3 ms·
You were talking about your personal experience, were you not? How can I avoid Ad Hominem when we are literally talking about you? I definitely could have phras
by jazzypants 5mo ago
You were talking about your personal experience, were you not? How can I avoid Ad Hominem when we are literally talking about you? I definitely could have phrased my question better, but I genuinely don't understand why you think that a public forum run by a private company should be required to publish unverified "health practices" in the midst of a global pandemic.
I'm not going to pretend that the CDC did a good job during Covid, but it's very clear to me that a lot fewer people would have died if we had all followed their guidance more strictly. I generally err on the side of sparse moderation, but life and death scenarios are one of my main exceptions.
I'm sorry if I offended you. It seems like we disagree on the fundamental nature of science, and I don't think that it's likely that we will overcome that disagreement. So, it looks like this conversation is over. Have a good day!
- mannanj 5mo agoI think you should look at your tone, have a neutral party look at the assumptions, logical fallacies, and general bad faith you demonstrate. I can't see how we can continue when I am assuming good faith, and you are assuming bad faith. Indeed in a hostile interaction which I don't desire, the conversation is over. Cheers!