onewheeldave

What do you view Bad science/Bad pharma as saying about the pharmaceutical industry? Perhaps if you selected one or two of the main points and represented them here, they could form the seeds of a more productive discussion, if the points are critical of pharma, yet accepted by some rationalists/sceptics. i.e. they'd presumably be harder to dismiss in the way conspiracy stuff is, and, perhaps also educational to anyone currently attached to said conspiracy theories.

As no-one here, to my knowledge, has suggested the authorities are chemically lobotomising everyone (the suggestions seem to be mainly along the lines of the flu vaccine being harmfull to some, along with a feeling the authorities are 'pushing' the vaccine) I wondered why you were posting as if they had?

I'm not biting this time dude you'll have to find someone else ---------- Post added 23-11-2015 at 18:40 ---------- And I think you've questioned your own answer ---------- Post added 23-11-2015 at 18:45 ---------- concerning (can't remember who posted it)- http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/15/national/cervix-vaccine-issues-trigger-health-notice/#.VlNX4dLhDR1 Worth pointing out, i feel, that Japan, as a highly developed nation, has a medical system, and legal system, of similar levels of quality, as our own. When those systems suspend certain vaccinations due to health risks, i think it's worth taking note. After all, much of what people are arguing for here, is derived from our and the wests medical systems- when equivalent medical systems elsewhere disagree over the safety of a thing, clearly one, or both, must be wrong.

But if the flu vaccine has negative effects (I believe even the most rabid vaccine supporter realises that there are, for some, negative effects), wouldn't it be better, as someone else pointed out, to give it to well people i.e. the same ill people, but before they get ill?

I don't know. What do others think? Has he suggested that? Originally Posted by mattleonard View Post It doesn't give any indication that he has any expertise at all in virology, nutrition, or the other fields that he has no doubt expressed opinions on which vary from well-conducted scientific research. It seemed to me he did. Anyone else getting that impression? ---------- Post added 23-11-2015 at 18:34 ---------- I'm not. I'm disagreeing with some of those opinions. It's pretty standard on discussion boards

Do I also have a right to express my opinion? If no, please explain why. If yes, what's your problem. And... your point is? I'm backing him, cos I'm interested in what he's saying, I'd like him to stick around and say more. That's OK yes?

Oh-oh: the debates over guys, case proved, the flu jab is proven to be safe what a relief.

You don't need expertise on a subject (if by 'expertise' is meant training/qualification in said subject) to do your own research and thinking and form opinions.

Why insult him? If you take a look there's no shortage of people taking him to task over his views by trying to use some form of argument? Why do you want to step in and put the boot in as well? It doesn't help anything- people shut down when insulted, it does not make them conducive to listening further. ---------- Post added 23-11-2015 at 18:23 ---------- No, clearly he isn't. If the authorities want to terminate people for spreading information about vaccines, I would think they'd go for someone very prominent who has the publics hear, rather than someone arguing with you on an obscure city forum, wouldn't they?

Do they really inject ill people with vaccines? Is that vaccines in general, or the flu vaccine specifically?

It may be a 'tinfoil' site (I haven't looked), but, Dr Mcdougal and some other medical experts also have issues with the wisdom of vaccines containing known poisons like aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde.

Not going to argue about what the thread should and shouldn't cover, but, as this thread is being contributed to by several people, I'm going to say, that, as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy for the discussion to stray onto other vaccines- just offering my opinion. Concerning the flu vaccine though- it's important to realise that not all thoise opposing it necessarily are anti-vaccine per se. Dr McDougal for example- https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2014nl/nov/flushot.htm Strongly supports vaccinations in general, ensures his own family is fully immunised, but opposes the flu vaccine. Please note: I am not myself opposing the flu vaccine here, simply posting a link to the views of someone who does.

Just spent 20mins trying to pm you with the board software refusing to send cos it was too long. I've chopped it, I believe the first 1/2 got through, then it refused the second cos your inbox is full. If you clear your inbox, I'll send the 2nd half.

Yes- and that mistake, as you can see, was the source of some major understanding that fueled several aggressive posts. I'm sure now you can see why some posters kicked off, and, they can see it was an honest mistake on your part, acknowledged and explained. No- people are bigots if they exhibit bigoted thinking and behaviour. By definition, anyone who 'resents disabled people' is clearly intolerant and therefore bigoted. You'd be surprised how many people use that exact phrase I hope if you ever want to convey it in a job/course app, you don't put that word-for-word, but, instead, explain how you help disabled people into work, and what specifically you offer in that process to distinguish you from the other hundred applicants who do just put that stock, stale, easy, insincere sounding and utterly empty, turn of phrase. Not having a go at you, just a bit of honest advice. I'd think also about "getting disabled people to work", as it suggests they are somewhat incapable. Most disabled people would be highly capable of taking up work, if there was suitable work available, and, our society hadn't inadvertently evolved into a place where the disabled are routinely prejudiced against when it comes to employment and education. Wouldn't you feel better 'supporting' disabled people in making the decisions and obtaining the resources necessary for them to access employment, rather than 'getting them to work'?

Well, first, let's get the 'autistic logic' out of the way. I was talking about a believer giving charity. If I'm going to use words in a discussion, they need to be precise- not hazy and open to different interpretations. 'Giving' means 'to give'. If the theist is giving in order to get religious merit, he/she is still giving. There are different types of giving- altruistic, conditional etc. They are all giving. I'm happy to agree with you that a theist giving in order to gain religious merit (or gain anything else) would not be an example of unselfish/altruistic giving. I fully expect that some examples of believers giving, would be that selfish variety. Others wouldn't. For example a believer who gave because they believe that it is Gods wish, and, that, in their view of the world, God the identifier of good/bad. Thus, in their view, they are giving because it is the right/good thing to do, as sanctioned by God Himself. On losing faith/belief in said God, they may cease giving because, they no longer know what is right/good, as they have no God to inform them, and, for whatever reason, can't decide themselves.

You called them 'the Disableds'. I suspect you genuinely don't find it offensive. You also said 'put them to work'. Most disabled people not working could work very well- if given access to work that is suitable for them and appropriate 'reasonable adjustments' are decided and agreed upon by both employer and employee. No human being should be 'put to work', as it clearly suggests coercion. The 'large portion of society' that you say resents them, is possibly not quite so large as you think, as society as a whole is not necessarily reflected proportionally by the particular segments of society you encounter in your daily life. Either way, 'putting 'disableds' to work' in order to placate a section of society, who, by virtue of their resentment of said 'disableds' are, by definition, prejudiced bigots, is hardly the best way forward, is it?

Thanks for trying to explain it. But no- I'm really, really not being critical of you, but, due to my autism I need precise language. Your word use is very cloudy to my mind, which is fine, I'm 100% sure that you are way more effective at communication with most people, than I ever will be. I'm finding that my usual approach of trying to clarify 'cloudy' wordage/concepts with tight logic (which is how my mind works when understanding things) almost always results in friction and hostility. So I'll leave it- we just do not have a communication style that connects. I can only do tight precise logic. I'm not expecting or asking you to attempt to put it in tight logic, as I think you'd probably find that as stressful and time consuming as I do trying to unravel the more nebulous and flexible approach, which requires a lot of subtle subtle context that is beyond me.

Good point. I guess though that their always has and always will be competition between some theists and atheists (important to note not all, many of both camp simply get on with their own lives and enjoy their beliefs/absence of beliefs). Might it be better to shift it from the negative axis to the positive? i.e. rather than focusing on the mean-spirited side, go to the 'more giving'. So, of the 2 groups, atheist and non-atheist, the group not giving would be seen as the zero point (with no 'blame' or negativity attached with being in that position), while the giving group would be seen as being the positive one in terms of charity. Easy to argue that, purely logically speaking, that could be seen as exactly equivalent to the 'mean-spirited' view. However, in terms of which of the 2 views is most conducive to diplomacy and productive discussion, I think few would argue that the 2nd view is superior?

Sorry- it's difficult to work out what you're actually saying here. What point are you making?

I didn't get that at all. Knew who Paul weller was, know what a mod is, just didn't realise he was the king of them. Yeah. I'm thinking maybe leave it? Having thought on it, the problem is I'm not comfortable naming posters then having a go at them- cos, it will IMO inevitably be seen as having a go. Even if the mods gave full go-ahead, i'd be inclined to not get involved, as I can only see it going bad.

I think there's some winding up going on here it's all a bit subtle for me, so I'll bow to your superior wit and not trouble the mods with the issue. ---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 10:56 ---------- Suppose a religious person devoted a %-age of their annual income to helping the poor, as they believed in God, and, also believed that God wished believers to do this charitable act. If they then chose not to do the charity, is it fair to say they are meaner than before (on the grounds that previously they were more 'giving' than they now are? If their choice that lead to me being 'less giving' was made due to their belief in God ceasing, then could it be said that the absence of said belief has left them less giving than they were when they did have the belief (in god)?

OK. Here's the first draft- read through it and, if there's bits you want modified, say what they are, but, if you think it's good to go, I'll pm it to the mods/helpdesk "concerning this thread- http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11217391 a number of the posters wish to say on this thread that, in their opinion, it would be good to name specific boardusers and say that they were ""as mean spirited as the faithful they are accusing here"", whilst also presenting evidence that this was the case. I felt that this may be in violation of board rules, but they felt there shouldn't be any problem. I still felt there may be a problem and so we decided to compose a message to you, the moderator/s, asking if you felt it would be a problem. Is it? Let me know in a reply, or, even better, post on the thread yourselves." Shall i send it as it is, or do you want to do some alterations on bits of it?

What do you mean by 100% effectiveness?

Again, fair point. But that's how you feel. I feel that it's not a good move, especially as, remember, we're talking about naming a specific poster and claiming that they are 'mean spirited'. I find it impossible to believe that doing that will not cause problems with the mods, even if there's 'evidence' along with it. However, here's possible solution no. 3- how about I contact the mods and ask them? Obviously, especially given that I'm autistic, it'd be important that I get the wording right before sending it, so, shall I come up with a draft, or, do you want to start it? Then we can tweak it so we're all happy with it, then I'll send it off and get the reply.

Fair point. Personally I really do feel that naming specific posters as being 'mean spirited' will be very inflammatory indeed. I definitely feel that naming specifc posters will not be wanted by the mods. However- here's a simple solution, if people really feel it's wise to name specific posters, they contact the mods or the helpdesk, and, if they're fine with it, they can post on here giving the OK, and that'll certainly make me feel more comfortable about it.