Is the FDA good or bad?
Is the FDA good or bad?
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're viewing a single thread.
Is the FDA good or bad?
This is a false dichotomy.
Are they a necessary evil?
Framing things in moralistic terms just further obfuscates things.
The FDA is an enormous organization. It contains contradictions. It contains multitudes. Yes it is in a variety of ways compromised by the capitalist class, but that doesn’t mean the entire enterprise is without value. Black and white thinking isn’t going to cut it here.
Should they be thrown in a volcano and remade?
If you remade the FDA from scratch under capitalism, the result would be roughly the same, because the structures of political power would still be the same.
I think you're confusing "false dichotomy" with "question". You could argue this if they were talking more in depth about the organisation. But that's not what's happening here
A question framed as having a only two possible answers is a dichotomous question, and if the answer doesn’t fit that framing then the framing is false. It’s the wrong question to ask.
Ahh, I don't think the question is to be taken that literally. And if you look around in the responses, you see plenty of people with more nuanced answers.
However, you can still have an opinion about the overall organisation regardless of the nuance.
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.
Oy, I'm the autistic one here. Why am I explaining to you not to take things too literally :p
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 :)
It is not "hurting children" to help them understand their underlying assumptions.
I apologize in advance if I'm unclear or misstate something, I'm trying to paraphrase/summarize a complex explanation I was given by a licensed psychiatrist. It may not be intended as harm, and it may not be physical harm, but not all brains work the same way. ADHD brains, for example, have a significant disordering of the pathways between the pre-frontal cortex (your "filter" or maybe you've heard the term "executive functioning") and the amygdala (your "fight/flight/freeze" survival response) which makes it difficult or impossible accept criticism, regardless of how constructive that criticism is. And when that criticism comes from the people who are supposed to be the trusted adults and role-models in your life it's hard for those brains to take it as anything other than "these adults who are supposed to care for me are all hurting me every day for reasons that I don't understand. It must be something is fundamentally broken inside me". The "damage" comes much later in life from not getting the benefit of developing confidence, self-image, emotional vulnerability, etc etc. So I understand your response but it has to be done in a way that doesn't seem critical.
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
Thank you!