Kathy Griffin is being bullied by the Trumps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

I'm not surprised. You probably never stood your ground once in your life, except in a video game.

---

:lmao

I can smell the losery from here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Some of you lack good reading skills. It's right there in the posts you quoted but you're too shallow to see it, maybe it's abstract and out of your league but let me help you...

"lack of motivation" /= "apathy".

The common schtick here by shit trolls like you is to pretend there are only the extreme ends of a position, no gradient. That's me giving you undue credit for not being a total retard who lacks capacity for abstract thought. You're basically Th'Pusher with a more social agenda, probably married or dated across racial lines to convince others you're not a racist. Even your alt shit takes don't hide the queer in you.

---

This is particularly rich coming from you. Remind us of your views advocating absolutely no forced wealth transfer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Why does it have to be mutually exclusive? You had a lack of motivation before, during and after the election, and somehow you think it's going to ramp up?

And you wonder why you lost.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Some of you lack good reading skills. It's right there in the posts you quoted but you're too shallow to see it, maybe it's abstract and out of your league but let me help you...

"lack of motivation" /= "apathy".

The common schtick here by shit trolls like you is to pretend there are only the extreme ends of a position, no gradient. That's me giving you undue credit for not being a total retard who lacks capacity for abstract thought. You're basically Th'Pusher with a more social agenda, probably married or dated across racial lines to convince others you're not a racist. Even your alt shit takes don't hide the queer in you.

---

dictionary definition of apathy is "lack of interest, enthusiasm or concern." its cool with me if you need to psychoanalyze me to distract you from your mental deterioration but whether im a troll or not youre getting your shit pushed in. but please, entertain us more with your 6th grade rust cohle "im so deep maaaan" act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

This is particularly rich coming from you. Remind us of your views advocating absolutely no forced wealth transfer.

---

As soon as you define your terms "forced" and "wealth" and "transfer" because you'll play every angle otherwise, like you tried to do with the claim that profit isn't the best motivator for drug discovery then every response thereafter was centered around profit driven industry doing things for profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Lambert

dictionary definition of apathy is "lack of interest, enthusiasm or concern." its cool with me if you need to psychoanalyze me to distract you from your mental deterioration but whether im a troll or not youre getting your shit pushed in. but please, entertain us more with your 6th grade rust cohle "im so deep maaaan" act.

---

So if you don't go to the gym today but you feel like you should, are you apathetic or just unmotivated? Did you notice the words "lack of motivation" in there anywhere?

Gradient...

Get your learn on, son.

I wasn't psychoanalyzing you. I was typecasting you. Another learning gap rears its ugly head. Unless you're ready to talk about your dreams and shit, that is.

btw, :lol you didn't disagree with me.

:lol "us"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reck

:lmao

I can smell the losery from here.

---

If I was as close to you as you are, I could as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

If I was as close to you as you are, I could as well.

---

Oh shut the fuck up. You're boring as fuck. Your schticks are pathetic even for koolaid standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reck

Oh shut the fuck up. You're boring as fuck. Your schticks are pathetic even for koolaid standards.

---

:lol you keep responding, can't stay away.

http://media-hearth.cursecdn.com/ava...48/198/673.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

As soon as you define your terms "forced" and "wealth" and "transfer" because you'll play every angle otherwise, like you tried to do with the claim that profit isn't the best motivator for drug discovery then every response thereafter was centered around profit driven industry doing things for profit.

---

Remember when you posted that graph of new chemical entities by country as evidence that the profit motive was an effective driver of innovation in the modern pharmaceutical industry?

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Remember when you posted that graph of new chemical entities by country as evidence that the profit motive was an effective driver of innovation in the modern pharmaceutical industry?

:lol

---

I remember you submitting that profit was the motivation for drug discovery, you just said it was ineffective but couldn't provide an example of a more effective one. When you tried though, you ended up just shifting the cost to the taxpayer, yet bigPharm was still profiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

:lol you keep responding, can't stay away.

http://media-hearth.cursecdn.com/ava...48/198/673.png

---

Getting shit on on multiple fronts. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

I remember you submitting that profit was the motivation for drug discovery, you just said it was ineffective but couldn't provide an example of a more effective one. When you tried though, you ended up just shifting the cost to the taxpayer, yet bigPharm was still profiting.

---

So you don't remember that stupid chart you posted as "empirical evidence" for your ridiculous argument?

:lol

I remember it. It was embarrassingly stupid

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reck

Getting shit on on multiple fronts. :lol

---

:lol quitting the forum
:lol welching
:lol Hillary supporter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

So you don't remember that stupid chart you posted as "empirical evidence" for your ridiculous argument?

:lol

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

I remember it. It was embarrassingly stupid

:lol

---

I recall you saying it wasn't taxpayer funded, it was government funded - that it was better for bigPharm to have a consortium but stopped short of defining "better" when in reality you meant it would make them more profits if the taxpayers took on the financial burden of R&D for private pharma industry.. as if somehow this entity called government has an income separate from tax revenue.

I recall you lost, again.

So go cherry-pick a phrase or graph and present it out of context again. Maybe you'll get a +1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

I recall you saying it wasn't taxpayer funded, it was government funded - that it was better for bigPharm to have a consortium but stopped short of defining "better" when in reality you meant it would make them more profits if the taxpayers took on the financial burden of R&D for private pharma industry.. as if somehow this entity called government has an income separate from tax revenue.

I recall you lost, again.

So go cherry-pick a phrase or graph and present it out of context again. Maybe you'll get a +1.

---

You don't remember well. My argument was around mitigating technical risk through a number of potential methods. You just glommed onto the one that was taxpayer funded as it suits your government is the problem narrative.

You posted that stupid chart and emphatically said how's that for empirical evidence in an effort to argue socialist countries weren't innovating new drugs :lol out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

You don't remember well. My argument was around mitigating technical risk through a number of potential methods. You just glommed onto the one that was taxpayer funded as it suits your government is the problem narrative.

You posted that stupid chart and emphatically said how's that for empirical evidence in an effort to argue socialist countries weren't innovating new drugs :lol out of context.

---

Technical risk = financial risk

Number of potential methods = taxpayer funded consortium

Never once did you provide the alternative incentive for new drug development, not once.

And you lost already... :lol let it go.

You have the hardest time letting go when you've lost. Just like the CHL discussion when you didn't know the difference between the law and the license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Never once did you provide the alternative incentive for new drug development, not once.

---

Don't need to. Doesn't change the fact that the profit motive disincentives new innovation and encourages evergreening.

:lol that chart tho.

:lol empirical evidence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Don't need to. Doesn't change the fact that the profit motive disincentives new innovation and encourages evergreening.

:lol that chart tho.

---

On Monday, Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, condemned the pharmaceutical industry for neglecting to create a vaccine for the Ebola virus, even though the disease has threatened West Africa for almost 40 years.

“Ebola emerged nearly four decades ago,” Chan said in an address to the Regional Committee for Africa in Benin. “Why are clinicians still empty-handed, with no vaccines and no cure?”

Chan blamed this on big pharma–quite simply, there is no incentive for drug companies to make something that won’t be profitable. “Because Ebola has historically been confined to poor African nations. The R&D [Research and Development] incentive is virtually non-existent,” she said. “A profit-driven industry does not invest in products for markets that cannot pay. WHO has been trying to make this issue visible for ages. Now people can see for themselves.”


Basically, if Ebola cure was profitable, then bigPharma would have developed it by the writing of this article.

Ergo - profit is the driver for drug development. Saying it disincentivizes development is wrong. Profit is the incentive, you can't legislate concern for humanity. If your statement was correct, profitability would steer companies away from development. There would be no incentive to develop drugs in fear of profits.

Perhaps what you mean is that it thwarts non-profitable development. That's not the same as saying profit motive thwarts development - when in reality it's the only reason for development. That doesn't mean it should be the only reason, but it is.

Maybe if you could work on expressing your thoughts in a more cogent manner, pages and pages of meaningless banter could be avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

On Monday, Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, condemned the pharmaceutical industry for neglecting to create a vaccine for the Ebola virus, even though the disease has threatened West Africa for almost 40 years.

“Ebola emerged nearly four decades ago,” Chan said in an address to the Regional Committee for Africa in Benin. “Why are clinicians still empty-handed, with no vaccines and no cure?”

Chan blamed this on big pharma–quite simply, there is no incentive for drug companies to make something that won’t be profitable. “Because Ebola has historically been confined to poor African nations. The R&D [Research and Development] incentive is virtually non-existent,” she said. “A profit-driven industry does not invest in products for markets that cannot pay. WHO has been trying to make this issue visible for ages. Now people can see for themselves.”


Basically, if Ebola cure was profitable, then bigPharma would have developed it by the writing of this article.

Ergo - profit is the driver for drug development. Saying it disincentivizes development is wrong. Profit is the incentive, you can't legislate concern for humanity. If your statement was correct, profitability would steer companies away from development. There would be no incentive to develop drugs in fear of profits.

Perhaps what you mean is that it thwarts non-profitable development. That's not the same as saying profit motive thwarts development - when in reality it's the only reason for development. That doesn't mean it should be the only reason, but it is.

Maybe if you could work on expressing your thoughts in a more cogent manner, pages and pages of meaningless banter could be avoided.

---

Nope. The profit motive incentivises evergreening at the expense of new product development. That was the argument and it's 100% accurate.

:lol but that fucking chart

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Nope. The profit motive incentivises evergreening at the expense of new product development. That was the argument and it's 100% accurate.

:lol but that fucking chart

:lol

---

Argument by repetition/assertion :cry

Everything that causes people to chose one road over another is at the expense of the other road. What's your alternative?

The chart was to show you that profit driven industry has produced more drug discoveries than anything else. Why hasn't the socialist system created an Ebola cure? Why did the WHO director focus on profit driven industry? Why can't Africa fix its own problems? Oh I know, because no one wants to invest in it because it not PROFITABLE.

Keep running - stay ignorant.

Turd Pusher, when you push him, a turd is produced.

Here's another piece that clearly defines the motive... from all participants.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline...om_the_numbers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

The chart was to show you that profit driven industry has produced more drug discoveries than anything else.

---

:lol no it wasn't. It was shown in an attempt to argue non democratic socialist countries are more innovative than socially democratic countries...and it was fucking stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Here's another piece that clearly defines the motive... from all participants.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline...om_the_numbers

---

Never argued it wasn't the motive. The argument was that it was not an effective driver of innovation.

You don't even know what my argument was, so fuck off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

:lol no it wasn't. It was shown in an attempt to argue non democratic socialist countries are more innovative than socially democratic countries...and it was fucking stupid.

---

:lol no