Why don’t you get together with yourself and hash out what you think. Get back to us in the morning.
They don’t seem to do shit for you…Not following this line of argument homes. Can you elaborate? You might have to write more than 4 or 5 words at a time though. Complete sentences help too.
Point out how you think I'm consistently missing "The point" (What is the point?), or which posts. ...I don't care whether they're your views or views you heard in a workshop — they represent a position that should be subject to critique like any other. I think it's disingenuous not to acknowledge that definitions of words are important and relevant. Maybe you meant that I'm attributing too much significance to a specific word and definition, distracting from your main argument. Fine. But then explain why you think so, not just call it pedantic. And as I recall, you ended up waving away my arguments about the LGBT school issue by charging that I didn't have a stake in the matter, and also continually refused to acknowledge the impact on others the policies you seem to support might have. My impression was that you actually understood what I was saying, but concluded "So what, this is more important." That's fine too, but if it's true, just say so, and I won't call you disingenuous.
My view is that while people may vary in how much significance they attribute to it, there is a difference between intent and first use. If there was intent to create a horse medicine, it further bolsters the case that it could be conceivable called a horse medicine. If they were looking for a general deworming agent, and happened to first use it in horses, and later in people, that’s a different matter. Especially given how important and effective the compound became for treating various diseases in humans. In fact, since it does have wide ranging application, it furthers my case that it shouldnt be dismissed as a horse medicine. But okay, fine, we disagree.
I can’t tell you how much I disagree. I don’t think anything is wrong with it. It’s their life, their choice. Maybe they were born that way, maybe they just want to. Maybe they want to be gay or trans for a while and then switch back. I don’t honestly care. What I care about is compelled speech, parent’s rights and freedom of conscience for other students or teachers who might not believe it’s all great and dandy. And privacy and fairness in sports among other things. You see, the problem with these people is that they expect everyone else to go along, “respect” and support their personal lives and decisions. No one in school should be harassed or bullied, and that should be the end of it.
It was being demonized and pharmacists were not filling scripts. I don't blame anyone for finding other sources, and the potential QC issues might be worth the risk in a life and death scenario. It's hardly rocket science to find out the correct dose and self administer. Ultimately, it's "Their body their choice," right?
Not me. I could care less. It's for the many girls and women who have said they feel uncomfortable and in response told to get over their bigotry.
This is find and I respect it. But my point is that you have to also respect the people that disagree and aren't willing to, for whatever reasons they may have. You can't just decide their personal reasons are unworthy. If you want to make a policy or mandate about it, there should be a public debate, democratic vote, etc.
I haven't looked into it. But if I wanted ivermectin and couldn't find it elsewhere, I'd look at the farm supply's version, see if it had added ingredients and calculate the appropriate dosage. Doesn't seem that hard. I'm not arguing that there aren't potential unforeseen dangers, I'm just saying that I think it's an individual's job to assess the risk/reward. People should not have been put in this position in the first place.
Well I all I said was that it’s potentially dangerous for a human to self medicate for a virus with a medication specified for horse parasites, yet here we are still talking about it, so yea you kinda are arguing it.
I don't believe that was how you phrased it. I wouldn't object to that statement. I try to be sensitive to the nuances conveyed in words and phrasing because I believe that precise communication is important in resolving disputes and also because language can be weaponized to covertly push an agenda.
I phrased it almost identically
Here's what you wrote:
I can't comment on how dangerous it actually is, but acknowledge the dose for a horse could be toxic when taken by a human. But have you ever addressed that it was wrong to dissuade people from using in the treatment of COVID by way of military-grade propaganda, threatening docs or refusing to fill scripts? If you haven't, it's difficult to take your solely highlighting it's potential dangers as genuine. Combine that with the "Intention" spat and I become suspicious that you aren't simply trying to further the agenda. But to your point when taken in isolation, fine: I agree that it could be dangerous to try this oneself and people should get a doctor's script if possible.
I now realize this is the root problem: either you are unaware or disagree that there was an intentional and systematic push to malign ivermectin as an unsafe and ineffective covid treatment. I don't have time to compile evidence of this right now, but I will follow up, starting with the fraudulent Lancet study.
In your hurry to avoid seeing or hearing any evil, I think you're missing my point: You couldn't understand why I would react to the tone or wording of your posts about ivermectin, which I concede, if taken in a vacuum, would not be that controversial. Would you acknowledge — theoretically of course — that if there was a concerted and illegitimate effort to get people not to use the drug, my reaction made more sense?
I totally understand why you reacted the way you did. It’s the way you react to everything lol.
