crazy4lsu

Lol. No you unbelievable moron.

quote:

---

Then answer it.

---

Well we can only have potential answers which we can be whittled down through experiments to give us a rough framework. From a purely physiological point of view, consciousness allows us to make predictions about the environment and the things inside it, hence why that consciousness seems innate and is difficult to replicate. Our anatomical relationship with that environment also informs that consciousness. If you didn't have opposable thumbs, your motor skills would be different and thus the relationship you would have to an environment. The reason why I invoke environment here is that it is a robust method for selection by itself. Hence why things that are highly protective to an individual's or species survival give the appearance of being 'hard-coded' and are among the most difficult things to reproduce in something like a robot, for example.

Your answer uses absolutely no logic and actually retreats quite a bit. The absence of a definitive answer is not an argument for a higher being. Even where there are definitive answers, like in evolution, I don't suspect you would either know what they are or believe them if you did.

quote:

---

Then how do lifeforms exist?

---

How do you have consciousness?

quote:

---

If someone said "X demographic is statistically dumber than the rest of the population", ranted on about that for a while in some offensive way, then in the next paragraph started talking about how we need to increase funding for education for that group, per your logic we would just ignore the first part because it was all for the purpose of saying they needed more education funding.

---

The difference is that in this case, the rhetoric and logic follow one another. He is not speaking in a vacuum. He is speaking in a context in which the Russians have repeatedly used remote historical justifications to actual kinetic action. The structure you described is a fallacious argument in of itself. Words mean things, sentences mean things, paragraphs mean things, etc. We can judge the soundness and validity of an argument independently and then together to determine the rhetorical strategy. I can reject the soundness and validity of the first premise, which would negate the need to discuss the conclusions dependent on the first premise. Again, pairing this rhetoric together, as in, something benign with something sinister, is a well-known rhetorical strategy.

quote:

---

We actually can look at parts of what someone says and say "that part wasn't really necessary (or "cringe") but I agree with what he was trying to say".

---

Sure, but let's not try to retcon things.

quote:

---

So because he addresses it I must personally believe that it was worth doing? He might be your supreme leader, but he isn't mine.

---

I am just talking about the language he uses. It is right there in the text. I'll answer for you. He is doing it because he is attempting to call out what he describes as a 'delay tactic.' We don't have to invent some new context here, it is in the text itself. This is basic rhetoric.

quote:

---

Like I said earlier, some of you get insanely butthurt if every comment isnt chortling Z's balls

---

Again, I dislike dishonesty and discussions taken in bad-faith. You were being duplicitous in your characterization, as I described earlier.

Because the whole quote is about something else entirely. Language isn't a buffet where you can remove context from what is an argument in order to make a comparison that suits your personal interest, i.e., to support some vague claims about Zelensky being disconnected from the people he represents (a claim you've made rather recently more broadly about Ukrainian decision-makers).

Again, what is the entire paragraph about? Zelensky is explicit about what he says.

It is dishonest because you are both not characterizing it accurately and are purposefully removing context to justify the nonsensical notion that it is 'cringe.'

quote:

---

LOL.

No, it's actually the (obvious) most likely conclusion of what science has shown in three areas of science over the past 110ish years:

1. The origin of the universe
2. The origin of life
3. DNA

---

Absolutely not. But this is coming from a guy referencing Hoyle in 2026. Can you give me an overview of the evidence, without using AI, on DNA evidence for intelligent design? Be specific if you could.

quote:

---

Actual numbers helps ground the conversation. Resistance seems to act more like an ecosystem signal than a simple policy outcome. OTC access is just one factor - prescribing culture, hospital practices, climate/agriculture, diagnostics, etc. all interact. So Colombia may not “prove” a single cause (in case people are worried that you're cherrypicking), but it does show what can happen when selective pressure accumulates

---

The fundamental issues is that all antibiotics cannot treat all pathogens. Given that, the need for stewardship is much higher until we actually have more drugs that are effective. I mean, in Colombia, they have a 1% resistance rate for Carbapenems, out of nearly 500,000 isolated samples during a single year, which indicates the real cost of lax antibiotic stewardship, which is using what is considered a last-line medication so much that they even have that many samples to begin with as well as the fact they have any resistance at all.

There are plenty of issues with OTC antibiotic use which the public will never see nor understand. But a cursory peak at the data suggests that there is no real argument for increasing access to those medications in particular.

The real issue is that the effects of antibiotics are more direct in a 'cause and effect' sense. But what about drugs that cause AKI's? Or any of the sundry effects which can be cumulative? What about drugs that cumulatively would increase the risk of Torsades de Pointes or Stevens-Johnson or Serotonin Syndrome?

quote:

---

Probably the useful question is what do the actual trends look like in places with OTC access?

---

It does not look great in Colombia, where I know many antibiotics (among other drugs) are sold over the counter. The resistance rate for the first-line medications for E. coli, fluoroquinolones and TMP/SMX, appear to have resistance rates above 30% in all the tested specimens. Aminopenicillins, like amoxicillin and ampicillin, have resistance rates above 60%.

This is idiotic. You guys literally believe anything.