Ok, I'll bite. So kindly explain how me personally doing anything to find the cure relates to YOUR statement that she's in a better position to explore this than you are. Hint:it doesn't. That is why it is a strawman argument. That "insane tactic" I am using is called logic. Do you comprehend that answering points with things like "so you are saying she doesn't love her son" or "she is doing more than you are" when we are talking about completely different things does not a good argument make? Look up and re-read the posts you replied to. Notice how nowhere does anyone say anything about her not loving her son, except when you threw that out? Yes we are talking about JM, but NOBODY but YOU is talking about whether she loves her son, or what anyone else is personally doing to "find a cure". Those topics are irrelevant and do not interest me. If you want to talk about how she is in a better position than you, fine. But again, what does her loving her son or what I am personally doing have jack squat to do with that?
Well see the doctors are bound to the Hippocratic Oath, and also to medical research standards. That kind of gets in the way of them dispensing unsubstantiated, unproven medical advice. They would get locked up, or lose their medical license if they were doing what she does.
Again, nice strawman. The discussion isn't about whether or not JM is personally doing more than anyone else here, so stop trying to steer the discussion towards irrelevancy. And I believe that insisting on actual medical proof that can be independently verified by others over making wild unsubstantiated claims is doing more for finding the cure than whatever crazy stuff JM is saying on Oprah this week.
Coming to a discussion site and asking people to butt out when you don't agree with them is ludicrous. If you do not like what I am saying you are free to stop reading and replying to my posts.
It never occurred to you that a person can simultaneously be a media whore, and love her son?
I personally never said or thought she is a media whore, or doing this for attention. I believe she thinks she is doing the right thing, but that doesn't really matter to what we are talking about. She is still giving out medical advice and is not qualified to do so. And what about all the parents who listen to her, don't vaccinate their kids, and their kids end up with a disease that was easily preventable? Is that "sparing another parent her pain" or is that making wild assumptions that may or may not be accurate that actually could cause another parent more pain?
You don't have to understand. You probably can't. But you may just have to stipulate that she's dispensing medical advice that is unproven, and that can be very dangerous, and cause the opposite effect that she is looking for.
The bottom line is entertainers have but one purpose - to entertain. I don't listen to any actors for serious life advice, to tell me who to vote for, what products to use, whether or not to have medical procedures done, etc. If she wants to be a damn doctor so bad, she can go to medical school. You know she can afford it. If not, she should stick to making fart noises and selling naked pictures of herself.
Her son improving has been proved to be caused by any of her actions? If you have any proof of this, I will gladly look at it. Otherwise all you have is her word, and we all understand her bias towards the subject.
Just because you passionately believe in something does not make you right, knowledgeable, or an expert. I have no doubt she thinks she is doing right, and wants to help her son in any way. But that isn't necessarily enough, especially when it comes to complicated medical conditions. She can try all the wacky experiments she wants, I just want her to stop giving others the impression that vaccinating children isn't a good idea. There is plenty of medical evidence that shows what happens to a population that isn't vaccinated when a disease outbreak occurs. There is none to very little evidence showing the benefits of stopping vaccinations entirely.
The strawman was you questioning the poster about whether or not he though McCarthy loved her son. That is irrelevant to the discussion, and is not what was being talked about earlier. This discussion isn't about whether or not she loves her son or thinks she is helping - you are the one trying to make it about that. And yes, that is a strawman.
She can try anything she wants on her own child, I don't have a problem with that. But when she goes on a talk show circuit and gives the audience the impression that "vaccination is bad" she is affecting more than her own child. Just becasue she believes what she is doing is helping her son doesn't automatically mean that she is. She could actually be harming him with all of her well meaning. Jeffrey Dahmer was also practicing what he believed - it doesn't make it right.
Love of a parent and wishing well being does not automatically make you right, an expert, or even helpful. Remember that the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. Nobody is questioning her love for her son. But just because she loves him does not mean she is immune to being misguided, or even flat out wrong. Nice strawman though.
Please point out anywhere in any of my previous posts where I said "Vaccines are good". If you are just going to put words in my mouth, I really am not needed for this conversation. What I have actually said is that making unsubstantiated medical claims is not good. I don't know if vaccination and autism have any connection at all, but until I have further proof from a reliable medical source, I am not going to make any crazy claims. And to answer your question, she is less likely to find any real solutions becasue she already has made up her mind and is trying to find things to reinforce that. Real scientists don't have the conclusion they want to draw first. She is starting with the conclusion and working backwards.
For this discussion, I am limiting the scope to her opinion on vaccines being the possible "cause" for autism. Just her stating that belief alone is enough to make some idiots stop vaccinating their own kids. As to the rest of her "medical conclusions" I could care less. I don't regard medical opinions from ex-playboy models who do not have any medical degrees very highly to be honest. If you want to discuss the potential tomes of knowledge in Jenny McCarthy's head, you have the wrong person. I am only talking about one specific thing here.
What is dangerous is giving out medical advice that is neither tested nor accredited by anyone in the medical field. Her wild speculations are causing real damage by parents believing her unsubstantiated claims and refusing to immunize their children. Not having those barriers that ethical doctors follows is exactly the problem here. Her wild ideas have not been tested, and the study all the "immunization causes autism" people reference has been proven to be a fraud. There is a good reason for the FDA to exist and if we started allowing anyone to produce "medicine" that has not been properly studied, we would be back in the days of buying "miracle tonics" from hucksters just passing through town. Is that really the way you want to go back to? That would be a huge step backwards. Sorry, but just having money does not make you qualified for anything except having money.
Yeah that is why measles, polio, whooping cough, TB and many more diseases are running so rampant now. God damn you Big Pharma!
Are you suggesting that because Big Pharma ALSO has these other issues that the providing life-saving cures aspect should be ignored?
Look I am not a huge fan of the pharmaceutical companies business practices. But I am also not so naive to put everything into black and white absolutes like you do. You do comprehend that something can have aspects that are both good and bad, right? Not everything (as a matter of fact almost nothing) is either one absolute or the other. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you decide ALL pharmaceutical companies are evil and therefore all medicine is evil.
Jesus, if you think Slashdot has any content with something meaningful to say, your entire existence is a waste of time. If you are coming here to do anything other than waste time, you are doing it wrong.
P.S. I never claimed anyone had anything meaningful to say. I was only pointing out you were incorrect that we were talking about Anderson Cooper, and not the content of his show.
Well your single person anecdotal evidence convinced me! I threw away all my medications and am throwing away my friend's insulin as well. "Diabetes" - what a bullshit thing dreamed up by Big Bad Pharma just to sell a useless product!
P.S. I did get a flu vaccine this year and guess what, no flu! So as far as anecdotal evidence goes toward your flu vaccination theory, I guess it is tied up at 1 - 1. (But honestly one of the flu strains that was included in my shot was going around my office and many of my co-workers came down with it. Myself and 2 others who got the vaccine have so far been flu free as of today. But with a sample size this small, all of this is completely meaningless, which was my entire point anyway.))
Because basing all of your ideas on shoddy research that has been proven to be falsified is never a good strategy, regardless of how much money you have. McCarthy is convinced she knows the cause of her child's autism, and all the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) in the world are not going to convince her to change her opinions. Her mind is pretty closed on this subject I would say. When you have ex-playboy models claiming to have better scientific knowledge of a disease than actual doctors in the field do themselves, it is time to take anything she says with a rather large grain of salt.
The discussion is actually about the subject of Anderson Cooper's show, not Anderson Cooper himself. I don't think anyone here is talking about him personally, with the exception of you. So who is wasting who's time?
I don't think that was what he was actually saying, but it is certainly what some of his supporters were saying and thinking. Anybody with a reasonably logical mind knew that not much would really change, which you admit yourself. Don't let the far left or right tell you to be pleased or disappointed.
If it is a company issued phone, your boss already owns it. (If you don't want your boss to see your extensive porn collection, don't surf porn on the company phone.)
Being able to have your provider remotely access and/or wipe your phone is a feature that most people actually want. If you lose your phone and it can't be remotely wiped, what do you do about your private data? Grin and bear it becasue you smartly locked your phone down so that if it isn't in your hands, you are powerless? That sucks too. So turning off any and all remote access would be a dangerous thing to do.
Yes, for now that may be true. But considering more Android devices are selling every day than iPhones, it shouldn't be long before Android catches up, and probably passes Apple. Especially considering there are 3 official app markets for Android, and you can install apps from anywhere and are not limited to just the official markets.
Knee-jerk reactions leading to hanging people for simple theft would be an indicator, to me, that society has truly gone to hell.
They also use to think the world was flat, and there were dragons past the edges. Sometimes changing the way a society thinks over time is not a bad thing.
Actually, you were fucked when you accepted a job at a place that hasn't approved the budget to include backups.
The problem is that most of those people overestimate their abilities, and I have a vested interest in eating. So they'll go in and fuck something up, and I am the one on the hook to fix it.
I call this "job security". I too have a vested interest in eating and as long as someone keeps messing things up, and it is my job to fix them, I can keep eating.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you live in a world of absolutes, huh? Everything is black or white? The world I live in most things are shades of gray.
Ok, I'll bite. So kindly explain how me personally doing anything to find the cure relates to YOUR statement that she's in a better position to explore this than you are. Hint:it doesn't. That is why it is a strawman argument. That "insane tactic" I am using is called logic. Do you comprehend that answering points with things like "so you are saying she doesn't love her son" or "she is doing more than you are" when we are talking about completely different things does not a good argument make? Look up and re-read the posts you replied to. Notice how nowhere does anyone say anything about her not loving her son, except when you threw that out? Yes we are talking about JM, but NOBODY but YOU is talking about whether she loves her son, or what anyone else is personally doing to "find a cure". Those topics are irrelevant and do not interest me. If you want to talk about how she is in a better position than you, fine. But again, what does her loving her son or what I am personally doing have jack squat to do with that?
Well see the doctors are bound to the Hippocratic Oath, and also to medical research standards. That kind of gets in the way of them dispensing unsubstantiated, unproven medical advice. They would get locked up, or lose their medical license if they were doing what she does.
Again, nice strawman. The discussion isn't about whether or not JM is personally doing more than anyone else here, so stop trying to steer the discussion towards irrelevancy. And I believe that insisting on actual medical proof that can be independently verified by others over making wild unsubstantiated claims is doing more for finding the cure than whatever crazy stuff JM is saying on Oprah this week.
Coming to a discussion site and asking people to butt out when you don't agree with them is ludicrous. If you do not like what I am saying you are free to stop reading and replying to my posts.
It never occurred to you that a person can simultaneously be a media whore, and love her son?
I personally never said or thought she is a media whore, or doing this for attention. I believe she thinks she is doing the right thing, but that doesn't really matter to what we are talking about. She is still giving out medical advice and is not qualified to do so. And what about all the parents who listen to her, don't vaccinate their kids, and their kids end up with a disease that was easily preventable? Is that "sparing another parent her pain" or is that making wild assumptions that may or may not be accurate that actually could cause another parent more pain?
You don't have to understand. You probably can't. But you may just have to stipulate that she's dispensing medical advice that is unproven, and that can be very dangerous, and cause the opposite effect that she is looking for.
The bottom line is entertainers have but one purpose - to entertain. I don't listen to any actors for serious life advice, to tell me who to vote for, what products to use, whether or not to have medical procedures done, etc. If she wants to be a damn doctor so bad, she can go to medical school. You know she can afford it. If not, she should stick to making fart noises and selling naked pictures of herself.
Her son improving has been proved to be caused by any of her actions? If you have any proof of this, I will gladly look at it. Otherwise all you have is her word, and we all understand her bias towards the subject.
Just because you passionately believe in something does not make you right, knowledgeable, or an expert. I have no doubt she thinks she is doing right, and wants to help her son in any way. But that isn't necessarily enough, especially when it comes to complicated medical conditions. She can try all the wacky experiments she wants, I just want her to stop giving others the impression that vaccinating children isn't a good idea. There is plenty of medical evidence that shows what happens to a population that isn't vaccinated when a disease outbreak occurs. There is none to very little evidence showing the benefits of stopping vaccinations entirely.
The strawman was you questioning the poster about whether or not he though McCarthy loved her son. That is irrelevant to the discussion, and is not what was being talked about earlier. This discussion isn't about whether or not she loves her son or thinks she is helping - you are the one trying to make it about that. And yes, that is a strawman.
She can try anything she wants on her own child, I don't have a problem with that. But when she goes on a talk show circuit and gives the audience the impression that "vaccination is bad" she is affecting more than her own child. Just becasue she believes what she is doing is helping her son doesn't automatically mean that she is. She could actually be harming him with all of her well meaning. Jeffrey Dahmer was also practicing what he believed - it doesn't make it right.
Love of a parent and wishing well being does not automatically make you right, an expert, or even helpful. Remember that the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. Nobody is questioning her love for her son. But just because she loves him does not mean she is immune to being misguided, or even flat out wrong. Nice strawman though.
Please point out anywhere in any of my previous posts where I said "Vaccines are good". If you are just going to put words in my mouth, I really am not needed for this conversation. What I have actually said is that making unsubstantiated medical claims is not good. I don't know if vaccination and autism have any connection at all, but until I have further proof from a reliable medical source, I am not going to make any crazy claims. And to answer your question, she is less likely to find any real solutions becasue she already has made up her mind and is trying to find things to reinforce that. Real scientists don't have the conclusion they want to draw first. She is starting with the conclusion and working backwards.
For this discussion, I am limiting the scope to her opinion on vaccines being the possible "cause" for autism. Just her stating that belief alone is enough to make some idiots stop vaccinating their own kids. As to the rest of her "medical conclusions" I could care less. I don't regard medical opinions from ex-playboy models who do not have any medical degrees very highly to be honest. If you want to discuss the potential tomes of knowledge in Jenny McCarthy's head, you have the wrong person. I am only talking about one specific thing here.
What is dangerous is giving out medical advice that is neither tested nor accredited by anyone in the medical field. Her wild speculations are causing real damage by parents believing her unsubstantiated claims and refusing to immunize their children. Not having those barriers that ethical doctors follows is exactly the problem here. Her wild ideas have not been tested, and the study all the "immunization causes autism" people reference has been proven to be a fraud. There is a good reason for the FDA to exist and if we started allowing anyone to produce "medicine" that has not been properly studied, we would be back in the days of buying "miracle tonics" from hucksters just passing through town. Is that really the way you want to go back to? That would be a huge step backwards. Sorry, but just having money does not make you qualified for anything except having money.
Yeah that is why measles, polio, whooping cough, TB and many more diseases are running so rampant now. God damn you Big Pharma!
Are you suggesting that because Big Pharma ALSO has these other issues that the providing life-saving cures aspect should be ignored?
Look I am not a huge fan of the pharmaceutical companies business practices. But I am also not so naive to put everything into black and white absolutes like you do. You do comprehend that something can have aspects that are both good and bad, right? Not everything (as a matter of fact almost nothing) is either one absolute or the other. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you decide ALL pharmaceutical companies are evil and therefore all medicine is evil.
Jesus, if you think Slashdot has any content with something meaningful to say, your entire existence is a waste of time. If you are coming here to do anything other than waste time, you are doing it wrong.
P.S. I never claimed anyone had anything meaningful to say. I was only pointing out you were incorrect that we were talking about Anderson Cooper, and not the content of his show.
Well your single person anecdotal evidence convinced me! I threw away all my medications and am throwing away my friend's insulin as well. "Diabetes" - what a bullshit thing dreamed up by Big Bad Pharma just to sell a useless product!
P.S. I did get a flu vaccine this year and guess what, no flu! So as far as anecdotal evidence goes toward your flu vaccination theory, I guess it is tied up at 1 - 1. (But honestly one of the flu strains that was included in my shot was going around my office and many of my co-workers came down with it. Myself and 2 others who got the vaccine have so far been flu free as of today. But with a sample size this small, all of this is completely meaningless, which was my entire point anyway.))
Because basing all of your ideas on shoddy research that has been proven to be falsified is never a good strategy, regardless of how much money you have. McCarthy is convinced she knows the cause of her child's autism, and all the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) in the world are not going to convince her to change her opinions. Her mind is pretty closed on this subject I would say. When you have ex-playboy models claiming to have better scientific knowledge of a disease than actual doctors in the field do themselves, it is time to take anything she says with a rather large grain of salt.
The discussion is actually about the subject of Anderson Cooper's show, not Anderson Cooper himself. I don't think anyone here is talking about him personally, with the exception of you. So who is wasting who's time?
I don't think that was what he was actually saying, but it is certainly what some of his supporters were saying and thinking. Anybody with a reasonably logical mind knew that not much would really change, which you admit yourself. Don't let the far left or right tell you to be pleased or disappointed.
If it is a company issued phone, your boss already owns it. (If you don't want your boss to see your extensive porn collection, don't surf porn on the company phone.)
Being able to have your provider remotely access and/or wipe your phone is a feature that most people actually want. If you lose your phone and it can't be remotely wiped, what do you do about your private data? Grin and bear it becasue you smartly locked your phone down so that if it isn't in your hands, you are powerless? That sucks too. So turning off any and all remote access would be a dangerous thing to do.
Locked out since June? This seems newsworthy to me, where is the lame stream media on this story?
Who cares? Who is the next big winner on American Idol or Dancing with the Stars??
Actually, there are people who STILL think that the Earth is flat.
Yes, for now that may be true. But considering more Android devices are selling every day than iPhones, it shouldn't be long before Android catches up, and probably passes Apple. Especially considering there are 3 official app markets for Android, and you can install apps from anywhere and are not limited to just the official markets.
Knee-jerk reactions leading to hanging people for simple theft would be an indicator, to me, that society has truly gone to hell.
They also use to think the world was flat, and there were dragons past the edges. Sometimes changing the way a society thinks over time is not a bad thing.
Yes, in this instance the PHB is the owner.
The problem is that most of those people overestimate their abilities, and I have a vested interest in eating. So they'll go in and fuck something up, and I am the one on the hook to fix it.
I call this "job security". I too have a vested interest in eating and as long as someone keeps messing things up, and it is my job to fix them, I can keep eating.