Post

Issues Test Bed wrote:

Ok, couple of things here.

The most glaring fact is that other than that cute little search Google page, you failed to post even one link supporting your statements. You posted lots of quotes, many quoting other sources. But the bottom line is that we still do not have a valid link to any of the actual data sources.

The links are freely available to you, if you choose to do the "homework". I suspect it's safer for you to do the contrary, so you wouldn't have to have your own beliefs questioned.

If you are questioning the validity of 2 Ivy League institutions, and 2 of the most well-respected newspapers in the world, then I can't help you. If you want to continue to make your own claims without any evidence to support them, there can be no discussion with you. Willfully ignoring the data that has been presented to you and refusing to accept facts contrary to your own bias breaks down the structure of debate, making it a futile gesture in making noise. If this is what you prefer, you're welcome to do so, but I'm not interested.

The entire concept behind newspapers is that their journalists and editors have already done the work for you. They risk their entire reputation on reporting the facts. A news source is only as valuable as their reputation. This is the key difference between someone like the New York Times and InfoWars. Only a fool would take Alex Jones seriously. He spews lie after lie, without any care for truth. When NBC canned Brian Williams, it wasn't just because they lied. The trust that they had established with their viewers was tarnished permanently. If long established institutions of information are no longer trustworthy sources of information, then we are truly lost as a society.

Why do you feel that free speech is a pass to harm the ignorant? If you are robbed by sleight of hand, is it your fault for being ignorant? What makes you believe that the drug companies aren't lying? It is an industry rife with corruption. Many pharma corporations have been continually caught in lies over the years, including downplaying the risks of addiction to pain-killers in the '90s. If a corporation meerly deceives you by omission, not making you fully aware of the risks of a certain drug, do you not think they are responsible? Why do you attempt to shut down further discussion on the topic? An appeal to the virtue of freedom is meaningless without substance. Free speech cannot be without limits, even the Constitution says that.