umm yes you can prove a negative. I can prove the earth is NOT flat. That's a negative.tranquility922 wrote: ↑Mar 18th, 2016 6:04 pmI guess you have logic prbs, then, in addition to reading prbs. You can't really prove a -ive, i.e. not having a site is good because... Rather, ppl have to prove that sites are good, esp since they are taken at face-value 'bad' since it assists users. Finally, I'm pretty darn objective but for 11pgs or so ppl have been presenting extremely flimsy 'evidence' until recently, which should now be analyzed. I doubt that any of you pro-site ppl are as objective and some of you go even as far as saying that it's a no-brainer to have them despite the majority of TOians objecting for obvious reasons.
Not having these sites are bad because without them, users OD, transmit diseases/infections, needles are found in public areas like parks where non-users go. So again what are you basing your opinion on?
Sure there's a hierarchy of evidence. These studies (while not 'concrete') is much better than your uninformed opinion. So as an individual, I'd rather go with these studies which at least has some form of scientific merit vs your own beliefs.
If you provide me something that is higher on the scale than these studies, then I'll change my opinion. But you refuse to do that.