[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

You know, it is possible that two things can be true at the same time. It is true that ivermectin is used as an anti-parasite in both humans and animals which I have acknowledged several times (is it too recursive to point out your repeated failure to acknowledge my acknowledgement?) It is also true that there were runs on the livestock versions, forcing retail channels for those products to put any inventory that actually remained under lock and key. Despite the fact that opinions of people who know what they are talking about (doctors and virologists) were overwhelming against the idea, at a minimum until there was at least some definitive proof derived through careful scientific study.



Sure. Just a caricature. Totally.

Since your preferred mode of arguing is to focus on the premise rather than the conclusion, then setting up a strawman which you deftly knock down, I will say this: Yes, one of the articles calls it horse medicine. The point here (read this closely) is that right wing media personalities with wide audiences were pushing ivermectin as a cure for COVID. And a large number of people acted on that, contrary to the best available scientific evidence and medical advice. If calling stupid people stupid offends you, what would an above-it-all, latter day Cicero such as yourself (note: this is also hyperbole) call them? This isn't the Roman Senate or even the Macneil-Lehrer NewsHour. This is a chat board for people who collect pictures of athletes printed on cardboard. We're supposed to be having fun here.

If I thought you were actually engaging in good faith, I'd tell you about my farrier (that is a person who trims hooves and shoes horses) who is the living embodiment of most of the stereotypes that offend you so. I see you using the same logical fallacies that you used over in the book banning thread. So, we are definitely in "shame on me" territory here. So, taking the advice I was given but ignored, the last word is yours.

Yes. A conclusion should be drawn from reasoned and true premises. This is exactly why we will never find common ground. I think conclusions should be rooted in premises, and you reject the root concept that form the logical method. I will, for the second time, leave the personal insults to you to make. We all have our ways of thinking.