A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who are you arguing against? I've never said that uncaused events imply free will, or that something can be both caused and uncaused.

What I have gathered is that uncaused events = causal causal free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The definition of determinism that Lessans proposes is true in both actual circumstances and all possible coutnerfactual circumstances, so it is a necessary truth...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which is what renders it a tautology of no relevance to free will or the accepted definition of determinism. It fails to rule out any form of free will worth having (as it doesn't rule out any form of free will which is even coherently possible). What are not necessary truths are the conclusions he invalidly infers from his tautologous premise.

It rules out free will entirely, but it doesn't rule out our ability to choose (which is what is defined by the standard definition as having freedom of the will). Don't you see the confusion with definition? Definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality if they are inaccurate. Lessans' definition is accurate. This is not a tautology, therefore he validly infers that determinism IS a necessary truth. There are no contingencies because it rules out every form of free will. Tom Clark explains the confusion between the freedom to choose in everyday life and actual freedom of the will which is non-existent. It's a four part series.

ReasonFest '11: Tom Clark - Implications of...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm glad I did not take the drug that was prescribed. Later I found out that it can cause liver failure and it was on one of those television ads where it said that if you were hurt by this drug to call the law office mentioned for representation. There are many suspect drugs on the market where they don't yet know the long term side effects whether it is cancer or some other unfortunate side effect. Fosomax is now implicated for causing necrosis of the jaw and demur fractures; the very thing it was meant to help. Here's another one right off the press:

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/03...betes-drug.pdf

Every medication has the potential to cause liver failure, because medications are toxic to the body and the liver must then remove the toxic residue from the blood, and if the liver has too much to do it can fail. With every prescription there is a risk but the benefits of cureing or controling the disease usually outweigh the risk of side effects of that medication. I take 8 pills each evening, but I would prefer to take none at all, one of my questions was how were these meds. going to effect my kidney? And it turns out that one or more actually help liver function, so the effect is minimal.

Still in general terms what was the condition that the drugs were prescribed for, since you brought it up?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This thread remains captivating because, in addition to the rubbernecking-at-the-scene-of-an-accident aspect of watching with bulging eyes and dropping jaws the relentless idiocy that peacegirl posts, idiocy that it is indeed difficult to tear one's eye from, the thread really has spawned a lot of interesting scientific and philosophical content, just none of it from peacegirl or Lessans, alas!

Take the following three propositions:

It is true that determinism reigns supreme, and that there is no free will and that there are no uncaused causes anywhere in the universe.

It is true that there are no talking donkeys anywhere in the universe.

It is true that there are no four-sided triangles anywhere in the universe.

Which of these statements IS true, and, if true, are necessarily true or merely contingently true?

He's not talking to me so will someone else answer this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Every medication has the potential to cause liver failure, because medications are toxic to the body and the liver must then remove the toxic residue from the blood, and if the liver has too much to do it can fail. With every prescription there is a risk but the benefits of cureing or controling the disease usually outweigh the risk of side effects of that medication. I take 8 pills each evening, but I would prefer to take none at all, one of my questions was how were these meds. going to effect my kidney? And it turns out that one or more actually help liver function, so the effect is minimal.

Still in general terms what was the condition that the drugs were prescribed for, since you brought it up?

It was for muscle pain. I forget the name. I'm so glad I didn't take it. You always have to weigh the benefits versus the risks. I just happen to lean toward finding the deeper cause of an ailment, if possible, than just alleviating the symptoms by taking a drug, which does not cure for the most part. I know that antibiotics have saved lives, but we as a culture believe a pill is a cureall for just about everything. That is changing slowly now that the internet is offering new ways of looking at health.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm glad I did not take the drug that was prescribed. Later I found out that it can cause liver failure and it was on one of those television ads where it said that if you were hurt by this drug to call the law office mentioned for representation.

So your actions were based on the information from a TV ad produced by a group of 'Ambulance Chasing Lawyers' rather than the medical professional that you presumably consulted for some medical condition. Did you also lie to this Doctor about your condition like your grandmother did? Or did you have a real issue that is now going untreated? In general terms, what was thet issue? Did it relate to your preception of reality?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was for muscle pain. I forget the name. I'm so glad I didn't take it. You always have to weigh the benefits versus the risks. I just happen to lean toward finding the deeper cause of an ailment, if possible, than just alleviating the symptoms by taking a drug, which does not cure for the most part. I know that antibiotics have saved lives, but we as a culture believe a pill is a cureall for just about everything. That is changing slowly now that the internet is offering new ways of looking at health.

Pain is usually caused by something and sometimes releiving the pain can allow the body to heal the problem, because pain can cause tension that agrivates the problem, causing more pain.

On the internet anyone can post anything, the ultimate outlet for snake-oil salesmen. There are no internet police, even there are some who are trying to present accurate information to counter the false claims. the internet is not like a forum where a moderator can ban or delete for violation of some rule. It's a free-for-all of misinformation and only education will save you from falling for a false ad.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Both links worked for me.

The link IN the .pdf, the very first line of that paper is to http://www.actos-bladdercancer.com/

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Posting a definition isn't understanding, but it's necessary to have a clear basis for communication which can only come about if you post a definition that both parties agree upon.

LOL I agree, but then you turn around and again parrot that definitions mean nothing if they are "inaccurate" (inaccurate according to whom?)...so you are being inconsistent

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From 2010 This guy summed it up to you nicely

It makes a huge difference LadyShea if the choice I must make can only be the choice that would never desire hurting others. You're missing the entire point of this discovery, and why we are compelled, under certain conditions, to choose not to strike a first blow as the best possible choice. If will was free, we would be able to hurt others in spite of the new conditions that prevail, but it's impossible, which proves conclusively that man's will is not free.

I didn't say that, JoeFromChicago did, on another forum, 2 years ago.

However since you have not and cannot demonstrate the impossibility of hurting others in the new conditions, because the new conditions have never existed let alone prevailed, there can't be any conclusive proof of your statement.

The bolded sentence is an unsupported assertion.

Um, what does that even mean in the context of the paragraph you are responding to?

Bolded=assertion

You don't even understand what Joe was saying well enough to refute it.

That being said, even if some form/version/concept of determinism could be proved true (it cannot be proven true), there's no basis for accepting that the reasoning Lessans gave, regarding his greater satisfaction principle, is accurate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was for muscle pain. I forget the name. I'm so glad I didn't take it. You always have to weigh the benefits versus the risks. I just happen to lean toward finding the deeper cause of an ailment, if possible, than just alleviating the symptoms by taking a drug, which does not cure for the most part. I know that antibiotics have saved lives, but we as a culture believe a pill is a cureall for just about everything. That is changing slowly now that the internet is offering new ways of looking at health.

So you lied about the drug you were prescribed being later shown to cause cancer?

Was it, by chance, Vioxx?

FYI, many of us carefully research medications and treatments before using them or accepting prescriptions. AltMed is not the only alternative to mindless pill popping

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I have gathered is that uncaused events = causal causal free will.

Who's asking for what you've gathered? What is "causal causal free will"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It rules out free will entirely, but it doesn't rule out our ability to choose (which is what is defined by the standard definition as having freedom of the will).

Do you ever read what you write? How can you have ruled out free will entirely if it doesn't rule out free will as defined by the standard definition? You don't rule out the existence of sheep by redefining 'sheep' as meaning 'purple elephant'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Definitions mean nothing when it comes to reality if they are inaccurate. Lessans' definition is accurate.

The only measure for the 'accuracy' of definitions is common usage. Definitions are not true or false, but can only be common or uncommon, useful or not useful.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a tautology, therefore he validly infers that determinism IS a necessary truth. There are no contingencies because it rules out every form of free will.

Why do you persist in trying to use words you don't understand? If his personal redefinition of the thesis of determinism is true across all possible counterfactual circumstances as you say, then this means it is a tautology. It therefore has no bearing on the traditional dispute of determinism vs. free will, and nothing of interest can be validly inferred from it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

It's not a rule where there are external consequences Vivisectus. If you choose not to follow it, that's your decision. You're fighting a losing battle because I'm not trying to convince you to yield to another if you think you're right about demanding that others do for you even when they don't want to. You don't get it at all!

Consequences or not - it remains an ethical rule that you propose, but that obviously makes no sense and leads to results that you yourself would consider unethical. The rest of your argument is just childish name-calling, so I will ignore it.

Your wife has the right to ask you to aid her in helping to cook dinner, but she would never demand that you stay home if you desired to do something else. The irony is that she would only want you to stay home if it gave you pleasure. Because of this non-judgmental rule, everything takes an about face, and people are more concerned for the other's happiness than their own. But you don't get it at all.

Actually, asking for favours is condemned in the book in one place. Asking someone to make a detour to get you something on the way home is something a wife would never do in the new world, apparently. This seems to contradict what you are saying now.

On top of that, it is easy to imagine a situation where she would be justified in demanding me to stay home and help her cook dinner. As I said, whether it is morally ok for a person to leave and pursue personal pleasure does not depend on the number of people involved, it depends on the situation.

It's the most ethical and fair means of finding a solution when there is a conflict. It can actually save marriages.

But we have just seen that this is not in fact the case. In fact, we have seen that it would only work if people would simply no longer want to do any unethical thing at all, but we are discussing here a rule that is to be used in determining what is ethical and what is not! Again, Lessans leads you in circles.

You are the one going in circles just so you can claim that you are right. This rule does not have to be followed to ensure ethical behavior. This rule is to be followed because it prevents arguments, and it only is followed if someone wants to follow it. There is no one that is going to tell you what to do. You are so confused, it's no wonder you don't believe Lessans has anything worthwhile to offer the world; you understanding nothing. It's really sad that a simple formula has taken on such huge proportions in your eyes, because you want Lessans to be wrong, but he's not wrong. That's the bottom line.

If the rule is not required to ensure ethical behaviour, then why have one at all? People would make the right choice anyway. And if the rule IS required to avoid arguments, then it is an ethical rule: it is there to make sure people make a just decision.

Your answer: it is and is not an ethical rule, it is no big deal anyway, why do you go on about it? Why, simply because like everything else you seem unable to defend it, and yet are unwilling to admit there may be something wrong with it.

[Vivisectus]

Ah I see we are back to that old chestnut: you say that in an environment where there is no blame, it is impossible to do a harm to another that is not a retaliation.

To which the rest of the world says: prove it! Or at least give us a compelling reason to believe this is the case. The book does not have one, apart from your fathers say-so, which you claim is "an astute observation".

Supposedly this "astute observation" required the observation of hundreds of thousands of measurable facts, on which lessans based his hypothesis, a hypothesis that matched the known facts so closely it became plausible.

However, none of these facts are recorded. We cannot check his methods, we cannot even check that he observed any facts at all. We are required to accept all this on faith, based on his claims of being so smart and well-read.

Now if we point to known facts in the present day that contradict your father, you say "That is because we do not live in such an environment". But then again, neither did your father. So we know that whatever he observed, he was unable to observe the kind of environment he described. So he too only had examples of the current environment... and yet we are not allowed to use such examples if they seem to contradict him!

Sometimes you seem to suggest that an "Astute Observation" is not so much the observation of individual facts, but a direct observation of the entire hypothesis in action. Like actually observing gravity, in stead of seeing an apple fall to the ground. You seem to imbue your father with mystical powers on these occasions, and present him as a figure that resembles a religious prophet more than a scientist.

But in the end, you remain unable to provide any reason to believe that he was correct when he claimed that people can do no intentional harm in a blame-free environment unless they are retaliating. All these claims to authority, to genius, even to mystical insights remain just that: claims.

Do you never wonder why such a brilliant student of the human mind seems to have forgotten to include any evidence for his case? He moves on after that part of the book acting like his case is perfectly proven, as if he has presented ironclad evidence. But for the life of me I cannot find it, and so far neither can you as you have been asked for it before, and never came up with it. Also, the prose becomes rather blurry. It is like he wants to gloss over that part a bit, and starts to talk fast because he himself feels a little uneasy about that part, but is not willing to admit it rather defeats his system.

Without a compelling reason to believe that his statements about conscience were correct, the entire rest of the book remains a cloud-castle without any foundation in reality: his entire utopia relies in making it impossible for anyone to want to do harm.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So your actions were based on the information from a TV ad produced by a group of 'Ambulance Chasing Lawyers' rather than the medical professional that you presumably consulted for some medical condition. Did you also lie to this Doctor about your condition like your grandmother did? Or did you have a real issue that is now going untreated? In general terms, what was thet issue? Did it relate to your preception of reality?

No doc, you're missing the entire point just like LadyShea. You are out to get me even if it's unjustified, and I am not going to take the bait.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But what we are discussing is an ethical rule: the man's desire gets right of way, so it is ok for him to go see a movie. Or go golfing in stead of attending the birth, or what have you.

It's not a rule where there are external consequences Vivisectus. If you choose not to follow it, that's your decision. You're fighting a losing battle because I'm not trying to convince you to yield to another if you think you're right about demanding that others do for you even when they don't want to. You don't get it at all!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Consequences or not - it remains an ethical rule that you propose, but that obviously makes no sense and leads to results that you yourself would consider unethical. The rest of your argument is just childish name-calling, so I will ignore it.

Name calling? You're an expert at name calling. Calling my father all kinds of names is so callous and hurtful, but you are exempt because you are part of freethought-forum. God help us!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're absolutely confused here. This is not an ethical debate at all. There are no SHOULD'S OR OUGHT'S. Do you not get this Vivisectus?

This is such an important point that I will not continue with this post as if it's nothing. I will continue when you thoroughly understand that this is not an ethical injunction. The rest of your post is null and void until you answer me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who's asking for what you've gathered? What is "causal causal free will"?

Do you ever read what you write? How can you have ruled out free will entirely if it doesn't rule out free will as defined by the standard definition? You don't rule out the existence of sheep by redefining 'sheep' as meaning 'purple elephant'.

The only measure for the 'accuracy' of definitions is common usage. Definitions are not true or false, but can only be common or uncommon, useful or not useful.

Why do you persist in trying to use words you don't understand? If his personal redefinition of the thesis of determinism is true across all possible counterfactual circumstances as you say, then this means it is a tautology. It therefore has no bearing on the traditional dispute of determinism vs. free will, and nothing of interest can be validly inferred from it.

You're so off the mark Spacemonkey that after the previous post, I need a break before I even begin. Sorry. I need to regroup.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Consequences or not - it remains an ethical rule that you propose, but that obviously makes no sense and leads to results that you yourself would consider unethical. The rest of your argument is just childish name-calling, so I will ignore it.

Name calling? You're an expert at name calling. Calling my father all kinds of names is so callous and hurtful, but you are exempt because you are part of freethought-forum. God help us!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...so your reaction is to say "No! You!"

You're absolutely confused here. This is not an ethical debate at all. There are no SHOULD'S OR OUGHT'S. Do you not get this Vivisectus?

Then there is no point to having it as a rule at all. If there is no reason to invent a rule that shows which desire SHOULD get right of way then why include it? And if there IS a reason to invent such a rule, then we clearly need a better one: this one leads to ludicrous outcomes.

This is such an important point that I will not continue with this post as if it's nothing. I will continue when you thoroughly understand that this is not an ethical injunction. The rest of your post is null and void until you answer me.

How convenient! But you seem to have forgotten to ask me a question. All I see is a demand for me to agree with you, but I do not see any argument why I should.

[Vivisectus]

So, to recap: the rule that decides which desire ought to get right of way is not an ethical rule despite the fact that it is used to determine which desire ought to get right of way, and so it is OK for the rule to lead to ludicrous outcomes, because those outcomes would never happen because the innate desire for people (under the new conditions) to behave in an ethical manner will prevent them from following the rule in any situation where the outcome of the non-ethical rule to determine which action one ought to chose would lead to an unethical outcome.

A fine example of the mental contortionism that is required to even pretend Lessans makes sense

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The link IN the .pdf, the very first line of that paper is to http://www.actos-bladdercancer.com/

So what? Who cares what kind of cancer. The point was well taken that drugs can cause cancer, and we really don't know the extent of the problem because many of these side effects don't come out until it's too late.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So, to recap: the rule that decides which desire ought to get right of way is not an ethical rule despite the fact that it is used to determine which desire ought to get right of way, and so it is OK for the rule to lead to ludicrous outcomes, because those outcomes would never happen because the innate desire for people (under the new conditions) to behave in an ethical manner will prevent them from following the rule in any situation where the outcome of the non-ethical rule to determine which action one ought to chose would lead to an unethical outcome.

A fine example of the mental contortionism that is required to even pretend Lessans makes sense

I refuse to engage with someone who doesn't even understand the first sentence of what I'm saying. THERE IS NO RULE VIVISECTUS, AND UNTIL YOU REALIZE THIS AND REALLY TRULY WANT TO LEARN, YOU'RE OFF LIMITS.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why do you keep saying this is a rule. This new world is not about rules. You are so lost I am unable to get through to you.

Again, this is no rule. You are FREE AS A BIRD to do whatever you want once you become a citizen. If you want to be a dictator, this is your chance.

There is no condemnation whatsoever. Ironically (and I will repeat) that once you become a citizen you are free to do whatever you want, and no one will say a word. So how can there be condemnation? You are more confused than anyone I have met.

Who ever said it depends on the number of people involved? That never entered into the conversation, so why are you bringing something up that has no relevance? I'm sorry but I can't even get to the second part of your question.

It's the most ethical and fair means of finding a solution when there is a conflict. It can actually save marriages.

Originally Posted by Vivisecus

But we have just seen that this is not in fact the case.

Where? What situation are you talking about? You're worse than Romney; no specifics whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In fact, we have seen that it would only work if people would simply no longer want to do any unethical thing at all, but we are discussing here a rule that is to be used in determining what is ethical and what is not! Again, Lessans leads you in circles.

Circles? There are no circles except in your own mix upped mind. No one is telling you what is ethical. That is the entire foundation of this book. There are no TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You admit this, but try to pretend that this would never happen because people would not be capable of doing unethical things... but we are discussing the rule that must be followed to ensure exactly that! Once again you are required to reason in circles to make Lessans seem to make sense.

You are the one going in circles just so you can claim that you are right. This rule does not have to be followed to ensure ethical behavior. This rule is to be followed because it prevents arguments, and it only is followed if someone wants to follow it. There is no one that is going to tell you what to do. You are so confused, it's no wonder you don't believe Lessans has anything worthwhile to offer the world; you understanding nothing. It's really sad that a simple formula has taken on such huge proportions in your eyes, because you want Lessans to be wrong, but he's not wrong. That's the bottom line.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If the rule is not required to ensure ethical behaviour, then why have one at all? People would make the right choice anyway. And if the rule IS required to avoid arguments, then it is an ethical rule: it is there to make sure people make a just decision.

Rules are meant to be broken. THAT'S WHY THERE ARE NO RULES. DO YOU NOT SEE A PROBLEM AS TO WHY YOU DON'T GET IT? YOU DID NOT READ THE BOOK VIVISECTUS, AND NOW YOU THINK YOU'RE AN AUTHORITY. IT'S A JOKE.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your answer: it is and is not an ethical rule, it is no big deal anyway, why do you go on about it? Why, simply because like everything else you seem unable to defend it, and yet are unwilling to admit there may be something wrong with it.

I mean exactly what I said. I am not inconsistent. I am defending the fact that in the new world you can do whatever you want, even if you tell others what to do and ask them all kinds of favors. Once you become a citizen, you are free to do this if this gives you greater satisfaction.

I can see that you are confusing a rule with a principle. There are no rules whatsoever, but there are principles of life such as "give, and you will receive." The same holds true here: If you expect people to sacrifice their desires for yours, you will have an unhappy relationship. But no one is telling you to give to others in love, and no one is telling you to be unselfish if you want to be selfish. You are entitled to do what you want, but just know that there are consequences, especially if you are counting a certain result.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what? Who cares what kind of cancer. The point was well taken that drugs can cause cancer, and we really don't know the extent of the problem because many of these side effects don't come out until it's too late.

1. You said you, personally, were prescribed a drug later found to cause cancer and pulled from the market.

2. When asked which drug you were referring to, you post not a medical study, but an attorney's paper for a diabetes drug with dead links.

I countered with the FDA page on Actos, to show you the difference between factual, authoritative sources of the information you seek, and whatever unsupported crap you find compelling.

Actos does seem to be associated with a increased risk for bladder cancer (doesn't mean it causes it, BTW), but it has not been pulled from the market in the US. The bladder cancer association has been added to the warning label so doctors and patients can make informed decisions.

So, were you prescribed Actos? I think not since you later said you were offered a drug for muscle pain. If not Actos, why did you bring it up when answering the question "What drug were you prescribed that was pulled from the market because it causes cancer"?

I am asking you to support your personal anecdote, but you are weaseling now. I think it's because you lied.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So your actions were based on the information from a TV ad produced by a group of 'Ambulance Chasing Lawyers' rather than the medical professional that you presumably consulted for some medical condition. Did you also lie to this Doctor about your condition like your grandmother did? Or did you have a real issue that is now going untreated? In general terms, what was thet issue? Did it relate to your preception of reality?

It didn't take long for you to start with your nonsense. Keep it up and you're on ignore. I would much rather ignore a doctor who prescribes me a drug that he knows little about except for what the pharmaceutical sales person tells him, and possibly ending up with liver problems, than to proceed with caution using own judgment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. You said you, personally, were prescribed a drug later found to cause cancer and pulled from the market.

I actually meant liver problems. I assumed when they said this it could be cancer. Regardless of whether it's cancer or necrosos, the point I was making was that my liver could have been damaged by a drug given approval to be sold by the FDA based on incomplete or faulty empirical tests.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. When asked which drug you were referring to, you post not a medical study, but an attorney's paper for a diabetes drug with dead links.

The links worked for me. I already told you that.

You said that very few drugs were taken off the market, in my lifetime, that were due to cancer. It was very easy to find a drug that was given FDA approval that is now being implicated in bladder cancer. I didn't need to give you the full paper. You can easily find it online.

•The FDA has announced that ACTOS may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I countered with the FDA page on Actos, to show you the difference between factual, authoritative sources of the information you seek, and whatever unsupported crap you find compelling.

It is a fact that avandia, used for diabetes, has caused serious concern because of potential side effects from bladder cancer to heart problems. I did not have to give you a full authoritative account to know that there is a growing concern over this drug.

Diabetes Drug Avandia Harms the Heart, Studies Find - NYTimes.com

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Actos does seem to be associated with a increased risk for bladder cancer (doesn't mean it causes it, BTW), but it has not been pulled from the market in the US. The bladder cancer association has been added to the warning label so doctors and patients can make informed decisions.

That's progress. If we don't know the risk, we will think it's perfectly safe. Some people are willing to take the risk, once they're aware of it because the benefits outweigh any dangers associated with it. That's a personal decision. What I don't like is that pharmaceutical companies not only do the studies on a particular drug that they are bound to make millions on (I call that a conflict of interest), but only when people have been hurt does it come out that they knew of these risks but kept it hush hush.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, were you prescribed Actos? I think not since you later said you were offered a drug for muscle pain. If not Actos, why did you bring it up when answering the question "What drug were you prescribed that was pulled from the market because it causes cancer"?

No, I was not given Actos. I was given something for muscle soreness. I told you that liver damage was the reported side effect (I'm not sure if it was due to cancer or just liver necrosis) and I only found out about this when I heard it on television. I appreciate that ad run by lawyers, or I might have been one of those people who were permanently damaged by this drug. It's like playing Russian Roulette. I don't know about you, but I don't want to take something that has the risk of liver death. That's up to each individual. I had just taken one or two pills, so I stopped immediately. You can find out the latest lawsuits on Drug Injury Watch

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking you to support your personal anecdote, but you are weaseling now. I think it's because you lied.

You're ridiculous LadyShea. You focus on the minutiae and miss the point.

[LadyShea]

You meant liver problems, you said cancer. Did you even remember which drug it was? Are you sure it was liver problems? If it was for pain, then I am thinking Vioxx, is that the drug? If so, it was pulled neither for cancer nor liver problems.

Your false statement is minutiae. Lessans false statements are minutiae.

And you then ask us to trust and believe you, when both you and Lessans repeatedly spout falsehoods.

You said that very few drugs were taken off the market, in my lifetime, that were due to cancer.

Yes, my statement was true. Very few drugs have been pulled from the market due to causing cancer. That's why I asked you which drug you were referring to, because it's very easy to either verify or refute that statement.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to engage with someone who doesn't even understand the first sentence of what I'm saying. THERE IS NO RULE VIVISECTUS, AND UNTIL YOU REALIZE THIS AND REALLY TRULY WANT TO LEARN, YOU'RE OFF LIMITS.

Then why have it in there as a "rule of the road" for relationships? It is even called "right of way!".

So what is it then? I understood it to be a way to determine which desire ought to get right of way. It is certainly presented as such in the book. The only problem is that it leads to ridiculous results.