Source

I see Google’s deal with Reddit is going just great…

  • golden_zealot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    If it is considered harmful because people are referencing internet forum comments for treatments for disease then I do not consider myself responsible for the harm.

    If people can’t understand what anecdotal information is and it kills them, then it’s Darwinism.

    • flere-imsaho@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      it’s not darwinism, what you’re playing with is casual eugenics (you clearly don’t value life of certain – arbitrarily chosen – people, and are fine with them suffering harm); don’t. there’s nothing good waiting for you on that path.

        • self@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          this is you:

          I’ll usually debate people as well, but not those who resort to a logic fallacy as boring as ad hominem for lack of an argument. Seeya.

          we don’t need your debatebro ass here. though now that the flood of random posters is mostly over, we also don’t need more gravely unfunny lol monkeyspork random reddit posts either

        • flere-imsaho@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          i don’t understand the question – are you asking what makes arbitrary the rule “people who suffered harm because they followed an advice on the internet do not deserve to survive” ?

          • golden_zealot
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yes, given “Arbitrary” is defined as “existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will” per Merriam Webster after I stated my reasoning to be that if a person can’t make reasonable determinations about fact versus fiction or satire and it kills them, then it is Darwinism.

            Furthermore, you understand that Casual Eugenics and Darwinism are not mutually exclusive correct?

            What my thoughts and feelings on the matter are as referenced by your calling out of me partaking in casual eugenics, are wholly irrelevant to a different person failing to adapt to understanding the environment of the internet to survive when it comes to making reasonable health choices.