| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| but i know nothing. i am no expert. who can i trust now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| but i know nothing. i am no expert. who can i trust now? |
the voices in your head |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| but i know nothing. i am no expert. who can i trust now? |
the voices in your head |
are you smarter than me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| but i know nothing. i am no expert. who can i trust now? |
the voices in your head |
are you smarter than me? |
which of the multiple yous? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| but i know nothing. i am no expert. who can i trust now? |
the voices in your head |
are you smarter than me? |
which of the multiple yous? |
As any high school debater knows, once your opponent resorts to attacking you instead of your arguments, you have won the debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| but i know nothing. i am no expert. who can i trust now? |
the voices in your head |
are you smarter than me? |
which of the multiple yous? |
As any high school debater knows, once your opponent resorts to attacking you instead of your arguments, you have won the debate. |
WHAT arguments? The rantings of a lunatic dont add up to an argument unless you have a VERY liberal take on the definition of words in the English language.
A: "The sky is green"
b: "No, it isnt"
A: "Yes, 207 of my closest asylum mates agree, the sky is green but the government is covering it up."
b: "You are crazy"
C: "As any high school debater knows, once your opponent resorts to attacking you instead of your arguments, you have won the debate" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| but i know nothing. i am no expert. who can i trust now? |
the voices in your head |
are you smarter than me? |
which of the multiple yous? |
As any high school debater knows, once your opponent resorts to attacking you instead of your arguments, you have won the debate. |
WHAT arguments? The rantings of a lunatic dont add up to an argument unless you have a VERY liberal take on the definition of words in the English language.
A: "The sky is green"
b: "No, it isnt"
A: "Yes, 207 of my closest asylum mates agree, the sky is green but the government is covering it up."
b: "You are crazy"
C: "As any high school debater knows, once your opponent resorts to attacking you instead of your arguments, you have won the debate" |
I am referring to the many other threads on on this forum in which you have done the same thing and, lo and behold, there you go doing it again.
It becomes suspect when, instead of directly posting evidence that the sky isn't green, you resort to name-calling.
It seems like another case of, "My mind's already made up; don't confuse me with the facts." I just wish I could be so sure of myself as you are of yourself.
Your analogy is way off. Furthermore, remember there was a time when people were considered insane or even put to death for daring suggest the earth was round or revolved around the sun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
I am referring to the many other threads on on this forum in which you have done the same thing and, lo and behold, there you go doing it again.
|
Lo and behold theres a reason...keep reading..
| Quote: |
| It becomes suspect when, instead of directly posting evidence that the sky isn't green, you resort to name-calling. |
There are people who deserve a civil discourse and some who dont. I apply my judgement in all cases.
| Quote: |
| It seems like another case of, "My mind's already made up; don't confuse me with the facts." I just wish I could be so sure of myself as you are of yourself. |
There are no facts to support any of the lunacies posted by keane or loose_ends or EFL_trainer of IGTG or any of the other resident lunatics, So grasp that idea, please.
| Quote: |
| Your analogy is way off. Furthermore, remember there was a time when people were considered insane or even put to death for daring suggest the earth was round or revolved around the sun |
Wow, if you think a bunch of unabomber wannabes are like Galileo or Copernicus then...well, let me just judge you to be one of the loons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now when the debate is: Tomato fruit or vegetable?
That's all fun and games.
However when they throw in a Carrot the audience gets lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The consensus is always wrong as no theory is complete and subject to later revision. Depends on how granular you want to get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Now when the debate is: Tomato fruit or vegetable?
That's all fun and games.
However when they through in a Carrot the audience gets lost. |
A tomato is scientifically a fruit. It is also both a fruit and vegetable. Vegetables are only a cullinary category. Its a cullinary concept only, not a scientific one. Scientifically a tomato has seeds and is therefore a fruit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
I am referring to the many other threads on on this forum in which you have done the same thing and, lo and behold, there you go doing it again.
|
Lo and behold theres a reason...keep reading..
| Quote: |
| It becomes suspect when, instead of directly posting evidence that the sky isn't green, you resort to name-calling. |
There are people who deserve a civil discourse and some who dont. I apply my judgement in all cases.
| Quote: |
| It seems like another case of, "My mind's already made up; don't confuse me with the facts." I just wish I could be so sure of myself as you are of yourself. |
There are no facts to support any of the lunacies posted by keane or loose_ends or EFL_trainer of IGTG or any of the other resident lunatics, So grasp that idea, please.
| Quote: |
| Your analogy is way off. Furthermore, remember there was a time when people were considered insane or even put to death for daring suggest the earth was round or revolved around the sun |
Wow, if you think a bunch of unabomber wannabes are like Galileo or Copernicus then...well, let me just judge you to be one of the loons. |
care make a little bet?
wanna put ur money where you mouth is?
just say the word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| All I meant to imply with this is that people should try to be a little more open minded. A consensus of opinion doesn't necessarily prove something is true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I find it unbelievable that the NYT would actually publish that. The author blatantly disregards a mountain of evidence that contradicts what he�s saying. Where�s his refutation of The China Study, and of all the other major studies Dr. Colin Campbell cites in his book?
The China Study
The following sites are also full of footnotes from peer-reviewed journals:
Dr. McDougall
Dr. Fuhrman
Jeff Novick and his article about the so-called "French paradox"
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Dr. Greger
Dr. Klaper
These people aren�t talking out of their asses. They also have great reputations as �dissenting voices� within their fields, so it�s laughable to point to them as examples of a supposed �cascade effect.� The reality is almost exactly the opposite�for years mainstream health professionals were reluctant to admit there was any significant connection between diet and health. Finally, they�re being forced to listen in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Interesting article showing why it�s difficult to prove anything beyond a �shadow of a doubt� in nutrition
Maybe the evidence against fat isn�t quite as strong as the evidence against smoking�yet. Even if that turns out to be true, so what? The evidence against smoking was compiled over many decades, on the basis of many autopsy reports. We don�t have to wait until we�re all dead to make intelligent decisions about our health. And in case the author is unaware of it, poor nutrition affects more people than smoking and hasn�t gotten nearly the same amount of bad press.
What a terrible article. 
Last edited by Bramble on Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:30 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
