I am being real. Sometimes the side effects are bad. If they are, then don't take the drug. This isn't as complicated as you are making it. Like doctors might be paid off to push a drug, but if they're prescribing generics, then that's probably not the case. Just have to use common sense when listening to doctors . You can't take everything they say at face value, but that doesn't mean doctors are useless.
CompassRed
joined 2 years ago
Repeating the same claim again and again doesn't count as an argument. I do software engineering for a living. I have been paid for discovering security vulnerabilities. I know more about this than you do. I've been trying to explain it to you, but you won't listen and choose to be rude instead.
I personally didn't experience any, but I know others that have. I'm just trying to be responsible when advocating for people being open minded about mental health treatment. Would you rather that I lie and say there are no side effects?
I don't trust doctors either, but they do know more about medicine and health than most people on earth, so they can still be a useful resource.
It's different for everyone. You shouldn't be afraid to try pharmaceuticals, but also know they may not work and may have side effects. Personally, I found SSRI's to work for my depression and I know other people that they didn't help. Also, my prescription is $1 for a month supply, so not necessarily expensive either - it depends on the drug and where you live. You should talk to a doctor to be sure.
First, I can, but since you don't want me to, I won't. Second, it's not a strawman, it's your own analogy and it doesn't work because it's based on a false assumption. Using a found key to enter a house unauthorized is breaking in the same way that using a found password to enter an account unauthorized is hacking. The analogy works against your case, not for it.
Now stop distracting from the administration in the divided states of middle northern america protecting child rapists including their head of state.
This is the wildest accusation. I'm not the one deconstructing narratives around the emails to put my own spin on them. I'm the one using established terminology to properly understand the context of the story. You on the other hand, are claiming that Epstein's emails weren't hacked, which makes it conveniently easy to dismiss the story as spreading misinformation. I don't believe this is your intention, but you should be honest, if anyone is distracting from anything here, it's you. If that's not what you are doing, then it's not what I am doing either.
It sounds like you know you are wrong and just want to score a cheap point against me. I didn't say anything rude or mean to you and have given you absolutely no reason to accuse me of that. Just relax. We're all friends here.
The United States, Canada, France, Germany, Austria, New Zealand, Spain, South Africa, and probably many more.
Other countries might call it something else, like the UK calls it burglary, but it pretty much always falls under the same law as breaking into a house using more forceful means on entry.
Same as losing your house keys and having someone use them to enter your house is unauthorized entry and violation of a set of laws, but it is NOT breaking into a house.
It IS breaking into a house. The law you are violating in this scenario is called breaking and entering.
Yes, sorry. I suppose I could have been more precise from the get-go. That's what I get for using social media at work. I understand the desire to see the data broken down further, but at the same time, it does make sense to me to keep pet cats and feral cats lumped together in the context of analyzing bird deaths associated with humans. I think we're in complete agreement with that sorted out.
I'm not the one twisting language here.
Let's try not to take things personally here. I'm not twisting words, and I'm not claiming that you are either. I'm pretty confident the equivocation is an honest mistake.
We don't disagree on the definition of a domesticated species here. We don't disagree about whether cats are domesticated or not. The original comment by gmtom said, "graph would be better if feral cats were separated from pet cats. As the vast majority of predation comes from those feral cats." Note that the categories we are discussing here are feral cats and pet cats, not feral cats and domestic cats.
You respond by saying, "The reason they are the same group is that feral cats result from domestic cats, if there were not domestic cats, we would not have feral cats. They are not wild, native cats." The categories here have changed to feral cats and domestic cats when the original comment was about feral cats and pet cats.
You can conclude from this line of reasoning that separating the graph into the categories of feral cats and domesticated cats is inappropriate, but you cannot use this line of reasoning to conclude that it is inappropriate to separate the graph into the categories of feral cats and pet cats.
Using this argument to suggest that it is inappropriate to separate the graph into the categories of feral cats and pet cats is to equivocate two distinct usages of the term domestic. One usage means "a member of a domesticated species" and the other usage means "pet" or something like "non-feral domesticated." These are clearly distinct usages. In one case, the categories overlap, while they are mutually exclusive in the other.
Feel free to hit me with sources on this. If they aren't feral they are wild.
I've got another resource on domestication to.
We don't disagree on the facts here, so no number of sources could resolve this discussion one way or another.
That's not true. Cats domesticated themselves.
domesticated wild cats into pets
That's not what domestication means.
If your point is that all feral cats are members of a domesticated species, then you are correct only by definition. If your point is that all feral cats come from pet cats, then you are factually incorrect.
I think you are equivocating two distinct uses of the term domestic. A domestic cat is a cat that is also a pet, and a domestic species is a species that is suited to life with humans. All feral cats are domestic by the second definition but not the first. If you take the second definition, then you are correct but only trivially. If you take the first definition, then you are historically incorrect. Either way, I don't think you have a very strong point.
view more: next ›
I think it's more like 303/2800 chance.
There are 97 leap days every 400 years, then the calendar repeats. So you have 303/400 chance of not having a leap year, and in those years, you get a 1/7 chance of having this calendar. Thus 303/2800.