Point to one religion that has ever not had those trappings. Even Buddhism falls short.
Referring to these trappings:
veneration of the leader, symbology & vocabulary, demanding unquestioning obedience.
While you may find some offshoots of Buddhism that have these trappings, mainstream Buddhism does not, in any way shape or form. In fact, Buddha specifically said not to venerate him. I can't even think of a single offshoot of Buddhism that demands unquestioning obedience. Just the opposite, Buddhism demands you think for yourself. I'm not sure what 'symbology and vocabulary' refer to in the case of Buddhism.
But then, Buddhism isn't a religion, as it doesn't speak about anything intangible or metaphysical like God, a soul, or an afterlife. Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion.
Come on. This was an artfully crafted troll. Comparing open source to YouTube crap videos, without ever making a direct comparison, yet implying that most open source is like most crap videos: textbook propaganda. Then we have the 'real programmers' line, again implying that open source programmers are not real programmers, without ever stating it directly. Finally, there's the 'twenty experts' line, again, implying that no open source programmers are experts.
Seriously, people pay good money to learn how to write propaganda of that quality. And people who are that good at writing propaganda get paid very, very well. I wonder who 'useful wheat' is working for?
Your claim is that homeopathy works. Frankly, that is an extraordinary claim, based on actual physics and how homeopathy claims to work. If you make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary proof.
See, it isn't up to me to prove homeopathy doesn't work. It's up to you, and other supporters, to prove it does. The default belief for any medical procedures should be, "I won't believe it works until you prove it does."
Modern science has shown it doesn't work. There is so much science showing it doesn't work, the UK is not going to pay for it anymore.
Sorry, but your ex got better because of a placebo.
They can patent the method for isolating or synthesizing those ingredients, however, which is what they usually do. Big pharma companies spend a lot of money researching naturally growing herbs, and have made bank on said research.
Those studies have all been shown to be flawed. Seriously, you point to a list on a pro-homeopathy website? Did you even look at the categories shown? Those are not random controlled studies, they are reviews of existing studies! And then, down on the bottom of the page, some 'non-replicated' (read, false, untrue, not peer reviewed and unscientific) studies. Whoop de fricken doo.
Don't start in on my motivations or beliefs either. I used to believe in (or at least, not disbelieve in) homeopathy. I probably know more about it than you do. But, when reality presents me with incontrovertible evidence that one of my beliefs is flawed, I change that belief. And therefore, I now think homeopathy is utter horseshit.
Man, you just misread something everyone else apparently understood. Or you responded to the wrong post.
Let's keep it short: you just repeated my argument as a counter to my argument. That doesn't actually work. You need to use the OPPOSITE of my argument to counter my argument. When you use the same argument it just CONFIRMS what I am saying, it does not, in fact, counter it.
To be clear, because I obviously need to explain this in short sentences using short words for some people: homeopathy is crap. Herbalism may or may not be crap, given any particular herbal remedy.
"How many harmless narcotics must Ginger and I consume before the empire is safe? What the hell happened to my guard from the Home Office? How much longer will Benji's remain the only sandwich shop not to have security men on the door? Find out in the next thrilling installment of The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken Caesar!" --Sir Digby Chicken Caesar.
As you are the second person who seems to have mistaken my intent here, I'll make it very clear: homeopathy is bullshit. The founding principle of homeopathy is simply wrong.
There is no change or advancement in this fundamental, central, FOUNDING PRINCIPLE of homeopathy over the 'ages.' You are spouting absolute, uninformed CRAP, trying to put homeopathy in the same boat as herbalism.
Yep, it's been total BS for millennia. At least the herbalists are *occasionally* onto something (drugs like digitalis, etc). If homeopathy made any sense, the water sloshing around on the planet should cure everything, since it's got everything (diluted billions of trillions of times) in it.
Unless, of course, you're attempting to *defend* herbalism from being associated with craptastical pseudoscience.
Exacty, I am trying to defend herbalism from being associated with craptastical psuedoscience, for the reasons you state: herbalism actually has some value, and when we combine it with the scientific method, we can concentrate that value and get rid of the things that don't work. Unfortunately, nobody is going to pay for proper double blind testing of herbal preparations unless they want to isolate and patent the active ingredients.
Fact, alcohol and cigarettes cause more problems in a day than pot does in a year, yet they are still legal.
Fact, drug prohibition CREATES the drug culture, if pot were legal, pot smokers wouldn't be exposed to said 'culture.'
Fact, nobody on pot has enough motivation to get off their asses and commit a crime.
Fact, pot makes you mellow and makes it easier to put up with constant annoyances like children, meaning the children of pot heads are less often abused.
Fact, you don't foot any bill for potheads, you are footing the bill to fight them
Fact, the drug war is socialism for cops and addicts. If you support the drug war, you support socialist 'handouts' for a very small class of people.
Fact, I'm sick and tired of moralizing do-gooders trying to protect me from myself. If I need your help, I'll ask.
Fact, just asserting something is a fact doesn't make it so.
There is a well understood immune system response in the case of immunization. The immune system simply does not work that way for homeopathy. If you can, please point to ANY study showing actual effectiveness for ANY form of homeopathy.
Yes, I realize that SOME homeopathic preparations are not diluted to the point of intangibility. It makes no difference. Homeopathy is not effective, in any guise.
"So U.K. government officials can only blame themselves for the placebo effect...morons."
Yes, he DID say that 'gubmint makes us overdilute.'
He didn't say anything at all about homeopathy itself being watered down. He doesn't know what homeopathy is. He provides many, many examples beyond this one of not knowing what the fuck it is.
Congratulations, you do not comprehend either his argument OR mine.
Again, more uninformed bullshit. You have been corrected six ways from Sunday by dozens of informed posters, yet you still persist in spreading misinformation. We've even said things like, 'homeopathy is not naturopathy.' and 'homeopathy is not herbalism,' and 'homeopathy is founded on the principle that diluting something makes it have the opposite effect.' yet you STILL insist on conflating homeopathy with actual, useful medicine like herbalism. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Bullshit! You have no idea what homeopathy is. Homeopathic preparations are NOT diluted due to legal issues, dilution is the whole. god. damn. point. it is what supposedly makes an ingredient alleviate the symptoms it causes if not diluted. There is no change or advancement in this fundamental, central, FOUNDING PRINCIPLE of homeopathy over the 'ages.' You are spouting absolute, uninformed CRAP, trying to put homeopathy in the same boat as herbalism.
One more time: homeopathy is not herbalism! NO traditional herbal medicines from ANY culture in the world use homeopathic principles.
And, FYI, I DO put that in my pipe and smoke it, because there are ACTUAL MEASURABLE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS in it.
I can only conclude you have no idea what the principles of homeopathy actually are. It is basically thus: you take something that CAUSES a symptom (not cures it!) and you dilute it down until it is pure water, and that pure water will then do the exact opposite of what the ingredient did.
Homeopathic pot, for instance, would be touted as a cure for laziness and lack of motivation.
In homeopathic remedies, the mixture has been diluted so much, there isn't likely to be a single molecule of the active ingredient in most preparations. Well established herbal traditions, from traditional Chinese Medicine to Ayuervedic to American Herbalism, all have herbal preparations with large amounts of the active ingredients. Some preparations from these traditions have been shown to be very effective. Homeopathy has been shown, over and over again, to be nothing but placebo. Just because it's 'herbal' and 'all natural' doesn't mean it 'works.'
How is porn unhealthy, based on your personal experience? I mean, I can understand that some porn is unhealthy, or that some use of porn and fantasy can be unhealthy if it interferes with other aspects of your life, but the problem then is actually some kind of sex addiction, and not the porn, fantasy, or masturbation itself.
And it isn't 'a study.' It's ALL studies. In fact, if you want to convince anyone but yourself of your point, try to find something to back up your opinion. You won't.
All men masturbate. Some just lie about it. But playing the moral superiority, 'real men don't fantasize' card is such nineteenth century, Victorian ere crap. All the studies I've read show fantasy and masturbation as normal, healthy aspects of human sexuality.
I disagree, porn is for boys, not men. No man would escape into fantasy land to gain sexual satisfaction, because that is a boyish thing to do. Of course, not all boys are under 18. Is seems there are very few real men in the world.
Also, it's nice to say that boys should not consume porn, but everyone knows that all boys have access to it. That's why I have such a huge problem with this kind of censorship. It does nothing to solve the real problem. It just gives parents an excuse to believe there may not be a problem, when there clearly is one.
That is utter bullshit, I can only assume that your wife reads what you post here. Good luck with that.
Slashdot Mirror
You say:
Point to one religion that has ever not had those trappings. Even Buddhism falls short.
Referring to these trappings:
veneration of the leader, symbology & vocabulary, demanding unquestioning obedience.
While you may find some offshoots of Buddhism that have these trappings, mainstream Buddhism does not, in any way shape or form. In fact, Buddha specifically said not to venerate him. I can't even think of a single offshoot of Buddhism that demands unquestioning obedience. Just the opposite, Buddhism demands you think for yourself. I'm not sure what 'symbology and vocabulary' refer to in the case of Buddhism.
But then, Buddhism isn't a religion, as it doesn't speak about anything intangible or metaphysical like God, a soul, or an afterlife. Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion.
Uhm, yeah, funny xkcd. But seriously, his point was that they aren't worth $1 billion, and, by analogy, neither is the Linux kernel.
Copernicus is widely credited as being a key figure in the birth of the scientific revolution. Which lead to nuclear physics, among other things.
Come on. This was an artfully crafted troll. Comparing open source to YouTube crap videos, without ever making a direct comparison, yet implying that most open source is like most crap videos: textbook propaganda. Then we have the 'real programmers' line, again implying that open source programmers are not real programmers, without ever stating it directly. Finally, there's the 'twenty experts' line, again, implying that no open source programmers are experts.
Seriously, people pay good money to learn how to write propaganda of that quality. And people who are that good at writing propaganda get paid very, very well. I wonder who 'useful wheat' is working for?
Yes, I get agitated by obvious scams. You should see my rants about Scientology or Libertarianism.
Your claim is that homeopathy works. Frankly, that is an extraordinary claim, based on actual physics and how homeopathy claims to work. If you make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary proof.
See, it isn't up to me to prove homeopathy doesn't work. It's up to you, and other supporters, to prove it does. The default belief for any medical procedures should be, "I won't believe it works until you prove it does."
Modern science has shown it doesn't work. There is so much science showing it doesn't work, the UK is not going to pay for it anymore.
Sorry, but your ex got better because of a placebo.
They can patent the method for isolating or synthesizing those ingredients, however, which is what they usually do. Big pharma companies spend a lot of money researching naturally growing herbs, and have made bank on said research.
Those studies have all been shown to be flawed. Seriously, you point to a list on a pro-homeopathy website? Did you even look at the categories shown? Those are not random controlled studies, they are reviews of existing studies! And then, down on the bottom of the page, some 'non-replicated' (read, false, untrue, not peer reviewed and unscientific) studies. Whoop de fricken doo.
Don't start in on my motivations or beliefs either. I used to believe in (or at least, not disbelieve in) homeopathy. I probably know more about it than you do. But, when reality presents me with incontrovertible evidence that one of my beliefs is flawed, I change that belief. And therefore, I now think homeopathy is utter horseshit.
Man, you just misread something everyone else apparently understood. Or you responded to the wrong post.
Let's keep it short: you just repeated my argument as a counter to my argument. That doesn't actually work. You need to use the OPPOSITE of my argument to counter my argument. When you use the same argument it just CONFIRMS what I am saying, it does not, in fact, counter it.
To be clear, because I obviously need to explain this in short sentences using short words for some people: homeopathy is crap. Herbalism may or may not be crap, given any particular herbal remedy.
"How many harmless narcotics must Ginger and I consume before the empire is safe? What the hell happened to my guard from the Home Office? How much longer will Benji's remain the only sandwich shop not to have security men on the door? Find out in the next thrilling installment of The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken Caesar!" --Sir Digby Chicken Caesar.
Shouting a little but too loudly and hysterically to be taken seriously me thinks....
Yes, he was, which is why I didn't.
As you are the second person who seems to have mistaken my intent here, I'll make it very clear: homeopathy is bullshit. The founding principle of homeopathy is simply wrong.
There is no change or advancement in this fundamental, central, FOUNDING PRINCIPLE of homeopathy over the 'ages.' You are spouting absolute, uninformed CRAP, trying to put homeopathy in the same boat as herbalism.
Yep, it's been total BS for millennia. At least the herbalists are *occasionally* onto something (drugs like digitalis, etc). If homeopathy made any sense, the water sloshing around on the planet should cure everything, since it's got everything (diluted billions of trillions of times) in it.
Unless, of course, you're attempting to *defend* herbalism from being associated with craptastical pseudoscience.
Exacty, I am trying to defend herbalism from being associated with craptastical psuedoscience, for the reasons you state: herbalism actually has some value, and when we combine it with the scientific method, we can concentrate that value and get rid of the things that don't work. Unfortunately, nobody is going to pay for proper double blind testing of herbal preparations unless they want to isolate and patent the active ingredients.
Fact, you don't know what you are talking about.
Fact, I'm a productive member of society.
Fact, alcohol and cigarettes cause more problems in a day than pot does in a year, yet they are still legal.
Fact, drug prohibition CREATES the drug culture, if pot were legal, pot smokers wouldn't be exposed to said 'culture.'
Fact, nobody on pot has enough motivation to get off their asses and commit a crime.
Fact, pot makes you mellow and makes it easier to put up with constant annoyances like children, meaning the children of pot heads are less often abused.
Fact, you don't foot any bill for potheads, you are footing the bill to fight them
Fact, the drug war is socialism for cops and addicts. If you support the drug war, you support socialist 'handouts' for a very small class of people.
Fact, I'm sick and tired of moralizing do-gooders trying to protect me from myself. If I need your help, I'll ask.
Fact, just asserting something is a fact doesn't make it so.
Meh, I've been karma capped for around a decade, moderation means nothing to me.
There is a well understood immune system response in the case of immunization. The immune system simply does not work that way for homeopathy. If you can, please point to ANY study showing actual effectiveness for ANY form of homeopathy.
Yes, I realize that SOME homeopathic preparations are not diluted to the point of intangibility. It makes no difference. Homeopathy is not effective, in any guise.
Christ, man, try to keep up.
"So U.K. government officials can only blame themselves for the placebo effect...morons."
Yes, he DID say that 'gubmint makes us overdilute.'
He didn't say anything at all about homeopathy itself being watered down. He doesn't know what homeopathy is. He provides many, many examples beyond this one of not knowing what the fuck it is.
Congratulations, you do not comprehend either his argument OR mine.
Again, more uninformed bullshit. You have been corrected six ways from Sunday by dozens of informed posters, yet you still persist in spreading misinformation. We've even said things like, 'homeopathy is not naturopathy.' and 'homeopathy is not herbalism,' and 'homeopathy is founded on the principle that diluting something makes it have the opposite effect.' yet you STILL insist on conflating homeopathy with actual, useful medicine like herbalism. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Bullshit! You have no idea what homeopathy is. Homeopathic preparations are NOT diluted due to legal issues, dilution is the whole. god. damn. point. it is what supposedly makes an ingredient alleviate the symptoms it causes if not diluted. There is no change or advancement in this fundamental, central, FOUNDING PRINCIPLE of homeopathy over the 'ages.' You are spouting absolute, uninformed CRAP, trying to put homeopathy in the same boat as herbalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
Educate yourself before you make a fool of yours... oops, too late.
One more time: homeopathy is not herbalism! NO traditional herbal medicines from ANY culture in the world use homeopathic principles.
And, FYI, I DO put that in my pipe and smoke it, because there are ACTUAL MEASURABLE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS in it.
I can only conclude you have no idea what the principles of homeopathy actually are. It is basically thus: you take something that CAUSES a symptom (not cures it!) and you dilute it down until it is pure water, and that pure water will then do the exact opposite of what the ingredient did.
Homeopathic pot, for instance, would be touted as a cure for laziness and lack of motivation.
In homeopathic remedies, the mixture has been diluted so much, there isn't likely to be a single molecule of the active ingredient in most preparations. Well established herbal traditions, from traditional Chinese Medicine to Ayuervedic to American Herbalism, all have herbal preparations with large amounts of the active ingredients. Some preparations from these traditions have been shown to be very effective. Homeopathy has been shown, over and over again, to be nothing but placebo. Just because it's 'herbal' and 'all natural' doesn't mean it 'works.'
How is porn unhealthy, based on your personal experience? I mean, I can understand that some porn is unhealthy, or that some use of porn and fantasy can be unhealthy if it interferes with other aspects of your life, but the problem then is actually some kind of sex addiction, and not the porn, fantasy, or masturbation itself.
And it isn't 'a study.' It's ALL studies. In fact, if you want to convince anyone but yourself of your point, try to find something to back up your opinion. You won't.
All men masturbate. Some just lie about it. But playing the moral superiority, 'real men don't fantasize' card is such nineteenth century, Victorian ere crap. All the studies I've read show fantasy and masturbation as normal, healthy aspects of human sexuality.
Apple allows Big Content to put up porn apps, just not little publishers, so your explanation doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
I disagree, porn is for boys, not men. No man would escape into fantasy land to gain sexual satisfaction, because that is a boyish thing to do. Of course, not all boys are under 18. Is seems there are very few real men in the world.
Also, it's nice to say that boys should not consume porn, but everyone knows that all boys have access to it. That's why I have such a huge problem with this kind of censorship. It does nothing to solve the real problem. It just gives parents an excuse to believe there may not be a problem, when there clearly is one.
That is utter bullshit, I can only assume that your wife reads what you post here. Good luck with that.