Re: HOW TO MAKE YOUR BODY ALKALINE?

"David L. Burkhead" <dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ksudnTuGervJfB7enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> >> If you know someone's going to be cross checking your work it
> >> tends to keep you honest.
> >
> > I guess that suggests that if you know that someone is not checking
> > your work, that keeps you dishonest.
>
> Only if you're dishonest to begin with.

It is human nature to be dishonest.

> But when you keep making
> excuses for not _allowing_ anyone to cross-check your work, that is
> suggestive.

When there is a continual refusal to investigate any avenue which holds
little promise of being lucrative, that is also suggestive.


> >>>> Not quite. Proponents of "mainstream" therapies don't
> >>>> generally spend a lot of time on failed theories.
> >>
> >>> Yes they do. They persist in the superstition that diseases spring
> >>> up out of nowhere.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you can quote the text, reference that claims as a
> >> current theory that "diseases spring up out of nowhere"?
> >
> > *Current* theory? Haha... Perhaps you could quote where I said that
> > all superstitions are written down?
>
> "They persist" implies "current."

The fact that you asked for a "current" theory, suggested to me that you
knew of such a theory that wasn't so current. That's what I found so
amusing. Hahaha... It sounded to me like you knew what I was talking
about, but didn't want to say.

> You're making the accusation that proponents of mainstream therapies
> believe that diseases spring up out of nowhere. Unless you can back that
> claim up, I call bull***.

Ask your doctor where diseases come from, then get back to me. I'd be
interested. Try to drill down to the reasons why some folks get certain
diseases and others do not. Try to exclude congenital diseases or extreme
environmental conditions. Better yet, before that, where do *you* think
diseases such as cancer springs from?

> >>>> Proponents of alternate "therapies" seem
> >>> to
> >>>> have a different position.
>
> >>> That's why I lean towards alternative remedies.
>
> >> Yep. The position that "claims are enough"--no verifiable
> >> evidence required.
>
> > No, the position that believes in the *** that I've personally
> > observed or tested.
>
> So you have been cured of AIDS? Cured of Cancer?

Have *you* been cured of either AIDS, cancer, or both?

> I call bull***.

So do I.

> > Corey will have to speak for himself.
>
> Okay, I'm still waiting for _you_ to provide a properly controlled,
> independently verifiable study that backs up claims of, say cures for
Cancer
> or cures for AIDS using these "alternative" therapies.

I have never claimed to know of any alternative therapy, that I know cures
AIDS or cancer, so I don't know why the needle keeps getting stuck on the
same track.

> >> An individual or small group making the same claim
> >> repeatedly--just changing the names and slightly modifyiing a few
> >> details is _not_ corroboration.
>
> > Once you establish that it is the same small group making the same
> > repeated claims, maybe then we can investigate this further.
>
> Well, considering that all the lists of "cites" that Corey has
provided
> have come down to one of several cases (the same "cite" may fall into more
> than one category:

"May?" Interesting. What you are saying is that you don't *know,* and
therefore cannot establish such a thing? That's fine. I won't press you
any further.

> - claims of events that cannot be verified to have happened at all,
> generally because key people are not named or are safely dead with no
> independently available written records (for instance a "document" that is
> only available from the Rife foundation that purports to support Rife's
> claims but for which no provenance outside the Rife foundation is offered,
> is not verification of that document's authenticity) that support what
they
> are supposed to have seen.
> - "cites" that do not actually support the claims being made (cf.
citing
> "CsCl therapy" as evidence of making the body alkaline as a cure for
cancer
> when the actual study merely showed that CsCl enhanced uptake of certain
> chemotherapy agents).
> - "cites" by a small handfull of activist proponents (most of which
I've
> named in previous posts).
>
> I've already spent a lot of time looking into this, but you and Corey
> demonstrate the reason why I don't do it often. No matter how much time
and
> effort I put into looking into it so long as I produce negative results
(as
> most such investigations of that nature must--there are simply more ways
to
> be wrong than to be right) the accusation is always that I didn't do
enough.
> How much is enough? Enough to produce agreement with the proponents. And
> the more negative results one comes across, the more excuses there are for
> them.

I already did what I felt was enough to make my position clear. Yet we are
still failing to armbar the understanding. I lean towards alternative
therapies. I do not know of or agree with the claims of *all* alternative
therapies, nor agree with all of the claims attached to the ones which I do
believe in.

I've never had cancer or AIDS, nor had either cured by an alternative
therapy, so cannot personally attest to the efficacy of taking such a route,
under those conditions. Neither can I point to any study, which I know of,
that categorically proves that an alternative therapy cure for either AIDS
or cancer exists. Please inform me, if you don't understand what I just
said.

> >> Ten people telling similar stories about one incident is
> >> corroboration.
>
> > Yes it is.
>
> >> One person telling the same story ten different time
> >> (claiming that it comes from ten different people) about supposedly
> >> ten different events is not.
>
> > Correct.
>
> >> Consider the case of the courts. A police officer cannot just
> >> report as corroboration what ten people told him. The defense has
> >> to be able to actually cross examine the "corroboration witnesses"
> >> and determine that they exist, that they say what they are reported
> >> to have said, and that what they are reported to have said bears
> >> some likely relationship to what actually happened.
>
> > Correct.
>
> >> No individual cross-examination, no corroboration.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Okay, the statement is excessively strongly worded, but you _cannot_
> have corroboration of all the "corroborating" sources are filtered through
a
> single point.

You mean if all the evidence came via your eyes?

> And completely undocumented, unverified, and unverifiable
> statements--such as that Amazon review--are not corroboration of anything.

It's not without available cross-checks as to identity and character of
reviewers. It doesn't proport to be a clinical study, so why should you
expect it to measure up to one?

I personally have to share this planet with people you lie gratuitously, for
no good reason, for no obvious gain, just to be perverse. That's life. The
only real defense that I know of is to be in possession of sound, critical
faculties. I don't expect others to determine the truth for me.

Getting cross with people who spout bull***, would render me angry for most
of the day. Wishing that people who lie would be struck dumb, would
similarly, leave me frustrated.

I have been trying to glean what you consider to be the solution to people
making unsubstantiated claims. Do you propose censorship or mere frustrated
griping?

> >>> Are these patterns such that you wouldn't expect to see them,
> >>> normally? If so, please show examples.
>
> >> In normal cases, I would expect to see a pretty wide variety of
> >> reasons why someone "came across" the alternate therapy.
>
> > So, anything which does not fall into categories of expectation is
> > automatically invalid?
>
> Have you considered going into the scarecrow business? If you are
going
> to build all these straw men, you should at least get paid for it.

Ha!

> >> "By chance" should actually be fairly low on the list.
>
> > Why?
>
> Go around the world. List representations of the human face that have
> been independently produced (a particular species of crab whose shell
> markings resemble those of a human face counts as one since individual
> members "inherit" the representation rather than independently producing
> it). Now count up how many were produced by deliberate action and how
many
> "by chance." (We'll count the crab as "by chance" since the superstitious
> fishermen who threw back crabs whose markings most resembled a human face
> did not know they were creating an evolutionary pressure in that
direction.)
>
> When you understand why the numbers come out the way they do, you'll
> understand why I said the above.

That's silly and simplistic. You seem to think that data amounts to
information. You also do not seem to be aware that "chance" is a euphemism
for ignorance of cause; it does not mean "random."

> >> More likely (from my experie) would
> >> be "a friend of mine recommended....", "I saw it in an
> >> advertisement....", "My doctor said, 'look you've got nothing to
> >> lose, so maybe....'", "Another member of my support group....", and
> >> so on.
>
> > Why don't you write the scripts for them?
>
> Why should I?

To prove a point?

> >> Then, I'd expect to see a variety of responses to the idea.
> >> Some would grab on quickly. Some would take some convincing. Some
> >> would be hopeful. Some would be desperate.
>
>
> > A nice spread. Hahaha... Who could have thought of that?
>
> <Shrug>. One script (or a small handful), that has(have) been
> repeatedly been shown to be effective at selling to the credulous by
con-men
> everywhere, is a lot less work than a broader array of stories that more
> closely match how things would more likely fall out is a lot less work.
>
> What's the point of being a con-man if you can't take the easy way
out?

Con men tend to be thinkers. That's my impression. It's the non-thinkers
that tend to be conned.

> >> I'd also expect to see different levels of severity of the
> >> initial problem. Some folk would be at early stages, not so severe,
> >> others would be at death's door, and everything in between.
>
> > Stop talking nonsense.
>
> Please define the nonsense. Is it your claim that people trying an
> "alternative cure" will not be at different levels of severity of their
> problem?

No. I am suggesting that the sample is too small for the even spread that
you are suggesting should be evident. I am also suggesting that data gets
skewed for reasons other than the ones that you are presenting.

> Or do you, perhaps, think that someone with a _real_ cure for
> cancer would not find it useful to tell of cases that came to him and was
> cured _before_ he got to the agony of late-stage terminal cancer (or AIDS,
> or whatever)?

No.

> Of course, a person snatched from the very jaws of death is a
> more heart-wrenching tale and does a better job appealing to emotion
rather
> than logic so, since it's just as easy to write one kind of story as the
> other when you have to make them up from scratch anyway, why not just make
> them all "drawn back from the brink of extinction" stories.

Naturally. It would be foolish to include a cure for an ingrown toe-nail.
It's all either-or with you, isn't it? If you ever write a book, try
appealing to logic and avoid appealing to emotion. Then take note of the
sales numbers. You seem to be suggesting that good marketing is a hallmark
of fraud.

> >> Then there is the level of results. Frauds tend to make big,
> >> absolute claims--100% cure rates, for example. Reality doesn't tend
> >> to be so absolute in complex systems. Likewise with recovery times.
>
> > Interesting. Perhaps we may discuss those people who are claiming a
> > 100% success rate at some othe time. For now, I'd prefer it if we
> > stuck to the current topic under discussion.
>
> You? Talking to me about "sticking to the current topic under
> discussion"? Oh, thank you. I haven't had a laugh like that in ages.
>
> Now. Let's dissect this. Do you see the words "for example" up
there.
> They mean that the statement that follows is, you know, an example of the
> kind of thing that is meant, not an exhaustive list.

I already explained to you that I have not delved into the fine details of
your's and Corey's argument. My comments don't relate specifically to
something which I am not in a position to either refute or corroborate. My
name ain't Corey.

> Next, look at the claims Corey's brought here--which is _exactly_ what
> this thread is about--and you'll see they're full of 100% cure rates--or
"we
> cured most of them, but then made a minor adjustment and were able to cure
> the rest."

I think that if you payed attention, you would have grasped the fact that I
was only arguing against a limited aspect of your position. You have
repeatedly introduced areas that I have no knowledge of, nor argument with.

> >> In the amazon review everything lines up in almost textbook
> >> perfection for the Nigerian School of Case History Writing: we have
> >> a skeptic, who by happy chance found the proposed therapy while on
> >> his last legs and gets a miracle cure in short order. While a story
> >> like that could, in theory, happen, when coupled with no provenance
> >> whatever and the complete lack of these miracle cures turning up in
> >> the media, that is not the way to bet.
>
> > For you.
>
> Well, there _are_ people who buck the odds, so stipulated. They tend
to
> lose a lot, though.

I buck trends. I tend to win, alot. If I went with the crowd, I'd be
mediocre.

> >> You must take into account when weighing anything I say about this
> >> particular individual that, first and foremost, I don't believe he
> >> exists as a real person. Thus, I feel quite free to make wisecracks
> >> that I wouldn't make about a real person who's dying and desperate
> >> to try to avoid that fate.
>
> > Good choice. Mess with people's predicaments, whenever you're not
> > sure.
>
> You can't mess with anonymous people's predicaments, even if they do
> exist. There isn't enough information to identify that person even if he
> _does_ exist, which I don't believe for a moment.

I don't know if you exist. Therefore nothing I say could possibly affect
you.

> >> If someone shows up presents bona-fides to establish both that they
> >> are that person and that events happened as described, I'll happily
> >> apologize.
>
> > That would make the injured party feel much better, I'm sure. Would
> > you like a punch in the face? I'll apologise afterwards.
>
> Do you really not see a difference between physical violence and
making
> wisecracks about an imaginary person?

IC. Words don't hurt. I think they do.

> I said the above in the full
> confidence that no such person will ever come forward because he doesn't
> exist.

IC. Confidence is a hallmark of truth.

> >> That said, falling prey to predators is still falling prey to
> >> predators. I can understand a person desperate falling prey to such
> >> just like I can understand them falling prey to "psychic surgeons"
> >> (who, often enough, have been _caught_ using slight of hand to fake
> >> their "surgery").
>
> > IC, you're performing your civic duty.
>
> What's your point? Yeah, pointing out that frauds _are_ frauds is a
net
> plus in my book.

IC. Exposing your *beliefs* is your civic duty.

> >>>> My onus is on the predators. The only disagreement with the
> >>>> prey is that by going willing to the slaughter they encourage the
> >>>> predators to continue, perhaps going next after someone who might
> >>>> have been helped by real medicine if the predator had not found his
> >>>> fraud so profitable because of the desperate.
>
> >>> What is your experience with real medicine?
>
> >> On the patient end generally, including treatment for allergies,
> >> various injuries over the years, the occassional bacterial
> >> infection, symptomatic relief for various viral infections, the
> >> occassional case of food poisoning, a round of ringworm (we'd
> >> fostered some puppies for the local Humane Society and they'd
> >> brought it into the house), oh, yes, and a case of chronic
> >> depression. You know, usual stuff.
>
> > I don't know if ringworm and chronic depression is usual stuff, but
> > carry on.
>
> If you deal with something like fostering puppies until they're old
> enough to adopt, sooner or later a case of ringworm is going to come
> through. They don't need fostering because they come from a _good_
> environment. As for chronic depression, different people, different
issues.
> Somebody else may have asthma. Yet another person, psoriasis. Yet
another,
> something else.
>
> >>>>> It's not the methods which are neccesarely being wholesale
> >>>>> avoided. But it is ridiculous to imply that everyone with a new
> >>>>> opinion most keep it to themselves till they can muster the time
> >>>>> and resources to pass it through this one small bottleneck. New
> >>>>> ideas would get cut down to a trickle.
>
> >>>> I do not agree with your characterization of properly
> >>>> controlled experimental data and independently verifiable
> >>>> information as a "small bottleneck." They're just not that hard to
> >>>> do if you really want to be taken seriously.
>
> >>> Not hard, just expensive.
>
> >> That's wrong too, at least at the "get attention" level.
>
> >>>> Here's the thing. Most new ideas, by the vast majority, are
> >>>> going to be _wrong_. There are simply far more ways to be wrong
> >>>> than to be right. The whole purpose of testing is to be able to
> >>>> sort that out.
>
> >>> I manage to filter, using time and reason, rather than concensus and
> >>> expense.
>
> >> I do not accept your characterization of the difference.
>
> >> I prefer to filter using evidence and validation rather than
> >> claims and appeals to deep, dark conspiracies.
>
> > Fallacy of insufficient options.
>
> Fallacy of insufficient options would only be a valid response if you
> and Corey did _not_ rely on claims and appeals to deep, dark conspiracies.
> You have already stated your "belief" in the conspiracies in this thread,
so
> that one's out of the way and the only evidence that anybody has presented
> for these "miracle cures" of AIDS, Cancer, and the like is unsupported
> claims.

When *I* make such claims, *then* you'd be in a valid position to argue with
me over those points.

> > I'll argue just my case, thank you. If you've found it a struggle to
> > argue with Corey, I'm afraid I cannot be bothered to assist you.
>
> Okay, if (I said "if" and I mean "if') your position is that these
> "alternate therapies" include a cure for AIDS, then it just as easily
> demolishes that argument too.

I have no position in this regard.

> >> But he's not even _claiming_ to have used any of these miracle
> >> cures. Thus, you can't count him as someone "waiting in the wings"
> >> when the topic is miracle cures for things like AIDS and cancer.
>
> > I was arguing the point, not the topic. I think you know that.
>
> Quite frankly, I don't think you knkow what you're arguing.
Otherwise,
> why are you arguing a "point" that nobody has made. I was talking about
> people cured of AIDS by Corey's miracle cures. You waid there was
probably
> "one waiting in the wings." A person who spontaneously healed is _not_
> responsive to that. You were, quite simply, wrong. If you want to argue
> otherwise, I will simply ask you to point out the antecedent to the
pronoun
> "one" as used in "one waiting in the wings."

I was being facetious. Please try to *get over it.*

> >>>>>> You'd rather put your faith in a bunch of netkooks? Okay,
> >>>>>> well it's your life....
>
> >>> It's my health, which is much better now. Thank you very much.
>
> >> "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
>
> > Maybe you will eventually learn the difference between implication and
> > causation.
>
> I think I know it better than you do since you don't seem to find it
> compelling.
>
> > Then again, maybe not. Who's to say which is what?
>
> Um, actually that's the whole point of controlled testing.
>
> > However, it is a fact that I feel much better, now. What have you to
> > say? I wonder how up you would be, without the chemicals.
>
> <Shrug> I've been through periods where I'd forgotten my meds while
> making extended trips, but even that's a pretty weak bit of evidence in
the
> face of placebo effects (which can be particularly strong on moods, after
> all). I've also seen and read quite a few controlled studies and other
> items that back up the efficacy of the medications. This provides an
> objective measure that I'm not just fooling myself.

It's good to see that you have read enough propoganda to be objective.

> >> No, actually. I am suggesting that you are relying on faith
> >> rather than verifiable evidence.
>
> > I feel much better. That is evidence.
>
> That is feeling a drop of moisture and calling it a monsoon.

That is analogous to my declaring that I felt a drop of moisture and you
then claiming that I called it a monsoon. It is evidence of what it is
evidence of, not what you choose to imagine.

> >>>> Stories to a script, and stories that get passed around, can be
> >>>> remarkably consistent.
>
> >>> People aren't that bright. When they lie, there tends to be little
> >>> common theme. I've observed them. When they spread rumours, they
> >>> tend to add *** on the invalidates earlier claims, with little care
> >>> or idea that they are doing this.
>
> >> Frauds are better than average at lieing.
>
> > The standard of average is pretty low.
>
> So?

Most frauds are easy to uncover.

> >> That's why they're successful.
>
> > They're successful because most people are stupid.
>
> Must . . . resist . . . straight . . . line.

I don't get that.

> >> As for stories getting passed around--look at any urban legends
> >> site for examples.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Not irrelevant. Your claim was that stories grow and change in the
> telling. Yet we see in the case of urban legends, stories that get passed
> around with no provenance (at best--proven wrong or even flatout
impossible
> at worst) yet which maintain remarkable consistency. Thus, the
consistency
> you are seeing in the stories is not validation of their veracity.

Consistency of reports strengthens a case. There are other checks. Certain
types of consistency can also weaken a case. I think you are becoming
narrow-minded over this.

> > If we are talking about persuasion, being clever or sophistiacted has
> > little to do with it. Most people are stupid, so it is easy to fool
> > most people.
>
> Must . . . resist . . . straight . . . line.

*Chuckle*

> >>>> There's nothing special in that.
>
> >>> I filter well. There is something unusual in that.
>
> >> You claim to filter well. There is nothing unusual in that.
>
> > Nothing unusual in the claim, but something unusual in the ability.
>
> Ah, but we haven't established that the claim is matched by ability.
> You may think that it's matched by ability, but so do all those other
> people.

I've yet to come across someone that I get the impression, thought that
arguing with me was a walk-over. Are you that person?

> >>>> Even
> >>>> _hal_ knows how to filter data. In fact, he's remarkably good at
> >>>> filtering out anything that doesn't fit his preconceptions.
>
> >>> That's more like most people I know of.
>
> >> And even Hal claims that he "filters well."
>
> > Interesting *claim*.
>
> Very like yours.

I'm smarter than Hal.

> >> "Ground-breaking" has little to do with it by itself, but
> >> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence
> >> has to be up to the claim. St. Johns Wort as a palliative for
> >> depression doesn't require much evidence. Forgelthap as a source of
> >> immortality, on the other hand--well, I want to see some immortal
> >> people before I buy that one.
>
> > Whereas you don't want to see evidence of depression cured by St Johns
> > Wort-hog. IC.
>
> First off, I'd want to see a _lot_ of evidence of depression _cured_
by
> St. Johns Wort. However, the standard of evidence for people "helped"
with
> their depression by St. Johns Wort is lower than that for "cured."
>
> You see, it's not a binary solution set--extraordinary evidence or no
> evidence at all. It's a continuum. The more extreme the claim, the
higher
> the bar.

Nonsense! The more dire the consequences, the more scrutiny needs to be
employed as to the truth. That makes sense. Needing an extraordinary level
of proof in order to justify a small level of investment or a minor change
in lifestyle, just makes no sense. It seems that you suffer from analysis
paralysis.

> >>>> I take my glucosamine (at my Doctor's advice, BTW) regularly.
>
> >>> What difference have you noticed? I'm thinking of getting some.
>
> >> I had chronic rotator cuff problems that got better (not completely
> >> cured--still a bit susceptible to injury--but better), likewise my
> >> knee problems. I can walk 3-4 times as far before my knees start to
> >> ache.
>
> > I bought a batch, on the strength of that.
>
> I'd also point out that, before I spent the money on it, I also looked
> into medical research on the subject. Animal trials seemed to be
promising
> but human trials were, at that point, inconcusive although there was a
study
> in Europe that was underway that some folk had high hopes for.
>
> Still, the claims for glucosamine were not outrageous, but were things
> that could reasonably be expected to be missed at the frontiers of medical
> science. The effects, if real, are subtle and take time. Completely
curing
> AIDS (to the point of not even being HIV positive) or cancer or Ebola (for
> example since I don't think even Corey has claimed that in this thread) is
> pretty hard to miss.

I didn't bother with all that ***. I just bought the tabs. Yet, we've
arrived at the same destination.

> >>>> At times when I was travelling and forgotten my
> >>> antidepressants,
> >>>> I've used St. Johns Wort as a somewhat less effective but better
> >>>> than nothing substitute.
>
> >>> Have you been on the anti-Ds for long?
>
> >> For about 5 years or so. Since I had multiple suicidal episodes
> >> when I was younger, the doctor and I decided I probably should
> >> remain on them permanently as a prophylactic measure.
>
> >> Been like night and day.
>
> > Been there. Been to hell and back, without the drugs.
>
> Some people can recover with just counseling. Some can recover from
> simply picking themselves up by the scruff of the neck and giving
themselve
> a good shake (metaphorically speaking). Some need medication.
>
> Funny thing is, medical science recognizes that not all treatments
work
> for all patients and that there's still a lot to learn about how the human
> body and mind work and the ways in which they can end up not working so
> good.

If I had stayed as I was, my condition would have killed me, I'm sure. I
*chose* what category I was going to be part of. I didn't do counselling.

> >>> I guess Amazon must have it's own group of SWAT teams, preventing
> >>> negative reviews.
>
> >> What, are you under the impression that without such swat teams,
> >> members of the "medical establishment" would be stalking Amazon,
> >> waiting to pounce on any alternative therapies book with an attack
> >> of negative reviews? However, the truth is far more prosaic. I
> >> doubt this book is even on the radar of most professionals in the
> >> field and the only reason they'd likely come across it on Amazon is
> >> while running a search for something else.
>
> >> As for my "SWAT teams" comment--that exact claim was part of one
> >> of the "cites" Corey brought up as "evidence."
>
> > What can I say? People have quirks in their characters. Welcome to
> > planet Earth.
>
> What you can say is that you recognize that _this_ is the kind of
> "evidence" that I'm highly dismissive of and that people citing it as
> "proof" tends to "poison the well" for people making more reasonable
claims
> and only suggesting giving ideas a fair try--to succeed or fail on their
own
> merits, fully recognizing that most new ideas, most old ideas for that
> matter, are simply wrong.

Yeh, it must be a real bummer, when you never get to turn off your bull***
filter, as you'd like to.

> >>>> That's the kind of thing I'm "highly dismissive of." That's the
> >>>> kind of thing I've been arguing against.
>
> >>> Ok. That part doesn't interest me.
>
> >> Okay. You have now been told, explicitly, what I am "highly
> >> dismissive of." If I see you make that claim about my position in
> >> any other context, I expect you to own up to the straw man.
>
> > That's not the definition of "Straw Man."
>
> Attributing a position to me that I do not hold for purposes of
> "refuting" it is _exactly_ the definition of a straw man.

True. But what has that got to do with me?

> >>>> Sorry, but penmanship is still irrelevant to the issue at hand.
>
> >>> It's his fucked up CNS that is at issue. Why doesn't he cure
> >>> himself?
>
> >> Once again--no one is claiming that modern medicine has all the
> >> answers or is able to cure everything.
>
> >> And since I have pointed that out several times now, your
> >> continuing to argue against it is a direct example of a "straw man."
>
> > You really need to acqaint yourself with the definition of "Straw
> > Man."
>
> Attributing to the other party in an argument a position they do not
> hold.

Well read!

> Yep. That's what you're doing.

Where?

> >>>> My boss has a nervous condition that makes his left hand
> >>>> extremely shakey. Wouldn't be much of a problem except that he's
> >>>> left handed. That doesn't stop him from being one of the very top
> >>>> men in the World in the field of Atomic Force Microscopy--one of
> >>>> the inventors, in fact, of the Phase Imaging technique for mapping
> >>>> material domains.
>
> >>> So? He could sell me his theory on Atomic Force Microscopy, but not
> >>> health tablets for nervous conditions.
>
> >> All or nothing with you? If a person cannot cure _everything_
> >> then what they have must have no value?
>
> >> And you said you could filter?
>
> > If he cannot cure what afflicts him, I am less liable to heed his
> > advice.
>
> So if your herbalist ever gets sick with _anything_, you are going to
> ignore him? That's your standard? Or is your standard double?

He had better not get afflicted with a fucked up CNS, if he wishes to
prescribe a cure for a fucked up CNS. My standards are high, I know.

> >>>>>> If you think that the attitudes and abilities of doctors 200
> >>>>>> years ago relate in any meaningful way to modern medicine, then I
> >>>>>> can't help you.
>
> >>>>> I don't want help to be convinced that people spouting gibberish
> >>>>> today are any different from the people that spouted gibberish 200
> >>>>> years ago.
>
> >>>> That you think it's gibberish says more about you than about
> >>>> them, I'm afraid.
>
> >>> That I think what is gibberish? Doctors today are just as
> >>> superstious as they were 200 years ago. They just hide it better.
>
> >> This statement says more about you than about doctors today.
>
> > It cannot, unless you are biased.
>
>
> Imagine you are severely injured in a car crash. Your wounds include:
> sucking chest wound.
> compound fracture of the left femur (hasn't touched the femoral
artery,
> but it's close).
> A dity piece of debris driven through your side into the abdominal
> cavity.
> A blow to the head causing bleeding under the left temporal bone
leading
> to gradually increasing pressure on the brain.
>
> The Good Doctor Fairy appears to you and gives you a choice: You can
be
> whisked to the 19th century to be treated by one of those "people spouting
> gibberish 200 years ago" or to a modern trauma center to be treated by
> "people spouting gibbering today." Since you don't think they "are any
> different" (as quoted above), am I to infer that you don't care which of
the
> two? Perhaps you would prefer being whisked to your herbalist (or
whatever)?

People today, not to speak of doctors, are just as superstitious as they
were 200 years ago. The form is the same. The only difference is the
content. If I found myself in the position that you described, then I'd
muster up all the pixie dust on offer and wing my way along to the nearest
*quack.*

> >>> The point is that they applied and continue to apply spurious
> >>> reasonings to justify their position on certain things.
>
> >> You may think that's the point. You're wrong.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> Sigh. There are theories that are right and theories that are wrong.
> Testing, controlled testing, is the only method that has demonstrated
> consistent effectiveness in distinguising the two. Ignore the testing and
> validation and you're more likely to pick a wrong theory than a right
> theory. That's the whole _point_ of testing. That's what it's for.

Which *certain things* am I referring to?

> Crackpots in all fields of science complain about the need for
evidence
> and testing. They claim the "old boy club" uses that to keep out new
ideas.
> What they fail to realize is that every "old idea" in science (medical or
> otherwise) was once a "new idea" and had to go through the same process.
> What we see now are the survivors.

Natural selection favours truth?

> To move into physics for a moment since it's my main field, we get
> people with "new ideas" claiming that Einstein was treated as a crackpot
> (after all, how smart can a man be who gets the "i before e" thing wrong
> twice in his own name ;) ) but that's not true. Sure, some individual
> scientists may have considered the ideas "crazy" but science as a whole
> simply put it to the test, requiring Einstein and his proponents to answer
> the hard questions to be able to point to actual data and measurements
that
> his theory explained better than extant theories of the time, requiring
the
> proponents of the theory to show that its testable predictions were
actually
> borne out in experiment. It survived. Quantum theory went through the
same
> process when it came along. deBroglie may have gotten a "bye" for a while
> with his reflecting the "waves have particle properties" idea from
Einstein
> back to "particles have wave properties" since the instruments at the time
> were just not sensitive enough to measure the effect but as soon as the
> requisite instruments came out (electron beam diffraction) the effects
> predicted by the theory were seen and measured.
>
> It's _all_ about testing. It's _all_ about experiment. Without
controlled,
> verifiable, testing you don't have science. You may have a science
fiction
> novel.

I test way way more than most. I do not solidify anything as a foundational
belief, unless I can find no contradicion. I do not need to be told what to
believe, or to trust other people's take on truth.

> >>>> Just because an idea is
> >>>> not mainstream doesn't mean that it's right.
>
> >>> You addressing Corey or me?
>
> >> Both of you, actually.
>
> > You've taken on too many.
>
> Two to one. I figure the odds are in my favor.

Hahaha... That's funny. You haven't heard of me, obviously.

> >>>> That's the whole point of
> >>>> validation--to filter out the ideas that work and those that don't.
>
> >>> Validation is also a means of making money. You seem to think that
> >>> the groups making obscene amounts of money, peddling conventional
> >>> treatments, actually care much about your health; which I find
> >>> amusing.
>
> >> Probably about as amusing as your thinking that snake-oil
> >> salesmen care about _your_ health.
>
> > My health is much improved.
>
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Just a fact. Read into it what you will.

> >>>> Jenner
> >>>> had a valid theory. He followed the procedure. His theory was
> >>>> validated. (Although that theory is also one that Corey has argued
> >>>> against.) That's all I'm asking from the people making
> >>>> extraordinary claims of miracle cures--that they follow the
> >>>> procedure.
>
> >>> How big and how long does the study have to be? I believe that you
> >>> are not thinking critically.
>
> >> If you have a 100% effective cure for cancer, not very big or
> >> long at all.
>
> > This is nonsense. You are asking for the equivalent similar to a
> > 100% cure for death. Get a grip!
>
> No. I'm not. Since we've already had a "case" cited where the author
> claimed just that--elimination of all cancer tumors in the test
> subjects--I'm simply pointing out that the claims already made would be
> relatively easy to demonstrate if the proponents had any real interest in
> demonstrating them to a credible standard.

Post a link.

> >> If you have a treatment that's only slightly better than current
> >> treatments (or slightly better than a placebo), quite a bit larger
> >> and longer.
>
> > What about a treatment which is much better?
>
> The better it is, the easier it is to demonstrate to a credible
> standard. See, the above two cases mark points on a continuum, at or
near
> each end. It's only the marginal cases that are really difficult or
> expensive to test.

> >> Doesn't have to be cancer. Could be AIDS, Ebola, whatever. Just
> >> make sure that the disease is independently diagnosed, and the
> >> results are independently confirmed at the end.
>
> >> Do that successfully, especially the part about independent
> >> verification of the diagnoses of the study sample and independent
> >> verification of results, and if the treatment is still ignored in
> >> professional circles, I'll join you in screaming about a conspiracy.
>
> > You'd just join the ranks of the cranks. Why would you not?
>
> Perform such a study, under terms sufficiently close to what I
> described--or better--and, while you would not have "proven" the efficacy
of
> the treatment (no single study can ever really do that), you will
certainly
> have demonstrated that there's something worth looking into to a
> sufficiently high standard that only deliberate suppression would account
> for further ignoring it. It would be unethical on my part to not denounce
> such a conspiracy.

My impression is that alot of radical ideas, which have now become
mainstream thinking, initially met with almost universal opposition. That
is no different to today. It seems that you are destined to follow, rather
than to lead.

> However, I do not expect any such study to ever be done. I believe
that
> the proponents, at least at the "originator" end, know they're selling
snake
> oil and that they would fail any such study. They'll simply keep
presenting
> "case histories" that cannot be verified, or even distinguished from pure
> fiction, and accumulating "testimonials" (out of any group of "terminally
> ill" people there will be a certain number, say 1 in 1000 as an example,
who
> will recover even if nothing is done--give your "treatment" to 5000 and
> collect 5 testimonials--just don't say anything about 4995 who died).

Ok. Your expectations actually mean nothing to me. But it was interesting
hearing of them.

> >>>> Undocumented "case histories" ("undocumented" in the sense that
> >>>> insufficient information is presented to allow someone other than
> >>>> the people making the claims to verify that the case actually
> >>>> happened, let alone had the results that were reported) do not fill
> >>>> the bill and, so far, that's all that has been presented.
>
> >>> Where the case histories in the book, "The cure for HIV and AIDS:
> >>> With 70 case histories," undocumented?
>
> >> I suspect if you knew even one that was documented enough to
> >> verify, you'd post it.
>
> > I didn't buy that book. Should I?
>
> Don't you think that if you're going to cite it in an argument, you
> should know what it says?

I was asking you. Do you own or have access to the book?

> >>>>>> You cannot take the actual case out when looking at the
> >>>>>> "worth" of anecdotes.
>
> >>>>> Then why did you say that all anecdotes are worse the useless as
> >>>>> evidence?
>
> >>>> Context. Context. Context. Within the context of the current
> >>>> discussion.
>
> >>> Convenient of you to now adopt that position.
>
> >> Only made necessary since you insist on ignoring the context of
> >> the current discussion.
>
> > You will not get away with referring to a context which you are
> > verring aware from in chosing what to discuss.
>
> I don't have to choose what to discuss. You came in in the middle of
an
> ongoing discussion. I'm simply pointing out to you what the subject was
> when you decided to join in.

Attaching Corey's arguments to me will not serve to strengthen your
position, I'll wager. But don't let me influence you.

> >>>>>> Claims which cannnot be validated are never corroboration.
>
> >>>>> Corroboration is a lesser standard of evidence than validation.
> >>>>> Once should look for the former, before the latter.
>
> >>>> Sorry, but someone making more claims does not "corroborate"
> >>>> earlier claims that they have made.
>
> >>> Positive reviews corroborate.
>
> >> No. They don't.
>
> > Do too!
>
> Man, if I ever become a used car salesman, would you please come to my
> dealership? I can provide you with all kinds of excellent reviews. Don't
> let the fact that you can't verify who wrote them and what relationship
they
> have with me bother you.

If the review came through Amazon or CIAO, then I'd consider it.

> >> Then you are unaware that the hymen can be broken by means other
> >> than intercourse?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Hymens can be broken by means other than intercourse. There. Now you
> are no longer unaware.

I misread. I thought you said, "aware."

> >>> What I feel in unscientific, is your freeness in speaking of
> >>> netkooks, crackpots and charlatans, when you havee neither done
> >>> sufficient research, nor presented proof to establish those you
> >>> speak of to be
> >>> as you describe them.
>
> >> You speak with authority on something you know nothing
> >> about--what kind of research I've done on various things.
>
> > I am speaking about specific reviews, which you have demonstrated no
> > qualification to voice an opinion on.
>
> So, it's okay for these folk to not demonstrate any qualification for
> their claims, but it's not okay for me to call them for it since I
haven't,
> in your opinion, demonstrated "qualification" to do so?
>
> Double Standards R Us.

I hope thst you are referring to Amazon reviews. The reviewers do not need
to be any more qualified than being familiar with what they are reviewing.
Until you can demonstrate that specific reviewers are stooges for the
peddler of the item being reviewed, then I think that certain of your
comments are best left un-aired.

> >>> Looking in my mailbox, I can find adverts for lengthening my penis,
> >>> enlarging my breasts and offers of free TVs, to name a few. So, why
> >>> am I not sitting down, with my twelve inch penis, and my 42 DD
> >>> breasts, in front of my free 42 inch plasma screen? Well, as much
> >>> as those things would be nice, I do not find myself compelled by
> >>> such claims, and form judgements, sight unseen.
>
> >> That you manage to avoid some frauds is no guarantee that you
> >> are immune to all such blandishments.
>
> > It dosen't prove that I am more suseptable, either.
>
> I wouldn't say "more susceptible." I just happen to believe you've
> fallen for a particular fraud.

I think that you expect your life to be full of guarantees.

> >>> However, if one is to claim to be going about things scientifically,
> >>> one should not be basing such positions on knee-jerk conclusions.
>
> >> Considering the amount of time I've taken to _look_ at the
> >> so-called evidence Corey has presented and found it all to be smoke
> >> and mirrors and unsubstantiated claims, the claim of "knee-jerk" is
> >> a bit wide of the mark. Frankly, I've given this a lot more time and
> >> effort than any results have rated.
>
> > It appears to me that you have actually troubled yourself to
> > investigate certain aspects of the evidence. However, I maintain
> > that mentioning certain hallmarks, smacks of the knee-jerk.
>
> Maintain all you want. I'm simply describing a pattern that I've
seen.
>
> Is recognizing patterns automatically "knee-jerk" in your view?

Not by itself.

> >> Another straw man. We're not talking about me making
> >> discoveries we're talking about people who claim to have made
> >> discoveries making the case for them. I want the people _proposing_
> >> their radical new cures to provide the evidence to back up their
> >> claims. Real evidence, not unsubstantiated claims. Hiding your
> >> evidence so that people have to "dig" to find it (and if you find
> >> nothing but smoke and mirrors, why the proponents just say you
> >> didn't dig far enough) is about as unscientific as you can get.
>
> > I have found no difficulty verifying certain supposedly buried
> > evidence.
>
> Then you should have no difficulty pointing at that verifiable
evidence.
> Go ahead. I'll wait.

I was informed that indigestion was a major contributor to ill-health and
that fasting was the cure. I fasted and the ill-health went away. That's
what science is about: testing the theory.

> >>> I suspect that I would be bored to tears.
>
> >> Well, perhaps you should actually know what the argument is
> >> about before jumping in and making assumptions about it.
>
> > If you where to point out the assumptions which you feel that I have
> > made, them maybe I would have a hope of addressing them.
>
> I think you misspelled "ignoring them" since that's what you've done
> when I'd pointed out these things before.

Interesting. Now, how about you address the challenge that I presented you
with?

> >>>> Do you actually endorse that?
>
> >>> I know nothing about that.
>
> >> That _is_, however, the point I have been arguing against.
>
> > I don't think it is.
>
> Then you're wrong.

That's cleared it up.

> >>>> As for damage to profits, do you even consider that suppressing
> >>>> these ideas is _also_ damaging to profits of various groups? Do
> >>>> you have any idea how much cancer treatments cost the insurance
> >>>> industry every year?
>
> >>> You think it would increase their profits over the long-term if
> >>> no-one got cancer?
>
> >> Let's see. They no longer have to pay out for expensive cancer
> >> treatments. Meantime, there are plenty of other things people get
> >> sick from so they still have to buy insurance. Uh. Yes.
>
> > I doubt it.
>
> Doubt away. I doubt you can come up with an even halfway plausible
> scenario that's even revenue neutral, let alone revenue positive for
> constantly shelling out large sums for cancer treatments in lieu of a
cheap
> cure.

*Chuckle* You are funny. The world that you are living in appears to be so
simple. How about: cancer creates more fear; more fear creates more
customers; the fear of cancer creates more revenue from addtitional
customers than does the cost of paying out for the customers that cancer
kills. That is how insurance companies make money, my naive friend.

How plausible would you say that was? Hahaha...

> >> Is it your contention that he is an agent of the US Medical
> >> Establishment?
>
> > No.
>
> >> Are you going to make an excuse for _every_ country in Africa
> >> which is having an HIV crisis?
>
> > No.
>
> >> Are you going to make an excuse for _every_ country in the
> >> _world_ which has an AIDS problem at all?
>
> > No.
>
> So the whole "Robert Mugabe" was a red herring since it doesn't
address
> the issue.

It addresses the issue of leaders working against the interests of their
countries. Your argument breaks down right there.

> >> Is it your contention that this "Medical Conspiracy" is so
> >> widespread that every single country in the world is part of it,
> >> that no one, no one at all, will buck the conspiracy to get rid of
> >> AIDS, and yet this global conspiracy that makes the Illuminati look
> >> like rank amateurs somehow can't silence the handful of people
> >> promoting these cures?
>
> > No.
>
> So why isn't anyone else doing it? Still waiting for an answer.

I don't know that no-one else is doing it; neither do you. I haven't looked
into why, so I don't know exactly why. Failure to ascertain why, is not
proof that a phenomenon doesn't exist, or that there isn't a reason for it.
If I looked, I would know why.

> >> Is this your idea of "filtering"?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Interesting.

I think so. Hahaha...

> >>>> The FDA and AMA have no authority there yet somehow the conspiracy
> >>>> runs even there? Do you actually believe that?
>
> >>> I don't know exactly what is going on, but I don't believe it is as
> >>> clear-cut and above board as you seem to think.
>
> >> Actually, you appear to believe that it is clear cut since not
> >> _one_ country apparently will let these good-hearted people with the
> >> cure for AIDS help them. Not one.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> How do I know the moon is still up there? We would have noticed.

Especially since you've assumed, rather than having looked. Interesting.

> There is simply no way to keep secret something of that size.

You assume.

> It _can't_ be done.

Prove it. Really.

> People travel. People talk. While this "medical
> conspiracy" can maybe be imagined to have control of major newspapers,
> radio, and television, there's the internet, travellers, and a whole host
of
> other ways to get information out.

Which educated people disbelieve, because it isn't backed by the scientific
community.

> >>>>>>> Is my time not worth money?
>
> >>>>>> Do you know that it actually has verifiable cases (as opposed
> >>>>>> the smoke and mirrors of the "amazon review") or were you just
> >>>>>> bluffing?
>
> >>>>> You were suggesting that I go do your research for you, when there
> >>>>> is nothing in it for me. Much as your time is important, so is
> >>>>> mine.
>
> >>>> Either you have already _spent_ the time (how else could you
> >>>> know that the claims are actually verifiable) or you were bluffing.
> >>>> I call.
>
> >>> I didn't say I did know.
>
> >> So you were bluffing.
>
> > No I wasn't.
>
> Sorry. I've seen the cards in your hand. You won't even admit to
> having read the book, let alone seeing that it has actual verifiable case
> histories. I call.

I've skimmed over the book that I have bought. I haven't read the book that
I didn't buy. Aside from your accusing me of bluffing over something
implicit and existing only within your own assumptions, I don't see what I
have to answer for.

> >>>>>> If the
> >>>>>> former, then you've already spent much of the time and all that's
> >>>>>> required is to list a couple--no more time involved than
> >>>>>> answering these posts anyway. If the latter, I call.
>
> >>>>> I do this out of interest. You'll note that I avoid areas of
> >>>>> disinterest.
>
> >>>> I call.
>
> >>> You'll see that I'm not bluffing about avoiding what I claim a
> >>> disinterest in, when I continue avoiding those very areas.
>
> >> I call on your bluff about the book having verifiable cases.
> >> You not only were bluffing, you didn't even look at the cards.
>
> > I didn't buy the book. I'd be able to comment, if I bought the book.
>
> Ah, but you cited the book without knowing that its contents. That's
a
> bluff.

That's not the definition of "bluff." You need to either brush up on your
mindreading skills, or become better acquainted with English. Hahaha...

> >> Your claim about "perverse practices and stupid patients" says
> >> more about you than either about the doctors, their practices, or
> >> the patients.
>
> > What does it say?
>
> You either know what it says or don't want to know.

I have an impression of what I feel you are probably saying in your head,
but until I get more information with which to cross-check, or you make your
thoughts more explicit, I'll reserve judgement.

> >>>>> Why are those people sick and afflicted, when there is
> >>>>> conventional medicine?
>
> >>>> Nobody claimed that conventional medicine had all the answers.
> >>>> Straw man.
>
> >>> Hahaha... I like that. Hahaha... Put up your own strawman, then
> >>> point to it. Hahaha...
>
> >> Um, is English your first language?
>
> > I wouldn't wish to discombobulate you.
>
> I guess that's a "no."

Yes. "Guess" is the word.

> >>>>>>>> A number of "shills" have been outed.
>
> >>>>>>> Interesting. When and how?
>
> >>>>>> Professional group I'm a part of. However, if you choose to
> >>>>>> believe that all Amazon reviews are the epitome of complete
> >>>>>> honesty,
> >>>>>> I won't argue it.
>
> >>>>> I don't believe that you think that I think that.
>
> >>>> If you don't think that, then by what standard do you claim
> >>>> that the review in question is so completely honest?
>
> >>> I can't name such a standard, because I never made such a claim.
>
> >> Yet you object when I argue against it being cited as "evidence"
> >> for some miracle AIDS cure. If you don't consider it honest, why
> >> raise the objection?
>
> > Fallacy of insufficient options.
>
> Please elucidate a few of the other options.

*Chuckle* You are funny. You do have a mind. Hahaha... I consider Amazon
reviews to be reasonably honest, rather than the unachievable epitome of
honesty, as you suggested. It is not that if I don't consider the reviews
to be completely honest, that I consider them to be dishonest, as you
suggest.

> >>>>>> Since we started with somebody citing an _Amazon Review_ as
> >>>>>> "evidence" do you, or do you not, consider such a "review" as
> >>>>>> compelling evidence of truth?
>
> >>>>> Hmmm... Give me a moment. Ummm... Can I get back to you?
>
> >>>> Generally, not answering on the grounds of the fifth is an
> >>>> answer itself.
>
> >>> Fallacy of insufficient options.
>
> >> Not applicable when the situation has a binary solution set.
>
> > According to your pronouncement.
>
> See below.

I have.

> >> If such a review is not compelling evidence of truth, then
> >> rejecting it as evidence, as I have done, is entirely reasonable.
>
> >> Only if it is compelling evidence of truth is rejecting it
> >> unreasonable.
>
> > Define "compelling."
>
> www.dictionary.com

Can you point to an objective definition?

> >>>>>>>> Not only verifiable, but verified--something 5 minutes
> >>>>>>>> would have demonstrated to you.
>
> >>>>>>> I don't need a demonstration to reinforce what I already
> >>>>>>> assumed.
>
> >>>>>> So your questioning it was yet more smoke and mirrors?
>
> >>>>> No workable system of proof is perfect.
>
> >>>> Nobody said one was. But make an Amazon review worth citing as
> >>>> evidence of anything.
>
> >>> So, evidence is not evidence until it reaches a standard which you
> >>> decide upon?
>
> >> Evidence is not evidence when it only exists as a claim someone
> >> has made.
>
> > Fallacy of insufficient options.
>
> Not quite. You made a straw man. I reiterated my original position.

What I should have said is that your definition is incorrect. You are aware
of "evidence" as an oral statement, admissible as evidence, right? I think
that you should learn to seperate "evidence" from "strength of evidence."
That should clear some of the confusion that you are labouring under.

> >>>>>>>> I said it was an unverifiable and unsupported
> >>>>>>>> claim with no provenance and that you cannot eliminate the
> >>>>>>>> possibility of
> >>>>>>>> exactly that kind of skullduggery.
>
> >>>>>>> Who said that you could eliminate the possibility of that type
> >>>>>>> of skullduggery?
>
> >>>>>> That's kind of what "independent verification" is all about.
>
> >>>>> Interesting strawman, but what has that got to do with the
> >>>>> discussion?
>
> >>>> Since what I have been asking for is independent
> >>>> verification--at least being able to check that the supposed
> >>>> participants in the study actually exist, that the supposed study
> >>>> was actually done, and that the supposed results were actually what
> >>>> they were claimed--it kind of has everything to do with the
> >>>> discussion.
>
> >>> That would not eliminate the possibility of skullduggery, as you
> >>> suggest.
>
> >> Straw man. You keep wanting to ignore the context of the
> >> discussion and what a statement was in response to. In this case,
> >> you have extended "that kind of skullduggery" to "skullduggery" in
> >> general. Since we were talking about the Amazon review and the
> >> "skullduggery" in question was the author going on under an assumed
> >> name and writing the review itself using a completely made-up case
> >> history that is _exactly_ the kind of skullduggery that independent
> >> verification eliminates. I mean, sure, you can try it, but that
> >> independent verification bugaboo will catch you.
>
> > I think that you need to set out your idea of a perfect system of
> > proof.
>
> What makes you think that I even believe in the concept of a perfect
> system?

When you use such words as "eliminate," rather than "reduce." That kind of
gives it away.

> That's your straw man yet again.

I don't recall buying him from you.

> >> First of a short series. Also including "The Armagedden
> >> Inheritance" and "Heirs of Empire."
>
> >>>>>>> tested or an uniteresting ideas to be disregarded. Nobody is
> >>>>>>> forced to buy
> >>>>>>> the book.
>
> >>>>>> The same argument can be said of any other con man. Yet,
> >>>>>> somehow, people still find it worthwhile to condemn fraud.
>
> >>>>> Yeh, let's jail all kooks and censor all literature!
>
> >>>> Fallacy of insufficient options.
>
> >>> You have them sprinkle all through this thread.
>
> >> Since I have to quote your material to make sense of the thread,
> >> the fallacies kind of come along with them.
>
> > So you say.
>
> Yep. And point out repeatedly. At first, I pointed out some of the
> alternate options you were excluding, but since you ignored them, I just
> stopped bothering.

That's no good. So easily defeated. Haha...

> >>>> There are forms of condemnation that don't involve jail. Also
> >>>> straw man.
>
> >>> It wouldn't be, if you could actually find the person who claimed
> >>> that there weren't forms of condemnation that don't involve jail.
>
> >> I said "condemn." You said "jail." So if you don't consider
> >> "jail" to be fully congruent with "condemn" it was a straw man.
>
> >> So, which fallacy was it? To avoid the fallacy of insuffient
> >> options, I will leave open the possibility that it was some other
> >> fallacy or that it might be more than one fallacy at the same time.
>
> > My head hurts! Hahaha...
>
> Keep your fallacies straight when you commit them, then you won't have
> these problems.

*Makes note: keep fallacies straight.*

> >>>> Or maybe she'll actually want to see that the lid is cold
> >>>> before sitting on it.
>
> >>> Most hot lids look just like cold lids.
>
> >> Well, yeah. So how do _you_ suggest she avoid sitting on a hot
> >> lid?
>
> > I don't.
>
> So then why is it unreasonable not to sit on _any_ lid so as to avoid
> the hot ones?

Almost always. That's usually called cowardice. The "almost" serves as a
personal get-out clause.

> >> Getting your arse occassionally burnt as new things come up is
> >> one thing. Getting your arse occassionally burnt because you insist
> >> on repeatedly jumping on the same stove lid is just stupid.
>
> > I agree.
>
> Conclusion is left as an exercise for the student.
>
> >>>> All I'm asking is that you show me that the lid is at least
> >>>> somewhere between "toasty" and "Yow! That's cold!"
>
> >>> People of little faith, tend not to get very far in life.
>
> >> One should have an open mind, but not so open that one's brains fall
> >> out.
>
> > Do you write fortune cookies in your spare time?
>
> No, but I read them.

It shows.

> >> There's a difference betwee "faith" (as something actually useful in
> >> life) and "wishful thinking."
>
> > Correct, I would say.
>
> Then the main difference is where we draw the line between them,
> wouldn't you say? And is that also not something on which reasonable men
> may disagree?

Yep.

--
Wayne
"Aka Dobbie the House Elf."


.