All of those are justified in context and hardly flaming? I can understand if I came out of left field and called someone a dipstuff, but..?
But acting like a richard just because someone doesn't agree with you is immature and as far as anyone is concerned, leaves you with no credibility. Compared to what I said, your regular posting habits make you seem like a toddler with anger issues, so of course it's ironic if you accuse me of blowing off an emotional load
What? Comas are serious business. Supposed comas induced by being informed of deportation? Nah. Especially when the magic cure is being allowed to stay. That's just ridiculous. It has nothing to do with what I disagree with. Maybe if I ever see this in person I'll believe it, but uh, excuse me for having some skepticism.
Comas are comas, regardless of how they are caused. If you read the article, it already says that they refuse to respond through involuntary stimuli, something that is biologically impossible unless you're either comatose or dead. This includes things like pupil dilation to light, muscle spasms to hitting the kneecap, etc. Comas don't adhere towards political bias.
The second article says that the 'magic cure' takes 3-5 months to take effect, and the people who are in the coma don't start recovering for about 2 months. That's very typical. If they were to instantly leave the coma and make a full recovery in like a week, i'd be very skeptical too
It's been well documented that people who are traumatized will sometimes enter coma-like depressive states, lose hair or suffer from other PTSD related issues. That's infinitely more probable than being able to control involuntary reactions. If you're honestly going to doubt that the coma is serious on the grounds that it's caused by deportation, an extremely traumatic and life changing experience, then it's no longer skepticism. In fact, it's just denying proven medical facts