#and I'm more worried about if certain measures actually treat the issue or don't do shit while just causing new problems

[medicinemane]

You can't just be like "well my chart here says" or "well science says" or "well this thing agrees with my biases so therefore it's true"

Like man, I bet I could find something agreeing with any position I wanted to take. If I couldn't it wouldn't be hard for me to make a semi professional looking graph that makes it look like whatever I want is true

Also like... who's the source man, cause on any given issue there's some I'm probably gonna toss out because of their blatant bias. Like I'm not even gonna entertain anything 'autism speaks' has to say on autism because I'm not wading through a bunch of trash to see if there's a glimmer of truth buried somewhere in it. They've blown all their credibility with me, I don't admit them as evidence anymore and nor should I

So who's your source and do they have any credibility or are they extremely biased (cause... this happens a lot)?

What's this so called study? What's this so called science? I am not really the person who can sit through a whole paper, but I can at least sometimes give them a sniff and see if the stuff they're saying seems to add up or if I'm spotting anything instantly off (cause sometimes you straight up look and go "wait a minute... you didn't even account for this")

I'm not perfect, but at least I actually think about the problems with ideas I care about. Like with nuclear I know that the lack of economies of scale means infrastructure is going to be more expensive, but I can also at least point to solar and point out that it was the same with it, but once we got wider adoption prices started to really drop

At least I can think about my point and make actual reasonable inferences and conclusions rather than just blindly screaming at everyone to agree with me or they're immoral