Masturbation and Hairloss, personal experience + 4 m results
- Thread starter stnl
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Aplunk1 said:
So Bubka is an endocrinologist?
G
Guest
Guest
bubka said:
I've read through many of your old posts, and you are a liar.
In addition, when Thalidomide was causing babies to be born with horrifying deformities, the company producing it had plenty of "studies" "proving" it was harmless, so enough of your nonsense.
It's been known for decades that pharmaceutical companies have fudged and massaged study results to obtain outcomes favorable to their goals of obtaining FDA approval.
With the amount of money being contributed to medical schools by pharmaceutical companies, and the amount of perks given by those companies to doctors, the corruption and lack of integrity of pharmaceutical companies and their hired guns is highly questionable.
G
Guest
Guest
bubka said:
Sure there is. That's been known for decades. Every so often a company or one of their contacts inside the FDA is caught fudging studies, massaging results, or fast-tracking the approval process, and then it hits the papers to the howls of righteous indignation from the usual suspects.
And then it keeps on happening.
Don't you ever read the newspapers or keep up on current events?
Hell, even I know these things, and I only scan the papers on occassion.
G
Guest
Guest
bubka said:
Red Herring.
A Red Herring is a logical fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
G
Guest
Guest
flimflam said:Trolls evade answering the big questions by focusing on irrelevant details in your posts. So keep them simple ..
Yes, keep it simple and cater to the lowest common denominator, because the trolls are not being restrained.
Maxpwr
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Jesus, Mary! This thread has just turned into a shitfight! I don't think any of us are going to agree so we may as well just shut down the thread. The more it's discussed without conclusion the more childish and immature the arguments get.
I don't like it - it's unnerving.
I think I need a violent wank.
I'll report back later. Hope I don't lose any extra hair between then and now.
I don't like it - it's unnerving.
I think I need a violent wank.
I'll report back later. Hope I don't lose any extra hair between then and now.
G
Guest
Guest
bubka said:
I didn't mean their intent was to put defective drugs on the market... their intent is to make money, but they have a record of fudging studies and hiding unfavorable results when it suits their needs.
The result is that defective drugs make it to market, but I don't think they are intentionally conspiring to hurt people... I think they are conspiring to make money at all costs.
G
Guest
Guest
Dogs3 said:
Ad hominem.
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author or of the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html
G
Guest
Guest
Dogs3 said:
Oh, you're just an irrational hater following the crowd. Ok.
Dogs3
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 1
Ok, lets recap.
Ad Hominem suggests that I might automatically discredit any argument you might make because of your character, argument against the man, not the subject, is that correct? But I never said I had a problem with what you were saying so you say I am following the crowd by attacking you for seemingly no reason, right?
That is a fair assumption, and I maintain that I never had that much of a problem with what you were saying, but rather, how you delivered your arguments. Your Ad Hominem lecture to me, which you probably spent 45 minutes researching and another 45 minutes writing is a perfect example of why i find you to be such an "annoying f*****g prick".
Thats all I meant, and I am sorry about the confusion, you annoying prick.
Ad Hominem suggests that I might automatically discredit any argument you might make because of your character, argument against the man, not the subject, is that correct? But I never said I had a problem with what you were saying so you say I am following the crowd by attacking you for seemingly no reason, right?
That is a fair assumption, and I maintain that I never had that much of a problem with what you were saying, but rather, how you delivered your arguments. Your Ad Hominem lecture to me, which you probably spent 45 minutes researching and another 45 minutes writing is a perfect example of why i find you to be such an "annoying f*****g prick".
Thats all I meant, and I am sorry about the confusion, you annoying prick.
G
Guest
Guest
Ok troll.