequently denied, covered up or even just made light of as not having contributed in any way to the pandemic, then it was malfeasance to some degree or other. And that is "moral culpability" even if found not to be criminal.
But it gets worse than just appropriations: how about the Chinese virologists hosted at the Ft. Detrick bioweapons lab? From a country known for stealing intellectual property? And you expect them to go back to Wuhan and not conduct gain of function bioweapons research?
How stupid are these people heading up our government agencies anyway?
That was technically not a lie but involved some very fine semantic hair-splitting and anybody who has to resort to those sorts of tactics has lost my respect and my trust.The original question in this thread was about whether Fauci lied when he said the NIH did not fund the weaponizing of coronaviruses.
You can't possibly be serious about that..... a public servant who has given up, probably, millions of dollars of private-sector money to help the country.
You can't possibly be serious about that.
That was technically not a lie but involved some very fine semantic hair-splitting and anybody who has to resort to those sorts of tactics has lost my respect and my trust.
I think he is in the political spectrum because he is not competent enough to work in the private sector. I base my opinion on his constant wishy-washy statements during this mess. One day it was this will happen, a couple of days later it was the exact opposite. He isn't even a good politician.Read his bio. You think he couldn't make mid-7 figures a year at Merck? With his scientific knowledge, political and scientific connections, and prestige, I estimate he is making less than 10% of what he could in the private sector.
You don't have to estimate ... it's a matter of public record. His current salary for his position is some $434,000 a year, which is more than the President's salary of $400,000, BTW. The median salary for an outside director at a Fortune 500 company is about $250,000. Presuming he would be a desirable director of a big pharma company and/or other Fortune 100 companies, more than that. An individual such as him in the private sector could sit on possibly as many as four or five boards of non-competing companies. Making it altogether possible to have a post-retirement income of $1,000,000 a year or more, plus the likely stock or warrant bonuses on top of that, and this for working maybe 10 or 15 days a year for each director position....I estimate he is making less than 10% of what he could in the private sector.
You don't have to estimate ... it's a matter of public record. His current salary for his position is some $434,000 a year, which is more than the President's salary of $400,000.
Then the man isn't corrupt, just a patsy? Interesting defense.Honestly, I don't understand what you are referring to. You are 100% confident, and have the evidence to back it, that the Wuhan facility was engineering a weapon out of coronaviruses? And that Fauci was privileged to this top-secret intelligence? And that our funding was somehow involved, even indirectly, with whatever part of the lab was engineering weapons?
Because all of those things have to be true for Fauci to have lied.
Then the man isn't corrupt, just a patsy? Interesting defense.
You don't have to estimate ... it's a matter of public record. His current salary for his position is some $434,000 a year, which is more than the President's salary of $400,000, BTW. The median salary for an outside director at a Fortune 500 company is about $250,000. Presuming he would be a desirable director of a big pharma company and/or other Fortune 100 companies, more than that. An individual such as him in the private sector could sit on possibly as many as four or five boards of non-competing companies. Making it altogether possible to have a post-retirement income of $1,000,000 a year or more, plus the likely stock or warrant bonuses on top of that, and this for working maybe 10 or 15 days a year for each director position.
The priest always told me that just one lie made one a liar. I tend to believe his standards more than yours.No, because we don't know if any of the premises are true. The argument is of the form;
If a and b and c are (all) true
then d is true.
This is why the argument that Fauci is a liar is logically weak. It can fail at several places. And since we have no evidence that any of the premises are true, Rand Paul isn't getting much traction. Look over Paul's actual comments - you will see he is pretty tentative, even as Laura Ingraham is trying to draw him into big accusations. Paul is smart enough to know he is dancing on thin ice, even as he is trying to gin up outrage.
The priest always told me that just one lie made one a liar. I tend to believe his standards more than yours.
If you contradict yourself publicly for any reason other than having found additional relevant data then you are lying.
Those are the ethical standards that you imposed on Donald Trump, aren't they?
What we need to do is stay calm, anticipate that third parties will register and post seditious material to justify shutting this site down, and REPORT THEM IMMEDIATELY.
Again, I know it feels like the Republic is lost. It may be. But for now, on this site, please for the love of God stay calm, speak rationally, and hope for .... better judgement from our leaders in the future.
The coming days and weeks (likely after the 20th) will be easier, but for now we need to be on the best possible behavior. Please. :)