3 ms·
Yes the title didn't help, a good lesson. Less judgement in titles. You call my post bias and unoriginal, which you can do. But can you answer the core questio
by louwrentius 7y ago
Yes the title didn't help, a good lesson. Less judgement in titles.
You call my post bias and unoriginal, which you can do. But can you answer the core question I pose?
And please not with esoteric examples of availability of medicine for chronic diseases which to me raises the question: is that all you can come up with?
- klibertp 7y agoIt's not esoteric! It happens. I can't go into details, which should be understandable, but I've seen this happen. People I know and love were able to live freely in the last year of their lives; people I know and love are able to function mostly normally because of the drugs they buy illegally. What, please tell me, is esoteric in this? What exactly? > is that all you can come up with? No, but it's enough to falsify your claims. There are people who get tremendous value out of the 'depraved markets'. That's it. EDIT: typo.
- louwrentius 7y agoIt doesn't falsify it. It only shows one or a few examples where just a few people self-report any benefit. And getting medicine through the dark markets is shady as fuck. That kind of example doesn't seem to support the whole crytocurrency stuff with all it's downsides in any way. If that's all you can come up with, all the more reason to shut it down (hypothetically).
- klibertp 7y ago> people self-report any benefit And who other than the people is qualified to report whether people benefitted? > And getting medicine through the dark markets is shady as fuck. Are you a Christian? I'm amazed and ask seriously, because I can't imagine much of anything else that would make you spew this much of a nonsense with this much conviction. dang, yes, I know, this is the last post from me, sorry.