this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
15 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
19 readers
2 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Some people were actually buying the horse variant of it...
I'd like a verified source showing this was actually occurring at any sort of large scale. Assuming you have it, does that make it okay to suggest Ivermectin (the drug) is only for horses like the media did? Is lying okay when it's done to save lives? I'm just curious.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-treatments-evolving-threat/story?id=75946569
That story uses only anecdotal, non-scientifically recorded data. 50 - 60 calls a day simply to ask about it, and one or two cases of people actually using it. This same story claims people were drinking hand sanitizer, I guess we need to start lying about that as well.
Unless you are saying the president of Missouri's Poison Center is lying, then this is still substantive.
And more than what you have provided so far. Can't claim it is lie either without evidence.
They literally don't provide any data. It could be one call and they'd say they're "still responding."
Still substantive.
They don't even say the 50-60 calls they are getting are just for Ivermectin, just that they're related to COVID. Why do you think they worded it that way, to be misleading maybe?
You didn't read the article did you?
You're being extremely disrespectful. I did in fact read the article, but it's clearly a biased article with no actual measured data.
No you didn’t. It talks about it.
Making another claim about bias won’t help you. And still leaves the rest of what I said.
I'll not be discussing with you further. Why would I? You are literally just repeating that I didn't read the article, and have made no claims against what I said. I think we should censor YOU since I know I read it but you keep claiming I didn't, which could be classified as misinformation.
Then you are admitting you are wrong and aren’t acting in good faith. The literal next section of that article mentions it.
Just repeating yourself won’t make you right. And above all else, you haven’t proven anything today.
Firstly, you saying I'm admitting that I'm wrong is arguing in bad faith by definition, as I never said that. Quote the part of the article you're talking about specifically, and I'll refute that, that way I'll be forced to read it. Also, ciritizing me for repeating myself is ironic considering you keep repeating yourself.
Still not wrong