What's new

Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

One Brow

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Joe Bagadonuts requested my response, so here it is,

I understand what you are saying. I don't get the drinking the pesticide crap. That's just dumb. I posted another link that shows he was scrubbed from their website as a founder. They have re-written their history.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/03/18/google-scrubs-greenpeace-co-founder-protect-aoc/

Those of us that read English can clearly see where it says, "The committee's founders and first members included:".

Now, unless Greenpeace has somehow denied Moore was one of the first members, that page shows no dishonesty on Greenpeace's denial. Moore was not a founder, but he was one of the first members.
 
So. recognizing that conservatives need a safe space, I will use this thread to respond to posts as I see fit. All the conservatives are welcome to join in or stay out, as befits their mental health.
 
That is just semantics now. I am okay with calling a first member a founder so I will leave it at that. I think JoeBagadonuts was referring to google scrubbing him out.
 
That is just semantics now.

You mean, it's true, but you don't like the truth, so it's an unimportant truth?

I am okay with calling a first member a founder so I will leave it at that.

Like Judas was a founder of Christianity?

I think JoeBagadonuts was referring to google scrubbing him out.

Moore is easily searchable on Google. Any scrubbing was done on the Greenpeace website by Greenpeace.
 
Here is a very pragmatic way to discuss climate change:



I also find trying to skew the discussion by ignoring competing interests (present and future) and pretending they are the same, implying your opposition might take anti-human positions, and insisting on precision in the face of the unknown (how high sea level rise will depend upon the stability of the ice shelfs in Arctic/Antarctic) to be very pragmatic. It's not honest discussion, but it is pragmatic.
 
A "reputable alternative health activist" is an oxymoron. Anything reputable done by alternative health activists are mainstream medicinal recommendations done by mainstream medical professions.
No, it's not an oxymoron because some mainstream medicinal recommendations are not reputable. Like getting chemotherapy if you're more than 70 and in late-stage cancer. But mainstream oncologists do it all the time. Mainstream medicine is today in disrepute. The overuse of pharmaceuticals and failure to recognize ancient therapies like acupuncture and other holistic treatments is definitely in disrepute.
 
Like getting chemotherapy if you're more than 70 and in late-stage cancer.

I suppose that depends on how long the patient wants to live.

The overuse of pharmaceuticals and failure to recognize ancient therapies like acupuncture and other holistic treatments is definitely in disrepute.

"Pharmaceuticals" = medicines that have biological effects. "Acupuncture and other holistic treatments" = medicines that rely on the placebo effect. Rarely is relying on the placebo effect a reputable choice.
 
I suppose that depends on how long the patient wants to live.



"Pharmaceuticals" = medicines that have biological effects. "Acupuncture and other holistic treatments" = medicines that rely on the placebo effect. Rarely is relying on the placebo effect a reputable choice.
Wow -- acupuncture is a proven treatment. It does not act on the basis of a placebo effect. There is science that supports it. Ever have acupuncture done? I have and believe me, it is anything but a placebo. It pinpoints pressure points that trigger nerves (don't quote me on this because I might not be totally accurate on how it works) but when I had it, I was in severe pain in my lower back, and voila when the needle hit the trigger point, I felt a split-second of very sharp pain, and then sudden total numbing of the pain. That is hardly a placebo effect.

Studies have shown that elderly patients with late stage cancer live longer than without treatment than those who have chemo. I'm talking late-stage cancer. I also saw an article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology when I was doing reports for the podcasts of a holistic cancer specialist, Bill Henderson, that stated chemo for terminal-stage, elderly patients was not recommended but that doctors did it anyway to give patients hope (and who knows what else, probably to add more money to their income). In my opinion, from what I learned I would avoid chemo at all costs. Of course, you have to weigh a lot of factors, especially the type of cancer, how aggressive it's spreading, etc.
 
Back
Top