i understand the spirit, but putting out harmful disinformation is not a good method to combat the large language model land grab we’re seeing right now.
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.
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.
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
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” ?
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.
i understand the spirit, but putting out harmful disinformation is not a good method to combat the large language model land grab we’re seeing right now.
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.
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.
What makes it arbitrary.
this is you:
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
…and i told that person that nothing good is waiting on that path.
Oh ok.
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” ?
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.