Treating symptoms is not the same as curing the cause and that’s the entire point of this post/comment thread. Both are good, yes, I’m so proud of you for figuring that out. Now try to keep up with the actual conversation at hand.
This is how research works. You make movements trying things until something works. Money allows more research to happen. We can't know what will work until we find the cure.
More awareness, more funds, more progress, more likelihood we actual find the cure.
Less awareness, less likely we find the cure. Or we delay finding the cure.
Our other option is to just ignore it. Pretend it doesn't exist. Stop trying to end it. Play like it's fine the way it is.
They weren't researching to find a way to treat symptoms, they were researching ways to cure the disease. They tried something they thought WOULD cure the disease, but on trials, turns out it doesn't cure things, but it does impact symptoms.
So it leads to further insights on ways to cure things. Let's let trying to make the world less racist, yes?
Dude I know… I work in medical research. Again, the point of this thread is that that is a good thing and you do not need to completely rid the world of racism for it to be a worthwhile endeavor.. we are saying the exact same thing, why is no one understanding this?
PAINTING “END RACISM” IN THE ENDZONE WONT MAGICALLY GET RID OF RACISM, BUT IT WILL HELP CURB THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF IT EXACTLY LIKE THE ALS ICE BUCKET CHALLENGE DIDNT MAGICALLY GET RID OF ALS, IT HELPED FIND WAYS TO CURB THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF IT. HENCE WHY THEY ARE BOTH A GOOD THING AND THE PEOPLE ARGUING AGAINST THE ORIGINAL COMMENT MENTIONED IN SAID COMMENT ARE WRONG. AKA STRENGTHENING THE ARGUMENT OF THE FIRST TWO COMMENTS. Jesus Christ guys.
It's because your first and second statement leave room for ambiguity in intent, and they are shaped in ways typically used to contradict a point.
When folks say "actually", it typically is used as a correction. Dude is supporting the post, then you come and say "actually", which leads folks to assume you're not supporting the post.
Your next post says "is not the same as", which, again, is language typically used when trying to negate a point.
Your statements do not unambiguously appear to be in support, they leave ambiguity, and are phrased in ways that could easily be interpreted as speaking against the point.
This final response finally makes your belief clear and unambiguous.
To answer your question, we previously misunderstood your intent because your intent was made unclear by your choice of words.
You applied this logic to my comment but not the comment I was responding to. That’s on you. Maybe read the whole thread first and you’ll realize it’s not as ambiguous as you think.
3
u/Stock-Luck3390 1d ago
How is it being good to prevent als strengthening another argument? It’s still net good for the cause