No, a bad faith argument would be using one study and a handful of doctors that aren’t specialists in the area that agrees with you versus the hundreds of studies and thousands of doctors that specialize in the area that don’t.
As it stands im the only one who has provided any peer reviewed papers to back my point. Said study alsi happens to be a meta review so it reviews all the other papers and assesses them.
I’m not arguing with you. Your opinion is just wrong and irrelevant. Not understanding a medical treatment and wanting it banned because it makes you uncomfortable makes you a small minded, bad person. I hope you take the time to either reevaluate your life or go away.
How was this banned for rule 1 and the comment i was replying to not. I called the guy a lier cos he said he didnt want an argumwnt while callibg me a small minded bad person. Can someone please explain how this not unequal application of rules.
They weren’t lying. You’re spreading misinformation that’s killing children, which is bad. And continually refuse to engage with anything other than your preconceived opinions when literally everyone is disagreeing with you, which is small-minded.
Also, I’ll point out, you’re playing the victim here. While perpetuating rhetoric that’s literally killing children. A bit DARVO, imo. Definitely not good faith arguments. Can’t blame anyone for not wanting to engage with you.
Removed by mod
Now thats a bad faith argument. I usually get banned for calling people an idiot or is that only cos my opinions are controversial?
No, a bad faith argument would be using one study and a handful of doctors that aren’t specialists in the area that agrees with you versus the hundreds of studies and thousands of doctors that specialize in the area that don’t.
His paper doesn’t even say what he wants it to say. It’s a super narrow finding that psychological care is still required along with blockers.
As it stands im the only one who has provided any peer reviewed papers to back my point. Said study alsi happens to be a meta review so it reviews all the other papers and assesses them.
Also, no, it looked at 9 specific studies, not “all” studies. It’s conclusions are basically “We need more studies.”
I looked at your study, but all it showed was that there were no statistically significant side effects for puberty blockers, so what’s the problem?
I’m not arguing with you. Your opinion is just wrong and irrelevant. Not understanding a medical treatment and wanting it banned because it makes you uncomfortable makes you a small minded, bad person. I hope you take the time to either reevaluate your life or go away.
Removed by mod
How was this banned for rule 1 and the comment i was replying to not. I called the guy a lier cos he said he didnt want an argumwnt while callibg me a small minded bad person. Can someone please explain how this not unequal application of rules.
They weren’t lying. You’re spreading misinformation that’s killing children, which is bad. And continually refuse to engage with anything other than your preconceived opinions when literally everyone is disagreeing with you, which is small-minded.
Also, I’ll point out, you’re playing the victim here. While perpetuating rhetoric that’s literally killing children. A bit DARVO, imo. Definitely not good faith arguments. Can’t blame anyone for not wanting to engage with you.