New York City attempts to forcibly vaccinate orthodox Jews

submitted by [deleted] from nytimes.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Pharmaceutical companies benefiting is ok. Pharmaceutical companies excessively profiting more than the value they're providing isn't. They shouldn't be exploiting their monopoly to artificially drive prices up – or, if you're a more staunchly capitalist person, they shouldn't be exploiting their wealth to ensure their monopoly.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Pharmaceutical companies benefiting is ok.

We've had numerous exchanges, and I've never heard of anyone looking out for the interests of the pharmacudical companies like you do.

It's truly uncanny.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The entirety of my comment was criticising them, and every other sentence was doing so explicitly. In context, that first sentence was discussing a hypothetical.

Stop attacking me. Is that seriously the best you can do? Am I really making such good arguments that you can never argue against them?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Stop attacking me.

This is not an attack. This is a statement of a fact.

I have never encountered anyone who diligently supports the interests of the pharmaceuticals for their seemingly indefensible actions; as you do.

In the past, i have asked you to provide evidence of comments where you have taken positions that oppose the corporate economic interests.
You admitted to being unable to do so.
It's probably safe to assume that nothing has changed.

It's worth noting that rather than attempt to refute the fact that you are a dedicated supporter of big pharma, you instead chose the appeal to emotion fallacy; and are pretending to be a victim.

Is that seriously the best you can do? Am I really making such good arguments that you can never argue against them?

Your appeal to emotion argument (fallacy) suggests that you are the one that is unable to articulate a decent argument.

EDIT: Here comes the Wizzy forum slide. The topic of discussion has completely changed.

Note that no evidence is ever provided to counter the fact that all comments support corporate interests.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You admitted to being unable to do so.

You made an extremely specific request involving MSM and other terms I hadn't heard of. Which I obliged, by providing you with an example.

It's probably safe to assume that nothing has changed.

Have you even read my comment? I'll include everything but the first sentence here again, to make it easier:

Pharmaceutical companies excessively profiting more than the value they're providing isn't [ok]. They shouldn't be exploiting their monopoly to artificially drive prices up – or, if you're a more staunchly capitalist person, they shouldn't be exploiting their wealth to ensure their monopoly.

That is me taking a position that "oppose[s] the corporate economic interests" as you put it. Why are you attacking the characteristics of me, the writer, instead of my argument? I was literally agreeing with you.

It's worth noting that rather than attempt to refute the fact that you are a dedicated supporter of big pharma,

I didn't feel the need to repeat the comment you'd replied to. I have been unable to refute this in your eyes before, so I don't see how now will be any different.

you instead chose the appeal to emotion fallacy; and are pretending to be a victim.

It's not an appeal to emotion. I'm calling you out on your ad hominem and utter refusal to actually address my arguments. And even if I was invoking the appeal to emotion fallacy, that would not invalidate my claims; simply that an argument is fallacious doesn't make it false.

Is this seriously the best you can do? Why are you deliberately confusing things? If I'm wrong, why can't you argue against me, instead of completely ignoring my argument, linking to dozens of YouTube videos and calling me a shill for:

  • not watching over a day's worth of videos; and
  • not replying within a day.

This is not a fallacy. It is a question. Why are you not arguing properly?