Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: miguel <mjcone0one@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 May 2006 15:28:45 -0400
Steve Daniels wrote:
I swear to God the 'need to talk' gene sits on the X chromosome.
I pray for the day when genetic engineers isolate and destroy it.
Penelope Periwinkle <pperiwinkle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11 May 2006 17:49:06 -0400, Selki <selki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Penelope Periwinkle <pperiwinkle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9 May 2006 16:34:39 -0400, Selki <selki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Between you and Brock, what I'm getting is, alternative health practicioners who do not thrust comparative stats on their clients unasked are charlatans, but if patients don't ask their doctors for the stats, it's the patients who are to blame. Do you agree with this double standard?
Why don't you just come right out just ask me if I've stopped
beating my wife?
Hey, your safe, sane, and consensual relationships are none of my business. But if laying out my impression (note the "I'm getting" qualifier) of a double standard you and Brock seemed to share as far as I could tell, and then asking if you agreed with that double standard (instead of, oh, stating that's what you meant and then stating you were in denial when you denied it), struck you as a rhetorical trick, then I guess our occasional communication difficulties continue.
Hogwash.
You asked " Do you agree with this double standard?"
Yes. "this" double standard, a double standard inherent in what I thought you and Brock were saying (I didn't read the thread all in one day, and must have forgotten about your disclaimer to Allison when I read your crack about being disappointed in another sniggler for falling for woo-woo when she didn't agree with you that all X (T-something Touch) was quackery).
I used a "what I'm getting" disclaimer when describing how I was reading you, instead of stating definitively that it was what you had said, and I deliberately did not say "your" double standard, since I wasn't completely sure I'd been reading you right.
To ask if I agree or disagree with your double standard
presupposes that I agree it exists.
Yes, it presupposes that the double standard I was getting (by conflating your and Brock's words) exists (no word yet on whether Brock holds it, but even if he didn't, I think there are people who think that way).
You didn't ask if you were correct in your summation of what I - or
Brock and I - meant, but
did I agree or disagree with the double standard you claimed
Brock and I expressed.
I qualified my summation, and then asked if you agreed with the implications.
I didn't express a double standard.
From the first post I made in this thread to Allison, I have
stated that there are good doctors and good alternative
practitioners and bad doctors and bad alternative practitioners.
I haven't denounced alternative medicine, I've denounced
quackery.
And now that you've set me straight, I acknowledge my error in misreading/misremembering what you said.
Enjoy,
Selki
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: prairierabbit
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Dr. Brat
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- References:
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Brock Hannibal
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Selki
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Dances With Machines
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Penelope Periwinkle
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Selki
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Penelope Periwinkle
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Selki
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Penelope Periwinkle
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Selki
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- From: Steve Daniels
- Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- Prev by Date: Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- Next by Date: Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- Previous by thread: Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- Next by thread: Re: On the horns of a dilemma
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading