When Magical Thinking Turns Deadly

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
Do what you like but personally, I like to win and since I seem to have an eye for who won't I'm going to stick with those I think can. And one other thing, if you wouldn't mind. I didn't dump on Clinton for the reasons the Right did, but because she had a losing message and by fuck if I wasn't right just as right as I was that Trump would win the Republican primary the day he announced.

For one who is supposed to be enlightened in some way, you're awfully full of yourself and your so-called powers of prognostication.

Nah, I don't believe your claim to have opposed Clinton only on grounds of messaging. Your posting history strongly suggests otherwise. The reasons you dumped on Clinton, AFAIK, was that you said she was corrupt and in bed with Wall Street. Same things that people on the right said about Clinton. Maybe you also criticized her message, but I definitely recall that it was much more than that. Heck, if that's all it was, an issue of messaging and not of substance, no chance you would have said you were seriously considering voting for Trump both during the primaries and during the general election.

Furthermore, you repeatedly praised Donald Trump on this board. Example:

Another of the things I think I see is that Trump is perfect for America. He is a master intuit as to what Americans feel. He has similar insights to me. What I am not so sure about is whether he is a Sith Loard or an ego so sated it transcended. Interesting times.

So whatever your claimed power to predict winners, you were delusional about the relative merits of these candidates, as was any liberal who convinced themselves that Clinton was no better than Trump, or that the two were even close.

I'm curious what issues you think a Trump presidency would better serve than a Clinton Presidency. Climate change? Financial regulation? Women's reproductive rights? Immigration? Which one? There must have been something in there for you to consider it a close call between the two. Or did you finally figure out that this vile man was a "sith lord?" If so, what made up your mind? Seems like you were awfully slow on the uptake about Trump's merits as a candidate and as a human being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,243
86
I don't think Homeopathy has the answer everywhere but in some places its proven it works. For example I had a cyst that I had to go for a surgeon for.

But here is the flip side.. I'm a volleyball player and I instead of surgery for a torn shoulder ligament, (volleyball injury), I used a homeopathic oil and was playing again in 2 months with almost no pain, compared to surgery taking much longer to heal.

Apples to Apples.

Homeopathy can't possibly work because typical concentrations are too ridiculously low to have any effect.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,243
86
For one who is supposed to be enlightened in some way, you're awfully full of yourself and your so-called powers of prognostication.

Nah, I don't believe your claim to have opposed Clinton only on grounds of messaging. Your posting history strongly suggests otherwise. The reasons you dumped on Clinton, AFAIK, was that you said she was corrupt and in bed with Wall Street. Same things that people on the right said about Clinton. Maybe you also criticized her message, but I definitely recall that it was much more than that. Heck, if that's all it was, an issue of messaging and not of substance, no chance you would have said you were seriously considering voting for Trump both during the primaries and during the general election.

Furthermore, you repeatedly praised Donald Trump on this board. Example:



So whatever your claimed power to predict winners, you were delusional about the relative merits of these candidates, as was any liberal who convinced themselves that Clinton was no better than Trump, or that the two were even close.

I'm curious what issues you think a Trump presidency would better serve than a Clinton Presidency. Climate change? Financial regulation? Women's reproductive rights? Immigration? Which one? There must have been something in there for you to consider it a close call between the two. Or did you finally figure out that this vile man was a "sith lord?" If so, what made up your mind? Seems like you were awfully slow on the uptake about Trump's merits as a candidate and as a human being.

In all fairness Clinton was more centrist than Sanders so it rather makes sense that she's more conservative. But OTOH pretty much any republican with a shot is much more backwards still. It's easy to lose perspective when making relative choices.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
In all fairness Clinton was more centrist than Sanders so it rather makes sense that she's more conservative. But OTOH pretty much any republican with a shot is much more backwards still. It's easy to lose perspective when making relative choices.

Really? If one is liberal, is it rocket science to figure out who between Clinton and Trump was the better candidate? Clinton may be some kind of centrist, but Trump is a Neanderthal. I wouldn't have thought it to be such a challenge to choose between the two. But apparently, some liberals were in a quandary about it.

Clinton voted with Sanders 92% of the time when both were in the Senate. This fact was repeatedly pointed out on this board, yet some Sanders supporters claimed to remain confused as to whether or not she was better than Trump.

This intra-party animosity, where those who back the losing candidate claim that voting was rigged against them, and where they convince themselves that their own party's candidate is as bad or worse than the most terrible candidate ever nominated on the other side, has to stop. Unless we want Trump and the GOP to rule for another 8 years, that is.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Really? If one is liberal, is it rocket science to figure out who between Clinton and Trump was the better candidate? Clinton may be some kind of centrist, but Trump is a Neanderthal. I wouldn't have thought it to be such a challenge to choose between the two. But apparently, some liberals were in a quandary about it.

Clinton voted with Sanders 92% of the time when both were in the Senate. This fact was repeatedly pointed out on this board, yet some Sanders supporters claimed to remain confused as to whether or not she was better than Trump.

This intra-party animosity, where those who back the losing candidate claim that voting was rigged against them, and where they convince themselves that their own party's candidate is as bad or worse than the most terrible candidate ever nominated on the other side, has to stop. Unless we want Trump and the GOP to rule for another 8 years, that is.

I agree with this without and I don't even need the centrist part. Clinton is left of center by a wide margin in my opinion. What she did not do was run on a vision that mattered or spoke to the people she needed to get elected. That happened because liberals have a brain defect. They do not see the issues that matter to the Average middle class American today, don't focus on the fact that we are in a losing class war to the rich. They want their money so they get their money and a candidate that won't win against somebody like Trump. And it pisses me off that Democrats are as stupid as they claim conservatives are. They are just a blind to some things as the right is to others. If you focus only on the fools who buy into the fact there are Bernie backers who are irrational and childish as all you get from this that would be sad, in my opinion. Clinton failed because her message was empty and spoke to the wrong voters. Too bad we aren't here with me blaming the Clinton supporters for not going to the polls because the were mad at Sanders for winning the primary. 'He couldn't win. He was a socialist.'
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Too many words. Try this: Homeopathy can't possibly work.

Which is also why their products aren't regulated by the FDA - we don't spend scarce regulatory resources on pseudosciences like astrology, claims perpetual motion, healing with crystals, and likewise we shouldn't with homeopathy.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
For one who is supposed to be enlightened in some way, you're awfully full of yourself and your so-called powers of prognostication.

Nah, I don't believe your claim to have opposed Clinton only on grounds of messaging. Your posting history strongly suggests otherwise. The reasons you dumped on Clinton, AFAIK, was that you said she was corrupt and in bed with Wall Street. Same things that people on the right said about Clinton. Maybe you also criticized her message, but I definitely recall that it was much more than that. Heck, if that's all it was, an issue of messaging and not of substance, no chance you would have said you were seriously considering voting for Trump both during the primaries and during the general election.

Furthermore, you repeatedly praised Donald Trump on this board. Example:



So whatever your claimed power to predict winners, you were delusional about the relative merits of these candidates, as was any liberal who convinced themselves that Clinton was no better than Trump, or that the two were even close.

I'm curious what issues you think a Trump presidency would better serve than a Clinton Presidency. Climate change? Financial regulation? Women's reproductive rights? Immigration? Which one? There must have been something in there for you to consider it a close call between the two. Or did you finally figure out that this vile man was a "sith lord?" If so, what made up your mind? Seems like you were awfully slow on the uptake about Trump's merits as a candidate and as a human being.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
woolfe9998: For one who is supposed to be enlightened in some way, you're awfully full of yourself and your so-called powers of prognostication.

M: Well maybe we should look into what that might really mean. I really do not go around saying I am enlightened. I do say I experienced something that was for me quite meaningful and which amounted to the following which I see has having some relevance here. I used to believe a bunch of things and those things gave meaning and value to my live. In seeking to prove their reality I completely failed, failed so badly in fact that I lost my belief in all of them. Having nothing in which I believed, I realized I know nothing because the things you believe in are the things that you know or as others do, assume that they do. So in this I am different than what I see in people who say they believe things. But there is something somewhat confusing in all of this because while I am very sure I know nothing it seems that all this knowing that I don't know amounts to the fact that I know that one thing. So I don't really know to do with I don't know and I know that I don't. So I don't know if I'm full of my self or empty or being empty makes me full, etc. But I do know there are some things you just know with most of them being that you (I) don't know.

Now. I have had one consistent message for several years I would think, the democracy in America is dead. We are owned and operated by the rich to benefit themselves and unless we get money out of politics that fact can't be undone. Was it Sanders or Clinton who harped on that message, raged on and on about it. Who called for a revolution against the establishment, Sanders or Clinton. This is the only message that matters. Nothing that Clinton ran on matters next to this. The country is seething with rage and importance because the rich pull all of the strings. We the people are powerless and castrated. Only a real return to the people of real power will change this. If you are not aware of this as goal 1 your life is meaningless. Everything is a joke. We are lost, hopeless, inept, irrelevant and dead in the water. Wake the fuck up. But then being enlightened and all, what do I really care. :)

w: Nah, I don't believe your claim to have opposed Clinton only on grounds of messaging. Your posting history strongly suggests otherwise. The reasons you dumped on Clinton, AFAIK, was that you said she was corrupt and in bed with Wall Street. Same things that people on the right said about Clinton. Maybe you also criticized her message, but I definitely recall that it was much more than that. Heck, if that's all it was, an issue of messaging and not of substance, no chance you would have said you were seriously considering voting for Trump both during the primaries and during the general election.

w: You don't believe, thanks for that kindness. Do you understand that for me democracy is dead. I don't live in a free country any more. Both parties are owned and operated by the rich and those who suck their dicks? You are living in a catastrophically failed state. To vote for Trump in the hopes he brings the house down is a positive outcome. Democrats are brain dead.

Furthermore, you repeatedly praised Donald Trump on this board. Example:

M: What wqs quoted was this: "Another of the things I think I see is that Trump is perfect for America. He is a master intuit as to what Americans feel. He has similar insights to me. What I am not so sure about is whether he is a Sith Loard or an ego so sated it transcended. Interesting times."

Do you see what I said. He intuitively speaks to what people are feeling, he sees what people are feeling just as I do, that they are enraged as I described above. And I also implied by Sith Lord my suspicion that for him, unlike Sanders, it's not principle by cunning manipulation, something I had not come to a sure view of at that time but which you can see by my words that I clearly anticipated.

w: So whatever your claimed power to predict winners, you were delusional about the relative merits of these candidates, as was any liberal who convinced themselves that Clinton was no better than Trump, or that the two were even close.

M: Oh dear. I was not delusional about the merits of Sanders. He was the only one that was a sure bet, ready willing and able and intending to call for the only political thing that matters, a revolution against money in politics. In order for that to happen the sleeping democratic establishment needed and still needs to go. Remember, you are completely fucked even if you don't know it. You will get crumbs and slop till you're fat enough to slaughter. Wake the fuck up. Or don't. I know the comfort of clinging to beliefs.

M: I'm curious what issues you think a Trump presidency would better serve than a Clinton Presidency. Climate change? Financial regulation? Women's reproductive rights? Immigration? Which one? There must have been something in there for you to consider it a close call between the two. Or did you finally figure out that this vile man was a "sith lord?" If so, what made up your mind? Seems like you were awfully slow on the uptake about Trump's merits as a candidate and as a human being.

What you call slow on the uptake was my attempt to tell you brain dead Clinton supporters that your moronic focus on the Stupidity, irrational, and lying scumbag that Trump is would cost you the election. That's not a message. That's brain defective liberal thinking, arrogance, moral blindness to what most people feel. He won the primary just as I knew he would because he cleaned every other Republican's clock with his message that I am as angry and sick of all these establishment assholes as you are. So what does the DNC do, favor the establishment candidate of course. And you call me slow on the uptake. At least my bucket has a big hole in it and all the shit you guys pore in it pours right out on the ground.

Oh, and Clinton lost. And that means that Trump won. Keep that in mind if I sound a bit bitter.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,636
15,822
146
Which is also why their products aren't regulated by the FDA - we don't spend scarce regulatory resources on pseudosciences like astrology, claims perpetual motion, healing with crystals, and likewise we shouldn't with homeopathy.

Lack of regulation sickens and kills babies. Glenn's response, keep up with the good work.

Pathetic
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
No it doesn't surprise me at all. In the case of conservatives, the fear of the government or the devil can drive them nuts. In the case of liberals it is the lack of the development of a faith in a science based risk evaluation, lack of scientific understanding and education that causes monsters to appear at the edge of the map.. The very suggestion to women that their kids may be at risk from autism will cause them to fear because many do not have the skill set to do the math. However, you can reason with liberals and get them to change their minds because there fears are about something real that can be demonstrated not to exist via scientific data that disproves it. Conservatives see threat if fact itself. When you feel worthless you also feel the world is out to get you. And it is a genetic potential of all human beings that can be turned into a defect. It is not a defect itself or a heritable defect. That suggests a misrepresentation.

More or less.

 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,995
11,127
136
Shrug, it worked for me but I must be lying. I clearly must have something to gain other than losing my pain LOL.

You guys are idiots.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,636
15,822
146
Shrug, it worked for me but I must be lying. I clearly must have something to gain other than losing my pain LOL.

You guys are idiots.

Was it actual homeopathy or was it some kind of actual herb or other "all natural" medicine?
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
Now. I have had one consistent message for several years I would think, the democracy in America is dead. We are owned and operated by the rich to benefit themselves and unless we get money out of politics that fact can't be undone. Was it Sanders or Clinton who harped on that message, raged on and on about it. Who called for a revolution against the establishment, Sanders or Clinton. This is the only message that matters. Nothing that Clinton ran on matters next to this. The country is seething with rage and importance because the rich pull all of the strings. We the people are powerless and castrated. Only a real return to the people of real power will change this. If you are not aware of this as goal 1 your life is meaningless. Everything is a joke. We are lost, hopeless, inept, irrelevant and dead in the water. Wake the fuck up. But then being enlightened and all, what do I really care. :)

Heeheee this is the best post I've ever seen on here.

I have news for you, the reason the rich pull the strings is because the same skill set that makes them able to pull strings also makes them able to become wealthy, even if they came from a poor background.

That's one of the most beautiful things about the USA. Poor people can become wealthy with the right skill set and proper application of said skills.

You're not going to hear any rags to riches stories in a liberal tear circle jerk echo chamber, but I assure you they do still happen.

The trick is, if you can't beat them join them. Become one of the wealthy elite if you think you're smart enough. If you don't think you're smart enough then learn. Just don't forget your ethical and moral responsibility to not be a psychopath/sociopath piece of shit when you do attain that goal and treat people the way you wish they'd treat you if the roles were reversed. This doesn't mean you can't give them a good ribbing if they start throwing temper tantrums on message boards though.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,228
136
Homeopathy has no answers for anything, except for fools.

I'm guessing your torn shoulder ligament wasn't a complete tear, in which case 2 months healing is about expected for a partial tear left untreated, especially for a young person like yourself. But now you've got a lot more scar tissue binding the torn edges together vs. what you'd have had from surgery, thereby leaving a weaker connection than if you'd have had surgery.

Question....a hypothetical. You've got pneumonia....you going to trust homeopathic treatment for that? Why not?

Do you drink the water in your city? Why? It's probably got lead in it...maybe up to 15 ppb (parts per billion.) If you believe in the concept of homeopathic "medicine", don't you quake in fear you're giving yourself lead poisoning, since that concentration of lead is probably higher than the concentration of the "active ingredient" found in most homeopathic "medicines?"

I don't think Homeopathy has the answer everywhere but in some places its proven it works. For example I had a cyst that I had to go for a surgeon for.

But here is the flip side.. I'm a volleyball player and I instead of surgery for a torn shoulder ligament, (volleyball injury), I used a homeopathic oil and was playing again in 2 months with almost no pain, compared to surgery taking much longer to heal.

Apples to Apples.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Homeopathy has no answers for anything, except for fools.

I'm guessing your torn shoulder ligament wasn't a complete tear, in which case 2 months healing is about expected for a partial tear left untreated, especially for a young person like yourself. But now you've got a lot more scar tissue binding the torn edges together vs. what you'd have had from surgery, thereby leaving a weaker connection than if you'd have had surgery.

Question....a hypothetical. You've got pneumonia....you going to trust homeopathic treatment for that? Why not?

Do you drink the water in your city? Why? It's probably got lead in it...maybe up to 15 ppb (parts per billion.) If you believe in the concept of homeopathic "medicine", don't you quake in fear you're giving yourself lead poisoning, since that concentration of lead is probably higher than the concentration of the "active ingredient" found in most homeopathic "medicines?"
Jesus how did we get on Homeopathy? I believe even an august organization like the Navy practices homeopathy when they make chicken soup. They have the duty chicken walk through the broth.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,243
86
Really? If one is liberal, is it rocket science to figure out who between Clinton and Trump was the better candidate? Clinton may be some kind of centrist, but Trump is a Neanderthal. I wouldn't have thought it to be such a challenge to choose between the two. But apparently, some liberals were in a quandary about it.

Clinton voted with Sanders 92% of the time when both were in the Senate. This fact was repeatedly pointed out on this board, yet some Sanders supporters claimed to remain confused as to whether or not she was better than Trump.

This intra-party animosity, where those who back the losing candidate claim that voting was rigged against them, and where they convince themselves that their own party's candidate is as bad or worse than the most terrible candidate ever nominated on the other side, has to stop. Unless we want Trump and the GOP to rule for another 8 years, that is.

I have no idea why you believe you're disagreeing.

Heeheee this is the best post I've ever seen on here.

I have news for you, the reason the rich pull the strings is because the same skill set that makes them able to pull strings also makes them able to become wealthy, even if they came from a poor background.

That's one of the most beautiful things about the USA. Poor people can become wealthy with the right skill set and proper application of said skills.

You're not going to hear any rags to riches stories in a liberal tear circle jerk echo chamber, but I assure you they do still happen.

The trick is, if you can't beat them join them. Become one of the wealthy elite if you think you're smart enough. If you don't think you're smart enough then learn. Just don't forget your ethical and moral responsibility to not be a psychopath/sociopath piece of shit when you do attain that goal and treat people the way you wish they'd treat you if the roles were reversed. This doesn't mean you can't give them a good ribbing if they start throwing temper tantrums on message boards though.

Consider a game of monopoly or poker or such starting with 100x or 10000x less capital than opponents. You can tell the conservative dumbshits who will believe winning is realistic, or anything else they're told by the right authority.
 

Ancalagon44

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2010
3,274
202
106
Question....a hypothetical. You've got pneumonia....you going to trust homeopathic treatment for that? Why not?

There is a fantastic YouTube video on the subject titled Homeopathy ER (emergency room). It's hilarious!
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Lack of regulation sickens and kills babies. Glenn's response, keep up with the good work.

Pathetic

You have a childish understanding of the limits of regulation. A company could make the claim that consuming a special kind of rock cures cancer, should the FDA thus be allowed to ban rocks? What about "ear candles" or countless other quack pseudo-medical claims? If anything this should have been handled by the Consumer Products Safrty Commission since homeopathy sure as hell ain't a drug by any reckoning.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,749
20,323
146
^^ Your chain of events needs refining

1. Company makes claim that rock cures cancer.
2. FDA doesn't allow this to come to market until claims are verified.

"FDA bans rocks"....wtf man, there's pieces in the middle.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,636
15,822
146
You have a childish understanding of the limits of regulation. A company could make the claim that consuming a special kind of rock cures cancer, should the FDA thus be allowed to ban rocks? What about "ear candles" or countless other quack pseudo-medical claims? If anything this should have been handled by the Consumer Products Safrty Commission since homeopathy sure as hell ain't a drug by any reckoning.

Childish? And your example is If a company is selling rocks to eat? :rolleyes:

The simplest regulatory power the FDA has is to pull any medicine off the market if they find it to be a threat to your health and safety.

They lacked that power for homeopathic "medicines". If they had it they would have pulled what was effectively poison from the market and probably reduced the number of dead and injured by at least 2/3rds.

Now I know you are excessively ideological but I'll guarantee you most of the country would have no problem with FDA having the regulatory power to remove hazardous remedies from the market place.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Childish? And your example is If a company is selling rocks to eat? :rolleyes:

The simplest regulatory power the FDA has is to pull any medicine off the market if they find it to be a threat to your health and safety.

They lacked that power for homeopathic "medicines". If they had it they would have pulled what was effectively poison from the market and probably reduced the number of dead and injured by at least 2/3rds.

Now I know you are excessively ideological but I'll guarantee you most of the country would have no problem with FDA having the regulatory power to remove hazardous remedies from the market place.

My entire point is that it's not medicine no matter what homeopathy brands itself as, even if it's a "remedy." If the maker of this crap suddenly started calling it an automobile rather than medicine would you then say the Department of Transportation should ban it? Each of these departments has statutory limits on their regulatory power for a reason and it's not because you think I'm "excessively ideological." If you want to push Congress to give the FDA the power to regulate homeopathy and other quackery just be aware that means they have less resources and money to devote to testing actual medicines. Thus instead of new cancer drugs taking 8 years to approve, now they'll take 15. How many more would die given the longer approvals for real medicines versus the 10 that died because they were idiots that believed in something like homeopathy which has less science behind it than flat-earthism?
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,662
13,801
136
My entire point is that it's not medicine no matter what homeopathy brands itself as, even if it's a "remedy." If the maker of this crap suddenly started calling it an automobile rather than medicine would you then say the Department of Transportation should ban it? Each of these departments has statutory limits on their regulatory power for a reason and it's not because you think I'm "excessively ideological." If you want to push Congress to give the FDA the power to regulate homeopathy and other quackery just be aware that means they have less resources and money to devote to testing actual medicines. Thus instead of new cancer drugs taking 8 years to approve, now they'll take 15. How many more would die given the longer approvals for real medicines versus the 10 that died because they were idiots that believed in something like homeopathy which has less science behind it than flat-earthism?
Is there any proof to the claim people die because drugs take too long to approve?


The issue with the lack of regulation for homeopathic stuff and supplements is they use weasel words to fool consumers into buying their stuff as an alternative to science based medicine. This alone leads to economic and medical harms to patients. Then, the lack of regulations covering the manufacturing of these products leads to problems like too much beladona in teething tablets for babies.