So how is your diet method working for you? Will you provide a full body picture in a thong for us to see your rock hard abs?

I still have a ways to go, I quit being strict about my diet for about six month. I've lost 7 pounds in the last 12 days, while eating my fill of meat, eggs and cheese.

Peter_pan69:

Stop trying to shift goal posts and tell me what breakthroughs are due to homeopathy.

Well if immunization was homeopathy, and curing a disease with a disease then that might make me pause, but it is not either of those things so yea big time fail bud.

Immunization is not curing a diesease, it is preparing the immune system to recognize disease in order to prevent it.
Immunization is not homeopathy either, no one takes disease puts it in water and shakes it, then dilutes the water and shakes it then dilutes the water and shakes it . . . . and then pretends that is what makes a vaccine.


No, you vaguely mentioned the dangers of autism, and I decided to put some facts about it out there. It would only be a straw man if I had said something to the effect of . . . you are wrong becuiase of XYZ is your argument and it cant be correct, and then we find out that your argument was QRS and not XYZ. However becuase I never referenced any argument it cannot actually be a straw man. I just listed some facts.


3 words: measels, Polio, Smallpox


Sure, this is granted just my own opinion, however if you look at the size of the universe and assume that life will likly form on a planet similar to ours given enough time, and realize that there must be a googleplex of planets in this huge universe that might be very similar to our own, it would be pretty small reaching nill chance that life has not evolved elsewhere.

Logic and reason nothing else to back up this opinion. I would like to add that this opinion is shared amongst some of the most intelligent people on earth.



I think it sure does sound simplistic when you take it out of the context of the post it was in.
If however you consider my working usage of knowledge is testable, repeatable and falsifiable it sure does seem to get a lot more user friendly.
Do you have to relearn that your refrigerator keeps things cold every day or is that knowledge you do not need to reestablish?

Me shifting the goal posts??? LOL!

I suppose you forget that my original claim was this:







You're right, curing was the improper word. Eradication or prevention was the term(s) I should have used.





Yeah, they put the vaccine in saline, or glucose, or one or many of numerous other fillers....







When did I vaguely mention autism? Is your memory playing tricks on you again?






Sorry, but those are just words...







An appeal to authority? No evidence? I suppose you've seen life spontaeneously emerge elswhere to validate this opinion?

Care to explain that while you believe in aliens, you don't think they've visited Earth?






Then why don't you recognise your error(s)? Your bias is showing...

And I didn't say "simplistic", I said "idiotic", there is a difference, ya know?





Wow, your view is so full of holes, I don't know what to say...


Yes, you have to relearn that "knowledge" every day.
Ever heard of blackouts? Or hardware failures?



But you know what?
This isn't about what you think it is...

It's about your illogical appeal to ridicule that got you in this bind.

It's when the psuedo-intellectual has no facts to back up their claims that they resort to words and terminology that are derogatory in nature.


"Proper understanding"
"however to really gain intellectual ground one must have a strong grasp of critical thinking skills."
"shows a lack of understanding"
"loon"
"pathetic"
"nonsense"
"ignorance"
"critical thinking, reason, logic, and science open the doors to real knowledge"


Once you release your pre-conceived bias, you will "truly understand "...

Is this really a intelligible claim? If anything is a straw man, this is, Id tell you how if I even understood what you meant. These are words I have never used. "Sliding scale of requirements" are your words, please explain what you mean by them, or better yet use quotes from my own posts so I can understand your meaning and the context.

Right and that commonality is not what makes something homeopathic. You need to identify what does make something homeopathic and then explain how immunization shares those characteristics and how those characteristics are representative of immunization AND homeopathy, otherwise its nonsense.



In this case not my memory but my typing, I meant to type the word Vaccines, and typed autism, the facts I presented are about vaccines. Remember Peter, this wasn't about me arguing against you, I only merely presented facts in addition to your own. You had said vaccines are dangerous and people avoid them, I agreed that they have risk and then presented some facts, including that the benefit far outweighs those risks. I do not see where we are in disagreement on this specific point. Then again you where pretty vague . . .





Ok, I know this might be difficult, but we are going to play a game.

What is the relationship between these deadly diseases, life saving vaccines and world populations?

I think I explained my opinion and the evidence for it pretty clearly.

Your right one is against the forum rules and very rude, the other was me giving you the benefit of the doubt and meeting you half way.

I do recognize my own bias, usually after I have made use of my critical thinking skills and developed skepticism to uncover a bias I have previously not realized.

My bias validates my skepticism.



But a blackout would entail loosing power, my example had nothing to say about power, I said do you need to reestablish that your fridge keeps things cold, as in that is its intended function. You know that is what it is for, and do not need any tests to reestablish that fact. This supports my view point. Some knowledge we do not take the time to reestablish, some we do. If you asked me if my keys are in my pocket and I had already come home from work then I might need to check my pocket to know becuase after I get home from work I often take them out of my pocket. My knowledge of my own behavior leads me to question my knowledge of the placement of my own keys.



Peter you should be ashamed, taking quotes out of context and trying to argue an intention from it as if that was important to the discussion and if a given argument is valid.

Argue the point, not the person. If you have anything to say make sure you quote the full idea, including supporting paragraphs and then make a point about the argument.

Quote the usage, and I will respond to it, otherwise it is YOU who are trying to ridicule and poison the well, and it is very dishonest.

I don't know what homeopathic means and I don't really care.

I do know some great home remedies though.

PeterPan wrote:




I've been curious what the follow up would be on this. I suspected you meant immunization, because that's the goto example for homeopathic apologists. Usually they try to take credit for immunization, distort the facts to make their argument, and try to paint immunization as a homeopathic remedy.

At best, 'homeopathy' lead to 'immunization' the way that 'fiction' can lead to 'engineering'. Confusing that fiction with fact, however, is still wrong.



True homeopathy has nothing to do with immunizations.


Immunizations are not homeopathic preparations.

Immunizations contain measurable quantities of a useful substance.

Immunizations are not designed on the assumption that the more you dilute it, the more effective it will be. They are designed on the assumption that a minimum amount is necessary to have a beneficial effect.

It may take a moments thought to see the truth of this claim, and the importance of this distinction, but immunizations are not based on the idea that 'a sufficiently small amount of anything thats bad for you will counteract that bad thing'. Instead, immunization is based on the idea that for some disease factors, the body can be motivated to create antibodies using small amounts of (a usually weakened or dead form of) those disease factors.

True homeopathy, as an approach to treating a disease, is worthy of scorn and ridicule.

I doubt that true homeopathy (which is entirely different than simply the notion that a small amount of a harmful thing can be helpful) actually contributed to scientific breakthroughs, but if it did, such would simply be the circumstances of history and have no relevance to the merit of homeopathy as an approach to treating disease.


The search for the philospher stone may have contributed to scientific advancement, as it motivated generations of 'researchers'. This does not validate the concept of a philosphers stone.

Yes, home remedies, for the most part, have nothing to do with homeopathy. (Unless you are doing a 10X dilution in your kitchen...).


There are many valid home remedies out there, and many valid herbal remedies. Homeopathy is no more useful than a placebo.

I object to your use of the term "True homeopathy".

But this "debate" isn't about the validity of homeopathy, it's about bushido's illogical appeal to ridicule, which he thinks is relevant to intellectual discussions... One which he believes it is OK to ridicule and insult others because they don't believe what he does...


But anyways, let's take his source for the definition of homeopathy. (yeah I know, he didn't specify where he got his info, but I'm psychic, and as such, I know things... lol)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

I ask that you read that article in full. Pay close attention to the "Provings" and "History" portions as they are directly related to why I said "laugh at homeopathy..."

A lot of people abuse the term, applying it to other domains of alternative medicine, or to refer to 'anything diluted' or 'anything in which the cause is used as the cure'.




This conversation is not limited to any one topic. When someone says:



...now the conversation includes the topic of homeopathy, and its relationship to medical breakthroughs.





I see that same connection between homeopathy and scientific advances as there is between the philosophers stone and the use of, say, quality lab equipment. In no way does this reduce the absurdity of taking the theory of homeopathy seriously, or of attempting to use it as a method of treatment.

Absurdity???


Keep your bias, I'll keep gathering knowledge...

Being biased against stupidity and insanity is a good thing. If you seriously sustain an investigation of this topic, and related topics, for the next five-ten years, then I'll wager you will arrive at the same bias I have.

I seriously don't think you're capable of recognizing stupidity and insanity...

I'm not concerned. I just hope that you actually keep gathering knowledge on this topic, rather than just congratulate yourself on not being close minded. If you really, honestly, do so, I'd like to see where you end up in 10 years.

If I'd congratulate myself for anything, it would be for exposing the illogical use of ad-homs, appeals to authority and appeals to ridicule...


But, I'd have to give you and bushido credit too, I couldn't have done it without you guys...

I want to take a moment and talk about ridicule. Peter's only reason for being in this thread is to claim I am ridiculing something. What exactly is being ridiculed from his perspective is not really clear to me, but lets break down ridicule first.

—n
1. language or behaviour intended to humiliate or mock; derision

—vb
2. (tr) to make fun of, mock, or deride

[C17: from French, from Latin rīdiculus, from rīdēre to laugh]


The origin of the word is Ridiculus.

What does it mean for something to be ridiculous?


ridiculous
[ri-dik-yuh-luhs]   Origin
ri·dic·u·lous
Show Spelled[ri-dik-yuh-luhs] Show IPA
adjective
causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable: a ridiculous plan.


I am of the mind that many things in society are worthy of ridicule, or derision, that they are absurd, preposterous, and laughable. Not all subjects worthy of skepticism are worthy of ridicule. Like our examples in this thread. It is not ridiculous to believe your keys are in your pocket, nor is it ridiculous to question the honesty of a person known for being false. It is ridiculous to believe that cancer research is false and that it is a conspiracy to make money and keep people sick.

It is ridiculous to deny the existence of AIDS, it is ridiculous to deny the existence of the Holocaust and it is ridiculous to argue that we shouldn't be skeptical because we have to assume reality is full of other people, objects, entities.

Everyone should stand against nonsense. The way to uncover; to shine the light on nonsense, is skepticism armed with critical thinking and logical reasoning.

A parent would not be doing there child any good if they raised them believing in the four humors, or a flat earth, or that we cannot know anything becuase we have to assume we exist and are not brains in a vat.

It is important for society to ridicule demonstrably incorrect thinking.

Homeopathy is demonstrably incorrect thinking. If you believe it after knowing what the "theory" is based on, then you deserve ridicule, and no amount of appeals to how the inventor of homeopathy used primitive clinical trials (that did not remove bias properly) and helped establish that method will forgive believing in magic water in the 21st century.

So if your argument is that I am ridiculing belief in homeopathy then you are correct. It is laughable, it is absurd, it is preposterous, it is worthy of derision, and we should not quietly tolerate as a society belief in magic water.

It is a good thing that intellectuals are out there battling nonsense!

So it's good to be skeptical, except about the things you believe in? Thanks for clearing that up for us buddy.

And I know you love your strawmen, cause they keep you company on cold lonely nights, but I don't know of any scientists who deny the existence of AIDS. There are thousands of world renowned scientists who deny the link between HIV and AIDS, but they don't deny the existence of AIDS.

I dont know of any scientists either, but there are whole groups, even regions where AIDS denialism is a real problem. Even if only single person in the entire world denied the existence of AIDS that would not invalidate that this skepticism is misplaced and invalid would it? The demonstrable truth is that AIDS exists.

Your vehemence against me is misplaced. I also am not skeptical of just things I do not want to believe either, not that this matters or has any effect on my argument. That is where the need for things to be demonstrable, testable, and logical come in. Not that my bias changes the need for skepticism, it supports it. You can sit here and demonstrate my own ignorance, my own bias, my own faults and you will only be supporting my argument for testing, controls, and methods to remove bias and then accepting only the best evidence.

Attacking my character is not going to work to invalidate your own uses of skepticism either, you use it every single day, and like all of us you have bias. The methods of science, controls, blinding, and testing are universal in that they help eliminate this bias no matter how biased the person might be.

What about your skepticism of Anthropogenic Global Warming? Why are you skeptical of this Spider?

I think I remember you saying you accept global warming, but not that man has had an noticeable effect on it?

Can you explain that postilion?
Do you accept the notion of the green house effect?
Do you accept that Carbon is a green house gas?

See that? Spidercmb knows what the issue really is...


So yeah, "It is a good thing that intellectuals are out there battling nonsense!"