Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Are you so mentally deranged that you claim a blog post is evidence? No, it's not! Instead of wallowing in your pathetic OPINION step back and review FACTS.
Was he reprimanded in any way by any medical board? NO
Was he found guilty of any form of malpractice? NO If the doctors want to claim he is a quack they must provide evidence. If you claim he's a quack YOU must provide evidence. No evidence == delusional opinion.
I read the letter, and the blog post TFA links to. I see no facts or evidence. I heard GW Bush claim Saddam had WMDs too, and that didn't happen did it?
The only way to prove their claim is demonstrating with evidence.
EVIDENCE! Good grief, this is not a difficult concept. Reading the one guys "blog" (trusted publication right?) I see the same claims, but zero evidence. His beef is that Oz is on the teaching staff for surgery. Did Oz teach surgeons wrong? Or is the guy jealous and bitching because Oz can cash in thanks to some help from Oprah. That is a fair question given the astounding (not really) lack of evidence and amount of ad hominem and appeals to emotion I see from him (and you, and another person in the thread).
Now, do you have any evidence to back your claim? A lack of evidence would make you the quack.
Show me the examples of him being a quack, or even a specific from the letter outside of "anti-gmo". You know, facts and evidence. The things you are supposed to have when leveling charges attempting to damage people. I see lots of ad hominem, and quite a bit from you as well. Pretty handy how you use several appeals to emotion so that anyone disagreeing with your opinion is either "HURRR DURRR" conspiracy theory or smearmonger.
If you want to claim a MD is a quack, you need to address specifics.
I have only seen his show a couple times and didn't see anything "harmful" or different than my doctor might. If he did something no other MD would do, lets see the evidence.
Sadly there are plenty of assholes that claim people are guilty because they have an opinion. Happens all the time here. Take a good whiff and make sure it's not you that smells. Facts and evidence are pretty important things to have, and I have seen nothing from you or the people who wrote the letter that resemble facts.
I see no substance to the claims of quackery, just empty claims. Yeah, he pissed off Monsanto or Bayer or one of those, because that is the only thing they will firmly claim.
Ask the important question: How long has he been on TV and just now someone want's to claim he's a quack? Sorry, his format has not changed, nor the advice he is giving out. Then look at cui bono, and it's obvious what is going on.
Sadly, there are many religious zealots who claim to believe in science, but can not differentiate fact from opinion. You will find plenty in this thread even. They were told all this stuff is good, and "smart people don't question", so they don't.
One out of how many modified foods? Every time people back GMOs they claim Rice is the great savior. You know, that rice that has been banned in most countries in Europe, and is being dumped on the poor Asian population. Meanwhile, Japan was able to create a flood resistant rice with a few seasons of hybridization and no genetic modification since Japan outlawed GMO foods. That was the first rice that was touted as the great savior of GMO reputation, but we didn't need the damn fungus and insect genes to do it!
And look, I'm not saying all GMOs are bad. I'm saying that not all of them have been good. Do you think that no science was used in the European countries who all banned GMOs? That, is called denial.
Why do you omit the most important fact when attempting to conflate genetic modification with evolution? You know, that pesky fact that evolution maintains balance because ALL creatures are evolving. GMO foods do not.
The second most important fact is that people in the US are not demanding a ban, they are demanding labeling so that they can choose. Your statements, nor the big GMO companies, address that simple fact. They treat the request for label as if it were a ban.
Lastly, evolution does not allow the types of modifications genetics is allowing. Look at how many GMO vegetables contain Fungus, Insect, and Animal DNA. Attempting to claim it's the same as evolution is an absolute lie.
You insult someone else as being ignorant as your last defense... pathetic, and transparent.
You are a rare type, that is why you understand where to put the blame. Bernays, Skinner and others proved that deception works very well in advertising. Subtle hints everywhere, instead of the big old phrase "SMOKE CIGARETTES" they just posted pictures with a woman smoking in the background to normalize it and make women think they should be smoking. This type of shit happens very often, and unless you know to look for things you can, and very often will be deceived into making a bad decisions.
A couple examples: Credit scores - pure scam to keep you in debt for points.
Food, Alcohol, and drugs are everywhere in advertising and "product placements" in movies. Not a little, every single movie made today has this.
As someone stated above, if advertising didn't work nobody in their right mind would dump the hundreds of billions into advertising year after year after decade.. (you get the point). It works, they do dump the money. Studies show that fascism works better, but advertising is still needed so that people know what the government wants them to purchase.
Yeah, I sat with my son as he was growing up and showed him. The "sex sells" ad campaigns which are still strong today, the Kent "hell sells" campaigns, he knows what to look for. Most people don't.
Up to TFAs points as to the MS vs. Google thing, MS has been a scum company using shady legal deals for decades. No shock they are doing it against Google, it should have been expected given their track record. MS are Cain and Abel? Hardly, more like two serpents that nip at each other to keep things looking like competition.
Drones were never immune to detection and shutdown. Nor is that their draw at present.
BS to both of those. Drones could not be seen or detected, hence used as assassination devices. Iran is successfully killing drones, they are no longer immune to detection. As a guess, you are going to attempt to claim that "cost" is the main factor. That is extremely wrong on every possible level. Study up on DOD and Military expenses, money has never been an object, ever in the history of the military.
To the last part, I think we are close to agreeing except for where you claim autonomous systems would still require humans. That last part is what certain people are trying to achieve. I gave the logic for why they want to achieve it. You don't discount the logic, and in fact you must agree because you have not countered it.
First part, drones were game changing when they were immune to detection and shutdown. No longer the case.
Second part, no there is nothing new here either. History is full of people holding power trying to use all kinds of tricks to "wipe out those other guys". Drones are no different than aircraft currently. They require a human to pilot and shoot, so morality still gets involved. Autonomous is the push because it breaks that, and I gave the logic for why people holding power want it. You seem to be pretending they are already here and in use, or ignoring the reality of current drones.
I personally don't see it as a game changer. Radars are detecting them easier, and jammers are bringing them down easier. Iran has dropped quite a few from the US and Israel.
It is a real moral dilemma having to kill someone, and especially if your life is not in danger. It is that dilemma which is leading to the desire for autonomous systems by people in power. No risk of guys like Manning or Snowden being disgusted with the morality of the situation and dumping information to the public. Immoral politicians will push the button themselves, or tell the immoral military guys they allow to stay on staff to do the work.
Too funny! I have 3 different translations of "The Republic" and have read far more. Try "The Cambridge Texts" version of "The Republic", it's an excellent linguistics translation.
I should add that I have seen a whole lot of bastardized translations. I have seen some pretty f-d youtube videos claiming to be about the subject too.
The history lesson I mentioned is also in Plato's works. Start with "The Apology" to see why Socrates was killed, and read the rest of Plato's works for what he thought of Athenians.
Since you attacked my post with a vague generalization, I'm guessing that you will simply dismiss the actual works and claim "no uh uh". Then again, I am occasionally wrong.
I am not the AC, but the analogy is quite powerful and I agree TFA does not touch it. Extremely paraphrased so missing a lot, here goes.
Imagine a Government that oppresses you, it tricks you daily to keep you oppressed. You, are in the dark on literally everything.
What happens when an oppressed person escapes? They are so shocked they become physically ill, but eventually will be amazed and explore. After a while, they will attemp to free others. Probably to their demise, because people are more content to be oppressed than to fight for freedom. So much so, they will kill the people that try and free them and argue that their oppression really isn't that bad.
Philosophy as defined by Socrates included the statement "seeks the truth at all costs". He also stated that it was a Philosophers duty to free people from their mental prisons, and that it would probably cost them their lives to do so.
Athens killed Socrates because he pissed off an rich asshole. The first of many stories in history showing the trend. People are so content in their oppression that they allow this to occur. Today is no different. You are in a cave too!
If you want to use the throw back arguments to the founding fathers, why do you neglect the fact that our founding fathers had no welfare system? I'm not claiming Welfare is a completely bad thing (our implementation is broken) but that financial burden did not exist for any US Citizens. Compare that to today, where about 20% of the population is receiving Welfare of some kind.
This is not some new problem or revelation, go read a few of Milton Friedman's books and spoke directly about the problems with immigration in the 1970s. The same exact problems we have today since it was never fixed.