If she is repeating what the lawyer told her, how can you call it a baseless claim? Obviously, it was so "baseless" it resulted in a class action suit, huh, Einstein?
You try to put the onus of proof on her, then turn around and expect eveyone to believe you with NO proof, just a (because it's not true) blurb.
Do you not know what burden of proof is? I explained it very well in my post what burden of proof is, and why it's important. Seriously look at what I said, it makes total sense. I can make a completely baseless claim about invisible monkeys who use lasers to hypnotize people, and then tell people to prove me wrong. There is no proof that invisible monkeys use lasers to hypnotize people, because I just made that up. That's why I have to prove that there is something behind what I'm saying, otherwise people can just go around saying whatever they like without any consequences.
Oh, and want proof that "every mass murder over the past 10 years" hasn't been caused by SSRIs? Here you go:
Beslan school hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Akihabara massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not only that, in cases where SSRIs show up, it only shows correlation, NOT causation. Most people who commit these murders have severe mental problems, which SSRIs are usually used to treat. Because mass murders have been around for long, long before SSRIs were even invented, it's intellectually lazy to assume that they even contribute to people committing mass murders.
Here. I'll do something similar: "SSRIs prevent half of all potential mass murderers from committing mass murder." Now go prove me wrong. *HINT* Because you seem to have a problem with understanding my arguments, I don't actually believe this. It's an example of what I'm trying to say.
Also, the judge/jury who presides over the lawsuit will determine if that case has any merit. Not the lawyer filing the suit.
I know what I saw with my own eyes, and frankly, you're full of shit. The only remaining question is what dog you have in this fight.
The dog I have in this fight is preventing people from saying whatever they want to without backing it up. Way to totally ad-hominem this argument up. I'm going to ignore this blatant attack, and continue with making my points, because really, this is hilarious. I'm laughing at your inability to parse my arguments and I'm laughing at the fact that you have to take the low road in order to have a conversation with people.
And I love how you assume that I have an agenda here. I have this secret little plan to promote SSRIs because I work for the drug companies or something. I commend you for reading something into my argument that doesn't even exist, it's pretty impressive to project a strawman onto someone else as much as you have been. It makes it much easier to argue against Hitler than a normal person, which is probably why you've been trying so hard to make me into Hitler.
Basically, I'm asking you to behave yourself. The vitriol that you're spewing right now only makes people take your argument less seriously.
People successfully using SSRIs in NO WAY negate the people they've fucked up or killed. You're one of those narrow-minded fucks that has to have a body laying in front of you before anything clicks. It's too late then.
Taking heart medication and bloodthinners when you don't have the condition that they treat can kill you. Any type of improperly prescribed medication can kill you. In any case, I never said that I was pro-SSRI, or pro-anything other than saying that SSRIs are not the cause of every mass murder over the past 10 years.
Find me the part where I said that SSRIs are never mis-prescribed. Find me the part where I said that SSRIs don't have negative side effects. Find me those parts of my argument. Hey wait a second, is that my argument, or are you blatantly overreaching?
And again with the ad-hominems! You seem to be quite inexperienced with having a reasonable debate. Basically, the first and most important rule is to attack the point, not the point-maker. Rule two is to avoid strawman arguments. You've broken both rules in a single paragraph, and for that I'm slightly amused, and also slightly concerned. Don't worry, I'm sure that if you follow those two rules, you will get much better at this sort of thing! Try doing that in the next post, and I'll be very impressed
And dogging a woman you don't know out for whatever your reason when she's obviously been there and we STILL ain't heard shit from you but your opinion is just about as despicable and low as you can get. You kick puppies too, wormdirt, or what?
I said in the very first paragraph of this argument that I felt sorry for her loss, and I do. This has never, ever been about her loss, or what she is going through. I know how it feels to lose someone close to you, and it hurts. Very badly. What this has been about is saying things that are not true. What I took offense to was the mistruth. Do you get off on blatantly mischaracterizing other people's arguments? It seems that way.
To say that they are responsible for suicidal teens, and the dumbing down of our society in general is neither incorrect, nor irresponsible. You've spent several posts telling people "why not" without saying a damned thing else.
I haven't been saying a damn thing else because I'm not really for or against SSRI medication. I know, when properly prescribed, they can help people out, like two of my friends who were severely depressed. There is no doubt in my mind that SSRIs are over and mis-prescribed. Does that make anything that I have said untrue? No. Because that isn't my argument. You're reaching.
Our society as a whole is irresponsible with medicines, and has been as fr back as I can remember. No one wants to deal with anything. They want a pill to make it go away.
What does this have to do with anything that I've been saying? At all?
Now, I'm TELLING you, the pills turned my daughter into an idiot, then when she was coming off of the chemicals they made her suicidal. There is no "utopia pill." Screwing with the chemicals in your brain is stupid, and even moreso if the only problem is just not wanting to deal with being a human being equipped with emotions.
I think this is being unfair. You think that nobody on SSRIs have emotions? "Screwing with the chemicals in your brain is stupid"? So you don't think that people should take any type of medication that has to do with the brain? People shouldn't use medication that prevents the petuitary from putting too many or too little hormones into people's bodies? What about epilepsy medication? That has to do with chemicals in the brain. Should people be taken off of that medication?
You're boiling things down to the point of nonsense. Also, because things didn't work in your own experience, they never work? Is that how you think?
Medication has its applications and used strictly as a last resort for those applications it at least does what it's supposed to. These mood-enhancers they hand out like candy are NOT being used responsibly by either physcian or patient.
Ok. What does that have to do with the point you quoted?
The term "mass murder" is NOT out of place, nor is it misinformation when taken in context with the statement. Those medications represent the mass murder of the minds of our youth and people like you turning a blind eye to the shit only perpetuates it.
Mass murder is a term with a specific application. Look up what a mass murder is. Trying to make it into some nebulous "hearts and minds" argument is absurd. Like, if I called the cops and said that someone had murdered my mom, and when they came it turned out I just meant that they "murdered" her
figuratively in her
brain, what do you think they would say? They would probably call me an idiot.