In your extensive experience, how common are unlicensed biotech R&D facilities being run in secret? And I see no reason being capable of biotech R&D would preclude it from being capable of more malicious purposes. If anything, I'd assume a significant amount of overlap between the two capabilities.
wahming
joined 2 years ago
very similar visual content
Very similar to what? Your reddit experience is probably hugely different from mine.
I used the term Chinese to refer to ethnicity, not nationality.
Buddy, see my username? Yeah, that's a Chinese name. I of all people know exactly what the difference is between Chinese ethnicity and Chinese nationality.
With that said, the majority of Chinese business people have some connection or other to China, be it family, business, or otherwise. Combine that with the context here of mysterious purpose (but probably bioweapons), unknown funding source and complete lack of any commercial purpose, etc etc, and it's not a hard conclusion to draw.
Chinese listed owner. Chinese representative. Mysterious purpose with unknown source of funds. Not too hard to connect the dots.
Edit: Apparently people don't realise Chinese can refer to ethnicity as well as nationality. Yes, it would be ideal if we had different terms for the two.
Both the owner and representative of the company are Chinese, so why wouldn't she think that?
Also, how many other countries would be interested in maintaining a bioweapons facility in the US?
This is insane. Straight out of a spy novel. Foreign power maintaining bioweapons facility in the US.
That's fair. If that were the case here, or if she had made any such claim, I'd agree the title would then be fitting. However, since it's not mentioned, I'll point out that you're making assumptions based solely on the headline, and hence proving my point about the wording influencing people in specific ways.
I'm not discussing the morality of the punishment. I'll refer you to my other comment here:
https://kbin.social/m/news@lemmy.world/t/262280/Singapore-hangs-first-woman-in-19-years-after-she-was#entry-comment-1186793
My original comment contains details from the article, so I'm not sure why you think I haven't read it.
Why I find the headline objectionable:
- Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she's female, or how long is it's been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It's not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it's a device to invoke emotions.
- Choice of wording about the quantity. 'A year's supply' would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.
Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).
I don't see how it's cheaper to maintain an entire facility and staff just to take care of unwanted items, but I concede it's a possibility, bureaucracy and inertia being what it is.