24 Feb 09
Originally posted by FMFsure but thats stretching it.
If antibiotics are fakes, they are "bad". And if you take too many of them, too often, "it" is bad, without "them" being bad, although your doctor might be somewhat "bad".
chocolate is bad also by your reasoning. and if antibiotics are fake they are no longer antibiotics so i dont see the use in your argument
24 Feb 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziChocolate isn't bad by my reasoning. Too many unnecessary antibiotics lead to superbugs that antibiotics cannot treat. So it's the usage - and the users - that is "bad" not the antibiotics themselves. Chocolate isn't bad. But it can be used "badly". Antibiotics that are fake are fake antibiotics. But they are still 'fake drugs'. And even if they can very occasionally cure some people because of the placebo effect, their 'fakeness' is the result of human behaviour and claims made about them. This is "bad". 'Fake drugs' are "bad". But real drugs are not inherently "bad". "Bad usage" or "bad" effects do not make them, in and of themselves, "bad". I'm not stretching anything.
sure but thats stretching it.
chocolate is bad also by your reasoning. and if antibiotics are fake they are no longer antibiotics so i dont see the use in your argument
24 Feb 09
Originally posted by FMFYou had me at chocolate isn't bad.
Chocolate isn't bad by my reasoning. Too many unnecessary antibiotics lead to superbugs that antibiotics cannot treat. So it's the usage - and the users - that is "bad" not the antibiotics themselves. Chocolate isn't bad. But it can be used "badly". Antibiotics that are fake are fake antibiotics. But they are still 'fake drugs'. And even if they can very occasio ...[text shortened]... t make them, in and of themselves, "bad". I'm not stretching anything.