| > What are you talking about? The LGBTQ community doesn't at all benefit from you spreading misinformation about HIV. You are using their marginalization to your unrelated rhetorical ends, because for whatever reason you have a gripe with the FDA. That's messed up. > My position is not that there have been no breakthroughs in the treatment of HIV at all. That's rather at odds with this statement you made: > It's a multibillion dollar industry and 0 progress in the treatment of AIDS for decades. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37057238 "At all" is a goalpost you've introduced, but the difference between "at all" and "for decades" is negligible at any rate. > When you don't have empirical evidence to support your fake claim that HIV causes aids then yeah, you need to go authoritarian. I think it's interesting that you say that, when you haven't responded to the specific and factual claims made by 'kstrauser (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37057357). 'kstrauser, I will readily admit, made the superior argument to mine, and responded more directly to your empirical claims. If the empirical evidence is on your side, I have a hard time understanding why you're talking to me and not them. > When your argument is built on BS you need to argue at the upper levels and never look at the foundation. It's been my experience that people with BS arguments are likely to gish gallop between incredibly narrow and specific claims, which are often true or half true, and broad sweeping generalizations. This gives the impression of supporting the generalizations, but when they're placed in the proper context it becomes clear they are massive leaps. |