Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What?Another attack on white Christians, but not a single one against Jews.
What?Another attack on white Christians, but not a single one against Jews.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What?Another attack on white Christians, but not a single one against Jews.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Show me one fucking article published by the Jew-owned media where Jews are attacked fucking cocksucker.
Take your anti-sematic moronic horseshit and shove it up your ass and try not to cause brain damage in the process.Deal with the topic or get the fuck out of here.What we don't need is another zombie troll bot derailing this thread.What?Another attack on white Christians, but not a single one against Jews.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Show me one fucking article published by the Jew-owned media where Jews are attacked fucking cocksucker.
... I hope that at least some others out there feel the outrage that I do!
What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.
What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.
But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?
No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.
The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”
Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.
What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.
But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?
I am confused as to what point you're trying to make here. No one is saying that modern medicine has all of the answers. If you are citing one problematic drug to make an argument that prayer is preferable to modern medicine, it is a miserable FAIL, wrought with logical fallacies. Here are a few:
No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.
The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”
If one drug is problematic, it does not define the whole of modern medicine.
Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
That should be self explanatory
Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.
If you're claiming that prayer works because we don't know that it doesn't work, this is what your doing. This is a slight variation on the appeal to ignorance where one is saying that it is true because I said that it's true while offering no evidence for it.
The criteria for sympathy? How about acting responsible in accordance with scientific knowledge instead of superstition and made up religious doctrine. Then, if your child dies anyway, you would have my sympathy.
What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.
But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?
I am confused as to what point you're trying to make here. No one is saying that modern medicine has all of the answers. If you are citing one problematic drug to make an argument that prayer is preferable to modern medicine, it is a miserable FAIL, wrought with logical fallacies. Here are a few:
No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.
The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”
If one drug is problematic, it does not define the whole of modern medicine.
Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
That should be self explanatory
Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.
If you're claiming that prayer works because we don't know that it doesn't work, this is what your doing. This is a slight variation on the appeal to ignorance where one is saying that it is true because I said that it's true while offering no evidence for it.
The criteria for sympathy? How about acting responsible in accordance with scientific knowledge instead of superstition and made up religious doctrine. Then, if your child dies anyway, you would have my sympathy.
I'm a German. As far as I know in the moment was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) the last German who wrote a funny book about "Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten"(=my translation: "The art to be tricky enough to be right"). Unfortunatelly it's a serios theme here. So tell me please concrete how to force someone to have to trust in this what you call "modern medicine" - and if this should be possible, how you would justify this force although it is evident that "modern medicine" makes heavy mistakes too.
You are not even trying to construct a logical argument because I think that you know that there is no logical argument to justify what these parents did.What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.
But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?
I am confused as to what point you're trying to make here. No one is saying that modern medicine has all of the answers. If you are citing one problematic drug to make an argument that prayer is preferable to modern medicine, it is a miserable FAIL, wrought with logical fallacies. Here are a few:
No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.
The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”
If one drug is problematic, it does not define the whole of modern medicine.
Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
That should be self explanatory
Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.
If you're claiming that prayer works because we don't know that it doesn't work, this is what your doing. This is a slight variation on the appeal to ignorance where one is saying that it is true because I said that it's true while offering no evidence for it.
The criteria for sympathy? How about acting responsible in accordance with scientific knowledge instead of superstition and made up religious doctrine. Then, if your child dies anyway, you would have my sympathy.
I'm a German. As far as I know in the moment was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) the last German who wrote a funny book about "Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten"(=my translation: "The art to be tricky enough to be right"). Unfortunatelly it's a serios theme here. So tell me please concrete how to force someone to have to trust in this what you call "modern medicine" - and if this should be possible, how you would justify this force although it is evident that "modern medicine" makes heavy mistakes too.
What is worrisome is that there are adults with children who trust Bible thumpers and turn their backs on modern medicine, with predicable results. I have no sympathy for them at all. The children were the victims of their irresponsibility.
But why to trust in the so called "modern medicine"? In case of methylphenidate for example the use of this medicine (=drug) is in more than 95% of all cases wrong. Lots of surgeries are completly superflous or even counterproductive and so on and so on. What's your criterierion that someone earns your sympathy? What has he to do in this case? Who decides how to get "sympathy"?
I am confused as to what point you're trying to make here. No one is saying that modern medicine has all of the answers. If you are citing one problematic drug to make an argument that prayer is preferable to modern medicine, it is a miserable FAIL, wrought with logical fallacies. Here are a few:
No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.
The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, “Well, then, he’s no true Scotsman.” In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian’s definition of the word, “Scotsman.”
If one drug is problematic, it does not define the whole of modern medicine.
Non-Sequitur
In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
That should be self explanatory
Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.
If you're claiming that prayer works because we don't know that it doesn't work, this is what your doing. This is a slight variation on the appeal to ignorance where one is saying that it is true because I said that it's true while offering no evidence for it.
The criteria for sympathy? How about acting responsible in accordance with scientific knowledge instead of superstition and made up religious doctrine. Then, if your child dies anyway, you would have my sympathy.
I'm a German. As far as I know in the moment was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) the last German who wrote a funny book about "Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten"(=my translation: "The art to be tricky enough to be right"). Unfortunatelly it's a serios theme here. So tell me please concrete how to force someone to have to trust in this what you call "modern medicine" - and if this should be possible, how you would justify this force although it is evident that "modern medicine" makes heavy mistakes too.
I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying,
but it is not my job to convince anyone that modern medicine rather than superstition is the best solution to medical issues. I have plenty of other things on my plate. I depend on the law to do that for me. If one lives in the USA, they will prosecute for child neglect, should one act irresponsibly. That is enough for me.