| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9129 Posts
We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and, as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches. http://www.gp.org/social_justice/#sjHealthCare | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
She wants to put a god damn moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. That is *complete* madness. Her stance on nuclear power is similarly madness. .. eh? Could you elaborate what exactly is madness there, because i seem to misunderstand something? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23295 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:00 Mohdoo wrote: http://www.jill2016.com/platform ctrl+f gmo and ctrl+f nuclear show what I am talking about. So GMO's should be labled, and GMOs and pesticides should be found to be safe before continued use. That sounds reasonable, it seems that in order to reach that point we just need researchers who don't have a personal interest in producing certain results and we take into account dangers beyond simple consumption. One can look at the folks/environments working the pesticide riddled fields and know pretty quickly that the GMO plants are more resistant to the pesticides than their human harvesters or the land they occupy. I think a moratorium is probably a bit much (and unfeasible) but thinking the research has conclusively proved there aren't health and environmental harms caused by GMO's and the related pesticides sounds a lot crazier to me. As for the Nuclear stuff, phasing out nuclear energy and ending subsidies is "madness" now? What do you call using nuclear energy with no real plan of what to do with the radioactive waste? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44599 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:09 Dan HH wrote: I can't take the Greens seriously when they have this shit in their party platform http://www.gp.org/social_justice/#sjHealthCare I agree, and the three Jill Stein supporters who I have spoken to about this, all basically say the same thing: "Alternative medicine can possibly work so why not keep the option on the table?" To which I give them several studies rejecting that their results are anything more meaningful than simple placebo effect at best, and then I paraphrase Tim Minchin: Alternative medicine, by definition, has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work. Do you know what we call the stuff that actually works? Medicine. Tim Minchin's "Storm": + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
If a renewable energy source is found that can generate as much power as nuclear without the waste, it would obviously be a superior alternative. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote: So GMO's should be labled, and GMOs and pesticides should be found to be safe before continued use. That sounds reasonable, it seems that in order to reach that point we just need researchers who don't have a personal interest in producing certain results and we take into account dangers beyond simple consumption. One can look at the folks/environments working the pesticide riddled fields and know pretty quickly that the GMO plants are more resistant to the pesticides than their human harvesters or the land they occupy. I think a moratorium is probably a bit much (and unfeasible) but thinking the research has conclusively proved there aren't health and environmental harms caused by GMO's and the related pesticides sounds a lot crazier to me. As for the Nuclear stuff, phasing out nuclear energy and ending subsidies is "madness" now? What do you call using nuclear energy with no real plan of what to do with the radioactive waste? It's a disservice to call a moratorium on GMOs "a bit much." It would probably destroy entire sectors of U.S. agriculture for no predicted benefit whatsoever. It's about as implementable as a ban on Muslims entering the U.S., too. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:09 Dan HH wrote: I can't take the Greens seriously when they have this shit in their party platform http://www.gp.org/social_justice/#sjHealthCare Yeah, even though I'm far far closer to the Greens than to Hillary I can't get over this part of their platform. It's so fucking stupid. | ||
KwarK
United States42967 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23295 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree, and the three Jill Stein supporters who I have spoken to about this, all basically say the same thing: "Alternative medicine can possibly work so why not keep the option on the table?" To which I give them several studies rejecting that their results are anything more meaningful than simple placebo effect at best, and then I paraphrase Tim Minchin: Alternative medicine, by definition, has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work. Do you know what we call the stuff that actually works? Medicine. Tim Minchin's "Storm": + Show Spoiler + I wouldn't hate on placebo's, I'd take a chance at the placebo effect over no hope any day. Cannabis is still considered "homeopathy" by many in the medical field, so forgive me if I think they are often full of it, ignorant, or just flat out stupid for sake of their previous positions. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I wouldn't hate on placebo's, I'd take a chance at the placebo effect over no hope any day. Cannabis is still considered "homeopathy" by many in the medical field, so forgive me if I think they are often full of it, ignorant, or just flat out stupid for sake of their previous positions. What they consider and what studies can prove are 2 entirely different things. People study alternative medicines to see if they work and if they did they would not be alternative they would just be, as was said before, medicine. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42967 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I wouldn't hate on placebo's, I'd take a chance at the placebo effect over no hope any day. Cannabis is still considered "homeopathy" by many in the medical field, so forgive me if I think they are often full of it, ignorant, or just flat out stupid for sake of their previous positions. No it doesn't, you're just ignorant of what homeopathy is. Homeopathy isn't just a general word for fake medicine, it is a specific type of fake medicine known for being literally 100% pure water. What you do is you start with one inactive ingredient and you drop it into a bathtub of water. Then you take a thimble full of water from that bathtub which now contains the "essence" of the inactive ingredient. Then you drop that into a swimming pool. Then you take a thimble full of water from the swimming pool and drop that in a different swimming pool. Repeat a few times. The more repeats, the stronger the homeopathy is. Whereas cannabis is an actual active ingredient taken directly without dilution. You might as well say that cannabis is considered by many in the medical field to be a kind of surgery. It's just not. If you don't dilute down something until it's pure water then it's not homeopathy. That's literally all of what homeopathy is. Cannabis is not pure water and therefore by definition cannabis cannot be homeopathy. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42967 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:34 Adreme wrote: What they consider and what studies can prove are 2 entirely different things. People study alternative medicines to see if they work and if they did they would not be alternative they would just be, as was said before, medicine. No, he's just wrong. No doctor considers cannabis to be homeopathy, he made that up. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9129 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I wouldn't hate on placebo's, I'd take a chance at the placebo effect over no hope any day. Cannabis is still considered "homeopathy" by many in the medical field, so forgive me if I think they are often full of it, ignorant, or just flat out stupid for sake of their previous positions. I don't think you understand the term. Using cannabis homeopathically would mean dilluting it until no actual THC molecules remain unbroken and you basically drink water. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5670 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If voting were mandatory, then I agree with that concern 100%. I would think, however, since people have to go through the trouble of registering to vote, traveling to the voting booth, and possibly waiting in line, that they would at least know ahead of time who they want to vote for (thus removing the worry that the vote is either cast randomly or selected based on the first name that comes up). For the presidency, I imagine that's true, but there's also those 20% of people who don't vote in midterms. On the one hand it would make people campaign more, but then that would be putting more money into play and making people spend that money and time campaigning, including incumbents who should be actually working. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44599 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I wouldn't hate on placebo's, I'd take a chance at the placebo effect over no hope any day. Cannabis is still considered "homeopathy" by many in the medical field, so forgive me if I think they are often full of it, ignorant, or just flat out stupid for sake of their previous positions. That doesn't make any sense to me; homeopathy is the process by diluting an already-negligible amount of a treatment in disproportionately high amounts of water, with the (obviously backwards) expectation that by having such a small dose of a drug, it magically becomes exponentially more powerful. It's like taking a teaspoon of sugar, dumping it in the ocean, waiting a week for the "mixture" to mix properly via the tide, and then taking a sip of the ocean and expecting to taste the world's most sugary water. That's not at all what medicinal marijuana is, and the taboo against marijuana is from the "it's a dangerous drug" misconception, not "the only way it's effective is if it's introduced homeopathically" statement. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44599 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:40 oBlade wrote: For the presidency, I imagine that's true, but there's also those 20% of people who don't vote in midterms. On the one hand it would make people campaign more, but then that would be putting more money into play and making people spend that money and time campaigning, including incumbents who should be actually working. Fair enough! While I don't think it would be an issue at the presidential levels (especially because you simply can't escape the exposure of the Democratic and Republican nominees anyway), it could definitely be a legitimate concern at the local and state levels. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:12 m4ini wrote: .. eh? Could you elaborate what exactly is madness there, because i seem to misunderstand something? Because there's nothing wrong with GMO's (and they're very tightly regulated) and only certain pesticides cause problems in certain situations (and those are highly regulated). It's more or less the same sort of idiocy as Donald Trump putting a moratorium on brown people immigrating to the US (which is highly regulated, there's a trend here). | ||
|
nothingmuch
448 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:16 jalstar wrote: Nuclear power is in no way ideal, but it's much cleaner than fossil fuels - even taking into account radioactive waste - and generates more energy than renewables. If a renewable energy source is found that can generate as much power as nuclear without the waste, it would obviously be a superior alternative. All renewable energies can generate "as much" power as nuclear. What you actually mean is can they generate it as cheaply. On August 06 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I wouldn't hate on placebo's, I'd take a chance at the placebo effect over no hope any day. There's nothing wrong with placebos. The placebo effect is a proven and well known phenomenon. On August 06 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: Cannabis is still considered "homeopathy" by many in the medical field, so forgive me if I think they are often full of it, ignorant, or just flat out stupid for sake of their previous positions. Depending on your definition of "the medical field" this is just not true (you can find a nutjob who will say anything pretty much anywhere). Cannabis has active ingredients that are also well known and studied. Plenty of modern day medicine is based on the active agents of herbs (aspirin for example). | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:44 nothingmuch wrote: All renewable energies can generate "as much" power as nuclear. What you actually mean is can they generate it as cheaply. and without using too much land | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23295 Posts
On August 06 2016 06:34 Adreme wrote: What they consider and what studies can prove are 2 entirely different things. People study alternative medicines to see if they work and if they did they would not be alternative they would just be, as was said before, medicine. Except that's not what happens. Not to mention rarely is it considered that some treatments may not work for a majority but be very effective for a minority with a particular set of afflictions. I don't really want to get into the debate around all of "alternative medicine" which specifically with the example of cannabis has nothing to do with the issues you describe because the research has been intentionally and maliciously restricted for decades. Which is to say the process you describe is in fact not what has happened with a specific example. But holy crap I can't believe how wrapped up in western "medicine" folks are. I mean you all are familiar with how we got here right? I mean I've seen the religious fervor for science before, but never such a strong rally around western medicine, as if it's not full of absurdities. Like did we all miss the opiate issue? That's a pretty fresh screw up from the pharmaceutical/medical industry that stands as a pretty glaring example of how this whole notion of "medicine" is lacking some serious nuance. EDIT: On August 06 2016 06:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That doesn't make any sense to me; homeopathy is the process by diluting an already-negligible amount of a treatment in disproportionately high amounts of water, with the (obviously backwards) expectation that by having such a small dose of a drug, it magically becomes exponentially more powerful. It's like taking a teaspoon of sugar, dumping it in the ocean, waiting a week for the "mixture" to mix properly via the tide, and then taking a sip of the ocean and expecting to taste the world's most sugary water. That's not at all what medicinal marijuana is, and the taboo against marijuana is from the "it's a dangerous drug" misconception, not "the only way it's effective is if it's introduced homeopathically" statement. lol alright, I actually didn't remember "homeopathy" referred to a specific type of treatment (I had heard it used so often as just a synonym for "alternative medicine" and hadn't bothered to look it up, though I vaguely remember learning about it at some point). I'm not crazy so I think that's probably 99.99% (and .01% of stumbling on something helpful) bullshit. I'd be letting "as appropriate" do a lot of work in that particular phrase but if she was out selling some BS product I'm not sure I could defend that. I think Ticklish made the point before, but kudos to the folks here mounting a better counter argument to Jill than I've encountered up till now. She's still miles ahead of Hillary for me but she did lose a little ground to "none of the above"  | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  43098Bisu 3041Rain 2385GuemChi 1954Horang2 1762Hyuk  1389EffOrt 839firebathero  617Mini 516BeSt 504[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games gofns25976 tarik_tv17307 B2W.Neo958 DeMusliM579 hiko541 Hui .380 crisheroes335 Sick141 XaKoH  133TKL  109Liquid`VortiX92 QueenE63 NeuroSwarm36 Trikslyr32 ZerO(Twitch)11 |
|
OSC
Cure vs Iba
MaxPax vs Lemon
Gerald vs ArT
Solar vs goblin
Nicoract vs TBD
Spirit vs Percival
Cham vs TBD
ByuN vs Jumy
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
Map Test Tournament
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
