The ultimate shitposter in terms of attack and defense
One of us clearly cant read. Show me where in that article any one argued for or against “testing for everything” which is what you originally tried to argue against.
Listening to scientists about science may not be an appeal to authority but trying to imply that an argument is either valid or invalid based on whether or not the person who said it is a scientist sure as shit is.
One of us clearly didnt read the article as nowhere in the article is anyone arguing that we should test for everything(the thing you argued against). You dismissing the calls to test the water for these medications with “well we cant afford to test for everything” is absolutely a strawman because you are addressing an argument that isnt being made. Your statement about “non scientists” is an indirect appeal to authority that attempts to frame the topic as one that can only be broached by “scientists”. An appeal to authority logical fallacy is an informal logical fallacy where a claim is deemed true solely because an authority figure or expert asserts it, rather than providing sufficient evidence or reasoning. By dismissing the people who want the water supply tested for the abortion medications as “non-scientists” you are attempting to imply that the counter argument “we shouldn’t test the water” is true based solely on what some “scientists” are arguing. Furthermore, you didnt actually quote anyone in your argument, it was solely an indirect appeal to authority.
Im in no way under the impression that either side is sincere. Infact my argument is the exact opposite. My argument is that this is a deliberately designed dance between the so called “left” and “right” designed by the people who lobby both sides as a means of taking one topic and making it about another topic that benefits them.
As long as people are stuck arguing about which drugs we should be testing the water for an why then they can continue to ignore the actual problem: there are multiple substances in water supplies across the US that shouldnt be there.
No one is arguing we should test for absolutely everything but that was a nice strawman argument. Following it with an appeal to authority and assumption about what i have or havnt done is a nice touch too.
They are “weaponizing women’s Healthcare” specifically to get this kind of response from people like you and you’ve fell for it hook line and sinker.
What is a response exactly? Calls to do nothing?
You’re attempted gotcha retort of “should we test for viagra too” is a perfect example of exactly what they are trying to accomplish here.
Contaminated drinking water has been a major issue in the US for decades and by shifting the conversation to testing for abortion pills or testing for viagra they turn the conversation into a gender war and get to avoid addressing the actual issue.
None of these tests are mutually exclusive and they should all be being done to avoid the entire country becoming Flint Michigan.
We should be. None of these tests are mutually exclusive. They are just trying to weaponize the gendered nature of this discussion to try and avoid doing anything about it.
I dont see the problem. If we are so sure its not in the drinking water than we should run the tests.
Oh, kinda like when they say “our democracy”
What, you dont believe the Epstien class cares about our safety? What are you, some kinda conspiracy theorist?
So it doesn’t say that and you were creating a strawman, great. Thanks for playing. I see no point in reading the rest of that.