SSRI's, Children, School Shootings ?

Could experimental psychotropic drugs cause violent behavior and thoughts of suicide?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 70.0%

  • No

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Not Mine

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Total voters
    10
ClaytonBigsby

ClaytonBigsby

Well-Known Member
420God said:
In 2004, NASA scientist Patrick Minnis wrote that “increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/
Click to expand...

Nowwww, 420, you're gonna start sounding like one of them nuts too...

I think in the link I posted about there being 11 "new clouds", it cited cell phones for the reason to add the new cloud types. Because before cell phones, nobody had cameras, or planes to get around and see if there were any new clouds. NASA would have known about any new clouds. Thank god for all of the people with cell phones being able to take a bazillion pics of things the govt can eventually try to explain. It's almost like cops were never abusive until cell phones came along.
 
chiqifella

chiqifella

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I am under no obligation to meet your whim of what is or is not becoming. The first step in any reasoned argument is to marshal the facts. Thus I inquired into yours.No, you didn't. You began with a massive unattributed C&P job and cherry-picked it. You didn't take the hint when Annie located the source and quoted the bits you'd conveniently left out. You didn't and don't develop a rational argument. Instead you mount an emotional response that you are trying to say is an argument. You cheer those who agree and insult those who don't.What rest of the gun history? You claim single-incident anecdote. You don't provide a source for the info; that is a hard requirement you're ignoring.(Every freshman learns that anecdote does not constitute evidence.) There are two billion people in the developed world whose kids might be taking an SSRI or two. One incident in such a pool, over x years ... does not signal a pattern to me. You need background facts and stats on "gun collections" "allowed" "by parents" (prerequisite: define all quote-marked terms beyond ambiguity) in order to mount that argument and make it possible for an interested outsider to test the proposition. In technical terms, an argument must be falsifiable.

More emotioneering. Leave Toke&Talk until you're ready to win and lose real arguments like an adult. Not this low-grade trollery; we get enough of that already from all the other sock trolls.
Click to expand...

Many of these parents-here's the history part- knew their kids collected guns, knew the kids were unstable, even enabled many of them with ssri's.
woul dyou like a play by play of each shooter, where they acquired their guns, who their parents were and how they contributed to the murders? Like ssri's, would you consider these parents as contributing factors for clarity?

btw, admin decides where a thread belongs not me. This one has been moved several times, not by my doing though.
I'll post wherever I choose and suggest you avoid those which you cannot understand or dont want to participate in for a much better canna experience
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
You know, there is nothing wrong with noticing a commonality and asking if it contributes to the cause. The problems start when anyone who isn't convinced gets labeled a denier, a sheep or a shill. Any professional investigation works in the opposite direction. Seek out information and ways to test your hypothesis that may falsify it. If you suspect someone of a crime, see if they have an alibi. If you think nature works in a certain way, design a test that can show it works in a different way. Truth emerges when we challenge ideas, not coddle them.

Finding a common factor, speculating that it's part of the cause, and then dismissing anyone who doesn't agree is the easiest thing in the world to do. All of the shooters previously drank water, had dental work, used cell phones, and masturbated. Obviously the fluoride is combining with the dental fillings and being activated by cell phone radiation which produces orgasms that induce violent tendencies. Just look at the Tuskegee experiments and MK-ULTRA if you want proof!

https://hatepseudoscience.com/2017/06/23/immunized-hypothesis/
 
Last edited:
ClaytonBigsby

ClaytonBigsby

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
You know, there is nothing wrong with noticing a commonality and asking if it contributes to the cause. The problems start when anyone who isn't convinced gets labeled a denier, a sheep or a shill. Any professional investigation works in the opposite direction. Seek out information and ways to test your hypothesis that may falsify it. If you suspect someone of a crime, see if the have an alibi. If you think nature works in a certain way, design a test that can show it works in a different way. Truth emerges when we challenge ideas, not coddle them.

Finding a common factor, speculating that it's part of the cause, and then dismissing anyone who doesn't agree is the easiest thing in the world to do. All of the shooters previously drank water, had dental work, used cell phones, and masturbated. Obviously the fluoride is combining with the dental fillings and being activated by cell phone radiation which produces orgasms that induce violent tendencies. Just look at the Tuskegee experiments and MK-ULTRA if you want proof!

https://hatepseudoscience.com/2017/06/23/immunized-hypothesis/
Click to expand...

Well now, dagnabbit. All that talk was pertier than a twenty dollar whore

upload_2018-2-27_16-49-25.jpeg



but your fancy words frighten and confuse me




are you saying the Tuskegee experiments and MK Ultra are not real?
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
ClaytonBigsby said:
are you saying the Tuskegee experiments and MK Ultra are not real?
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm saying that pointing to one thing as evidence for another thing is simple, easy, and works for any hypothesis. It doesn't take a denier or a shill to find "you should believe in my conspiracy because other conspiracies have happened" to be less than convincing. It only makes sense if we assume that anyone who doesn't agree with us must think the government never works against its people, never does things in secret, and deserves our unquestioning trust. If that's what people believe, then pointing out other conspiracies and betrayals is appropriate. The problem is, that's not what anyone thinks.

Conspiracy mongers aren't called out because they think the government is capable of manipulation and false flags, they are called out because they form these conclusions minutes after events occur, before any information has come in, and then dismiss, cherry pick, or manufacture details as the story emerges to maintain their conclusions. This does not count as investigation, it counts as mere narrative construction, which is the easiest thing in the world to do. Connecting the dots is easy when everything counts as a connection. Then, everyone else is narrowly confined to three categories: woke, sheep or perpetrator. Anyone who doesn't agree is either ignorant, part of the conspiracy or being paid to disagree. There is no room set aside for the possibility that the conspiracy narrative is simply wrong. While it's possible that this approach may sometimes stumble upon truth, the usual outcome is absurdity, which is why we have people who think the Earth is flat, the Earth is hollow, and the Earth didn't exist before 6000 years ago. People think that giving children bleach enemas will cure autism, that rhino horn cures cancer, and that putting drops of aged urine into their eyes will help them detox. All of them, without fail, point to conspiracy as proof, and all of them, without fail, evoke the Tuskegee experiments and MK-ULTRA as evidence.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
kinda fitting that the "government and big pharma are giving kids SSRIs so they'll shoot up schools" thread has descended into outlandishly retarded conspiracy theories by a group of very uneducated and paranoid idiots.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
It could be one of a thousand combinations of factors.
Chances are, dozens of cures to other problems would be discovered as well. Not all well received.

Low socioeconomic status that persisted over time was strongly related to higher rates of mental health problems. A decrease in socioeconomic status was associated with increasing mental health problems.

We could just wait for someone to do the research, cheap.

If we don't look we wont find and then we can still do noting but provide more part time jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top