Martin Shkreli's trolling transcends space and time
236 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jund;51572069]damn shkreli declared that he was taking a net loss but didn't prove it in the stream
carcarcargo claimed that he was lying but you didn't rebuke with proof that shkreli was telling the truth, only that carcarcargo had to prove that shkreli was lying. how come you assumed that carcarcargo was in the wrong and shkreli was in the right automatically before any proof backing shkreli up was actually posted?[/QUOTE]
Is english your first language? Honest to god question because i find it difficult to comprehend someone could get something so simple explained to them so many times and yet still struggle to comprehend a simple concept like this.
Shkreli was denying the accusations laid against him and explained it by mentioning how it works and he was making a loss, Carcarcargo declared he was lying. Even if you count what Shkreli said as a declaration which needs proof (which the evidence was evidently publicly available anyway so your point is practically moot), that doesnt excuse Carcarcargo because he's not denying anything, he's making a declaration.
i, personally, am quite interested in Turing and Marina Biotech's research into ketamine as a treatment for PTSD and massive depressive disorder, i feel it may be a very promising drug for treatment of both of those.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51572059]the proof was always there, this all could have been avoid had they done some preliminary research before posting their own accusation[/QUOTE]
i never made the claim that shkreli was lying or telling the truth. the fact that he was telling the truth in the end has no bearing on whether or not he had to prove shkreli was lying
if person A makes a claim and person B doesn't have any proof that the claim is true at the time, it is completely valid for person B to claim that person A might be lying. even if person B ends up getting proof later and is wrong in the end, the claim of possibility was still perfectly valid when it was made
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
what i'm saying is you people should never try to represent yourselves in court
[QUOTE=Jund;51572088]i never made the claim that shkreli was lying or telling the truth. the fact that he was telling the truth in the end has no bearing on whether or not he had to prove shkreli was lying
if person A makes a claim and person B doesn't have any proof that the claim is true at the time, it is completely valid for person B to claim that person A might be lying. even if person B ends up getting proof later and is wrong in the end, the claim of possibility was still perfectly valid at the time
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
what i'm saying is you should never try to represent yourself in court[/QUOTE]
Dude what the fuck are you talking about.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51571991]Yeah I'm sure he's totally a lovely charitable man who raises drug prices 500%[/QUOTE]
Dude at this point it seems like you're trying to not get the point and I'm not even on their side.
Do you know what context even is.
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51572093]Dude at this point it seems like you're trying to not get the point and I'm not even on their side.[/QUOTE]
Im barely aware of this guy and this is really the first time ive been informed on what the whole thing was about so im open to any possibility and he's doin a real shit job convincing me of anything.
Not saying Shkrelis a saint but given theres some evidence backing up what he said in regards to his intentions, and a lack of any harmful effects of what he did on the people who need the drug (nobodies shown any unless i totally missed it somehow) im willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to actions. Personality wise he seems like a bit of a shitposter but eh whatever.
[QUOTE=Jund;51572088]i never made the claim that shkreli was lying or telling the truth. the fact that he was telling the truth in the end has no bearing on whether or not he had to prove shkreli was lying
if person A makes a claim and person B doesn't have any proof that the claim is true at the time, it is completely valid for person B to claim that person A might be lying. even if person B ends up getting proof later and is wrong in the end, the claim of possibility was still perfectly valid when it was made[/QUOTE]
If it helps let me give another example. I'm going to say you have lost one eye. I could very well be correct but my claim means absolutely nothing unless it can be proven. And typically it would rest upon me to prove it.
Until it is proven it is just a claim. Nothing more.
Now lets switch to an alternative. Lets say I claim I cannot taste or smell. Let me tell you from personal experience it is not an easy thing to prove as you have only my word.
While someone else could prove it if they really wanted they don't have to. It primarily rest with me to prove I claim I've made about myself regardless of whether or not it's true. Else there is nothing wrong with dismissing it.
It can be best summed up as a matter of semantics who the burden rest upon.
Bear in mind I'm not trying to explain this because I disagree with your stance on Shkreli.
[QUOTE=Jund;51572088]what i'm saying is you should never try to represent yourself in court[/QUOTE]
Well I can certainly agree with you on that no contest.
Like I don't like him, nothing here has convinced me to, him saying those things is great, and I hope it's true, and if it's true he's a neat enough guy for doing that but I don't have respect for trolling, and that's what he does, even if he's doing good things I don't really respect people like that frankly. If he was open, upfront, honest from the get go and didn't have this whole shtick going on about him, maybe in the context of everything I might but I'm not seeing it here.
Hopefully they do fund new research on this, but if most people aren't paying for it anyways, and they're selling it at a loss, and any proceeds go to new research, does that actually sound like a lot of money for a new, better drug? I'm not a math guy by any stretch but it doesn't really seem like he's trying that hard?
[QUOTE=Jund;51572051]ok so prove that i'm not a 9000 year old invisible dragon vampire hybrid who fucks your mom on the low every day[/QUOTE]
Unless you're a necrophiliac because my mom is in Hades.
Also I'm pretty sure dragons are extinct due to them not even having mention in the red book, and vampires do not live in Estonia because all vampires live in Transylvania. I also forgot to mention that Earth only exists for 5000-6000 years as Bible has documented that.
Busted.
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51572111]Like I don't like him, nothing here has convinced me to[/QUOTE]
Nobody's here trying to convince you that he's a good guy, you're only being proven that he's not that bad or repulsive as how media portrayed him. Nobody's forcing you to like him, jesus h christ.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51572111]Like I don't like him, nothing here has convinced me to, him saying those things is great, and I hope it's true, and if it's true he's a neat enough guy for doing that but I don't have respect for trolling, and that's what he does, even if he's doing good things I don't really respect people like that frankly. If he was open, upfront, honest from the get go and didn't have this whole shtick going on about him, maybe in the context of everything I might but I'm not seeing it here.
Hopefully they do fund new research on this, but if most people aren't paying for it anyways, and they're selling it at a loss, and any proceeds go to new research, does that actually sound like a lot of money for a new, better drug? I'm not a math guy by any stretch but it doesn't really seem like he's trying that hard?[/QUOTE]
I was referring to his company apparently being hit with losses lining up with what he said but yeah dont get me wrong, im not praising the guy or anything, i just think he deserves to be treated fairly is all.
[QUOTE=Jund;51572088]
what i'm saying is you people should never try to represent yourselves in court[/QUOTE]
I almost choked while sitting in the office.
This is trolling already at this point.
[QUOTE=Jund;51572088]i never made the claim that shkreli was lying or telling the truth. the fact that he was telling the truth in the end has no bearing on whether or not he had to prove shkreli was lying
if person A makes a claim and person B doesn't have any proof that the claim is true at the time, it is completely valid for person B to claim that person A might be lying. even if person B ends up getting proof later and is wrong in the end, the claim of possibility was still perfectly valid when it was made
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
what i'm saying is you people should never try to represent yourselves in court[/QUOTE]
if person A makes a claim and releases readily-available and easily accessible proof for their claim though does not directly reference it in a specific statement, and person B makes a claim that person A is lying based only on that statement, with their primary point being "person A has not released any proof" rather than "i have not yet come across any proof for person A's claim", then person B is making a very rash accusation especially when their only evidence is an absence of evidence found when no prior investigatory research had been accomplished.
[QUOTE=BlueFlytrap;51572108]If it helps let me give another example. I'm going to say you have lost one eye. I could very well be correct but my claim means absolutely nothing unless it can be proven. And typically it would rest upon me to prove it.
Until it is proven it is just a claim. Nothing more.
Now lets switch to an alternative. Lets say I claim I cannot taste or smell. Let me tell you from personal experience it is not an easy thing to prove as you have only my word.
While someone else could prove it if they really wanted they don't have to. It primarily rest with me to prove I claim I've made about myself regardless of whether or not it's true. Else there is nothing wrong with dismissing it.
It can be best summed up as a matter of semantics who the burden rest upon.
Bear in mind I'm not trying to explain this because I disagree with your stance on Shkreli.[/QUOTE]
either way, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. when the claim was posted that shkreli was taking a net loss, the burden of proof fell on that claim. saying that he [I]might[/I] be lying is not another claim because there wasn't any proof for the first claim yet
imagine how insane it would be in court if this wasn't the case. you could have a mountain of evidence that the defendant murdered someone and they'll say "my evil twin brother that no one else knows about did it!" and when they're questioned about it they'll go "you're claiming that i'm lying, so the burden of proving that i'm lying falls on you! that must mean i'm telling the truth." completely ridiculous
as for my stance on shkreli, i don't have any problems with him. he really likes attention but i don't have proof that he's hitler 2.0 like some people think he is. i never said anything about his character in the thread before this anyway so whatever
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51572128]if person A makes a claim and releases readily-available and easily accessible proof for their claim though does not directly reference it in a specific statement, and person B makes a claim that person A is lying based only on that statement, with their primary point being "person A has not released any proof" rather than "i have not yet come across any proof for person A's claim", then person B is making a very rash accusation especially when their only evidence is an absence of evidence found when no prior investigatory research had been accomplished.[/QUOTE]
except in this instance, person B's claim is that A is [B]probably[/B] lying, not that he is. the probability itself is subjective. the availability of the proof means little until the proof is actually posted where the topic is being discussed
it's an accusation that should be denied by actually posting the proof like you did, and not by saying person A is innocent of lying when the proof hasn't been posted yet
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
the statement "prove that he's lying" inherently goes against what innocent until proven guilty is for because you'd just end up going in circles
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51572111]Like I don't like him, nothing here has convinced me to, him saying those things is great, and I hope it's true, and if it's true he's a neat enough guy for doing that but I don't have respect for trolling, and that's what he does, even if he's doing good things I don't really respect people like that frankly. If he was open, upfront, honest from the get go and didn't have this whole shtick going on about him, maybe in the context of everything I might but I'm not seeing it here.
Hopefully they do fund new research on this, but if most people aren't paying for it anyways, and they're selling it at a loss, and any proceeds go to new research, does that actually sound like a lot of money for a new, better drug? I'm not a math guy by any stretch but it doesn't really seem like he's trying that hard?[/QUOTE]
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifffffffffff you watch the "talking to a person with hiv" video he states that they have indeed developed a drug with the proceeds of the daraprim price hike that successfully treats toxoplasmosis without the nasty side effects of daraprim. my guess would be that they are currently working on getting it approved by the fda, testing for long term side effects, etc...
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;51572189]i thought everybody hated this guy a few months ago?[/QUOTE]
He pandered to them with memes and pretended to be "one of them" so he's cool now.
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;51572189]i thought everybody hated this guy a few months ago?[/QUOTE]
Most did, many still do. But as people read and do research on this guy they usually realize that hes not actually an evil villain rubbing his hands together and twirling his mustache. He saw a niche drug with bad side effects that has been neglected for 70 years, raised the price to fund research into a better alternative, gave the drug away for free to those who need it (65% is given away for free) and decreased the number of people who could not afford or access the drug from ~200 to ~20.
If you watch this video through, he goes through everything, lays it all out and explains what exactly he did, why he did it, and what the effect is.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXVQOZDKlRE[/media]
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
Martin comes off as a dick sometimes because he treats you exactly as you treat him. The video in the OP shows this exactly.
[QUOTE=Jund;51572148]either way, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. when the claim was posted that shkreli was taking a net loss, the burden of proof fell on that claim. saying that he might be lying is not another claim because there wasn't any proof for the first claim yet[/QUOTE]
Well this is probably where the last page has stemmed from. I have time to burn so with that said.
Shkreli made a claim he is taking a net loss. Alright. Whether or not this has been proven matters to the discussion but that's not where I'm going with this.
So until it has been proven or disproved it is a claim. That's our basis. We can all agree on that.
What followed was a claim that they could potentially be lying about something that at the time was just a claim.
Very astute. He very well could be lying. He could also not be lying. It has not been established. Hence aforementioned claim.
The argument 'He could be lying about his net loss' could best be described as an overly hostile way of pointing out the obvious. It doesn't really matter that he could be lying. It's already expected that possibility exist until proven otherwise.
This doesn't mean you're not allowed to hold and share a personal opinion on whether the point is true or not. On the contrary, that leads into discussion and shouldn't be discouraged.
Just don't mistakenly phrase it where it is presented as fact when that hasn't been established.
[QUOTE=Jund;51572148]imagine how insane it would be in court if this wasn't the case. you could have a mountain of evidence that the defendant murdered someone and they'll say "my evil twin brother that no one else knows about did it!" and when they're questioned about it they'll go "well, you're claiming that i'm lying, so the burden of proving that i'm lying falls on you! that must mean i'm telling the truth" completely ridiculous[/QUOTE]
This is an interesting one as it looks like several variables but it's really only one.
The mountain of evidence alone is what you call a guaranteed conviction. It's not a matter of [I]if[/I] someone is going to be convicted, but whom. So we can ignore that bit.
Moving on. The accused then makes a claim that it was not him, but someone who looks like him. Claim is self made by the accused. Thus the burden of proof would rest with the accused. What happens then depends on how well the accused can back their claim.
At this point we no longer have any solid details so we've reached the point where this may or may not be true. Hell there is even the possibility both or neither of the accused and supposed twin being guilty no matter how unlikely.
We just don't know. This is where the judge(s) or jury comes in typically.
[QUOTE=Jund;51572148]as for my stance on shkreli, i don't really have any problems with him. he really likes attention but i don't have proof that he's hitler 2.0 like some people think he is. i never said anything about his character in the thread before this anyway so whatever[/QUOTE]
To each their own. I can understand why he does what he does even if I personally don't agree with his actions. Although I cannot say I have any real opinion of him other than that.
On a separate note.
[QUOTE=Jund;51572148]you could have a mountain of evidence that the defendant murdered someone and they'll say "my evil twin brother that no one else knows about did it!"[/QUOTE]
All things considered this has probably happened. The thought of it is both hilarious and slightly depressing.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51572019]hello, i did some research and found the financial statements following the 500% price hike, found by googling "turing pharmaceutical financial statements", which backs up pretty much everything shkreli had said himself
[url]http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151112006529/en/Turing-Pharmaceuticals-AG-Announces-Quarter-Business-Highlights[/url][/QUOTE]
you really ARE your avatar! :o
[QUOTE=nVidia;51570148]If you ignore the triggered mainstream media view of Martin, he's actually a fucking awesome dude.[/QUOTE]
Martin is a living parody of capitalism, he's showing the world how easily manipulated it is and how much power you can have as long as you're rich enough.
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
Ok i just watched the video above and I'm starting to like the guy more
it's interesting how the mainstream media can make people genuinely wish death on someone whose work saves lives
[QUOTE=idiot;51572471]it's interesting how the mainstream media can make people genuinely wish death on someone whose work saves lives[/QUOTE]
They don't seem to be portraying him accurately at all. Will be interesting too see the results from the upcoming court case for him.
[QUOTE=idiot;51572471]it's interesting how the mainstream media can make people genuinely wish death on someone whose work saves lives[/QUOTE]
All he did was acquire some patents lol, he didn't actually invent the drug
Martin will be live in 10 minutes on Bloomberg (He's going to be wearing a pepe pin too)
[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/live/us[/url]
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51572504]All he did was acquire some patents lol, he didn't actually invent the drug[/QUOTE]
IDK how you can watch both those videos and not think hes trying to help people.
Jesus fuck, the salt levels from the commentators.
[QUOTE=Dantz Bolrew;51572624]Jesus fuck, the salt levels from the commentators.[/QUOTE]
That was a pretty good interview. I feel if he spent more time explaining the good he himself is doing, rather than highlighting the abhorent behavior of others, would have helped.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51572504]All he did was acquire some patents lol, he didn't actually invent the drug[/QUOTE]
you realise he's involved with pharmaceuticals beyond just daraprim right? he's invented a bunch of drugs for rare diseases
I like how cacacargo or w/e went dead silent when that financial data was posted, he probably hasn't even acknowledged that they exist, God damn
[QUOTE=paul simon;51572262]Martin is a living parody of capitalism, he's showing the world how easily manipulated it is and how much power you can have as long as you're rich enough.
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
Ok i just watched the video above and I'm starting to like the guy more[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with capitalism.
I have never actually investigated who and what Martin Shkreli is before I read this thread. By the combined forces of carcarcargo and Jund's wilful ignorance and Shkreli's honestly reasonable explanations, I'm now totally a fan of this guy. I honestly don't see anything wrong with what he's done.
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51572504]All he did was acquire some patents lol, he didn't actually invent the drug[/QUOTE]
God damn I hate when people do this. You were making nearly every other post last page literally right up until proof that debunked your unfounded claim was posted, then you went radio silent only to jump shamelessly right back in once you felt that situation had calmed down. Can you acknowledge that you were totally, 100% wrong?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.