5 ms·

History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-lesson-history https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...

jacquesm 5y ago
Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.
- garmaine 5y ago
  Then google “fda aids drugs” and pick your favorite source. This is, at this point 30 years removed, a non-political historical issue with objective facts.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    No, there is simply many years of progressive insight. The FDA, like any institution isn't perfect, they got stuff wrong in the past, they'll get stuff wrong in the future. But overall they are a very large net positive, and to argue the opposite is usually accompanied by a mindset that would love a world without all those pesky rules and regulations.
- toolz 5y ago
  It really is disheartening to see such willful political bias. The article in question spends much of its time talking about the "ACT UP" movement, which was a movement headed by LGBQT political activists marching against the FDA, yet here you are brushing it off as if this is some partisan issue because it's an article written by someone with different political bias than yourself.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    You're quite literally hilarious. Before you accuse me of political bias maybe you should have a look to see who you're arguing with. The fact that the article has nicely picked a subject where they can score points off the FDA doesn't mean that all of the FDA, nor its mission of attempting to stop people from harming themselves is wrong per se, just that they got it wrong in that particular instance. To try to twist that into saying that drug regulation is a bad thing and that consenting adults should be able to put whatever they want into their bodies is precisely the kind of idiocy that the CATO institute is very good at. And just this once you're not going to get away with accusing the other side of your argument from having a political bias.
    - toolz 5y ago
      I don't think anyone was trying to do anything other than "score points off the FDA" - which is to say, you apparently agree the article is a good source for showing the FDA has had obvious failures in the past. > ...you should have a look to see who you're arguing with. Am I supposed to recognize you somehow? Either way, I don't really know how to react to this - is your blog or the companies you're affiliated with supposed to make you immune to political bias somehow? You'll have to forgive me as my initial impression was that you're trying to flex on the internet, but I feel like that's a very uncharitable interpretation on my part so I'll default to assuming that's the wrong interpretation.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Unlike you I'm not an anonymous coward.
    - garmaine 5y ago
      Whatever you may think of yourself, you have demonstrated severe political bias in this thread by outright dismissing articles without reading them based on the perceived politics of the hosting organization. FWIW I didn’t know or care the source of the article I shared. I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        > I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate. Ah, the good old 'argument by google search'. Yes, what could possibly go wrong with that. You are now arguing in bad faith, I hope you appreciate at least that much.
        garmaine 5y ago
        How am I arguing in bad faith? I’m deeply familiar with the actions of the FDA during the AIDS crisis, having studied it in college, read books, watched documentaries, etc. But I can’t convey that info through a HN comment, so I sought out an internet article which I first skimmed to make sure it got the facts straight before linking to. Did I violate some convention of discourse on HN in doing so?

jacquesm 5y ago

Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.

garmaine 5y ago
Then google “fda aids drugs” and pick your favorite source. This is, at this point 30 years removed, a non-political historical issue with objective facts.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  No, there is simply many years of progressive insight. The FDA, like any institution isn't perfect, they got stuff wrong in the past, they'll get stuff wrong in the future. But overall they are a very large net positive, and to argue the opposite is usually accompanied by a mindset that would love a world without all those pesky rules and regulations.
toolz 5y ago
It really is disheartening to see such willful political bias. The article in question spends much of its time talking about the "ACT UP" movement, which was a movement headed by LGBQT political activists marching against the FDA, yet here you are brushing it off as if this is some partisan issue because it's an article written by someone with different political bias than yourself.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  You're quite literally hilarious. Before you accuse me of political bias maybe you should have a look to see who you're arguing with. The fact that the article has nicely picked a subject where they can score points off the FDA doesn't mean that all of the FDA, nor its mission of attempting to stop people from harming themselves is wrong per se, just that they got it wrong in that particular instance. To try to twist that into saying that drug regulation is a bad thing and that consenting adults should be able to put whatever they want into their bodies is precisely the kind of idiocy that the CATO institute is very good at. And just this once you're not going to get away with accusing the other side of your argument from having a political bias.
  - toolz 5y ago
    I don't think anyone was trying to do anything other than "score points off the FDA" - which is to say, you apparently agree the article is a good source for showing the FDA has had obvious failures in the past. > ...you should have a look to see who you're arguing with. Am I supposed to recognize you somehow? Either way, I don't really know how to react to this - is your blog or the companies you're affiliated with supposed to make you immune to political bias somehow? You'll have to forgive me as my initial impression was that you're trying to flex on the internet, but I feel like that's a very uncharitable interpretation on my part so I'll default to assuming that's the wrong interpretation.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Unlike you I'm not an anonymous coward.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    Whatever you may think of yourself, you have demonstrated severe political bias in this thread by outright dismissing articles without reading them based on the perceived politics of the hosting organization. FWIW I didn’t know or care the source of the article I shared. I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > I just literally picked the first result in google that covered the history of ACT UP and the FDA, after skimming to make sure it seemed accurate. Ah, the good old 'argument by google search'. Yes, what could possibly go wrong with that. You are now arguing in bad faith, I hope you appreciate at least that much.
      - garmaine 5y ago
        How am I arguing in bad faith? I’m deeply familiar with the actions of the FDA during the AIDS crisis, having studied it in college, read books, watched documentaries, etc. But I can’t convey that info through a HN comment, so I sought out an internet article which I first skimmed to make sure it got the facts straight before linking to. Did I violate some convention of discourse on HN in doing so?