Blair v Hitchens

[Duncan]

Very well argued Rhiannon. Yours is the same argument that was put forward by Rev Al Sharpton when he debated with Christopher Hitchens. Would you describe yourself as a Deist or a Christian?

I don't label myself as anything really, I think what I think based on my own experiences and perceptions the same as anyone. Thanks for the compliment.

I don't mean this to come across as an interrogation, but does the God in whom you believe influence human affairs; answer prayers etc? I haven't got any clever retort depending on your answer; just interested in what you have been saying.

I really don't want to get into a public discussion on what I believe, what I think is completely non-conventional to the average person. But I will say that I do believe the spiritual world interacts with the physical world on many levels without going into a long explanation of how and why and what for. I completely believe in free will. And I completely believe that is part of the point on a more philosophical level of why we're here. I think that prayers have a profound effect on things, and to keep any sort of bias out of it, on a basic level the sheer act of prayers focuses our intentions and awareness. Which depending on the person serves to comfort, heal, educate, and make us grow.

Whether that's simply an act of the "self" or an interaction with a higher power/higher realm can't be proven. But again, if it could be, what would be the purpose in faith? But looking at everything from a specific literal stance on either side (science or faith) is one-dimensional. Incorporating all facets of possibility is what helps me believe. I know that sounds ambiguous but maybe it answers your question somewhat.

Thanks

[kgdjpubs]

Where we totally differ is the fact that I think it's completely wrong to want to both have your cake and eat it too. You want all the great stuff science have brought onto the modern society (I'd go as far as saying scientific advancement is the reason for our society today; be it computers, electricity or structural engineering) and still say: you know, maybe there is a God. You're basically saying that you're both rational and pragmatic. Sure it works. I don't really see the use for it though, as I find them to be quite contradicting.

This is where the problem usually starts. They don't HAVE to be contradicting. Otherwise, we might as well all move out to some deserted part of land and attempt to live without any concessions to the modern world. It's the people that have to draw a line in the sand and refuse to budge an iota of a millimeter one way or the other that cause the majority of the problems.

I wouldn't spend a thought on, let's say a terminal cancer patient; if I wanted to help her out, then I would go and talk with her - make her feel better (because I know that jedi mind tricks won't cure her cancer) The reality is now. Not in our minds, not in our hopes or whatever. Hopes and kisses doesn't help the kids of junkies or parents that feed them crap - calling the child protective service and kicking the parents teeth's in respectively, does however. But I get where you're coming from. I'm just not that kind of person at all.

Interesting point, but I'd wager a bet to say you haven't been around hospitals and emergency rooms where the barrier between life and death is a VERY fine line. I've seen people who should be very dead survive, and others who should be very much alive that didn't make it out--with no major difference between them. A lot of times, the simple answer is whether the person wants to live.

Science can explain a lot of things, but some of the most simple things in medicine aren't explained very well at all. Why does one person react well to a certain treatment, where it shows little effect (or even a negative effect) on someone in the exact same situation. You can explain scientifically down to the last minute detail what is needed for a cell to live, but what has never been explained is why it would (and can) make the choice on whether it wants to live.

For many people, that's where a "reasonable doubt" comes in.

[Michigan Girl]

Interesting point, but I'd wager a bet to say you haven't been around hospitals and emergency rooms where the barrier between life and death is a VERY fine line. I've seen people who should be very dead survive, and others who should be very much alive that didn't make it out--with no major difference between them. A lot of times, the simple answer is whether the person wants to live.

Science can explain a lot of things, but some of the most simple things in medicine aren't explained very well at all. Why does one person react well to a certain treatment, where it shows little effect (or even a negative effect) on someone in the exact same situation. You can explain scientifically down to the last minute detail what is needed for a cell to live, but what has never been explained is why it would (and can) make the choice on whether it wants to live.

For many people, that's where a "reasonable doubt" comes in.

I'm certain he has,
but this is beautiful ...I don't understand your name so I don't know what to call you?!?!

[kgdjpubs]

Interesting point, but I'd wager a bet to say you haven't been around hospitals and emergency rooms where the barrier between life and death is a VERY fine line. I've seen people who should be very dead survive, and others who should be very much alive that didn't make it out--with no major difference between them. A lot of times, the simple answer is whether the person wants to live.

Science can explain a lot of things, but some of the most simple things in medicine aren't explained very well at all. Why does one person react well to a certain treatment, where it shows little effect (or even a negative effect) on someone in the exact same situation. You can explain scientifically down to the last minute detail what is needed for a cell to live, but what has never been explained is why it would (and can) make the choice on whether it wants to live.

For many people, that's where a "reasonable doubt" comes in.

I'm certain he has,
but this is beautiful ...I don't understand your name so I don't know what to call you?!?!

Kevin. I need to figure out if Andrew can change the name. If you ever go over to the other board, that was the name there forever (or at least since about 1998). The name was taken, but it's obviously long since inactive. Maybe I can resurrect it.

[Monker]

and science-boy should know this ... you can't prove a negative ... you can only fail to reject the null hypothesis ...

Thank you, I was thinking that earlier.

Damn, Rhi....Are you Einstein's daughter or something? Quit trying to explain how to read the mind of God...it's just way too confusing.

[Rhiannon]

I get where you're coming from. Seriously. Being kind of uncertain, not exactly knowing what's right or wrong. I get it. I made a choice, based on my limited knowledge of physics, history, philosophy and biology where I stand on this subject. I actually respect that you don't agree with me; at least you're smarter than the rest of the burning crusade here in MR. Where we totally differ is the fact that I think it's completely wrong to want to both have your cake and eat it too. You want all the great stuff science have brought onto the modern society (I'd go as far as saying scientific advancement is the reason for our society today; be it computers, electricity or structural engineering) and still say: you know, maybe there is a God. You're basically saying that you're both rational and pragmatic. Sure it works. I don't really see the use for it though, as I find them to be quite contradicting. I am open minded, I'm just not open minded enough so that my brain falls out.

Technically you'd have to be open-skulled for your brain to fall out. But no sense in splitting hairs.

I can have my cake and eat it too. Like I said, I don't expect you to understand facets of my understanding of things that I haven't even went into in our little discourse here. But the thing is, if people could at least see eye-to-eye on the equal right to be who we are and think what we think as far as this is concerned, the collaboration of knowledge could usher in a new renaissance of sorts. You may say I'm a dreamer...

But I get where you're coming from. I'm just not that kind of person at all.

And I get where you're coming from, too. If you're wired to go on straight fact and data and it's practical applications then that's fine. I don't have a problem with anyone not believing in God or the Spaghetti Monster. We all have our reasons for what we believe and don't believe. This was fun. Let's argue again sometime...

[Rhiannon]

Damn, Rhi....Are you Einstein's daughter or something? Quit trying to explain how to read the mind of God...it's just way too confusing.

"Einstein, stop telling God what to do!" -- Niels Bohr

I just can't resist a good "meaning of life" debate. That's all.

[parfait]

Damn, Rhi....Are you Einstein's daughter or something? Quit trying to explain how to read the mind of God...it's just way too confusing.

"Einstein, stop telling God what to do!" -- Niels Bohr

I just can't resist a good "meaning of life" debate. That's all.

Why do you need some fancy, metaphysical reason for living? I don't see the point of making life out to be more than it is. We're born, make the most of the time spent living, and then die. Instead of living a half-assed life now because one is awaiting a after life; one should just have a drink, have sex and do all the things one wants right now.

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

[Rhiannon]

Why do you need some fancy, metaphysical reason for living? I don't see the point of making life out to be more than it is. We're born, make the most of the time spent living, and then die. Instead of living a half-assed life now because one is awaiting a after life; one should just have a drink, have sex and do all the things one wants right now.

I don't need a fancy metaphysical reason for living. I don't fear dying. I'm perfectly content in the event if nothing were to happen after I die. My life is far from half-assed. And that's why I'm cool to be wrong. In the meantime, my beliefs are based on what I've learned and experienced. Just as your lack of belief is based on yours. It is what it is. Don't go making it all theatrical. Everybody poops.

[parfait]

Why do you need some fancy, metaphysical reason for living? I don't see the point of making life out to be more than it is. We're born, make the most of the time spent living, and then die. Instead of living a half-assed life now because one is awaiting a after life; one should just have a drink, have sex and do all the things one wants right now.

I don't need a fancy metaphysical reason for living. I don't fear dying. I'm perfectly content in the event if nothing were to happen after I die. My life is far from half-assed. And that's why I'm cool to be wrong. In the meantime, my beliefs are based on what I've learned and experienced. Just as your lack of belief is based on yours. It is what it is. Don't go making it all theatrical. Everybody poops.

Take it easy there, pussycup.

I just pee.

[Rhiannon]

[Monker]

Damn, Rhi....Are you Einstein's daughter or something? Quit trying to explain how to read the mind of God...it's just way too confusing.

"Einstein, stop telling God what to do!" -- Niels Bohr

I just can't resist a good "meaning of life" debate. That's all.

Usually I get into it too...But, you sorta stole the show here and I know when to not get involved.

I will make one comment about your beliefs and being hard to understand. I watched this show about ancient astronaut theory...you know, "Chariots of the Gods" and that sorta stuff. One of the things they said is the reason some ancient texts (including Ezekiel and Daniel from the Bible) are so cryptic is because ancient man was trying explain things beyond his understanding...so they used descriptions they are familiar with...flying chariots and such.

What you are saying is the same thing...that trying to explain God is hopelessly impossible and perhaps even the Bible is a feeble attempt to do so because it is still coming from a human perspective. We do not have a good perspective towards God and therefore we can't explain it.

[Rhiannon]

I will make one comment about your beliefs and being hard to understand. I watched this show about ancient astronaut theory...you know, "Chariots of the Gods" and that sorta stuff. One of the things they said is the reason some ancient texts (including Ezekiel and Daniel from the Bible) are so cryptic is because ancient man was trying explain things beyond his understanding...so they used descriptions they are familiar with...flying chariots and such.

What you are saying is the same thing...that trying to explain God is hopelessly impossible and perhaps even the Bible is a feeble attempt to do so because it is still coming from a human perspective. We do not have a good perspective towards God and therefore we can't explain it.

Are you talking about the Ancient Aliens series that was on the History Channel a few months back? I watched that, too. Fascinating stuff. And very interesting to think about. There's a lot of congruences across world religions and major themes that can't simply be explained with random chance from a primitive human society's psychology.

And yes, it is hopeless and feeble. And if someone wants to be self-inspiring with a pro-mankind attitude I don't have a problem with that. I just don't have ego enough to think for a second I know enough to rule out any possibility. No one is that intelligent, no one. And I also wonder if it's morally ethical and spiritually responsible to even go so far as to try and figure it out. The best anyone can really do in all of this is learn and be aware. Which is at the end of things, my whole point.

[parfait]

I will make one comment about your beliefs and being hard to understand. I watched this show about ancient astronaut theory...you know, "Chariots of the Gods" and that sorta stuff. One of the things they said is the reason some ancient texts (including Ezekiel and Daniel from the Bible) are so cryptic is because ancient man was trying explain things beyond his understanding...so they used descriptions they are familiar with...flying chariots and such.

What you are saying is the same thing...that trying to explain God is hopelessly impossible and perhaps even the Bible is a feeble attempt to do so because it is still coming from a human perspective. We do not have a good perspective towards God and therefore we can't explain it.

Are you talking about the Ancient Aliens series that was on the History Channel a few months back? I watched that, too. Fascinating stuff. And very interesting to think about. There's a lot of congruences across world religions and major themes that can't simply be explained with random chance from a primitive human society's psychology.

And yes, it is hopeless and feeble. And if someone wants to be self-inspiring with a pro-mankind attitude I don't have a problem with that. I just don't have ego enough to think for a second I know enough to rule out any possibility. No one is that intelligent, no one. And I also wonder if it's morally ethical and spiritually responsible to even go so far as to try and figure it out. The best anyone can really do in all of this is learn and be aware. Which is at the end of things, my whole point.

Yes, because as history as taught us; religion always have their facts right. I kinda agreed with you at first, you know, being open to new things. Keeping an open mind and all that, but ancient aliens? Jeesh. As for the "random chance" mumbo jumbo you keep pulling outta your ass shows just how little grasp you have over evolution. Chance certainly plays a role part in evolution, but it ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations.

Your ego = pro-mankind argument is just ludicrous. I'd dispute that it's far from the scientists that are selfish, but the religious folks out there, who have the opinion that "their" God trumps other Gods. Religion has created more inequality among races, sex and cultures than those with the pro-mankind will ever do. As far as being primitive; then yes we're primitive, at least according to Michio Kaku (theoretical physicist extraordinaire). There's no doubt in any reasonable person's mind however, that we would be far less primitive today, if it hadn't been for the fact that religion, alternative medicine (homeopathy, acupuncture and chiropractic) and spirituality (psychics e.g) puts a damper on what separates us from all the other animals: reason.

But yes, a God could have created everything. People see him all over, be it in a pack of salami or in the eyes of a woman they've just stoned to death. That reminds me; shouldn't you be making someone a sandwich?

[Rhiannon]

Yes, because as history as taught us; religion always have their facts right. I kinda agreed with you at first, you know, being open to new things. Keeping an open mind and all that, but ancient aliens? Jeesh. As for the "random chance" mumbo jumbo you keep pulling outta your ass shows just how little grasp you have over evolution. Chance certainly plays a role part in evolution, but it ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations.

Your ego = pro-mankind argument is just ludicrous. I'd dispute that it's far from the scientists that are selfish, but the religious folks out there, who have the opinion that "their" God trumps other Gods. Religion has created more inequality among races, sex and cultures than those with the pro-mankind will ever do. As far as being primitive; then yes we're primitive, at least according to Michio Kaku (theoretical physicist extraordinaire). There's no doubt in any reasonable person's mind however, that we would be far less primitive today, if it hadn't been for the fact that religion, alternative medicine (homeopathy, acupuncture and chiropractic) and spirituality (psychics e.g) puts a damper on what separates us from all the other animals: reason.

But yes, a God could have created everything. People see him all over, be it in a pack of salami or in the eyes of a woman they've just stoned to death. That reminds me; shouldn't you be making someone a sandwich?

That was the most random rebuttal I think I've ever seen. At no point did anything you wrote reflect an opposite side of anything I had said, which was to Monker in regards to a TV show I thought was interesting followed by cultural similarities between primitive cultures (if you're not aware, primitive refers to ancient societies... not modern) that aren't explained by chance. Meaning archaeology, anthropology, and history all tell us that these people had not yet interacted nor had access to each other at the times when the "similar" developments in question arose from each other respectively. Then I stated that I don't have the ego enough to think I know enough about anything to rule out any possibility because THAT is logic and fact.

If you'd stop and put your reason to use and tone the zealotry down for a moment you might have saved yourself from launching into such an asinine reply. That again had nothing to do with anything I said.

Which brings me back to my original statement comparing that pompousness of atheists to the closed-mindedness of theistic doctrine both exhibiting similar behaviors in the select few as far as crusading for their ideals. Which you have just proven.

Although I know without a doubt you can't and won't see that either. And will probably come back with some bullshit temper tantrum about how much religion sucks ass and stifles progression and whatever. So save yourself the trouble, accept that you have no clue what I'm talking about, and get back to your accidental existence.

[parfait]

Yes, because as history as taught us; religion always have their facts right. I kinda agreed with you at first, you know, being open to new things. Keeping an open mind and all that, but ancient aliens? Jeesh. As for the "random chance" mumbo jumbo you keep pulling outta your ass shows just how little grasp you have over evolution. Chance certainly plays a role part in evolution, but it ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations.

Your ego = pro-mankind argument is just ludicrous. I'd dispute that it's far from the scientists that are selfish, but the religious folks out there, who have the opinion that "their" God trumps other Gods. Religion has created more inequality among races, sex and cultures than those with the pro-mankind will ever do. As far as being primitive; then yes we're primitive, at least according to Michio Kaku (theoretical physicist extraordinaire). There's no doubt in any reasonable person's mind however, that we would be far less primitive today, if it hadn't been for the fact that religion, alternative medicine (homeopathy, acupuncture and chiropractic) and spirituality (psychics e.g) puts a damper on what separates us from all the other animals: reason.

But yes, a God could have created everything. People see him all over, be it in a pack of salami or in the eyes of a woman they've just stoned to death. That reminds me; shouldn't you be making someone a sandwich?

That was the most random rebuttal I think I've ever seen. At no point did anything you wrote reflect an opposite side of anything I had said, which was to Monker in regards to a TV show I thought was interesting followed by cultural similarities between primitive cultures (if you're not aware, primitive refers to ancient societies... not modern) that aren't explained by chance. Meaning archaeology, anthropology, and history all tell us that these people had not yet interacted nor had access to each other at the times when the "similar" developments in question arose from each other respectively. Then I stated that I don't have the ego enough to think I know enough about anything to rule out any possibility because THAT is logic and fact.

If you'd stop and put your reason to use and tone the zealotry down for a moment you might have saved yourself from launching into such an asinine reply. That again had nothing to do with anything I said.

Which brings me back to my original statement comparing that pompousness of atheists to the closed-mindedness of theistic doctrine both exhibiting similar behaviors in the select few as far as crusading for their ideals. Which you have just proven.

Although I know without a doubt you can't and won't see that either. And will probably come back with some bullshit temper tantrum about how much religion sucks ass and stifles progression and whatever. So save yourself the trouble, accept that you have no clue what I'm talking about, and get back to your accidental existence.

That would just be stating facts. You've stated the random chance bullcrap earlier in this thread too, so it's irrelevant if you thought it was random or not; you've learned a new thing today.

As to the rest of it; even though you might have talked about some tv show (which I didn't get), does not take away from the fact that your whole second paragraph is a load of trying-hard-to-sound-smart bull. Your whole stand is just a bad case of Pascal's wager (just google it, muffintop) with some, just out of community college, pseudoscience and spirituality thrown in the mix. You made some bold, unsubstantiated remarks, and I refuted them. No need to get your panties all in a twist.

[Monker]

There's no doubt in any reasonable person's mind however, that we would be far less primitive today, if it hadn't been for the fact that religion, alternative medicine (homeopathy, acupuncture and chiropractic) and spirituality (psychics e.g) puts a damper on what separates us from all the other animals: reason.

No other species on the planet murders each other for the trill of it (serial killer), has an adiction with having sex with its dead (necrophilia). How many times have you seen a squirrel murder another squirrell, have sex with it, and the eat its liver with a nice Chiante? it's a bit silly, IMO, to say we humans are removed from animals as long as there are examples behavior in our society.

[Rhiannon]

That would just be stating facts. You've stated the random chance bullcrap earlier in this thread too, so it's irrelevant if you thought it was random or not; you've learned a new thing today.

Which I was using rhetorically. Slang, semantics, etc.

As to the rest of it; even though you might have talked about some tv show (which I didn't get), does not take away from the fact that your whole second paragraph is a load of trying-hard-to-sound-smart bull. Your whole stand is just a bad case of Pascal's wager (just google it, muffintop) with some, just out of community college, pseudoscience and spirituality thrown in the mix. You made some bold, unsubstantiated remarks, and I refuted them. No need to get your panties all in a twist.

How cute, you name dropped Pascal! One of Dawkins' favorite things to harp on. Ironic. Sparky, I'm not the one going off tossing in "facts" from my mid-terms loaded with an over-bearing tone of self-righteousness. I like my pseudoscience and spirituality. And I happen to like both Pascal's ideas and Dawkins' anti-wager. They both bring good points. Maybe it just pisses you off that I happen to have my cake and eat it too. Maybe that doesn't compute because your conviction blinds you. So you continue to fight because it's absolutely preposterous to you that someone can believe in God and love science, too. You're not going to change my mind, and the subversive retorts to my gender slash your credibility as someone who can even put up a fair argument.

It's been fun debating with you, Fencepost.

[verslibre]

Where the hell does chiropractic medicine come into this argument, let alone it putting a "damper on reason"???

Well, put, Monker. It really boils down to instinct vs. free will. It's like the lunatic who shivs a random college girl in her hoo-hoo and then dashes home in mad rush to put on his tux so he can haul ass to his job as a meek and mild-mannered orchestra conductor — all the while nobody realizing he's waving his wand (so to speak) so furiously because he's fantasizing about getting plowed in the ass by his favorite tranny porn star.

[verslibre]

It's been fun debating with you, Fencepost.

LOL!

[parfait]

:lol: Where the hell does chiropractic medicine come into this argument, let alone it putting a "damper on reason"???

It was just an example, but I'll explain it to you anyways, smartass. Chiropractic is a bullshit fraud with no substantial trials or surveys to back it up. Originally created by a former magnetic healer, who just started popping spines and thought it could cure diseases caused by interruptions in the flow of innate intelligence, a vital nervous energy or life force that represented God's presence in man. There's a reason that classic medicine continues to fight against chiropractors and their often times harmful, even deadly forms of spinal manipulation. Not to mention the fact that chiropractors advocate against medication and even vaccination! There you go.

No other species on the planet murders each other for the trill of it (serial killer), has an adiction with having sex with its dead (necrophilia). How many times have you seen a squirrel murder another squirrell, have sex with it, and the eat its liver with a nice Chiante? it's a bit silly, IMO, to say we humans are removed from animals as long as there are examples behavior in our society.

A good point, which I don't really have any good answer for. We're not removed from animals however - the genomic difference between a chimpanzee and a homosapien is around 1.23 % (although only a few percent of our DNA are actually coding regulatory sequences) Our brain though, however great and intricate, can do things that, for us seems to be totally fucked up. Serial killers are, at least to my knowledge, oftentimes diagnosed with some disorder, often induced by their upbringing. Fetishes also in most occasions have some underlying psychological cause.

[verslibre]

:lol: Where the hell does chiropractic medicine come into this argument, let alone it putting a "damper on reason"???

It was just an example, but I'll explain it to you anyways, smartass. Chiropractic is a bullshit fraud with no substantial trials or surveys to back it up. Originally created by a former magnetic healer, who just started popping spines and thought it could cure diseases caused by interruptions in the flow of innate intelligence, a vital nervous energy or life force that represented God's presence in man. There's a reason that classic medicine continues to fight against chiropractors and their often times harmful, even deadly forms of spinal manipulation. Not to mention the fact that chiropractors advocate against medication and even vaccination! There you go.

Fuck meds and vaccines. I don't need any of that shit. Meds are being peddled ad nauseum more than ever, advertising treatment of specific ailments while listing a cornucopia of possible side effects. Sounds like killing the horse in order to cure it to me. I don't ever get the flu shot and guess what? I don't get the flu, either.

[parfait]

:lol: Where the hell does chiropractic medicine come into this argument, let alone it putting a "damper on reason"???

It was just an example, but I'll explain it to you anyways, smartass. Chiropractic is a bullshit fraud with no substantial trials or surveys to back it up. Originally created by a former magnetic healer, who just started popping spines and thought it could cure diseases caused by interruptions in the flow of innate intelligence, a vital nervous energy or life force that represented God's presence in man. There's a reason that classic medicine continues to fight against chiropractors and their often times harmful, even deadly forms of spinal manipulation. Not to mention the fact that chiropractors advocate against medication and even vaccination! There you go.

Fuck meds and vaccines. I don't need any of that shit. Meds are being peddled ad nauseum more than ever, advertising treatment of specific ailments while listing a cornucopia of possible side effects. Sounds like killing the horse in order to cure it to me. I don't ever get the flu shot and guess what? I don't get the flu, either.

Jesus, you're retarded.

Your parents most likely had the common sense to vaccinate you - it's too bad though. People like you deserve a good round of typhoid or smallpox. Oh, and tell everyone with hypertension, HIV, cancer, high colesterol, dyspepisa or with coronary heart disease, to get just screw the meds. That would help them out, cause hey, you never get the flu, you superior beacon of health and knowledge.

[Michigan Girl]

:lol: Where the hell does chiropractic medicine come into this argument, let alone it putting a "damper on reason"???

It was just an example, but I'll explain it to you anyways, smartass. Chiropractic is a bullshit fraud with no substantial trials or surveys to back it up. Originally created by a former magnetic healer, who just started popping spines and thought it could cure diseases caused by interruptions in the flow of innate intelligence, a vital nervous energy or life force that represented God's presence in man. There's a reason that classic medicine continues to fight against chiropractors and their often times harmful, even deadly forms of spinal manipulation. Not to mention the fact that chiropractors advocate against medication and even vaccination! There you go.

Fuck meds and vaccines. I don't need any of that shit. Meds are being peddled ad nauseum more than ever, advertising treatment of specific ailments while listing a cornucopia of possible side effects. Sounds like killing the horse in order to cure it to me. I don't ever get the flu shot and guess what? I don't get the flu, either.

Jesus, you're retarded.

Your parents most likely had the common sense to vaccinate you - it's too bad though. People like you deserve a good round of typhoid or smallpox. Oh, and tell everyone with hypertension, HIV, cancer, high colesterol, dyspepisa or with coronary heart disease, to get just screw the meds. That would help them out, cause hey, you never get the flu, you superior beacon of health and knowledge.

This is very true, mon cher, but I also understand
where "V" is coming from ...as I don't think he is referring to the same types of lifesaving drugs that you are.
Meds are being peddled unnecessarily and quite often!! e.g.
I went to the doc a couple of years ago for fire ant bites on my foot,
which had become infected because I scratch like a dog ...I was put through a battery of tests, given a lecture on
my choice of shoe wear and left his office w/a prescription for Lipitor...WTF...
Nevermind the fact that just two weeks prior I had a complete physical exam by my OB and my
cholesterol checked out fine. Now I know this doesn't always happen ...but it does happen!!

The Chiropractor thing is just a waste of money when you can have someone walk on your back!!!

[verslibre]

Fuck meds and vaccines. I don't need any of that shit. Meds are being peddled ad nauseum more than ever, advertising treatment of specific ailments while listing a cornucopia of possible side effects. Sounds like killing the horse in order to cure it to me. I don't ever get the flu shot and guess what? I don't get the flu, either.

Jesus, you're retarded.

Your parents most likely had the common sense to vaccinate you - it's too bad though. People like you deserve a good round of typhoid or smallpox. Oh, and tell everyone with hypertension, HIV, cancer, high colesterol, dyspepisa or with coronary heart disease, to get just screw the meds. That would help them out, cause hey, you never get the flu, you superior beacon of health and knowledge.

Congratulations, Dr. Seuss. You completely missed my point. Your primadonna-like antics only serve to undermine you. What are you, 21? Do you even have all of your pubes yet?

[verslibre]

This is very true, mon cher, but I also understand
where "V" is coming from ...as I don't think he is referring to the same types of lifesaving drugs that you are.
Meds are being peddled unnecessarily and quite often!! e.g.
I went to the doc a couple of years ago for fire ant bites on my foot,
which had become infected because I scratch like a dog ...I was put through a battery of tests, given a lecture on
my choice of shoe wear and left his office w/a prescription for Lipitor...WTF...
Nevermind the fact that just two weeks prior I had a complete physical exam by my OB and my
cholesterol checked out fine. Now I know this doesn't always happen ...but it does happen!!

It's happening more and more with alarming frequency. Big Pharma has just about everybody in its pockets — and its pockets run deep. You were given a prescription for one of three widely-prescribed cholesterol meds when you had sought treatment for infection due to fire ant bites. Your regular physician had said you checked out fine in that dept., right? When my dad (R.I.P.) passed away, I couldn't believe the regimen of meds his three docs had him on. Anytime he developed some new issue, another "miracle of chemistry" was "the answer." I'm convinced all those meds taxed his body to the point he went sooner than he had to. Not to mention his cardiologist was a total schmuck who loved to practice evasion anytime I had a serious question for him.

People need to understand that the medical profession is a business.

[parfait]

This is very true, mon cher, but I also understand
where "V" is coming from ...as I don't think he is referring to the same types of lifesaving drugs that you are.
Meds are being peddled unnecessarily and quite often!! e.g.
I went to the doc a couple of years ago for fire ant bites on my foot,
which had become infected because I scratch like a dog ...I was put through a battery of tests, given a lecture on
my choice of shoe wear and left his office w/a prescription for Lipitor...WTF...
Nevermind the fact that just two weeks prior I had a complete physical exam by my OB and my
cholesterol checked out fine. Now I know this doesn't always happen ...but it does happen!!

It's happening more and more with alarming frequency. Big Pharma has just about everybody in its pockets — and its pockets run deep. You were given a prescription for one of three widely-prescribed cholesterol meds when you had sought treatment for infection due to fire ant bites. Your regular physician had said you checked out fine in that dept., right? When my dad (R.I.P.) passed away, I couldn't believe the regimen of meds his three docs had him on. Anytime he developed some new issue, another "miracle of chemistry" was "the answer." I'm convinced all those meds taxed his body to the point he went sooner than he had to. Not to mention his cardiologist was a total schmuck who loved to practice evasion anytime I had a serious question for him.

People need to understand that the medical profession is a business.

People don't have to understand a thing from someone who's obviously not a doctor himself. But of course it's a business, and it has its obvious flaws - but your conspiracy sounding bullshit is ridiculous. You've been watching too many TV shows and movies.

There's a lot of bad doctors out there though, so every patent should use their brain and look at a doctor's credentials. You don't go to some doctor from a community college who've done his/hers residency in some unknown crib in Guatemala to perform your brain surgery. Vanderbilt is known for producing some fine doctors, same with John Hopkin's for example.

[WalkInMyShoes]

This is very true, mon cher, but I also understand
where "V" is coming from ...as I don't think he is referring to the same types of lifesaving drugs that you are.
Meds are being peddled unnecessarily and quite often!! e.g.
I went to the doc a couple of years ago for fire ant bites on my foot,
which had become infected because I scratch like a dog ...I was put through a battery of tests, given a lecture on
my choice of shoe wear and left his office w/a prescription for Lipitor...WTF...
Nevermind the fact that just two weeks prior I had a complete physical exam by my OB and my
cholesterol checked out fine. Now I know this doesn't always happen ...but it does happen!!

It's happening more and more with alarming frequency. Big Pharma has just about everybody in its pockets — and its pockets run deep. You were given a prescription for one of three widely-prescribed cholesterol meds when you had sought treatment for infection due to fire ant bites. Your regular physician had said you checked out fine in that dept., right? When my dad (R.I.P.) passed away, I couldn't believe the regimen of meds his three docs had him on. Anytime he developed some new issue, another "miracle of chemistry" was "the answer." I'm convinced all those meds taxed his body to the point he went sooner than he had to. Not to mention his cardiologist was a total schmuck who loved to practice evasion anytime I had a serious question for him.

People need to understand that the medical profession is a business.

People don't have to understand a thing from someone who's obviously not a doctor himself. But of course it's a business, and it has its obvious flaws - but your conspiracy sounding bullshit is ridiculous. You've been watching too many TV shows and movies.

There's a lot of bad doctors out there though, so every patent should use their brain and look at a doctor's credentials. You don't go to some doctor from a community college who've done his/hers residency in some unknown crib in Guatemala to perform your brain surgery. Vanderbilt is known for producing some fine doctors, same with John Hopkin's for example.

Medical care (hospitals, clinics, pharmacies ) ARE businesses. I suppose doctors that are in private practice and worried about paying leases, employee wages, unemployment, health care are more concerned about the bottom line. However, most MDs in successful clinical practices are concerned about providing the best medical care possible for their patients and act as their advocates. I know that at my clinic, drug and product reps are not even allowed in. We don't have samples. There is no incentive to prescribe one drug over another. And where you trained is not always a good indication of your character or how you care for people. Some of the best physicians are those that aren't necessarily the smartest, because being a good doctor includes listening to people, understanding what is right for each individual and not 100% what the books or medical literature says is the best course of action. Medicine is becoming "cookbook" in that sense. Click on a diagnosis and poof, recommended tests and treatments just spit out of your printer in an attempt to "standardize" care and provide care that costs the least. I don't like where things are heading and worry about my own health care in the future.

[verslibre]

It's happening more and more with alarming frequency. Big Pharma has just about everybody in its pockets — and its pockets run deep. You were given a prescription for one of three widely-prescribed cholesterol meds when you had sought treatment for infection due to fire ant bites. Your regular physician had said you checked out fine in that dept., right? When my dad (R.I.P.) passed away, I couldn't believe the regimen of meds his three docs had him on. Anytime he developed some new issue, another "miracle of chemistry" was "the answer." I'm convinced all those meds taxed his body to the point he went sooner than he had to. Not to mention his cardiologist was a total schmuck who loved to practice evasion anytime I had a serious question for him.

People need to understand that the medical profession is a business.

People don't have to understand a thing from someone who's obviously not a doctor himself. But of course it's a business, and it has its obvious flaws - but your conspiracy sounding bullshit is ridiculous. You've been watching too many TV shows and movies.

You are particularly defensive when it comes to medicine. Are you a doctor yourself? A medical student? Do you come from a family of medical practitioners? Or are you just a hair-pulling pantywaist-apologist who frequently yips like a rabid chihuahua? It seems like you're full of opinions but can't handle hearing them expressed by people around you. Get used to it, Li'l Hitler. It's not up to you to dictate who says what and whose hand you can slap. More than likely you'll get punched.

By the way, there's nothing conspiratorial nor theoretical about what I've said. I'm just not a fucking sheep. So baa, baa yourself right into the labcoats' waiting arms. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sign up to be a drug prototype testee? Don't worry, I'm sure the worst that would happen is you'd suffer permanent impotence and sterility — not a bad thing by any means!

[verslibre]

And where you trained is not always a good indication of your character or how you care for people. Some of the best physicians are those that aren't necessarily the smartest, because being a good doctor includes listening to people, understanding what is right for each individual and not 100% what the books or medical literature says is the best course of action. Medicine is becoming "cookbook" in that sense. Click on a diagnosis and poof, recommended tests and treatments just spit out of your printer in an attempt to "standardize" care and provide care that costs the least. I don't like where things are heading and worry about my own health care in the future.

You understand.

Parfum doesn't.