this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
24 points (65.8% liked)

Asklemmy

44278 readers
365 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When I see "the FDA has stated..." I automatically think it is probably a corrupt conclusion bought by some powerplayer to maximize their own profit instead of having to do with whether the statement is true or not. I've always viewed FDA as basically a council of a bunch of power players on boards of Big Capitalism companies like Pepsi that make decisions based on control and market share rather than health.

but I see posts now about how trump attacking FDA equals bad. So is my view of FDA wrong? Are they noncorrupt? Are they a necessary evil? Should they be thrown in a volcano and remade?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't think the question is to be taken that literally.

Thats how writing works.

However, you can still have an opinion about the overall organisation regardless of the nuance.

It'd be meritable if that person were six to eight years old.

[โ€“] Boomkop3@reddthat.com -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oy, I'm the autistic one here. Why am I explaining to you not to take things too literally :p

[โ€“] allo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

you're the one who would raise a smart child :)

the people you are speaking against would have children that stop asking questions after the first few times they are hurt by doing so.

good job being a good person :)

[โ€“] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It is not "hurting children" to help them understand their underlying assumptions.

[โ€“] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, that's kind of a crucial part of critical thinking, and can absolutely be done without shutting the kid up... You can critically analyze the question with them without discouraging asking questions