@TotsNPears So I certainly wouldn't ever visit your pharmacy. Facts are fine: You are a credible source for facts, and if it's medical related, I would be unlikely to ask you to cite your source on any given fact. However, opinions/recommendations are a different thing. If someone asks you for a recommendation, and you recommend drug X, then they say "what about Y?" the expected response from an expert on the subject matter is to explain how and why Y isn't as good as X, or what the tradeoffs are for choosing Y instead of X. Because you are an expert, you should be more than capable of providing this explanation. If you are not capable of providing this explanation, you're not an expert. If you're not willing to provide the explanation, then you have no point in being part of the conversation. In fact, going back to facts, if I had heard something from somewhere else that directly contradicted what you were stating as fact, I would raise that issue to you and allow you the chance to give a counter-argument. If you just walked away instead of giving the counter-argument, you lose credibility in my eyes, either from lack of knowledge and ability to explain, or from lack of desire to. Either way, someone who is not a source of explanations is not a useful, credible source.

"I know what I'm talking about" is not a valid argument and nobody should listen to you if that's the only way you can defend your statements. People who ACTUALLY know what they're talking about are able to break it down and explain it to you. Look at how often Fauci patiently and competently explains things. It's the people who are only hearing out-of-context soundbytes or getting things incorrectly summarized by bad journalism that get confused. Every time I get into an argument on facebook and the other person says "I know what I'm talking about" then they're either too lazy to prove it or they're lying. Usually the latter. I've only encountered the former once. It's actually a common close-minded defense: The belief that you are already as informed as can be on the subject so any new data does not need any kind of open-minded evaluation. Also called "old dogs new tricks" syndrome. If at any point you have to say the words "I know what I'm talking about" then it's because you have failed to demonstrate it.

The meme isn't great because the two are identical. Misinformation isn't a copy-paste of information. Saying they 'are' information or are 'named' information makes them both 'Miss' information. Unless one is a Mrs. It's not a well designed meme. Everything is misinformation until it is cited and verified from a credible source. I usually google the thing and add 'snopes' or 'fact check' at the end of the google query. Any time I'm about to learn a new thing, first thing I ask is "is it true." Plausibility isn't automatically truth.

This is an example of the stuff I didn't really want in this thread. "Let's go brandon" has nothing to do with arguing points and counterpoints of vaccination. Hooligan!

I hit love on the ones I approve of and could potentially use. Also you don't have to limit to just one per post, that makes the thread way longer, lol.