#USTE: All immortal? (Transhumanism and philosophy)

[Obamot]

"Obviously", the publications "recognized by the profession" would be much more impartial than the others

Better that ...

Than making treacherous innuendos in a forum that you don't even assume anymore by not answering the questions >>>.

Better to be recognized by no one, get fired, and then come back under other nicknames to start your ride again.

Maybe if:
[i] [...] With [...] blah-blah-blah [edict and other fish drowning]

Nobody in this forum to take action against returning trolls?

[Janic]

pedro

Janic wrote:
pedrodelavega wrote:
In the case of homeopathy, do you recommend me to rely on the advice of those who prescribe it and sell it and not to the various medical research laboratories in the world?

I do not have to recommend anything to you, you do what you want, you're a big boy: no?

Janis wrote:
[...] Study the subject seriously and you will be surprised by reality and not by discriminating presuppositions [...]
[...] It's just a problem of competence and these studies are done by incompetents in homeopathy. Get to the right place! [...]
[...] Get informed directly from competent homeopaths [...]
[...] Now instead of taking out all your panoply of images of Epinal, take the time to study the subject explained in homeopathic works recognized by the profession and we'll talk about it after [...]
[...] Oh ignorance of ... I already said it! When do you seriously study? [...]
[...] And if you are very wise, if you do not say too much nonsense, I'll tell you a pretty story in parable [...]

You asked for a recommendation!
All this was written with reason, To encourage someone to diversify its sources, to better know its subject and all the rest, it is not a recommendation to choose this or that type of medicine but to better understand the particularities of each. But insofar as this does not interest you and that in addition you have already made your choice, that settles the question for your case.

"Obviously", the publications "recognized by the profession" would be much more impartial than the others ....

This is what you nevertheless affirmed previously when mentioning these studies, the point of view of allopathy seen by you, etc.

For the rest…. !!! will examine the staggering benefits of the pharmaceutical industry!

Otherwise you are VERY good at knocking in the water! Recommendation So: study your subjects before talking about them!
Obamot
let it go, if it amuses him and the moderators accept it: it's part of the game! After if there are other readers who follow the debate, it is up to them to form an opinion too.

[Obamot]

Yes, but to use words whose scope we don't know to define other words is to make fun of the world.

And that's how we witness a news "generation of self-proclaimed scholars" and who refuse the debate!

Until then it would be fine, but the tubing continues against all odds: there are actions on petroleum jelly as Flytox would say ...!

I think there are some who benefit ...

[Janic]

obamot

I think there are some who benefit ...

Yes and so much the better! let me explain. Certain boat subjects are not necessarily known by all forumers. These trollisms make it possible to develop the subject and to provide elements (studied them) which may interest some. Your point of view on orthomolecular for example, my experience on veganism (perhaps) and its oppositional a priori, Flytox on "Gillier pantonization", etc ...

[pedrodelavega]

"Obviously", the publications "recognized by the profession" would be much more impartial than the others ....

This is what you nevertheless affirmed previously when mentioning these studies, the point of view of allopathy seen by you, etc.

No I did not say that. It is you who discredit all the studies cited (without citing others for that matter) on the grounds of their so-called bias.
These studies are not the point of view of allopathy but (for example):
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02
the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
"[...] In the interest of fairness, assessments from individuals and homeopathic support groups have also been considered, along with government reports from other countries and clinical observations. ..] "

If we didn't get used to scientific studies, how can we prove the effectiveness of homeopathy?

To compare with another controversial topic:
Dowsers (person who searches for groundwater using a rod or pendulum.) To make an opinion, I must rely on the opinions / documentation of the only dowsers or I must rely on scientific studies / experiments?

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
Quote:
"Obviously", the publications "recognized by the profession" would be much more impartial than the others ....

This is what you nevertheless affirmed previously when mentioning these studies, the point of view of allopathy seen by you, etc.

No I did not say that. It is you who discredit all the studies cited (without citing others for that matter) on the grounds of their so-called bias.

I said that ? I said that the point of view of a firefighter (who also saves lives) could not be compared to that of a doctor and that between two doctors with different disciplines, (I took lawyers, but the example remains valid) the criteria of one are not applicable to the other. Therefore the criteria of allopathy not being applicable to homeopathy these studies have no value.

These studies are not the point of view of allopathy but (for example):
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02
the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
"[...] In the interest of fairness, assessments from individuals and homeopathic support groups have also been considered, along with government reports from other countries and clinical observations. ..] "

I know this kind of speech! These groups could only effectively observe the ineffectiveness of their discipline applied to the tests in question, obviously! Study homeopathy before making this kind of quote out of context.

If we didn't get used to scientific studies, how can we prove the effectiveness of homeopathy?

Ah that's what you had to start with!
It is not studies that are at issue (everyone is supposed to have done their job honestly according to their knowledge. Well, we hope so!) But it is as if the coal industry wanted to be judged nuclear or Conversely, while their one and only common point is energy, nothing else! The efficiencies obtained by each other can only be achieved with the final result, but are not comparable in terms of resources.

To compare with another controversial subject: Dowsers (person who searches for groundwater using a rod or pendulum.) To make an opinion, I must rely on the opinions / documentation of the only dowsers or I must trust to scientific studies / experiments?

Neither ! If a dowser, a good one, systematically finds the source with its location, its flow in summer and winter, its depth only on the indication provided by its rod or something else, it is equivalent to the hydraulic engineer who makes measurements, direct debits and arrive at the same result.
But if a dowser crashes (it happens) we ridicule him, well some pseudo rationalists, and if it is the hydraulic engineer we say that we have to dig deeper, but nobody ridicules him either. Everything is in the head and negative intentions.

[Obamot]

No I do not have assured that.

Do you not assert unfair things which you do not even know the scope ?! To the point that it becomes insulting?

It is you who discredits all studies cited

To speak of discrediting the assessment made by Janic: still you should have the slightest credit on your side
Well, you're not asleep .... it is particularly damaging that you disseminate false information continuously and that when you are asked questions you slip away from a thread to reappear in another as if nothing had happened was there. More TROLL than that is difficult.

on the grounds of their so-called partiality.

From your partiality, we could write two or three novels, you may have to find another publisher elsewhere ..?!

All of this studies are not the point of view of [... this or that]

Producing STUDIES is what was asked of you >>> as justification for your peremptory affirmations: we are still waiting!

I doubt that anyone is interested in what you are producing here, you are not bothered to follow a debate, just to DISTURB the wires without BRINGING ANYTHING but clichés, to leave your little turd there. Basically what would happen if everyone who attended the forum, took him for a dump in order to dump their garbage there?

If we don't fit not to scientific studies, how to prove the effectiveness of homeopathy?

Already to answer you by "scientific studies" interposed, it would still be necessary to have in front of a loyal interlocutor.

Do you believe that by REFUSING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS and not making your neurons work you will get there?

I know you have a behavior intended to exasperate people, but do you think it will last to play the idiot who pretends that we did not answer him?

And you don't have the monopoly on being able to refer to science, nor the prerequisites for doing so. So take it easy by referring to it, as there may well be other questions.

To compare with another controversial topic

There is no other controversy here than the one you bring into this forum to get out of the way, any reasonable person would have already STOPPED HIS CIRCUS a long time ago (oh no, I'm forgetting your alter-ego: "this is not an Apple")

[Ahmed]

I fear confusion, because it is I who wrote "this is not an apple!", Following the posting of a puzzle by Sen-no-sen.

[Obamot]

Ok I correct: "this is not a Magritte" Warning...


Source: Magritte painting

... one apple can hide another

[Exnihiloest]

No I do not have assured that.

Don't you assert unfair things you don't even know the scope?!
...
De RT bias, we could write two or three novels
...
I doubt anyone is interested in what you produce here, you don't mind following a debate, just PERTURBER threads with NOTHING to bring anything but clichés, to leave there in the process your little turd.
...
Already to answer you by "scientific studies" interposed, it would still be necessary to have in front of a loyal interlocutor.
Do you believe that by REFUSING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS and not making your neurons work you will get there?
I know that you have the behavior to exasperate people
...
take it easy...

But what is this little intellectual despotism?

The smarter the answers, the more Obamot attacks the contributors, attributing to them on the basis of his misunderstandings words that they did not say, making them trial of intention, saying that they refuse to answer pretending that they are not loyal, that they do not think, that they dirty the forum...

That Obamot's remarks are an insult to the intelligence is far from the first time that I have seen it. But that's the way we can do nothing. On the other hand, it takes on more contributors themselves all the time becomes particularly painful.

Do we still have the right to express ourselves here without being taken to task and slandered by Obamot?
Gentlemen moderators, please do your job, this forum becomes illegible.