Originally Posted by
FBinNY
I'm not invested enough either way to bother debating, but like how you cleverly turn logic on it's head here. You start by acknowledging possible ineffectiveness, but then flip the burden of proof onto those who don't like them. Wouldn't it be more sensible to ask those who like them to show they make sense, and the benefits exceed potential drawbacks?
Maybe the FDA could adopt this logic and say all drugs are OK, until/unless they're proven dangerous or ineffective. Let's not debate this, it's purely rhetorical.
Don't accuse me of bad logic, then tell me not to answer. "They do no good" and "they do harm" are very different claims requiring different burdens of proof.
Seriously, don't bring drug testing into this. I've actually studied it a bit and I really don't want to write a zillion words about all the things wrong with that analogy. Let "double-blind study" suffice, please.